Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[cem_devecioglu]

Been running Vista (Ultimate) since it came out and can probably count the number of BSOD's on one hand. You must have a conflict in there somewhere or faulty hardware.

Take out all the non essential cards, and add them back one by one until you get the BSOD again.

Also, have you tried looking in the event logs to see what's going on?

good tech. for a pc but I'm afraid Tunnies prob is lappy..

[TheBoy]

to get a bsod, an exception has to occur on inner ring, which means it will have to happen in kernel or kernel mode driver.

so it will be something hardware related corrupting the processing (RAM, esp that fitted by idiots without ESP (who invariably say that they never wear it, and it never causes a problem ), or psu), or a driver issue

[Avedis]

hi peeps, what people tend to forget is that when XP was launched it was garbage as well. full of holes and just generally.. well, poo!

Took till service pk 2 to really fix it.  Vista is gonna take a few service packs and a heap load of trial and error to get right. As my Ol' man said the other day after playing about on his new acer lappie.. why did they bother?

Bloody good question if you ask me. XP looks better, runs better, does everything you can possibly want it to do. You want more ram run the 64 bit edtn, but cant really see why youd need that.

Gamers should be well happy with a top end pc running xp home with decent g/card and ram

Peeps doin music or serious photography ought to be doin that stuff on a mac, lets be honest, its what theyre best at  

Im gonna stick to my XP Pro SP2 (sod sp3, dont need it) till it dies then ill reinstall on something i can get xp drivers for.. does everything i need n more

ttfn

A

[TheBoy]

hi peeps, what people tend to forget is that when XP was launched it was garbage as well. full of holes and just generally.. well, poo!

Took till service pk 2 to really fix it.  Vista is gonna take a few service packs and a heap load of trial and error to get right. As my Ol' man said the other day after playing about on his new acer lappie.. why did they bother?

Bloody good question if you ask me. XP looks better, runs better, does everything you can possibly want it to do. You want more ram run the 64 bit edtn, but cant really see why youd need that.

Gamers should be well happy with a top end pc running xp home with decent g/card and ram

Peeps doin music or serious photography ought to be doin that stuff on a mac, lets be honest, its what theyre best at  

Im gonna stick to my XP Pro SP2 (sod sp3, dont need it) till it dies then ill reinstall on something i can get xp drivers for.. does everything i need n more

ttfn

A

I think Vista is a much more robust kernel, and certainly a damn sight more secure for those insisting on running as an admin all the time.  Its more secure anyway, that aside.

Vista is also a damn sight easier and quicker to use....

[Grumpy]

I keep reading about people having (had?) problems with Vista.
So I was a bit dubious when I bought a laptop last July with
Vista Home Basic (using twin pentium processor).

Maybe I've been lucky, but I can honestly say it's a joy to use.
Fast, smooth, stable, reliable, seems secure...never had a problem.

First thing I did, before using it properly, was use windows update
to get it it right up to spec including service pack 1.

I'm not an IT guy, just your common or garden user who has learned
enough to sort out the usual common problems you get with
computers. (I find that sort of stuff interesting).
So is it possible that the problems folk seem to have had with Vista
was the the pre service pack 1 teething/driver problems that have left
it with a poor reputation to overcome?
Or is there something I don't know and have the pleasure of becoming
aquainted with in the near future?

Currently have 3 laptops, including this old pentium XP that my
daughter gave me to play with that I'm using to type this, and the
Vista enabled one seems to be the best of the 3.

[V6 Gix]

good tech. for a pc but I'm afraid Tunnies prob is lappy..

Bugger, forgot that bit.....

[stuart30]

hi peeps, what people tend to forget is that when XP was launched it was garbage as well. full of holes and just generally.. well, poo!

Took till service pk 2 to really fix it.  Vista is gonna take a few service packs and a heap load of trial and error to get right. As my Ol' man said the other day after playing about on his new acer lappie.. why did they bother?

Bloody good question if you ask me. XP looks better, runs better, does everything you can possibly want it to do. You want more ram run the 64 bit edtn, but cant really see why youd need that.

Gamers should be well happy with a top end pc running xp home with decent g/card and ram

Peeps doin music or serious photography ought to be doin that stuff on a mac, lets be honest, its what theyre best at  

Im gonna stick to my XP Pro SP2 (sod sp3, dont need it) till it dies then ill reinstall on something i can get xp drivers for.. does everything i need n more

ttfn

A

I think Vista is a much more robust kernel, and certainly a damn sight more secure for those insisting on running as an admin all the time.  Its more secure anyway, that aside.

Vista is also a damn sight easier and quicker to use....

Excuse my ignorance...is there any reason not too run as administrator.

Always assumed you needed too...installing programs ect  :-/

[Mr Skrunts]

hi peeps, what people tend to forget is that when XP was launched it was garbage as well. full of holes and just generally.. well, poo!

Took till service pk 2 to really fix it.  Vista is gonna take a few service packs and a heap load of trial and error to get right. As my Ol' man said the other day after playing about on his new acer lappie.. why did they bother?

Bloody good question if you ask me. XP looks better, runs better, does everything you can possibly want it to do. You want more ram run the 64 bit edtn, but cant really see why youd need that.

Gamers should be well happy with a top end pc running xp home with decent g/card and ram

Peeps doin music or serious photography ought to be doin that stuff on a mac, lets be honest, its what theyre best at  

Im gonna stick to my XP Pro SP2 (sod sp3, dont need it) till it dies then ill reinstall on something i can get xp drivers for.. does everything i need n more

ttfn

A

I think Vista is a much more robust kernel, and certainly a damn sight more secure for those insisting on running as an admin all the time.  Its more secure anyway, that aside.

Vista is also a damn sight easier and quicker to use....

Excuse my ignorance...is there any reason not too run as administrator.

Always assumed you needed too...installing programs ect  :-/

More trouble than it's worth on XP, I only ever bothered the once.  Dont have a clue regards Vista.

[sev]

Excuse my ignorance...is there any reason not too run as administrator.

Always assumed you needed too...installing programs ect  :-/

Absolutely, I run three accounts on the computer, admin with full privileges, and my other half and mines daily account which is a restricted user account.

We can't make alterations to the system in that way, so theorectically, if we do inadvertantly get a virus, hopefully it's in a place where it doesn't have the right to change anything.

And touch wood, nothings gone tits up just yet.

I don't know if Tthe Boy wants to expand on this.

Also, if your admin account is clean, then any slowdown in performance or behaviour is hopefully easier to trace.

[stuart30]

Excuse my ignorance...is there any reason not too run as administrator.

Always assumed you needed too...installing programs ect  :-/

Absolutely, I run three accounts on the computer, admin with full privileges, and my other half and mines daily account which is a restricted user account.

We can't make alterations to the system in that way, so theorectically, if we do inadvertantly get a virus, hopefully it's in a place where it doesn't have the right to change anything.

And touch wood, nothings gone tits up just yet.

I don't know if Tthe Boy wants to expand on this.

Also, if your admin account is clean, then any slowdown in performance or behaviour is hopefully easier to trace.

Cheers Sev....nicely explained...

[Debs.]

That machine never blue screened under vista. BSOD'd under XP recently, but I'll put that down to the smoke bellowing out of it

Ah, now I understand the acronym: it`s Billowing Smoke Of Death  

[TheBoy]

Excuse my ignorance...is there any reason not too run as administrator.

Always assumed you needed too...installing programs ect  :-/

Absolutely, I run three accounts on the computer, admin with full privileges, and my other half and mines daily account which is a restricted user account.

We can't make alterations to the system in that way, so theorectically, if we do inadvertantly get a virus, hopefully it's in a place where it doesn't have the right to change anything.

And touch wood, nothings gone tits up just yet.

I don't know if Tthe Boy wants to expand on this.

Also, if your admin account is clean, then any slowdown in performance or behaviour is hopefully easier to trace.

That pretty much sums it up - if you run as an admin, and you catch something nasty (remember, AV software only picks up viruses, and not all nasties are virii), that nasty has the same rights as the logged on user - admin if the user runs as administrator.

This is where Linux gets **ALL** its security from, as they generally force you to run as std user account.  Of course Linux all goes insecure if users run as root, or use sudo.

Vista tries to overcome this with UAC (which some pillocks turn off believe it or not!), where a user with Admin rights has 2 priviledge levels - limited user, which automatically becomes admin if the program needs it, at which point the system prompts you to allow this priviledge elevation. Its not perfect, but its a massive improvement over XP's system of allowing that user (or processes running as that user) to do whatever they like.

Windows 7 uses UAC as well for security, tweaked a bit better by the look of it.

[Del Boy]

Assuming not a crap 3rd party driver, it will be a hardware fault.  What is stop error?

Vista is probably the most stable desktop OS I've come across, never, ever had a crash on it.

Agreed TB must be a hardware fault, only time I ever had a crash on it was literally 2 days after it came out had a few crashes back then but it's been fine ever since.
Tbh I did moan about it at the start after a few crashes but compared to XP Vista I find is by far better, and as TB said and I agree it is the most stable OS i have ever used.