Vista users, how ya like it?

Systems

SKsolutions wrote: »

So, if you run 8 cores and want to upgrade all your hardware, it's fine. In return, you get a new theme, some gizmos, and better file search. No thanks. Bloated monster out of control Windows strikes again. I'd run Win98 if it was hardware compatible. Can't wait to ditch it and switch the office to Linux.

You call it bloat, IT mangers like me call the "bloat" awesome. Lets take a little known feature like "shadow copy" in a Business environment. We’ve run shadow copy on all of our NAS severs with several terabytes worth of data on them with Server 2003. I can’t tell you how many times we have saved hours worth of users time by recovering "previous" versions of their documents.. In seconds. This is a feature on Vista now.

Vista is pretty much a version of Windows 2003 server for the PC. More Windows 2003 server and less XP. What does that mean? All that stuff you call "bloat" is fundamentally and completely proven stability. Windows 2003 is damn near bullet proof, I've been running 25+ copies in various flavors for years on production servers without any problem. Slap it on and it runs.

That is what you have on Vista now.


And on a side not: I ripped out each and every one of our Linux and Free-BSD servers and box's that we had and replaced them with Windows servers. It absolutely amazing how much better our life is.. Oh my god.. spam assassin... oh god I’m glad I killed that.

Mac and Linux have absolutely nothing to offer business yet.

SKsolutions

Silverti wrote: »

You call it bloat, IT mangers like me call the "bloat" awesome. Lets take a little known feature like "shadow copy" in a Business environment. We’ve run shadow copy on all of our NAS severs with several terabytes worth of data on them with Server 2003. I can’t tell you how many times we have saved hours worth of users time by recovering "previous" versions of their documents.. In seconds. This is a feature on Vista now.

Vista is pretty much a version of Windows 2003 server for the PC. More Windows 2003 server and less XP. What does that mean? All that stuff you call "bloat" is fundamentally and completely proven stability. Windows 2003 is damn near bullet proof, I've been running 25+ copies in various flavors for years on production servers without any problem. Slap it on and it runs.

That is what you have on Vista now.


And on a side not: I ripped out each and every one of our Linux and Free-BSD servers and box's that we had and replaced them with Windows servers. It absolutely amazing how much better our life is.. Oh my god.. spam assassin... oh god I’m glad I killed that.

Mac and Linux have absolutely nothing to offer business yet.

So you say it's similar to Server 2003 and 2008 is coming out soon. Vista SP1, is supposed to get some of those goodies too, like VM tunneling and such. My question is this. Why run "virtually Server 2003" software on client or average Joe computers? It's a senseless upgrade, and quite a few are backgrading to XP. I was very happy to try it because hyped to have better energy management. What a joke that turned out to be. Twice the memory, twice the load, half the battery time. Even after disabling Shadow copy.

I'm not bashing it or you, but average users don't need all that crap on their personal machine. . . and the only people that I know that still use it are those that don't know how to reinstall XP.

SKsolutions

appadv wrote: »

Just got a new PC with Vista. Wow my impressions of Vista have changed greatly. At first on my old laptop I thought it was extremely slow, but with this new PC with 2gb of RAM, it runs fine.

With Vista don't even think about running it with less than 2GB of RAM, trust me, I say this from experience.

It's pretty, but if you like to be unplugged, keep your old copy of XP, or buy a few more batteries. Vista KILLS the battery. The lifespan of all your hardware may be shorter as well. Heat kills laptops, and Vista will keep you warm this winter! I'd keep it in low gear (Max Battery or Laptop) mode, disable areo and Shadow copy if you don't want Vista to be running behind the scenes all the time. If you use it a lot, or plan on gaming, I'd also get a cool-pad.

Shizelbs

I installed it last week on a machine I am going to use primarily as a media server. I really like it so far. Things might get interesting now that I have my internet connection back and can start downloading software. Will report back.

Systems

SKsolutions wrote: »

So you say it's similar to Server 2003 and 2008 is coming out soon. Vista SP1, is supposed to get some of those goodies too, like VM tunneling and such. My question is this. Why run "virtually Server 2003" software on client or average Joe computers? It's a senseless upgrade, and quite a few are backgrading to XP. I was very happy to try it because hyped to have better energy management. What a joke that turned out to be. Twice the memory, twice the load, half the battery time. Even after disabling Shadow copy.

I'm not bashing it or you, but average users don't need all that crap on their personal machine. . . and the only people that I know that still use it are those that don't know how to reinstall XP.

Most of the "bloat" people attribute to Windows is due to the fact that its a multi function OS, meaning that there’s an entire side of Windows that 99% of users have no idea about. All the stuff that backs it up as the standard for business use with active directories. But the skinny on that stuff is that its a part of the OS and yet like most features, they aren’t even enabled unless you choose to enable them. People complain about bloat on Windows and its stuff that s not even running or installed most the time and therefore not even taking resources. I’m using Vista right now at work and there’s nothing on it that I feel is "bloatware".

That leaves the obvious (to people who know a lil about computers) increase of in ram system memory use that people would call “bloat”. Well, that’s ok since with Vista you break the 3 gig of ram limit in XP. I have an Exchange 2007 server now with 24 gigs of ram in it that at any one time keeps 11 gigs worth of Exchange system stores in ram. Vista is prepared for this unlike XP. Vista fundamentally runs programs in memory much better and stables the XP and the negative result of that is the need for more ram and utilized more available ram. My XP boxes averages 400 megs, my Vista box’s average 800 megs but when you have 8 gigs of ram on 8 core PC’s… would that matter… not at all. How about a few years after that when you have 32 gigs on your box with 32 cores and Vista… 800 megs aint gonna make a dent.

Sure it might bloat a machine with 2 gigs now but in 1 year when 8 gigs is common, people will darn danry be appreciating it.

Basically ever added feature that is forced “on” with Vista is a very important change for all users.

Systems

SKsolutions wrote: »

It's pretty, but if you like to be unplugged, keep your old copy of XP, or buy a few more batteries. Vista KILLS the battery. The lifespan of all your hardware may be shorter as well. Heat kills laptops, and Vista will keep you warm this winter! I'd keep it in low gear (Max Battery or Laptop) mode, disable areo and Shadow copy if you don't want Vista to be running behind the scenes all the time. If you use it a lot, or plan on gaming, I'd also get a cool-pad.

More so, you need to disable superfetch and Indexing. Those 2 are the power killers since they will spend a lot of time on your hard disk. But o nthe flip side, these 2 things do radically speed up Vista (over say XP).. they really do but they are hard on your PC at times when the box is left idol.

MSALLA

I have vista home prem. . I like the software but it seems slower then my older dell with xp pro. I have a new laptop with the amd 1.6 64x2 turion but with only 1 gig of ram. I'm upgrading to 2 gigs, then I'll see how it works.

ben62670

Silverti wrote: »

Most of the "bloat" people attribute to Windows is due to the fact that its a multi function OS, meaning that there’s an entire side of Windows that 99% of users have no idea about. All the stuff that backs it up as the standard for business use with active directories. But the skinny on that stuff is that its a part of the OS and yet like most features, they aren’t even enabled unless you choose to enable them. People complain about bloat on Windows and its stuff that s not even running or installed most the time and therefore not even taking resources. I’m using Vista right now at work and there’s nothing on it that I feel is "bloatware".

That leaves the obvious (to people who know a lil about computers) increase of in ram system memory use that people would call “bloat”. Well, that’s ok since with Vista you break the 3 gig of ram limit in XP. I have an Exchange 2007 server now with 24 gigs of ram in it that at any one time keeps 11 gigs worth of Exchange system stores in ram. Vista is prepared for this unlike XP. Vista fundamentally runs programs in memory much better and stables the XP and the negative result of that is the need for more ram and utilized more available ram. My XP boxes averages 400 megs, my Vista box’s average 800 megs but when you have 8 gigs of ram on 8 core PC’s… would that matter… not at all. How about a few years after that when you have 32 gigs on your box with 32 cores and Vista… 800 megs aint gonna make a dent.

Sure it might bloat a machine with 2 gigs now but in 1 year when 8 gigs is common, people will darn danry be appreciating it.

Basically ever added feature that is forced “on” with Vista is a very important change for all users.

Vista 32 bit only handles ram like XP 32 bit.
Do a fresh install of XP, and a fresh install of vista.
XP kicks its butt all over the place. Am I saying never upgrade to Vista? No. But don't do it unless you have to. Vista does nothing XP doesn't do for 99% of users. I have 2 gigs of ram running at 1066, and a Quad core running at 3ghz. My HD's are running way more than they need to. IF I didn't game with DX10, and own a computer repair business I would not use Vista. Now when apps finally start coming out designed to run 64 bit, and your OS is 64 bit, and you have your 8 gigs yeah. Until then it is eye candy that still has many driver issues.

ben62670

Silverti wrote: »

More so, you need to disable superfetch and Indexing. Those 2 are the power killers since they will spend a lot of time on your hard disk. But o nthe flip side, these 2 things do radically speed up Vista (over say XP).. they really do but they are hard on your PC at times when the box is left idol.

Superfetch plus ready boost is used when you plug in something like a thumb drive. Thumb drive memory verses ram is way slower. For the price of a large thumb I would just get the ram. Vista users should shoot for 3 gigs. As for indexing I have not played with it. I have 2 raptors striped, and 2 250 Seagate's striped HD speed is pretty good. Yes I do backup all the important data to a singe 500 gig. Beware of raid 0!

mantis

Vista Sucks the ding ding. So does PC for that matter .

Once you go Mac you don't go back. I now am the Proud owner of 2 mac computers. Both are running Leopard and I couldn't be happier. No glitches, no problems no popups no nothing except it does exaclty what it is suppost to do.

Mac.....everything you need and nothing you don't

Systems

mantis wrote: »

Vista Sucks the ding ding. So does PC for that matter .

Once you go Mac you don't go back. I now am the Proud owner of 2 mac computers. Both are running Leopard and I couldn't be happier. No glitches, no problems no popups no nothing except it does exaclty what it is suppost to do.

Mac.....everything you need and nothing you don't

This is the perfect page for mac users:

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=macs_cant


I love that you say PC's suck... which is funny because I noted that Macs got a lot better when THEY BECAME PC'S. the only difference between a Mac and a PC is whether they have Vista or Leppard installed period. They are the exact same piece of hardware.

Systems

ben62670 wrote: »

Superfetch plus ready boost is used when you plug in something like a thumb drive. Thumb drive memory verses ram is way slower. For the price of a large thumb I would just get the ram. Vista users should shoot for 3 gigs. As for indexing I have not played with it. I have 2 raptors striped, and 2 250 Seagate's striped HD speed is pretty good. Yes I do backup all the important data to a singe 500 gig. Beware of raid 0!

I think you have them confused a bit, Ready Boost is the feature of memory sticks. Specifically its used to cache hard drive items in the memory stick in a RAM like manor, not as a ram replacement. Technically its extending your limited RAM. Very useful on systems with 2 or less gigs of ram). Read up on Toms hardware about it, in their tests it made a pretty damn good improvement in system performance. I have tested 4 gig sticks on my Vista laptops at work and it really does work great. It has a lot of chatter on it when you first fire up Vista but is awesome after that.


http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/31/windows-vista-superfetch-and-readyboostanalyzed/


Superfetch is one of the reasons Vista needs more ram and uses more ram, heres what Toms says:



"SuperFetch, The

mantis

Silverti wrote: »

This is the perfect page for mac users:

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=macs_cant


I love that you say PC's suck... which is funny because I noted that Macs got a lot better when THEY BECAME PC'S. the only difference between a Mac and a PC is whether they have Vista or Leppard installed period. They are the exact same piece of hardware.

Exaclty the problem. Windows man. How many pop ups have you had today?? How many hours do you spend fixing your computer? How many times a day do you have to clean the damn thing out.

Look dude I have owned PC since the 90's way back 486 machines. I still own windows 3.1 on floppy. I grew with all windows like 95, 98 , ME, 200 and XP. Vista is a total disaster as I have several customers, friends and family memebers who all own Vista machines and have nothing but problems. Most of them switched back to XP , and alot switched to Mac.

I like mac because since I had my first one, I have had to fix nothing. I just works. It just turns on and goes then turns off when I want it to. I like that. I also like everything it does and how it does. Sure I miss some of the way windows works hell I grew up on them but Mac OS x just works better. When I can sit in front of my computer or my wife son and daughter can without asking me to help them fix this and get rid of that, I'm a happier person.

MAC FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ben62670

Want to make your computer free some ram?
GOTO
programs
accessories
run
msconfig
under services turn off superfetch.
It is a nice idea, but in reality if you game of use large programs it dogs your computer big time. If you don't like it you can re enable it! Look at your free ram before, and after disabling superfetch.
If superfetch is enabled it has to juggle the ram with the Hd way to much.
Try it both ways. If you play different games, or run large programs you will like superfetch disabled. If all you do is the same thing day in day out superfetch may be right up your ally.
For me it is off. Games, and maps load much better than before. I have 2 gigs, and I am allays left with like 6 to 20 megs.

Systems

mantis wrote: »

Exaclty the problem. Windows man. How many pop ups have you had today?? How many hours do you spend fixing your computer? How many times a day do you have to clean the damn thing out.

Look dude I have owned PC since the 90's way back 486 machines. I still own windows 3.1 on floppy. I grew with all windows like 95, 98 , ME, 200 and XP. Vista is a total disaster as I have several customers, friends and family memebers who all own Vista machines and have nothing but problems. Most of them switched back to XP , and alot switched to Mac.

I like mac because since I had my first one, I have had to fix nothing. I just works. It just turns on and goes then turns off when I want it to. I like that. I also like everything it does and how it does. Sure I miss some of the way windows works hell I grew up on them but Mac OS x just works better. When I can sit in front of my computer or my wife son and daughter can without asking me to help them fix this and get rid of that, I'm a happier person.

MAC FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What I see you doing is spiting out the mac propaganda and marketing. Fear of PC's and Windows that just don’t exist for 95% of the people that use the systems and know how to use them. That’s why 5% of the users own Macs.

I’ve been in the IT industry for 20 years. I’m not buying it.

There’s a reason why Mac's have had 2% of the traditional marketing share up to this point. Mac's didn’t hold 2% of the share because they were a "better" product.



I watched a special on the international space station the other day on Discovery. The first HD live broadcast form the space station. It was AMAZING. They panned around and talked about a bunch of systems.

The Space stations have laptops secured around it to monitor everything… Every single one was Windows XP… NASA must trust the stability of a PC.

hearingimpared

He's always right don't ya know!

ben62670

XP has proven itself as a stable OS. It is the best out there. I used to play with Linux, and Macs, but since the release of Service pac1 XP has proven itself. When Vista gets dialed in it should be much more user friendly, but for now XP is the best going. You can argue about Macs, and Linux being nearly virus free, but virus writers write viruses to attack as many machines as possible. Thats why Macs, and Linux have many less issues with viruses. Linux makes for great internet servers, and Macs are used in graphical design still just because that has been the industry standard for a long time.

Systems

hearingimpared wrote: »

He's always right don't ya know!

^^ It’s good to know you still think about me. Love your sig, reminds me that I’m dealing with a middle aged retired guy even though I feel like I’m being trolled by a mad 13 year old off the World of Warcraft forums.

hearingimpared

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!

Shizelbs

Even my grandparents can use a Windows machine.

Bill Ayotte

Silverti wrote: »

I love that you say PC's suck... which is funny because I noted that Macs got a lot better when THEY BECAME PC'S. the only difference between a Mac and a PC is whether they have Vista or Leppard installed period. They are the exact same piece of hardware.

To me, the OS makes the machine....Leopard is one hell of an OS, while vista can lick the underside of my beanbag after a run. I have heard almost nothing positive about upgrading from XP...Hell, most people are going back to it. At the very least, Apple actually tests their software before they unleash it to the public. It seems to me that Microsoft uses the public to sort out their issues, while apple actually tests theirs...

Systems

Bill Ayotte wrote: »

To me, the OS makes the machine....Leopard is one hell of an OS, while vista can lick the underside of my beanbag after a run. I have heard almost nothing positive about upgrading from XP...Hell, most people are going back to it. At the very least, Apple actually tests their software before they unleash it to the public. It seems to me that Microsoft uses the public to sort out their issues, while apple actually tests theirs...

While I fully understand that you continue to instigate things (passive aggressive I must say) with me in threads Ill still respond.

Really, I’ve heard that regurgitated Apple (and Linux) marketing many times.

Vulnerabilities first 90 days (estimate pulled from chart):

Vista: 8
XP: 20
RHEL4WS: 200
Ubuntu: 100
Novell SLED10: 110
Moc OSx 10.4: 40


Strait up statistics don’t lie. I don’t have time to google the 1 year results I saw a few months back but it was even in greater favor of Vista.

Bill Ayotte

Silverti wrote: »

While I fully understand that you continue to instigate things (passive aggressive I must say) with me in threads Ill still respond.

WTF is this about? I am just sharing what I have come across.....If you happen to disagree, woop-dee-do....Constructive disagreement/opinions are what make this forum...This is what I was refering to in the other thread....You feel the need to instigate conflict. Have fun with that.:)

fatchowmein

Vista is a behemoth. It is a 900lb gorilla that knows Judo, Tai-Chi, Karate, Tae Kwon Do, and kickboxing. It takes XP, Windows Media Center, and Windows Server 2003 and rolls it all into one large package. If you have a multi-processor system with tons of memory, this gorilla will move like Devin Hester on a punt return. If you have an older system with less than 2GB of RAM, you're not going anywhere.

If all you want to do is surf the 'Net and use MS Office products, XP is perfect for you.

Whateverer

Over all I'm happy with it. I wouldn't pay full retail for it (I got it as a free upgrade with a computer).

It has its problems and while it could and should have been much more its no worse IMO then XP.

Shizelbs

So far so good.

Serendipity

fatchowmein wrote: »

Vista is a behemoth. It is a 900lb gorilla that knows Judo, Tai-Chi, Karate, Tae Kwon Do, and kickboxing. It takes XP, Windows Media Center, and Windows Server 2003 and rolls it all into one large package. If you have a multi-processor system with tons of memory, this gorilla will move like Devin Hester on a punt return. If you have an older system with less than 2GB of RAM, you're not going anywhere.

If all you want to do is surf the 'Net and use MS Office products, XP is perfect for you.

So true. With less than 2GB of RAM, you just wonder "is this computer ever going to finish starting up" - and thats with no programs installed and many services (such as indexing) disabled.

Whateverer

I see there has been a mac vs PC thing going on.

If all we had where mac's the PC market would be in a very bad place. Just think of all the different manufacturers that wouldn't exist. All the many many companies that make enthusiast products. There would be no competition. If mac's and OSX just didn't exist the computer market would be fine but I cant say the same thing if it where the other way around.

Sure mac's and OSX are nice but I want more from my computer. I want to upgrade at my will and have a choice. I also build my systems, Something you just can't really do with OSX.

Windows has its problems, OSX has its problems. It just depends on what you want from your system and what you want to do. With a PC there are just so many more possibilities.

As far as just a OS standpoint I find it idiotic to in any even choose OSX over linux *at this point in time*. Sure a few years ago and before you had to be a major geek to deal with it and use linux but it just isn't so anymore. There are plenty of great programs for anything you need and great easy to work with distros.

Systems

Dont foget that Mac OSx is pretty much a highly altered version of Unix at its core. Apple is pretty much showing what can be done with Linux if done right.

hypertone

Ubuntu is done right. It's easier than OSX and is designed properly. OSX seems to be pretty odd when it comes to the terminal, it's kind of a hack job if you ask me. I don't consider OSX "done right", but it does have good commercial software which is lacking in Linux.