 |
 |
 |
|
 |
You are not logged in.
View the post in the updated driver thread, stickied at the top.
Or click:
http://forum.eeeuser.com/viewtopic.php?id=37175&p=6 Post #444 and #445
Still no 1024 x 768 support, but better performance in games??
Last edited by custardk (2008-11-15 10:56:24 am)
Offline
Wow. You're using Vista, so your 'experiance' will still be negative wrt WinXP by default. Seems like Vista's spellchecker isn't quite up to snuff either. 
Offline
custardk wrote:
Oh ok. I had so many problems with XP that Vista is naturally a lot better.
What kind of problems?
Offline
custardk wrote:
Oh ok. I had so many problems with XP that Vista is naturally a lot better.
What kind of problems?
Offline
not too sure why you guys are giving custardk such a hard time, obviously he's just giving people already using vista a tip. what's the point of leaving a comment that is neither constructive nor on topic. custardk, my rating is at 2.7, have you experienced any difference with the driver you update to?
Offline
initially when u install vista it gives u a 1.o rating right?
Offline
lonelygoner wrote:
initially when u install vista it gives u a 1.o rating right?
Don't even pay attention to the Windows Experience Index until you have all your drivers installed. It'll give you such a low score if you don't have video drivers, since you won't be able to run any of the Aero or DirectX benchmarks.
Offline
PeteNatas wrote:
custardk wrote:
Oh ok. I had so many problems with XP that Vista is naturally a lot better.
What kind of problems?
Yeah I had problem with XP, because XP can't read X360 HD DVD, some USB sticks, and others. XP require drivers. Thats why I ended up install vista on my EEEPC allow X360 HD DVD and others plug and play, vista isnt require drivers.
Last edited by DFARBES (2008-11-15 9:02:00 pm)
Offline
lonelygoner wrote:
initially when u install vista it gives u a 1.o rating right?
Yes you are right and true
Offline
Can't somebody post a link for modded drivers ?
Offline
http://www.driverheaven.net/other-video … -file.html
You have to modify one file or they will cause a crash. The memory config is at 512, but needs to be 256.
Offline
drmoze wrote:
Wow. You're using Vista, so your 'experiance' will still be negative wrt WinXP by default. Seems like Vista's spellchecker isn't quite up to snuff either.
Just another XP fanatic who doesn't want to give Vista a chance. I don't know what the spellchecker remark is about either, that's a browser feature, not an operating system feature.
Anyone who has used both operating systems extensively will quickly realize that while vista has it's quirks (which are few now thanks to a year of gradual fixes), the kernel is much more stable than XP's.
Offline
Epy wrote:
drmoze wrote:
Wow. You're using Vista, so your 'experiance' will still be negative wrt WinXP by default. Seems like Vista's spellchecker isn't quite up to snuff either.
Just another XP fanatic who doesn't want to give Vista a chance. I don't know what the spellchecker remark is about either, that's a browser feature, not an operating system feature.
Anyone who has used both operating systems extensively will quickly realize that while vista has it's quirks (which are few now thanks to a year of gradual fixes), the kernel is much more stable than XP's.
Thanks, but I don't want to be a beta tester for MS with my real-life computing needs. And even MS is backing off from 'Vista' and pushing the general 'Windows' platform. I wonder why....
Offline
Because of people not giving it a chance.People don't like change, even if it improves their life once they learn it. Vista is not that hard, nor is it just a nicer interface. I have not had BSOD like XP and previous. I think of any OS, Win ME was the biggest piece of ****. Now Windows XP didn't have native USB 2.0 support, until updated. It is very out of date. If you don't like Microsoft, why use the software?
Offline
1) I use Windows for compatibility with work. Don't need the headaches (and possible failur) of trying to run emulators for custom/enterprise sw.
2) I am sure I can 'learn' Vista. (Duh!) But I (and many others) DON'T WANT OR NEED the pretty interface bells and whistles of Vista. I can handle my digital pix and other files very easily. I don't need ****' transparency and other ****. I don't need an OS that is even more of a bloated memory hog that slows things down to a crawl without tons of extra RAM. I want a stable OS that is reasonably efficient. Right now, for Windows it's XP.
Heck, Vista isn't even compatible with many mainstream Windows products. My sister's new Vista 64 box gakked when I tried to set up her Sony Reader software on it. And I don't blame Sony here. Straightforward 3rd-party apps should be backwards-compatible, and shouldn't choke because of the stupid driver signing BS.
Enjoy your Vista. I'll pass.
Offline
anyway back on track i get 2.8 on standard drivers? I have 2 gb memory and 7200 drive but wouldnt have thought they had that much effect on graphics performance other than allowing a bigger video memory footprint?! Cheers simon
Offline
