HA Not Even INTEL Will Upgrade To Vista

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=38064

Seems INTEL is none the wiser and won't upgrade to VISTA until the 1st service pack like myself I will be doing that too. But only if they lower the prices in the Uk first but this must be a big blow a CHip firm not upgrading.

Sorry to break it to you, but waiting to go to service pack 1 does not mean you are wise. If anything, it will make you less wise because many people will have extensive knowledge with Vista and you won't at that specific time. All you really have to do, is have a consistent environment that is well documented in your organization, a business need, and do some application testing. If you meet these, then good, go ahead and upgrade. If not, then don't upgrade.

There is a huge difference between a business upgrading and a home user upgrading.

Vista provides very few reasons [if any?] for a business user to upgrade and many reasons not to. Business will cling to XP for years. I wouldn't be surprised to still see XP in wide use 4 years from now.

The fact XP is reliable and proven, and no newly released OS can match that.

Vista isnt that bad, just two major things get me.
1. The driver support is still bad.
A. The start/restart icons in the start menu are in a very odd location
2. The price is WAY too high for a OS.

Well I purchased a new copy of XP Pro SP2 for about £80 when I was researching VISTA I wanted the Ultimate version. But since it's £350 here in the Uk they can stuff off it's because the EU charged and caused so much chaos for MS. That they charge stupid prices for us in the Uk and the rest of Europe.

Well... in terms of pricing, things are actually pretty close.

Using the pricing i know off the top of my head, just posted for the sake of argument... NOT for advertising:

XP Home - $ 93.00 OEM, Vista Home Basic 32 bit OEM - $ 99.00
XP Media Center OEM - $ 124.50, Vista Home Premium OEM 32 bit - $ $ 125.00
XP Pro OEM - $149.00, Vista Buisness 32 bit OEM $ 154.50

Then theres Vista ultimate 32 bit OEM for $213.50... Also, the prices for the 64 bit versions are identical to that of 32 bit.

Pricing for Vista isnt that much more, so pricing isn't what turns me off of Vista specifically, rather it's the driver support right now that does. Once nVidia gets they're act together... then i'll be hopping on the Vista train with a shiny new 8xxx video card

As for intel, they are kind of a special case. For they're buisness infrastructure... XP works and they're probably isn't a reason to upgrade any time soon. OTOH, they have basically every popular flavor of OS there to validate drivers and such on... If you saw it for yourself, i think you'd find it slightly interesting




~ Gos

roYal said:

Sorry to break it to you, but waiting to go to service pack 1 does not mean you are wise. If anything, it will make you less wise because many people will have extensive knowledge with Vista and you won't at that specific time. All you really have to do, is have a consistent environment that is well documented in your organization, a business need, and do some application testing. If you meet these, then good, go ahead and upgrade. If not, then don't upgrade.

Click to expand...

Exactly. I am a sys admin with about 200 machines and 20 servers to deal with. All 2K3 server and XP pro. There is not a chance I am going vista for these machines yet, it is too new and the stuff the companies I work for works and works well under the current platform. There isn't any NEED to go vista yet, however the Vista bashing is getting rather old. I find it to be a very nice smooth and snappy OS.

roYal said:

Sorry to break it to you, but waiting to go to service pack 1 does not mean you are wise. If anything, it will make you less wise because many people will have extensive knowledge with Vista and you won't at that specific time. All you really have to do, is have a consistent environment that is well documented in your organization, a business need, and do some application testing. If you meet these, then good, go ahead and upgrade. If not, then don't upgrade.

Click to expand...

I think you've got it backwards. If all someone needs is a consistent environment that is well documented, then that's a reason to stay with XP. Vista is only for the bleeding edge types that want the latest and greatest, and are willing to put up the the frustration and trouble that comes with being on the edge.

I find it to be a very nice smooth and snappy OS.

Click to expand...

Well with a quick look at your system in your sig niksub1, I would imagine it is pretty snappy with a E6700 and 4GB RAM... Most users here do not have quite that amount of horsepower. I believe you speak for a minority of Vista users.

I rather like Vista. It has a couple issues of course, but I've found my way around most of them and learned to deal with other minor things that only annoy me but aren't really problems. Overall I'm glad of my purchase and hope to see what new stuff will happen.

The only thing I despise about Vista is that I can't print on my XP computer. But, I blame my XP computer and it's firewall for the isssues, not my Vista computer. So I just bought a flash drive and solved that issue, it's just not as convenient.


Besides, who can complain about a new mainstreamed look, searching built right in, and network options you can change on the fly. You have ANY idea how easy this thing is to hook up to wireless internets when switching from home to work and back again. Sometimes I don't even have to reboot. XP required entire network changes and reboots included with tons of issues when switching back and forth between business networks and home networks on a laptop. That to me seems like a great business feature, just one among many.

SuperDave1685 said:

Well with a quick look at your system in your sig niksub1, I would imagine it is pretty snappy with a E6700 and 4GB RAM... Most users here do not have quite that amount of horsepower. I believe you speak for a minority of Vista users.

Click to expand...

Point well taken. FWIW I have been running with just 2 gigs of ram for a while now, I can NOT get 4 x 1GB sticks to behave... even at less than their rated speed. I see no difference (yet) in 2GB vs 4GB really. I finally have 2 x 2GB Gskill sticks going in today.

As I have taken your point and it is valid, there are MANY here with similar systems to mine that believe Vista is the devil and slow and bloated etc, etc. While it does have more bloat than XP, the newest hardware will run it with ease. It's like leapfrog, as soon as hardware gets robust enough software coders write code to take advantage of it and this is precisely how I view Vista. If you have a new C2D or dual core AMD and a decent vid card, Vista will run very well. I also have a test rig with just 1 GB of ram (1 stick, not even running dual channel) and it is running very well with an X1300 vid card.

It's like leapfrog, as soon as hardware gets robust enough software coders write code to take advantage of it and this is precisely how I view Vista.

Click to expand...

Good point. I viewed dual cores the same way in regards to games and applications. I just don't like the fact that Vista takes a lot of RAM when setting at the desktop. Now if the Drivers would work, I think it has the potential to be a decent OS. However, I don't like how they've done away with the traditional "My Documents" folder..

nikhsub1 said:

Exactly. I am a sys admin with about 200 machines and 20 servers to deal with. All 2K3 server and XP pro. There is not a chance I am going vista for these machines yet, it is too new and the stuff the companies I work for works and works well under the current platform. There isn't any NEED to go vista yet, however the Vista bashing is getting rather old. I find it to be a very nice smooth and snappy OS.

Click to expand...

Hear, hear. As soon as I can scrape up the $200 for an OEM of x64 Ultimate, I'll get a copy.

No competent CIO or IT directory would move to a new OS so quickly. Aside from the technical issues (compatibility, performance on current hardware, etc.), large organizations don't have support plans in place for the new OS yet.

Entire help desks need retraining, and the old knowledge bases are, from a strict technical and decision-making point of view, useless.

SuperDave1685 said:

Good point. I viewed dual cores the same way in regards to games and applications. I just don't like the fact that Vista takes a lot of RAM when setting at the desktop. Now if the Drivers would work, I think it has the potential to be a decent OS. However, I don't like how they've done away with the traditional "My Documents" folder..

Click to expand...

I have had absolutely NO ISSUE with drivers at all! I'm running 64 bit too. Right after the install I looked in device manager and guess what? Every item had a driver! The only drivers I added were the proper vid driver and the intel chipset driver. That's it. The docs folder is not an issue for me anyway, I keep the my documents on a different HD, always have. Same in vista. I told it where my docs should be located and bam it was done. I think made a shortcut to my docs on the desktop.

Ram usage you say? This is the NUMBER ONE misconception about vista. While I'm sure it does take a bit more ram, the thing that people (most people) dont realize is that vista is MUCH BETTER at ram management and allocation than XP ever could be. This goes back to what I was saying about it feeling 'snappy'. You see Vista caches lots of things in RAM, this is part of superfetch (which rocks BTW). Even with 4GB of ram when you go to task manager you will find you don't have much free ram - here lies the catch; you do! Vista will release this cache memory instantly as soon as it is more directly needed - say photoshop or rendering etc, etc. If you are familiar with any DC project like Folding@home or SETI then you will understand this concept. These DC projects use all UNUSED CPU power - that is if the system is at idle FAH or SETI will use 100% of the CPU. Now say you start rendering or any CPU intensive task then these will instantly release the CPU power that is needed. This is precisely how Vista manages memory.

It's hard not to bash an OS that takes up more processing power, and looks like a macintosh. Yes Vista has some good features, but thats really all it has. Nothing is particularly new in Vista compared to XP it just has newer features. Most companies will not be upgrading to Vista due to its huge amount of resources it uses. Most gamers upgrade to vista only because Direct X 10 is being supported.

I deal with over 5000 workstations and 200 servers and the amount of resources the server applications take up alone there is no way we could have users switching to Vista on old pentium 3 and 4 boxes. They bearly can handle the SQL program that it is using right now let alone an new OS which requires huge system requirements.

Vista is great for companies that have an endless budget for IT, or for a small organization that can afford to upgrade their systems. However, companies that have a "real" work environment will doubtfully upgrade to vista anytime soon. Most companies are still using 2kpro on most workstations.

Administration is all about TCO. You think an admin wants to be up at all hours of the night troubleshooting problems caused by switching to a new OS that werent there before? Simple, NO.

Just like to say it runs well on my little stock 4600 with 4x512MB of DDR400. And running Integrated video x300 and still have all the eye candy I had when running a 7600GS.

Havent tried 64 bit yet, I still havent activated my Free copy so I am playing around with different versions to see which I want. Ult-64 is next

TechJunky said:

Administration is all about TCO. You think an admin wants to be up at all hours of the night troubleshooting problems caused by switching to a new OS that werent there before? Simple, NO.

Click to expand...

ROFL x2. You deal with many more machines than I do and you are exactly right. Not to mention the fact that must end users are simply dumb with computers to begin with. If you move a desktop icon out of place, they can't work. They can't set their hompage in IE (for the ones we allow internet access to that is ) Vista would be an utter nightmare for us.

just a quick question nikhsub... hows does the RC2 version of Vista differ from the retail, final version?

SuperDave1685 said:

just a quick question nikhsub... hows does the RC2 version of Vista differ from the retail, final version?

Click to expand...

You cant even compare them, they are like a different OS. I played with both betas, I actually found RC1 better than 2, go figure. They were IMO utter dung. RTM is MUCH MUCH better.

nikhsub1 said:

Ram usage you say? This is the NUMBER ONE misconception about vista. While I'm sure it does take a bit more ram, the thing that people (most people) dont realize is that vista is MUCH BETTER at ram management and allocation than XP ever could be. This goes back to what I was saying about it feeling 'snappy'. You see Vista caches lots of things in RAM, this is part of superfetch (which rocks BTW). Even with 4GB of ram when you go to task manager you will find you don't have much free ram - here lies the catch; you do! Vista will release this cache memory instantly as soon as it is more directly needed - say photoshop or rendering etc, etc. If you are familiar with any DC project like Folding@home or SETI then you will understand this concept. These DC projects use all UNUSED CPU power - that is if the system is at idle FAH or SETI will use 100% of the CPU. Now say you start rendering or any CPU intensive task then these will instantly release the CPU power that is needed. This is precisely how Vista manages memory.

Click to expand...

SO COOL!! this has been a big gripe of mine with XP/2000 for a while now. how it WONT use ram and defers to a swap. im assuming vista is basically using all it can whenver it can. funny, for years people have bitched about this and now they go on about the fix. Ill say it sounds cool and is a feature i find desirable.