Windows Vista Lite

landbeforetimelover · **on:** April 19, 2008, 06:45:28 PM

Since windows xp is going to lose support very shortly here, I've been debating on weather or not to upgrade my master to vista. It really is a terrible OS, but what choice do I have? Well, it just so happens that I was discussing this with a friend of mine who.....well......let's just say he has no ethics when it comes to software piracy. He gave me his special copy of windows vista ultimate edition lite. I must say, I'm impressed. It'll run just as good as xp does. I am having some problems though. Naturally, the thing was cracked and illegally activated so you wouldn't have to pay for it. I can't go and offer people that when I run a business!

: I've been trying over and over again to remove the cracks that were installed on this version of windows so that it will accept a key and allow me to legally activate it. No luck yet, but I'm getting closer. I'm willing to venture that this copy of vista lite runs even better than xp pro does. The ENTIRE installation is only 635mb total. This would be so much easier if Microsoft would just release a version of vista that didn't require 3gb of ram and a dual core 3ghz processor just to run without freezing. Why didn't Microsoft release a good version like this copy of vista lite I have here? And no, this isn't xp with vista style. This IS vista! Microsoft.com recognizes this computer as windows vista. If some lowly little programmer could make vista so nice and not be a resource hog, why didn't Microsoft do this? I'm running this version on a computer with a 1.2ghz processor and with 512 of ram as well as on my master machine (on a separate partition of course. I'm not dumping xp just yet. I can't totally dump xp off my master until I discover a way to remove the cracks so I can legally install this.)

As far as I can tell, the only major things this version of vista is missing are these:

screensavers (who cares?)
Aero (like anyone needs that)
System restore (needed, but not essential so long as you've got an external hard drive.)

I can't believe Microsoft didn't release a lite version. Heck, that's all they should have released. The full vista is a joke. What could be their motivation for not releasing a version that wasn't a resource hog?

NOTE: Please, do not ask me to give you this copy of vista. I might consider using it if I can get rid of the cracks, but I’m not going to pirate software.

My master machine now has these specs as I have moved my old master to my server:

3.2ghz dual core processor

1gb of ram (too lazy to upgrade it. 1gb will do for a while. I’ve got 4gb just sitting in my office, but I really don’t want to upgrade my master yet.)

multiple boot with windows xp pro/vista ultimate edition (full)/vista lite edition/Ubnuntu Studios

3 hard drives – 1=320gb, 2=500gb, 3=320gb

Now, this computer runs the full vista fine…….or so I thought. The vista lite edition runs a billion times faster on my master computer. It runs great on the 1.2ghz computer as well. Unlike the full vista, this vista lite version will actually work well on vista’s so called “minimum system requirements”.

I think microsoft should have released a lite version for users of older computers. Ubuntu does this with Xubuntu. It's minimum system requirements are:

192mb ram

3gb hard drive

no processor requirements

Kor · **Reply #1 on:** April 20, 2008, 01:08:24 AM

Sounds interesting, but do you prefer some version of Linux or this version of Vista?

landbeforetimelover · **Reply #2 on:** April 20, 2008, 01:34:18 AM

I can't currently use linux really because I don't trust virtualbox with my applications.

(for those who don't know, virtualbox is a linux application that will allow you to run windows xp and other operating systems in a window while running linux.)

You must understand that I require very specific applications. I've just recently gotten very attached to Ulead Multimedia Studio Pro 11 Plus. There's no way I'd ever try to run that in virtualbox. I've run windows xp with photoshop CS3, but I really don't trust that stupid virtualbox with anything important. I don't really know how the linux OS works. I guess that's why I don't trust it.

Kor · **Reply #3 on:** April 20, 2008, 01:37:59 AM

So you don't use Linux much? I can understand.

Though the Vista lite you mention does sound like a good idea, wonder why they didn't go with that as one of the versions of you could buy.

landbeforetimelover · **Reply #4 on:** April 20, 2008, 03:46:02 AM

I just installed this version on my school laptop. Now don't laugh. This is not by far my best laptop. I just don't want to bring something to school that I really love in case it gets stolen. Here are the laptop specs:

2.2ghz processor

40b hard drive

768mb of ram (or whatever 256mb+512mb is)

Now With Vista Lite Edition!

I must say, it really sucked trying to use photoshop CS3 and Office 2007 on this computer with so little ram, but I disabled prefetching and everything worked out fine. It uses just about the same amount of ram that XP pro did.

Am I the only one who thinks prefetching sucks?

(prefetching is a little thing that remembers what programs you open at what times and stores them in memory (RAM). This can make your programs come up almost instantly. Photoshop CS3 loaded on me in 2 seconds one time where it usually takes 20. One bad side effect though is that it eats up memory fast. I opened photoshop CS3, Office 2007, and Ulead Multimedia Studio Pro and then closed them and windows stored an entire gigabyte into my memory which is a lot seeing as most people only have 1-2gb of total ram as it is.)

Do you think prefetching was a good idea? Why or why not?

Clawandfang · **Reply #5 on:** April 20, 2008, 07:22:31 AM

I think that prefething sounds like a good idea..... provided that you have the spare memory (not likely I gather).

landbeforetimelover · **Reply #6 on:** April 20, 2008, 08:23:22 AM

If you like to leave your computer on all the time like I do, even if you have 8GB of ram it can easily fill in a day or so with normal use. I think prefetching was a really bad idea.

I could see if there was an easy way to turn it off, but it's hidden in the services and pretty hard to find for a normal average computer user.

action9000 · **Reply #7 on:** April 20, 2008, 02:03:04 PM

Quote

Am I the only one who thinks prefetching sucks?

I actually like it!

Nothing beats being able to open a program once and have it load almost instantly every time after that.
Then again, I don't exactly have a RAM issue...

Quote

If you like to leave your computer on all the time like I do, even if you have 8GB of ram it can easily fill in a day or so with normal use.

My computer is on for days/weeks straight and I am only using 928 MB in XP 64-bit, total right now.

landbeforetimelover · **Reply #8 on:** April 20, 2008, 08:12:06 PM

Quote

My computer is on for days/weeks straight and I am only using 928 MB in XP 64-bit, total right now.

Well, that's xp. Vista eats up ram like crazy. Of course, I use a lot of CPU intensive applications which also use a lot of ram. Prefetching could easily eat up 2gb of ram at a single sitting for me.

landbeforetimelover · **Reply #9 on:** April 22, 2008, 02:43:07 AM

I'm such a moron. I've been trying to make this version so you can input a CD key to make it legal, but it doesn't ask for one during setup. That doesn't mean you can't add it later though.

: I just went into the computer properties and clicked "change product key". and I could actually change it to a legal product key. I tried one from a keygen and it didn't work!

I think I finally deleted the activation crack completely. Yay! Now I can start to use it on client computers!

Kor · **Reply #10 on:** April 22, 2008, 03:20:44 AM

That sounds good. I wonder if they'll like the vista lite version.

landbeforetimelover · **Reply #11 on:** April 22, 2008, 05:11:26 AM

I am so glad I have this lite version of vista. I would never use the full version. Anyone who thinks that the full version of windows vista is faster than xp doesn't know what they're talking about. You must be comparing your fresh install of vista to your install of xp you've had since 2001.

Even with the fastest computer on the planet, you can still tell that vista lags considerably compared to xp. I remember someone saying something like "I actually use vista because I want to do more than work in MS paint". That is absurd. If you actually want to do more than surf online and type in notepad, you'll need xp. XP can do just as much as vista can, except it does it faster and more efficiently. I can't believe Microsoft didn't learn their lesson with windows ME. You can't just take an out-dated OS and put some frosting on it, calling it "new and improved". Let's look at some of vista's features that most people think are new and unique to vista only:

ready boost (substitutes a flash drive and uses it as a paging file to increase ram):

XP has it. It just doesn't have a little annoying window that pops up asking you if you want to use the USB drive for readyboost every time you plug it in.

64-bit (allows you to add more than 3.5gb of ram to your computer):

There is a 64-bit version of xp, even though most people think it's exclusive to vista. I don't know why they think that, but it's not true.

Faster boot times:

I don't know who said this, but they were a moron. Sure, vista starts faster than xp, but when you put any programs on it, vista starts up like a slug.

Programs open faster:

Yes, this is true, but it's just because of prefetching. The vista OS itself is much slower. If you turn prefetching off (recommended to increase performance when running programs), the programs start tons slower than in xp.

VISTA = XP with eye candy. No new features have been added, just more garbage that makes it prettier for the normal user. Anyone who wants to use their computer for anything important should use XP. They can use vista, but it'll be painful.

Microsoft finally made a perfect OS. They just got all the bugs out, but now they've decided to cancel it. Why? Because of money and software piracy. There is no way to totally stop the piracy of OS's. They should know this by now and just live with it. There's always a way to hack something and the more lines of code they add to protect the OS, the more vulnerable it becomes. Freaking dumb people! They should know that people hack the OS because they don't have the money to spend $100 for a stupid CD for EVERY computer they want to put it on. Hackers don't hack OS's because they think it's fun and they're too lazy to work for the OS's. They hack it because they can't afford them. It doesn't matter if you stop them from hacking it, because if they don't have the money, they don't have the money and they won't be buying the software anyway. Microsoft's attempts to stop software piracy are futile. They should live with that fact and move on.

Kor · **Reply #12 on:** April 22, 2008, 06:29:23 AM

To bad microsoft can't get it right before they send the os out to folks to buy. That seems the common thing though, even with some video games, send it out only partially finished then patch it.

Sounds like you'd suggest folks go over to Linux. How do the 3 os's compare. Linux, xp and Vista? Vista lite sounds like what they should have sold & I agree that the price they charge for windows seems a bit much to me.

landbeforetimelover · **Reply #13 on:** April 22, 2008, 06:46:34 AM

Linux = Farily stable OS with border lined decent driver support and basic applications which are all free.

Vista = Bloated piece of crap OS with basically no driver support except for brand new computers with very little support for older software (and when I say older, I mean only a couple of years old).

XP = good, solid OS that requires more frequent maintenance than vista, but runs a billion times faster. Compatible with most software, even dating back to microsoft works 1994.

Vista Lite = slimlined version of vista with the same lack of driver support and limited software support, but runs just about as fast as XP.

MacOSX = very good OS, however like all OS's made by the apple company, they lack many abilities for reprogramming and customization. There is also a limited amount of software you can put onto them as opposed to the OS's created by microsoft and linux.

Kor · **Reply #14 on:** April 22, 2008, 07:38:14 AM

Sounds like the best ones are Linux, Xp, and Vista Lite.

landbeforetimelover · **Reply #15 on:** April 25, 2008, 05:49:51 PM

Well, I'll be "upgrading" my laptop to xp soon. Vista just doesn't cut it. Even the lite version is just giving me too many problems. Too many programs are just incompatible. For some reason it's having problems playing video. The video is choppy at times and I still have tons of ram and cpu left. Vista just is too experimental and unstable. I won't use it. -_-

It's very pretty, but it's not worth all these problems to have a pretty taskbar and to have a sidebar I can have in xp anyways.

:

Kor · **Reply #16 on:** April 25, 2008, 08:37:30 PM

I wonder what the next one I heard about will be like. I'd guess like any windows os is at first. That and the expense is making me think maybe of giving Linux a try, for at least basic computing and web surfing.

action9000 · **Reply #17 on:** April 25, 2008, 08:44:08 PM

Quote

ready boost (substitutes a flash drive and uses it as a paging file to increase ram):

Most useless feature ever.

First of all: RAM is basically the same price as a flash drive.
Second: Flash drives are SLLLLOOOW. Using the Hard Drive as virtual memory is significantly faster than using a flash drive.

landbeforetimelover · **Reply #18 on:** April 29, 2008, 02:24:42 AM

Well, I've finally got stupid Vista off my laptop and I'm so happy! I can actually USE my computer now. I hadn't even realized how slow and crappy it was. Now I have XP back on it with a vista theme and it's wonderful!

I can't even tell the difference. Vistamizer makes it so that even your login screen is the same as windows vista's. I honestly see NO reason why anyone would want that piece of crap OS, even if they could run it decently.

NeptuneNavigator2001 · **Reply #19 on:** May 01, 2008, 01:22:11 AM

I wish Microsoft would release DirectX 10 for XP, that would be good... Then, those newer games that are exclusive to Vista because of DX10 would work in XP, most likely. At worst, all they'd need is an XP patch...