Vista Kicks Butt!

[Thund3rball]

So you will always stay one OS behind? We will start seeing Windows 7/Vienna betas in 2008, proable RTM 2009.

I wouldn't say I am one OS behind. XP is still offered on new systems and Vista is still suffering from lack of support from hardware/software companies. XP has been out since what...2001ish? I think Vista will be around for a while. At least it should be... I'd hate to think MS would unload another OS just as the current one is getting full support by hardware/software companies.

 

[Audioaficionado]

And for a reason, people do not like change, look what changed from:

2000 to XP - people complained
Xp - Vista - people complained

And really, not alot changed.......

can you imagine if they completely over hauled the O/S, the layout, completly new, diff - people who FLIP!

Hey watch it dude!

I still haven't gotten over the fact that Microsoft ditched WFW3.11 & MS-DOS6.22 just when it was getting real stable and functional

 

[johnz]

Hey watch it dude!

I still haven't gotten over the fact that Microsoft ditched WFW3.11 & MS-DOS6.22 just when it was getting real stable and functional

Ah Dos 6.22, now there was on O/S. Everything since then has just been bloat, and useless "features"

 

[dudleycpa]

The Windows for Workgroups days, custom configured files just to play games... If I could only remember what the file(s) where? The autoexec file?

 

[satandole666]

You cant make a OS do more with less resources. Look at Linux, yes it uses less resources, but it too is becomming bloated (some distros). The more an OS can do, the more resources it will use. Computers are becomming powerhouses these days... would you put Win 3.11 on your quad core system with 4gb of memory (not that you can)? Would you give your grandma a army tank to drive to bingo? Bigger hardware needs bigger software, otherwise it is a waste to buy a powerful computer.

I don't know if I buy just about anything in your post.

I'm currently using Ubuntu 7.04...a linux distro that is commonly accused of being bloated. I'm only using 190mb of my 2gb of ram right now. That's a full installation running Firefox. What's Vista sitting at in a comparable situation? Not to mention Linux is more stable and safer from all the bad stuff (virus, spyware, trojans, etc). An OS can do more with less...there is just a ton of bad memory management in Vista.

Another thing you said that I think is become a HUGE issue nowadays is this:

Bigger hardware needs bigger software, otherwise it is a waste to buy a powerful computer.

I agree. Now that we have bigger and better machine software developers should plan ahead to utilize new capabilities. However, IT SHOULDN'T BE THE OS THAT IS TAKING THE MAJORITY OF A COMPUTER'S RESOURCES. I'm not yelling, that's capped for effect. I look at an OS as a means to an end, not as the end itself. An OS is there to allow me to run programs (the range from checking email to 3D design, gaming, etc). Those programs should be the "bigger software"...not the the crap that runs in the background (Windows, Linux, whatever).

Just my 2 cents...

 

[DanFraser]

are you someone else who thinks Vista is nothing more then a purdy GUI, they didnt rewrite %60 of the code to just add some new gimmicks, just because you dont directly see the new stuff on the surface, doesnt mean it isnt there.

also, less resources? people want new goodies and new toys but always want it to use LESS resources, the same people who complain that Vista is using their video card on the desktop, well, would you rather that $600 sit there and be a paper weight doing nothing? if so , i will give you my address and you can send me your money.

Do people not understand the O/S is what makes your computer WORK period, combinies everything to operate in one environment and simply WORK, it should be the system using the MOST resources if anything considering the amount of work it has to perform just so you can watch a video, or answer grandma's email.

Vista USES your system, and it uses it WELL, it makes things faster, when you decided t play that hardcore video game it ALLOCATES resources to the game or application.

i dont see why people get so worked up that something is using the CPU / RAM / Video card... isnt that what you bought them for? to do something.....





Till who fixes it?

AMD drivers?
Video drivers?

What was the problem?

People always blame the O/S - i think mainly because it is microsoft, is always their fault, not the programmers who made the program and didnt follow guidlines, or the Driver Development team who decided to cut corners or just not do it right (NVIDIA).......

MS provides all the info / data / code people need to make drivers / programs for the O/S plenty of time before the O/S is released, you dont think these companies had access to the Beta's the public had access too?






And for a reason, people do not like change, look what changed from:

2000 to XP - people complained
Xp - Vista - people complained

And really, not alot changed.......

can you imagine if they completely over hauled the O/S, the layout, completly new, diff - people who FLIP!





exactly, i tried running Fedora 3 on a p4 2ghz and 256mb of ram (minimal install, integrated graphics), and it was slow and sluggish, just the interface or opening anything,i put it to 512 and it ran smooth, when Linux becomes as popular as Windows on the Desktop it will be just as slow and bloated, same route FireFox is taking, as they realize people want X feature and Y feature, they realize just why it takes so many resources.

FireFox used to be small, fast and efficient, now it is turning into another bloated slow browser and so is Fedora for an o/S now, hopefully Ubuntu wont go the route of Fedora.

WELL SAID

Finally, someone else out there realises how much work has been put in to what IS a completely new OS. Only nitpick is, it's more than a 60% code re-write

This is the most stable OS I have ever seen from MS. During beta (and alpha) the one thing that most impressed me was the switch to putting the graphics drivers (and other previously low level stuff) at the user level. This was something different. How many of you get BSOD from bad graphics drivers in XP? I'm willing to bet money I don't have that you do. Well, I haven't seen a BSOD from drivers since Vista because of this change. Ok, it's annoying finding out that your drivers have crashed, but the OS just keeps chugging away.

So Vista uses more ram eh? Strange, I always thought that it was keeping stuff in memory so that you didn't have to wait more than a tenth of a second for something to load/open. And it does clear out what ram it's using if you open an application that demands a lot of ram. Go on, open photoshop and edit a humongous picture, requiring something like I dunno, 90% of your physical ram. Vista almost disappears, and photoshop runs smooth as a baby's bottom.

As said by Mr.Guv, this has all happened before, only this time, for some inexplicable reason, you haters out there seem to be spitting chunks even more about it. It's a new OS, not some rebash of old code. It's a new OS, that is long overdue even to the point where XP should be dropped from official support. It's a new OS, one that is actually a lot better than previous incarnations.

So, if you don't like it, keep it to yourself. Stay on your wide open security-bug ridden OS that actually has these things called BSOD's that uses less ram but is still far more inefficient.

 

[jeepguy_1980]

It's GREAT unless you need to run Mechanical Engineering/ 3D Modeling programs such and Mathcad, Matlab, Ansys, Solidworks, etc etc. None of them have releases yet for Vista (soon is what all of them say). So, hopefully they will have a release for it soon and I can upgrade... er well Clean Install "upgrade" to either Business or Ultimate. My roomate runs it and I LOVE it!

Haven't tried matlab yet. However, I run MathCAD and solidworks without any problems on my Vista x64.

 

[Thund3rball]

Question to all you IT guys out there...

How many times a week do you need to reboot your Windows servers? Now how many times a year (or 1/2 a decade) do you need to reboot your Linux servers?

~nuff said

 

[Oroka Sempai]

Sounds interesting... Got a linky or two?

Uphon more recent articles, WinFS will not be released with Vista SP1, or XP SP3. Last time I did some reading on it, it had just gotten left out of Vista, but they were saying a later release date, and it would be available for XP too, but now they are saying not till Vienna.

Question to all you IT guys out there...

How many times a week do you need to reboot your Windows servers? Now how many times a year (or 1/2 a decade) do you need to reboot your Linux servers?

~nuff said

I reboot my windows server maybe once a month for updates. If I didnt install the updates, I would proably reboot it only with hardware changes (bout 1-2 times a year)

 

[dudleycpa]

Uphon more recent articles, WinFS will not be released with Vista SP1, or XP SP3. Last time I did some reading on it, it had just gotten left out of Vista, but they were saying a later release date, and it would be available for XP too, but now they are saying not till Vienna.

That's lame.

I was looking forward to seeing it in Vista.

 

[Thund3rball]

I reboot my windows server maybe once a month for updates. If I didnt install the updates, I would proably reboot it only with hardware changes (bout 1-2 times a year)

How many users on that server of yours?

I know at my workplace ~200+ office workers. ~120 in HO and the rest in 5 branch offices throughout N.A. If the Win servers don't need to be restarted re: updates than they just 'choke' from general usage and need a kickstart here and there. Same with the Win web servers. However the Linux servers are rock solid. My IT dept. can count on one hand the number of times the Linux servers have been rebooted in 5 years. That's stable. Edit: And I think that's cause they actually had to unplug them to move them

I probably sound like a MS hater but that's not true. I just think they get away with a lot due to a stranglehold on the marketplace.

 

[Thund3rball]

WinFS will be rolled out with SP1, IIRC it will be with XP SP3 too. They would have had to hold back on releasing Vista if they were to include WinFS. Now they have more time to tweek it, and it will be better.

SP3 for XP is due in Q1-Q2 2008
OK so let me get this straight...

• MS unveils Vista
• MS Forces Dell etc... to sell strictly Vista on new systems because it is SOOO much better blah blah
• Dell starts selling Linux
• MS says ok Dell you can sell XP still
• MS announces SP3 for XP due out one year after Vista launch

Smells like WinME around here?

 

[Audioaficionado]

WinME-II isn't too far off the mark right now but unlike ME, Vista has a much better foundation/code base to rebuild on so Microsoft won't have to just throw it in the trash like they did ME.

By SP1 things should be a lot better.

 

[Oroka Sempai]

SP3 for XP is due in Q1-Q2 2008
OK so let me get this straight...

• MS unveils Vista
• MS Forces Dell etc... to sell strictly Vista on new systems because it is SOOO much better blah blah
• Dell starts selling Linux
• MS says ok Dell you can sell XP still
• MS announces SP3 for XP due out one year after Vista launch

Smells like WinME around here?

XP SP3 has been planned long before the whole can/cant sell XP thing.

 

[BlackSphinx]

On Vista: If you got the Hardware, it pwns.
If you don't stay with XP.

Vista is quite good, but until a few quirks get worked on, mainly by your favorite hardware making companies, XP will stay superior, for the simple reason that as a whole it's easier to use.

Some tweaks are required to make Vista much better, and those tweaks are not known by normal people, and I think that's what causes the most problem. 64bit's signed drivers is a good example. Take em off and it's godlike. Keep em on and it's a nightmare.

However, in a way, it's good. A normal person will not try to OC or load beta drivers. But until ALL of the drivers necessary are avaialble in signed WHQL format, it's a bad thing. I've always wondered how Microsoft ever thought it could look at, test and sign drivers from across the world. It's just too gargantuan of a job. So, it's a good thing by design, but when it comes to implementation... ow.

But I do not believe we can bash Microsoft, because Vista is the best OS they ever made. 6 years is a LONG time, and of course some XP stuff won't work, but if it's well coded, it will work seemlessly. A good example is Blizzard games, they didn't even need a patch to run well on vista (even Diablo 1, damnit), and that's because they are coded correctly, with care, and without bugs.

The vast majority of Vista's problems stem from the kind of laxism most companies got in after 6 years of the same OS.

I recommend Vista if you got the hardware. It's really a great OS. I won't get it until my next hardware upgrade (Q1 2008), sadly, but I've already installed it on countless computers and, after a slight tweak here and there, all I hear about are happy customers.

 

[Pinky]

I use Vista 32bit Home Premium. Some compatibility issues, but nothing worth writing home about. I'm quite happy with it, and with a high end system, it runs smooth as glass. (aeroglass that is)

Ditto. And I'm a bit surprised I liked it. It was not without some minor annoyances and incompatibilities with legacy hardware/software. Once past those it's been very stable and fast. I'm just about sold, it's only been 10 days so we'll see how I feel after the honeymoon is over.

Be sure to turn off windows search and some other annoying security features (like UAC). They're intended for the PC illiterate.

http://tweakhound.com/vista/tweakguide/index.htm