Windows Vista Blows.......

[Rodp]

Originally Posted by atec77

http:\\www.mepis.org
down load and boot from the cd then use , if you like it then install , it wont play a few games but other wise it's excellent , good luck

Took your recommendation, couldn't even boot from the latest CD even though there seemed to be a selection for my specific motherboard to do so.

Mark down another Linux distribution that can't install on a pretty bland machine.

[Quasi]

Originally Posted by sfr rob

Can I download LINUX? I have heard heaps about it but dont know what its all about.. Can I use it in place of Windows?

We'll look forward to another thread then....complaining about how Linux is not user friendly, when you find that you have trouble with video and other drivers, and not being able to run certain programs (or even install them).

Although I know what people mean when they say stepping up (and yes, despite the bullshit spread about it Vista is a step up) is like going from W2k to Xp...but it isn't. There is very little if anything in common with XP.

Some applications (such as printer software and scanner applications) aren't compatible with Vista. You can blame the other developers and manufacturers for this, as they are responsible for ensuring their products run under the operating environment, and didn't see the necessity to work with Microsoft on this.

It is impossible for a software company such as Microsoft to come up with advancements in Windows versions if they are expected to code it so that it is purely Windows XP with different window dressing.

I've been running Vista Ultimate since Beta1 (then RC1, and then the full release). After making sure I was aware of what I had that wasn't compatible I have had no issues and runs sweet on my 3 month old laptop.

USE the web for more than surfing car forums, and research updated drivers and program patches from hardware and software companies in order to make sure you can do what you want to do on your new PC......

.....remember one thing too........WinXP copped exactly the same crap at release for the same reasons, but once everybody updated drivers and patches it became the normal thing to run.

[robs_ls1]

Originally Posted by Quasi

It is impossible for a software company such as Microsoft to come up with advancements in Windows versions if they are expected to code it so that it is purely Windows XP with different window dressing.

Come on man. You know it's still DOS at it's core. If you don't believe me, open a terminal window (Start -> Run -> cmd) and run the 'mem' command.

There you go. Straight from the horse's mouth. After all these years, it's still just DOS with a fancy tablecloth on it.

Originally Posted by Quasi

I've been running Vista Ultimate since Beta1 (then RC1, and then the full release). After making sure I was aware of what I had that wasn't compatible I have had no issues and runs sweet on my 3 month old laptop.

It seems that the people who aren't having problems with Vista aren't really 'heavy' users. Anyone who tries to do any sort of CAD work seems to strike problems, as does anyone who is into the latest 3D FPS type games.

As with XP when it was first released, the best thing you can do is to wait 12 to 18 months until the hardware manufacturers catch up if you want a fully functional system.

[johnydep]

Originally Posted by Tawmit

golden rule wait 12 months on anything microsoft releases.

:hihi: After the XP experience I'd have to agree :

I was one of the first to get XP, eventually ran it on all my PC's at home & work.

Had no real problems, but the amount of updates & then Service Pack 1 in such an early stage made me realise - wait when future Windows OS is realesed.

I hear that Vista has already had security scares :

[Daniel]

I'm running it on my PC and my Laptop; both work 100% for me, had some software issues, but nothing I needed with Vista anyhow so all in all I'm happy with it.
And it does have some good new features, which are easy to get used to!
Best money I never spent, it was free haha.

[Sourbastard]

Originally Posted by sfr rob

Big Dirty Thumbs Down to Windows Vista.
I find it annoying, hard to keep track of where you are when exploring your system, I manage to crash it every time i use it, and i have the latest top of the line Dell Desktop with more than enough to cope with the huge software size and req, and that is not running multiple APP's even!

Can i revert back to XP?
I didnt get an XP CD with my last computer, but a system recovery one with it on it, it is also a DELL, but a laptop.
Windows Vista is NOT use friendly like i was lead to believe! : : :yeees:

Anything i can do, should I call Dell and ask them to send me out another operating system... one that works smoothly?

I hate to say we told you so but.... we did :P

[Jeeepers]

Originally Posted by ORSM T

A shame some of you folks are having issues with Vista, I have had nothing that can't be swiftly sorted. Still waiting on a full release driver for my sound card, but the beta is working fine. TV card is the only major driver hassle, but works fine using Media Center instead of the supplied software. Although Vista packaged with new PC's is a little headache at times, that coming from a PC builder that I know. I personally prefer to build my own and run with it, rather than buying a branded system. That way you know what you have got.

The Dvico tuner card driver and software has now been released that fully supports Vista. All issues fixed. Just waiting on the Audigy 2 ZS drivers now, though the beta ones work fine. This OS is fine IMO.

[Rodp]

Originally Posted by robs_ls1

Come on man. You know it's still DOS at it's core. If you don't believe me, open a terminal window (Start -> Run -> cmd) and run the 'mem' command.

There you go. Straight from the horse's mouth. After all these years, it's still just DOS with a fancy tablecloth on it.

You don't actually believe that, do you?

[Hunter]

Vista is a big piece of excrement. Its slow, bloated and doesn't add anything useful to your 'pc experience' (I think I had one of those last night in bed).

We're running XP on virtually all the of workstations here at work but they have now started investigating Vista and preparing for its deployment

I'm considering being immature and referring to it as 'Pista'.

[Jeeepers]

Originally Posted by Hunter

Vista is a big piece of excrement. Its slow, bloated and doesn't add anything useful to your 'pc experience' (I think I had one of those last night in bed).

We're running XP on virtually all the of workstations here at work but they have now started investigating Vista and preparing for its deployment

I'm considering being immature and referring to it as 'Pista'.

It's only slow if your machine is, and has many useful tools for pc experience. I honestly don't understand why so many bag it, without adding reference to why. Turns a valid discussion into a slanging match, which then increases the workload for mods/admins.

[Hunter]

No, I have seen it turn new, 'certified' Vista 'Capable' and new machines running Vista performing woefully. Its idle memory usage sits around 400 Mbyte - and that's with a number of options and services disabled! Laptops are going to probably suffer worst with Vista - most of them still ship with 5400 RPM drives. There are a few that have 7200 RPM drives but the fast the hard drive, the more power it will use (thus reducing battery life) and generally, 7200 RPM laptop drives are considerably more expensive than their slower counterparts.

Add that onto the fact that Vista requires a fairly grunty video card (which also draws additional power) and you are going to see laptops either increase in size or reduce in battery capacity. The ultra-portables will probably need a specialised version or a lot of tweaking to be able to run Vista at an acceptable speed (and acceptable >= how fast XP runs. If it runs slower than XP, what's the point in paying all that money to upgrade??).

[EA2BA]

I am going out on a limb here to say that people you bag Vista are users, and those saying its not so bad and fairly impressed with it are Geeks/IT people.

[Hunter]

I'm an IT person, and I'm not impressed. It isn't going to do much, if anything, for productivity - introducing more distractions and forcing users to buy expensive, unnecessary hardware for business usage is ridiculous.

Setting aside the cost of all this new hardware to run Vista, what about the additional power requirements? Your average office PC consumes far less than what a beasty gaming rig would ever hope to. Multiply that by the thousands of PCs that a large organisation often have and you will see power consumption increase significantly. Our dept. alone has 500 PCs and its going to cost a mint to deploy hardware capable of running vista at an acceptable speed.

[EA2BA]

Hunter are talking about premium or basic version, so far I see no use of basic version for any application.

[Quasi]

Originally Posted by EA2BA

I am going out on a limb here to say that people you bag Vista are users, and those saying its not so bad and fairly impressed with it are Geeks/IT people.

What gives you that idea ;)

[ON_DUBS]

only reason to upgrade to vista is dx10, otherwise what can it offer you that xp doesn't?

[Hunter]

Originally Posted by EA2BA

Hunter are talking about premium or basic version, so far I see no use of basic version for any application.

Well, my understanding so far is that businesses are 'meant' to use either the 'Business' or 'Enterprise' editions. I don't think touching Vista would be a good idea for most business - it took a very long time for Windows 2000 to be taken up by businesses, and there's still a small, yet significant number of organisations still using Win2k. A lot of them have only just finished deploying XP in the past year. To me that suggests that Vista has a very long wait before it will be commonplace in a business/enterprise environment.

I just hope our desktop integration team researches this baby up the wazoo before unleashing it on us poor unsuspecting support staff.

[EA2BA]

Originally Posted by Quasi

What gives you that idea ;)

well geeks/it people can fix most problems/issues without much fuss and don't think much of it. Where users well are users it works or the world is ending.

[murrayallstar]

Im a computer system builder / reseller. Personally we arnt selly that many machine with vista cause there is little support at this stage. We are build a dew gaming few gaming pcs to take full effect with dx10 ut apart from that its not offer anything special for business users execpt causing headackes

[johnydep]

Originally Posted by Hunter

I'm an IT person, and I'm not impressed. It isn't going to do much, if anything, for productivity - introducing more distractions and forcing users to buy expensive, unnecessary hardware for business usage is ridiculous.

Setting aside the cost of all this new hardware to run Vista, what about the additional power requirements? Your average office PC consumes far less than what a beasty gaming rig would ever hope to. Multiply that by the thousands of PCs that a large organisation often have and you will see power consumption increase significantly. Our dept. alone has 500 PCs and its going to cost a mint to deploy hardware capable of running vista at an acceptable speed.

Yes, I'm very disappointed & shocked with Microsoft thinking. World wide everyone is moving towards energy efficiency to save our enviroment & Microsoft comes out with the Vista tank :alien2:


Bloat + bloat = .....

[Rodp]

Originally Posted by Hunter

No, I have seen it turn new, 'certified' Vista 'Capable' and new machines running Vista performing woefully. Its idle memory usage sits around 400 Mbyte - and that's with a number of options and services disabled! Laptops are going to probably suffer worst with Vista - most of them still ship with 5400 RPM drives. There are a few that have 7200 RPM drives but the fast the hard drive, the more power it will use (thus reducing battery life) and generally, 7200 RPM laptop drives are considerably more expensive than their slower counterparts.

Add that onto the fact that Vista requires a fairly grunty video card (which also draws additional power) and you are going to see laptops either increase in size or reduce in battery capacity. The ultra-portables will probably need a specialised version or a lot of tweaking to be able to run Vista at an acceptable speed (and acceptable >= how fast XP runs. If it runs slower than XP, what's the point in paying all that money to upgrade??).

For corporate right now? Hard to say. Depends on whether the security features are worth it. I adore the search feature on the start bar and my XP machine was slain by a virus about 2 weeks ago and my Vista machine seemingly repelled it. If I was in an IT dept, I'd certainly not roll it out to any large degree until it matured a lot more.

You're going to have to explain a few things to me though;

Why does it specifically need a faster hard drive? I had it boot off a USB1 device which was a 5400rpm drive powered through USB and I/O certainly wasn't an issue.

Unless you're running aero (and it's just fancy schmancy graphics) why would you need a grunty video card, it's not neccessary on a corporate desktop.

My machine uses a lot less than 400MB at idle and I haven't stopped any services yet, are you running any 3rd party stuff or stuff at boot?

I certainly can't predict how well it'll be accepted on the corporate desktop but I'm not quite sure your justifications (apart from the difference in speed) are the reasons why it probably won't be accepted.

[robs_ls1]

Originally Posted by Rodp

You don't actually believe that, do you?

Did you run the 'mem' command? Because that spells it out pretty clearly...

What more proof do you need? it:

[robs_ls1]

Originally Posted by Rodp

Why does it specifically need a faster hard drive?

It wouldn't if it used anything resembling a modern filesystem. NTFS was originally a 16 bit filesystem. It has been extended, patched and extended again. How much longer will the duct tape hold?

[Jeeepers]

Originally Posted by EA2BA

I am going out on a limb here to say that people you bag Vista are users, and those saying its not so bad and fairly impressed with it are Geeks/IT people.

I use Vista, and drive a B double for a living. Have year 9 schooling, and have built my last 3 systems. You either click with technology, or you don't. But it doesn't mean Vista is crap. It's weighty, but you can't have both worlds (Power and Looks) unless you have a ford... LOL

[Rodp]

Originally Posted by FAIRMONT4.0

only reason to upgrade to vista is dx10, otherwise what can it offer you that xp doesn't?

You could literally sit there all day and read reams of lists of things new to Vista. Google is your friend.

4 things I'm interested in.

DX10.

The new security model. Likely will be compromised pretty quickly but I live in hope.

Superfetch, likely a gimmick but looks promising.

Readyboost, tried it and it works very well.

Don't confuse your reasons why you would upgrade to Vista with others. There are many secondary reasons why I installed Vista but they're way too nerdy to bother about here. Besides, my copy of Vista was free. If I had to pay for it then I'd probably be repairing my XP partition as we speak. ;)

[Jeeepers]

Originally Posted by robs_ls1

Did you run the 'mem' command? Because that spells it out pretty clearly...

What more proof do you need? it:

Run a dos game, then tell me it's dos.... It's a dos emulator.

[johnydep]

Originally Posted by robs_ls1

It wouldn't if it used anything resembling a modern filesystem. NTFS was originally a 16 bit filesystem. It has been extended, patched and extended again. How much longer will the duct tape hold?

Damn, I thought the file system was going to be totaly new :

[Sourbastard]

Originally Posted by EA2BA

well geeks/it people can fix most problems/issues without much fuss and don't think much of it. Where users well are users it works or the world is ending.

You mean Geeks with no jobs, no lives, no partners, live in a dark cave and eat microwave nachos every night, yes they have the time to fix it.

Those of us who actually work in the IT industry think a little differently. When I roll out 100 new desktops, I dont have time to sit and hold hands with the users and fix every problem, quirk, error message and general fault that Vista farts out on an hourly basis. I need it to work, NOW, not after a memory upgrade, not after waiting 6 weeks for a patch, not after spending 5 hours trying to nail some bizarre registry problem. NOW NOW NOW. It ****es off the users, it ****es me off, and that leads to reprisal killings in the microsoft carpark.

We will be sticking with XP for a long time yet.

[Rodp]

Originally Posted by robs_ls1

Did you run the 'mem' command? Because that spells it out pretty clearly...

What more proof do you need? it:

So you actually are serious? Wow. If you're not, you got me. If you are, what rock have you been hiding under?

You mean, it's not a possibility that it's an emulated DOS shell there specifically to run legacy DOS apps that don't support Vista's memory model?

Open a command shell, type mem /c
Open a second command shell, type mem /c (and just ignore for a moment that even though you're running a second command shell now, the mem /c output is exactly identical to the first)
In the first shell run edit
In the second command shell, type mem /c.

Woops, there goes your argument.

[Rodp]

Originally Posted by robs_ls1

It wouldn't if it used anything resembling a modern filesystem. NTFS was originally a 16 bit filesystem. It has been extended, patched and extended again. How much longer will the duct tape hold?

Do you have a source for your information or are you making an assumption?