How Now Vista?

[YankeeClipper (imported)]

Windows 7? Thanks, but no thanks.

Vista clearly shows how well Microsoft does at destroying the functionality of each subsequent release of Windows. W2K was stable, XP-SP2 finally did really resolve any remaining stability issues in earlier versions of XP. SP3 has done very well at furthering the stability of XP.

Vista show how remarkably thorough Microsoft can be in creating an absolutely disastrous OS when they truly set their minds to it and insure they have more than adequate resources to achieve the task at hand.

Please Microsoft, let Vista die the truly ugly death it has aggressively earned, restore your efforts into further improving the quality and stability of XP and not bother with foisting any further achievements like Vista onto the unsuspecting marketplace. (Also, let's have a true 64-bit version of SP3.)

-YC

[calmeilles (imported)]

The progression at work as been Windows 3.11 -> NTsp4 -> 2K -> XPsp2

Now we're moving buildings and everyone on the company gets a new PC. And they'll be XPsp2.

We're banking on being able to skip Vista entirely. We're already a 50% Mac workplace, if the nex Windows is as poor as Vista that proportion is juts going to change in Mac's favour.

Like others in the thread my last machine came with Vista and after 3 months trying it outwas "improved" to XPsp2.

[BossTamsin (imported)]

If nothing else, the sudden surprise emergence of the whole 'netbook' category (Eee, AspireOne, Mini9, Wind, etc) has given yet another boost to XP. Most of these come with the option of either a Linux-based operating system, or XP. They're just not powerful enough to run Vista, no matter what you do to it.

If that category keeps expanding the way it has over the last year or so, or even if it stays where it is, there's no chance Microsoft can stop selling or supporting XP until at least Windows 7, if not longer. Although I'd be very surprised if they don't have a group working on some version of XP 2.0, possibly including some CE/Mobile/Embedded hybrid code, just for the next generation of Netbooks.

[coinflipper_21 (imported)]

Whenever the programmers at Redmond start on a new OS they have no intention whatsoever that it will run on currently installed equipment. Uncle Bill established the dictum that since computing power doubles every 18 months, the OS programmer should start out assuming that the minimum hardware that the new OS will be installed on is the most powerful PC currently available. That the symbiosis between Microsoft and Intel. After all, if the new OS will run on the average currently installed PC how will the industry ever progress?;)

Personally, I have a copy of the 1980 Microsoft white paper where they set out in exquisite detail how Unix was the answer. That was when their flavor of Unix, Xenix, was the only commercially available Unix. Gates changed his mind when he found that AT&T was going to issue commercial Unix licenses to other software suppliers, and that Microsoft was not going to be the exclusive, world-wide distributor of commercial Unix. I still agree with their original position and have been using Unix and more recently Linux ever since. The latest versions of Linux require nowhere near the hardware horsepower of VISTA. but will take advantage of it when available.

I do maintain Windows boxes to have my customers view since most installed desktops are Windows. However, since more and more applications are becoming browser based, if software providers have their programmers code their applications properly, without using Microsoft's proprietary "extensions" of internet protocols, the operating system on the desktop becomes a non-issue. Faced with this, and the cool reception to Vista, I predict that Microsoft will go open source with the next version Windows. Who knows? With the agreements they have with Novell (SuSe Linux) we may even see a Microsoft Linux.

[radar69 (imported)]

Let say if you are in the field you may have seen my face somewhere....

The actual Vista and the Vista i alpha and beta tested are two completely different things

The filesystem was slightly different and more efficient but supposely not ready for public release.... They sticked to older ntfs.

The video was wayyyy more efficient in the beta section, as soon they locked everything to directx 10 things started to look bad...

The beta version didn't had all the DRM crrrap running in the background and most if not all the XP drivers where running properly

i ran alpha and beta on a Dell laptop with a radeon mobility 9000, Pentium M 1.4 with 1 gb ram.

It was running fast and smooth (no i'm not drunk or under drugs influence)

What happened at Microsoft from beta to final release... God know....

With a 1000$+ Vista approved machine you get decent results but many peoples can't afford changing computer every 2 years.

I think the best quality price right now is a recycled corporate Pentium 3.2Ghz 1Gb ram and 80Gb hdd running XP pro you can get for max 300$. Theses will outlast most of the 600$ all included kits.

Regards

Radar69

[Paolo]

You want screaming power?

Put W2K-SP 4 on a 64 bit dual core machine with a couple gig of RAM and watch it fly. Combine that with a 512 MB video card, and you've got it going on... (a few random XP drivers may be needed!) I actually built this box because I was afraid I'd have to get Vista eventually, and there was no way the old 1.5 GHZ dog was going to run it. Then I decided to stay with 2000 just to see what would happen.

And it worked.

Of course I panicked and called IEunuch first to see...

I can re-encode a DVD in under an hour now, and an 80 MB TIFF file takes about 2 seconds to open.

[Oberon888 (imported)]

I agree 2000 was/is a great OS (as was OS/2)...2000 wasn't for the home market though, so they had to add the bells and whistles for home users, game players and the like..I like XP well enough, but I believe i had less issues with 2000 also.

Batman

I've also hear that it was the most pirated piece of software in the history of computerdom, though I may have just been dreaming...

I do recall it fondly. NT kernel surrounded by a minimum of B.S.

[BudleyBare (imported)]

I upgraded one of my computers to 64 bit Vista with 8Gb ram. It rocks. I'm running certain graphics programs on it, and needed the 64 bit OS with the extra ram. I have XP on another computer, and I'll take the 64 bit Vista machine over it anytime.

Dear Slammr (or others who are "in the know"),

I have four questions. Would you mind helping a novice?

What kind of hardware does it take to run the 64 bit version of Vista? In other words, will my WinXP-Pro/SP3 system work as a 64 bit machine?

If I convert (upgrade), do I get a choice as to 64 or 32 bit versions?

Will all of my current software (which I assume is NOT 64 bit stuff) work on a 64 bit Vista?

Is there really a performance improvement that warrants a conversion (upgrade)?

I have yet to find anyone who can answer these questions. I know they must exist -- I just simply haven't found them yet.

[calmeilles (imported)]

Dear Slammr (or others who are "in the know"),

I have four questions. Would you mind helping a novice?

What kind of hardware does it take to run the 64 bit version of Vista? In other words, will my WinXP-Pro/SP3 system work as a 64 bit machine?

If I convert (upgrade), do I get a choice as to 64 or 32 bit versions?

Will all of my current software (which I assume is NOT 64 bit stuff) work on a 64 bit Vista?

Is there really a performance improvement that warrants a conversion (upgrade)?

I have yet to find anyone who can answer these questions. I know they must exist -- I just simply haven't found them yet.

Microsoft says: (http://windowshelp.microsoft.com/window ... 01033.mspx) (edited highlights)

To run a 64-bit version of Windows, your computer must have a 64-bit processor. To take advantage of the additional capability to utilize memory on 64-bit versions of Windows Vista, you should have at least 4 GB of RAM installed on your computer.

If you want to move from a 32-bit version of Windows to a 64-bit version of Windows Vista, back up your files and perform a clean installation of the 64-bit version of Windows Vista.

Many programs designed for a computer running a 32-bit version of Windows will work on a computer running 64-bit versions of Windows without any changes. However, in some cases there might be differences in performance. If a 32-bit program uses embedded drivers, the drivers might not work in the 64-bit environment. If you have a 64-bit computer, it's best to run programs designed to run on a 64-bit computer.

Yes. A 64-bit computer can process twice as much information as a 32-bit computer, and can have significantly more random access memory (RAM). The 64-bit versions of Windows Vista on computers with at least 4 gigabytes (GB) of RAM can be more responsive when you are running many programs at once.

However I'd have said "No" to that last question. Unless you already have a machine that is seriously over specification for 32-bit windows and the change will allow you to get more out of the hardware I'd be sceptical that you will see any improvement for all the hassle that you'd be letting yourself in for.

Consider it again the next time that you decide to change your hardware.

[YankeeClipper (imported)]

With a 1000$+ Vista approved machine you get decent results but many peoples can't afford changing computer every 2 years.

I think the best quality price right now is a recycled corporate Pentium 3.2Ghz 1Gb ram and 80Gb hdd running XP pro you can get for max 300$. Theses will outlast most of the 600$ all included kits.

Regards

Radar69

I have gone the new/kit built route when I moved to XP initially (too early on the hardware curve). It turned out to be a very poor choice. Much happier with my Dell that I bought for $250 that is 3.2 G, 2G RAM ex-corporate running XP-SP3, far more satisfied with this choice than my proir choice. and second-hand corporate "cast-offs" are an excellent choice unless you have very demanding criterion that you know that will require a more capable system.

What MS and Intel fail to be willing to recognize is that many users can't afford/aren't willing to spend the amount of money every 2 years to buy new hardware, new OS, go through the HUGE hassle of re-installing EVERY software package that they own (remember, MS says to start with a FRESH install, or, even worse, FORMAT your hard drive), with NO guarantee that the software that they presently own will even work on the new OS. And yes, I had to update, at my expense, in addition to the cost of the hardware and OS, some of my software when I migrated to XP.

The other nicety is that with corporate systems, is that they are tagged for XP-Pro in nearly all cases. I bought my Dell OptiPlex 280 3.2G/2 G RAM/80G HD pre-loaded on the drive off of eBay. the OptiPlex has a number of outstanding features that make it very easy to work on. Dell does not use that design anymore, which I consider a poor choice on their part. But...

Until I see companies adopt Vista (or whatever), I don't consider it usable in a home environment. Corporations usually have benchmarks that ALL software must be met before it can be used, and they have an IT staff to support the desktop system. If corporations that have an IT staff refuse to use it, why should the average home user consider it safe to do so, when they don't have an in-house IT staff (unless that is their profession).

Avoid the expense for both the new hardware, Vista, and updating your other software software, and reinstalling it, unless you have a clear need to do so.

64-bit - Read MS's own position, when I see "MAY," "MIGHT," SHOULD," "HOWEVER," etc... and any other such phrasing/caveats, that should raise serious caution flags BEFORE moving in that direction. Wording like that means that at least one software package will NOT work on 64-bit. If I'd hazard a guess, it would be a 32-bit program, your favorite, that is not the 64-bit one you chose 64-bit for, that is the one that won't run on 64-bit. (See the section from "calm

eilles" quoting MS [in blue] that uses those words.)

"Many programs designed for a computer running a 32-bit version of Windows will work on a computer running 64-bit versions of Windows without any changes. However, in some cases there might be differences in performance. If a 32-bit program uses embedded drivers, the drivers might not work in the 64-bit environment. If you have a 64-bit computer, it's bes

t to run programs designed to run on a 64-bit computer."

But what if YOUR favorite program is not/will not be written in 64-bit?

Be forewarned on 64-bit.

Vista overall - when corporations wholeheartedly embrace it, they have determined that has become a valid OS. Before they do it, don't you. Let them be the beta testers. If you NEED it, pull out your existing XP boot drive, put it on the shelf, buy a new drive for Vista. This will allow you to revert to your copy of XP in three minutes with no hassles. Big SATA drives are cheap enough nowadays.

Linux still runs fine on far older hardware than the specs outlined here, and 64-bit in nothing new in that realm. MS just keep turning the OS into bloatware further and further. I'm just glad my weight doesn't go up every 2 years the way each new OS from MS does in it hardware demands. I like Linux, but this not an endorsement of Linus for a novice. XP-Pro SP3 is what I advocate for the novice for the stability and smoothness of function that it presently has. That is far more important to a novice than any bells & whistles/ fancy(er) GUI's or anything else that detracts from the user sitting down at a computer and get done what they need to get done. Then the rest can be considered.

How many of those here that have used both a fair amount would recommend Vista over XP-Pro SP3 to a novice. (And YES, new, unopened, fully licensed, with CD included, packages of XP, and XP-Pro can be purchased on-line from several reputable retailers. [no endorsements for any single retailer].)

Format the disk and do a clean install of XP-Pro and go in the right direction. Use MS's instructions, but for 32-bit XP-Pro, and get rid of the "MAY," "MIGHT," SHOULD," "HOWEVER," etc... that MS includes about 64-bit. There will be a very limited set of packages that will require 64-bit Vista, Like maybe Matlab, but none likely to be in the typical home-users' realm.

If you you are looking to make your decision if, when to, at all, move to Vista, stay, revert back to, XP, talk to colleagues, at work, and in particular the IT PC support staff. See what common/daily issues they experience, especially if you are in the rare company that has already made the transition to Vista.

Another reason to use what work uses, colleagues and the IT PC support staff will answer the odd question if you have a problem with the OS at home. (DON'T abuse this, or you'll get on IT's wrong side very quickly, the staff is there to help you get your company's work done, not non-work things you do at home. If you work remotely, then you can expect a reasonable degree of support for that.)

I hope, from what I and others have said, in favor of, or opposed to Vista (32 or 64-bit) and in favor of, or opposed to XP, you will be able to develop some understanding of each. My observation is that few here oppose using XP and XP-Pro. The question seems resolve around migrating to Vista or replacing Vista with XP on a system preloaded with Vista. No one seems to be saying that XP is not a capable OS.

(Slammr, actually, I'm glad you have 64-bit Vista running well on your system. How much did your system costs, monetarily and effort to set and have it to this point? What I paid is about what I can afford. Can you provide support to others that follow in your footsteps? [Just kidding .] The spec's you list are far beyond what most people [I think} have. I guess, that's a major part of the issue, associated costs.)

One final note that I have not seen mentioned much, if at all, is OS support tools, some are free, such as Belarc Advisor, some are low-cost, such as tools to keep the registry in a stable state (I use Registry Cleaner) whether you use XP or Vista. Make sure the tools you use support your OS. In particular, the one most important tool is one that you can use to insure that the registry is "clean" BEFORE there is any danger of corruption. Use it routinely. Also, get a inexpensive external-USB hard drive and use a program that can do "hot copy" partition copying (i.e. Paragon Hard Disk Manager Suite) from your active (normal) drive to the USB drive. If you try to do it yourself to drag the files over, you run into permission errors. This will give you a good way to have a periodic backup of your partition(s).

-YC