30 Days with Vista @ [H]

I don't fault/blame the editor for writing the article...that's his ( 1 person's ) experience with it, be it good or bad

I have legit corporate keys for both XP and Vista (64 bit)...and as someone who's running both OS's current (dual boot)...in my opinion, vista's horrible...be it drivers, or whatever else, I don't like it, but for some reason I keep going back to it (4th install was last night actually...haha since I got the key 4 month ago)...the eye candy and the fact that I feel it's the 'next-gen' OS (dx10) just draws me to it, I install it hoping this time will be better, and that whatever driver issue is fixed, hate it, go back to XP...4rd time now, like clockwork...I'll learn eventually...I am just always hoping the drivers have improved

my main issue with it, is that for whatever reason my games run like CRAP on it...GTR2 runs choppy, even though the frame rate does not show it...weird I tell ya, I even went as far as benching it with FRAPS and comparing it to XP...they're about the same, but it's unplayable in vista, and BF2 hickups every 30 seconds or so for about a second...it's just unplayable

i am sticking with XP and gonna keep my eye on vista...I have a buddy with an almost identical system, and he's been running vista for 4 month now (he gave me the key) and he loves it and has had 0 issues with it...but then again, he doesnt play bf2 or GTR2.

take it as you will...we can all decide for ourselves based on our experiences...

outside of games, it runs fine...but frankly, if I didn't game...I'd be running a flavor of linux on this box

and it's not my machine...the one I am installing it on is in my sig, it's a decent rig
 
Leb_CRX said:
my main issue with it, is that for whatever reason my games run like CRAP on it...GTR2 runs choppy, even though the frame rate does not show it...weird I tell ya, I even went as far as benching it with FRAPS and comparing it to XP...they're about the same, but it's unplayable in vista, and BF2 hickups every 30 seconds or so for about a second...it's just unplayable
Click to expand...

I dont know what you are talking about because GTR2 runs fine here on Vista Ultimate

everything MAX Visuals and MAX Racers.. even with WOW running in the background
 
EvilNando said:
I dont know what you are talking about because GTR2 runs fine here on Vista Ultimate

everything MAX Visuals and MAX Racers.. even with WOW running in the background
Click to expand...

dude, thats the whole point, we clearly all have a different experience with it, for some people it appears the shit is fine, for some people it's not...I'm part of the not pile
 
EvilNando said:
I dont know what you are talking about because GTR2 runs fine here on Vista Ultimate

everything MAX Visuals and MAX Racers.. even with WOW running in the background
Click to expand...

The Vista GUI has grown on me, I prefer Vista Windows Explorer, I appreciated UAC, I don't even mind using the native Firewall now that I have enabled outbound filtering and created a whitelist. (I still miss Outpost on Vista though...). And you have to admit that Windows Start Search is a step in the right direction compared to XP.

In saying all that I do believe that Vista is not worth the 5 year wait from XP. However you have to appreciate that XP SP2 had a lot to do with that as MS had to pull coders into making SP2, and you have the US government to thank for leaning on MS to make SP2. And then you have the complete change of code base from XP/Longhorn to 2003/Vista and MS have had around 14 months to pull Vista out of the bag. You can thank MS shareholders leaning on MS to get Vista out of the door for the sorry state of Vista.

As a gaming platform XP wipes the floor with Vista. Certainly on all current and (I imagine) future DX9 games XP is THE platform the play PC games. Obviously we cannot comment on DX10 performance. I imagine that XP would thrash Vista on DX10 performance as well, and THAT is the real reason why they have decided not to make an XP DX10.
 
Apparently, Windows Vista stunts productivity more so than Windows XP.

Vista is taking body blows
’ve been on a bit of a blog and RSS hiatus the past couple of days and have been working my way through tales of destruction and distress (the 365 outage, not Lindsay Lohan’s latest episode), news, and views. In my reading, there’s a recurring theme that beats louder all the time. People are just not loving Vista.

James Fallows, one of my all-time favorite columnists, just wrote that he’s going back to XP. Valleywag, (almost) always amusing, albeit at the expense of accuracy from time to time, reports that the official release of SP1 for Vista appears to be slated for a 2009 release. And David Berlind really nails it in his discussion about the way the world is changing around Microsoft when he writes:

Today, I’m a user of both Windows XP and Windows Vista and while I remain convinced that Vista is a better OS than XP, my usage of XP serves as a constant reminder that when it comes to getting my work done, I’m not getting it done any faster or better in Vista. In fact, because of the way several things have been moved around in Vista, and because of the way Internet Explorer 7, in an effort to protect us from ourselves, locks up the Web in a chastity belt, I often find myself being slowed down by Vista. It may only be a matter of time before I get used to it (and figure out how to reconfigure IE7 with the necessary wiggle room). But the bottom line is that (a) I’m definitely not more productive and (b) if I finally get to a point where I am more productive, it won’t be by much.

Nothing I’ve read (or written) sums it all up quite as well as this paragraph. I like Vista for a lot of reasons. The visual appearance is great. The new bells and whistles (the sidebar and gadgets, integration of RSS, and built-in productivity apps like Calendar and Contacts for example) are very nice although such things have been available long before Vista on both XP, some via third parties, and on the Mac and Linux. But when it comes to actually getting things done, Vista feels like it’s getting in my way far more often than XP or the Mac OS (both of which I continue to use daily).

Having left the world of full-time gainful employment for the juggling career that is independent writing and consulting, productivity is my paramount concern. I have too many projects running concurrently to put up with an OS that creates stumbling points or friction in my work. And based on my soon-to-be-patented curses-per-hour algorithm, Vista is anything but friction-free. I recently wrote about my frustrations with something as simple as using removable USB memory stick. Given that I do a fair amount of gadget and software testing, I can say with some authority that installing device drivers and applications is not easier or faster in Vista. and even basic things like hibernating, starting up, and shutting down feel like they take a lot longer than in XP.

The luster of shiny new-ness wears off quickly these days and I’m on the fence with Vista. While I’ll keep it on the Lenovo X61 Tablet PC for sure (the new Tablet bits in Vista are that good), I’m less certain about some of my other Windows-powered devices. I’m about ready, time permitting, to repartition the hard drive on the Asus R2H UMPC to set up a dual boot with XP because Vista is just so broken on that device in ways both large (overall performance) and small (too many modal dialogs that are too big for the native screen resolution).

I don’t think Microsoft can afford the pace they’re setting. Vista SP1 needs to be officially released sooner than 18 months from now. And Windows 7? I’m not even going to think about that for a while.
Click to expand...
 
^

Fair dinkum maks me sick to see how easily buffoons get gigs with major publishers. Bloke can't even Google, or talk to informed colleagues. SP1 in 18 months? Fucken thing is due before end of this year, in a few months time!
 
Catweazle said:
^

Fair dinkum maks me sick to see how easily buffoons get gigs with major publishers. Bloke can't even Google, or talk to informed colleagues. SP1 in 18 months? Fucken thing is due before end of this year, in a few months time!
Click to expand...

There's no way XP SP1 will be out in just a few month. You might be thinking that a beta version of it will be out by the end of the year. The 18-mo. estimate is accurate from what I last heard.

Here's a link that says the following:
The [Microsoft] spokeswoman would say only that the company plans to release a beta version of Windows Vista SP1 "sometime this year" but has yet to do so.
Click to expand...
 
beowulf7 said:
Apparently, Windows Vista stunts productivity more so than Windows XP.

Vista is taking body blows
Click to expand...

Vista stunts productivity, but the only examples he gives are IE7 (get Firefox), a usb drive (no problems with mine), and starting up/shutting down/hibernating (works just as good as xp for me, startup is actually better because the desktop is usable right away, I can open firefox within seconds of being on the desktop, in XP it stalled and usually had to wait like 30 seconds). He spits out a lot of words to say a whole lot of nothing. Plus, that's only one users opinion, there are likely a whole lot of people out there who say the exact opposite.
 
(I know many posts in this thread from Aug. 2007 were lost b/c of the DB failure. We'll just move on.)

For anyone interested, Microsoft will release SP1 for Windows Vista during the 1st quarter of 2008. We'll see if that holds true. Refer to the following article for more info.

'08 Release Set for Vista Update
Source: The Seattle Times
Publication date: 2007-08-30

By Benjamin J. Romano, Seattle Times

Aug. 30--Microsoft raised the curtain Wednesday on plans for an update to the Windows Vista operating system, as well as updates to its predecessor, Windows XP.

Vista Service Pack 1 will be broadly available sometime during the first three months of 2008. A test version is going out to a small audience in the next few weeks, said Shanen Boettcher, general manager of Windows product management. He declined to be more specific.

The timing of the release, which Microsoft would not talk about until now, is important to corporate IT departments evaluating or deploying the new Microsoft operating system. Other companies are waiting for the service pack to start the process of moving to Vista.

With SP1, Boettcher said, Microsoft is aiming to improve the quality of the product with specific improvements including: support for new hardware standards; changes to how Windows can be managed by IT departments; general reliability and security updates.

That's in contrast to the second service pack for Vista's predecessor, Windows XP, which was almost like a new operating system in itself. XP Service Pack 2 was released in August 2004.

"[Vista SP1] is not really a feature-rich delivery vehicle for us, so you're not going to see a lot of features or [user interface] changes in the product," Boettcher said.

Another change expected in SP1 -- which Boettcher didn't mention -- has to do with desktop search. In a dispute that spilled out in media leaks and court documents earlier this year, Google accused Microsoft of anti-competitive behavior because of the way Vista handled competing desktop search applications.

In a court filing in June, Microsoft pledged to change the feature so that competitors' products can be set as the default. The company pledged to make the changes as part of the first Vista service pack.

Also Wednesday, Microsoft pushed back its target for completing Windows Server 2008 to the first quarter of 2008 from the fourth quarter of this year. It cited quality issues but said the product's planned launch -- Feb. 27, 2008 -- remains unchanged.

Microsoft also announced timing for the third Windows XP service pack, though it's clearly not trumpeting this release. XP SP3 is due in test form in the next few weeks, Boettcher said, and should be finalized by the first half of 2008.

He said XP SP3 is "an end-of-life rollout for Windows XP" containing previous online updates and "small updates for hardware support."

Microsoft is trying to quickly move as many customers from XP to Vista, which was released to businesses Nov. 30 and broadly Jan. 30.

Benjamin J. Romano: [email protected]

-----

To see more of The Seattle Times, or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to http://www.seattletimes.com.

Copyright (c) 2007, Seattle Times

Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.

For reprints, email [email protected], call 800-374-7985 or 847-635-6550, send a fax to 847-635-6968, or write to The Permissions Group Inc., 1247 Milwaukee Ave., Suite 303, Glenview, IL 60025, USA.

NASDAQ-NMS:MSFT, NASDAQ-NMS:GOOG,
Click to expand...
 
Here's another reason why WGA that Windows Vista users are forced to use sucks.

On August 27, Microsoft shared a bit more information on the worldwide outage that affected Windows XP and Vista users attempting to prove they were running non-pirated versions of Windows using Microsoft’s Windows Genuine Advantage (WGA) system.

...

Microsoft officials say they are continuing to investigate how the outage occurred, as well as why someone on the support team inappropriately told users the outage wouldn’t be resolved until August 28. If the team already knows what happened, so far, it’s not saying.

Meanwhile, Windows users affected by the outage are asking some good questions:

* Why did Microsoft seemingly have no redundancy/backup WGA systems in place? Is it up to users to have their own WGA disaster recovery plans in case this kind of outage happens again?
* Why doesn’t Microsoft offer a WGA warning which states there might be a problem with Microsoft’s WGA system, rather than immediately assuming users are running counterfeit software when the WGA check fails?
* Should a single failure to validate via Microsoft’s WGA mechanism result in a user losing Aero, Windows Defender, etc.? Why not make these “punishments” take affect after two or three failures to validate? Shouldn’t innocence be presumed rather than guilt?
Click to expand...
 
Not only that BUT...

[URL="http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-579405-start-0-postdays-0-postorder-asc-highlight-.html"]Don't USe Vista in Lund Sweden.[/URL]
The fact that XP clients work AND Vista doesn't points to MS screwing with the TCP stack...

/me waits for the Vista funboi's to call out the Inquirer as not a news site....

There are reasons why it is recommended to wait for the first SP before going to a new MS operating system (unless you are an enthusiast). THIS is just one of the reasons for waiting with Vista,
 
eeyrjmr said:
Not only that BUT...

[URL="http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-579405-start-0-postdays-0-postorder-asc-highlight-.html"]Don't USe Vista in Lund Sweden.[/URL]
The fact that XP clients work AND Vista doesn't points to MS screwing with the TCP stack...

/me waits for the Vista funboi's to call out the Inquirer as not a news site....

There are reasons why it is recommended to wait for the first SP before going to a new MS operating system (unless you are an enthusiast). THIS is just one of the reasons for waiting with Vista,
Click to expand...

Inquirer isnt news site :rolleyes: - its site about rumors and speculations - just look at their articles (about 20% of them is truth :rolleyes:).
 
/me didn't have to wait long... :rolleyes:

did you read the link that the inquirer linked to (the paper)..

there are network issues with vista FACT, be it this, gigabit ethernet or loosing network performance when playing files in WMP
 
eeyrjmr said:
/me didn't have to wait long... :rolleyes:

did you read the link that the inquirer linked to (the paper)..

there are network issues with vista FACT, be it this, gigabit ethernet or loosing network performance when playing files in WMP
Click to expand...

I read that article and I think its not caused by problem in Vista (we also have Linux server similar to theirs but we DONT have any problems and I dont know anyone with such problem). I know that loosing network performance when playing files in WMP is design flaw but I also dont pretend that MS is responsible for avery problem on this planet :rolleyes::eek:
 
This is an entire town! and from the artical it says that Vista is requesting the IP in the wrong way so how can this not be a vista issue

Likewise there is the whole IPv6 issue with Vista if requesting an IP from a IPv4 DHCP server (this could be what is happening here)

if something works in everything BUT Vista, it has to be vista's problem simple maths&logic
 
And why have this problem only this town and not other users??? Why is (almost) everyone else fine? ;)
 
this is the only publically reported case like this. that doesn't mean it is the only case (again simple maths theory). Also you do not know their setup. It works for XP,Linux (assuming MAC) but not Vista...
Likewise alot of the ISP's in the UK were unable to support Vista at launch and a few still can't

so are you saying this problem isn't a Vista problem then and Vista doesn't have issues and is perfect and everyone should roll it out now cause SP1 won't do anything
 
As I said earlier - Vista have some problems but not as many as some people claim(or hope) like memory usage(free memory debate) drivers (mostly solved - and manufacturers are responsible for these problems not MS) etc.

btw. my Vista64 works much much better than XP and unlike Linux it also supports my HW(drivers for linux arent available at all).
 
Sgraffite said:
What do you mean by better?
Click to expand...

Everything is faster in Vista than in XP (both XP and Vista were clean install) and thanks to SuperFetch I´m not waiting 20-25 seconds (XP) to load some shit from HDD - it takes usualy about 3 sec. in Vista:)

My rig:
ASUS P5B-E
Q6600 @3.35Ghz
4GB RAM
HD2900XT
24" LCD
 
Rebel44 said:
Everything is faster in Vista than in XP (both XP and Vista were clean install) and thanks to SuperFetch I´m not waiting 20-25 seconds (XP) to load some shit from HDD - it takes usualy about 3 sec. in Vista:)

My rig:
ASUS P5B-E
Q6600 @3.35Ghz
4GB RAM
HD2900XT
24" LCD
Click to expand...

Ugh yuo hast some slow arse hd's.
 
Finn said:
Ugh yuo hast some slow arse hd's.
Click to expand...

My HDD is OK - Seagate 320GB 7200.10
That 20-25sec was for starting SupCom in other cases it was faster but compared to Vista it was still sloooooow:mad:

I hate Mircosoft but I love Vista64:eek::confused:;):D
 
Rebel44 said:
As I said earlier - Vista have some problems but not as many as some people claim(or hope) like memory usage(free memory debate) drivers (mostly solved - and manufacturers are responsible for these problems not MS) etc.

btw. my Vista64 works much much better than XP and unlike Linux it also supports my HW(drivers for linux arent available at all).
Click to expand...

some yes but quite a few todo with networking


like this: http://milw0rm.com/exploits/3926
exposing flaws in Vista's ARP handling

and several bugs in the udp ipv6-in-ipv4 tunnel auto-discovery
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=2007-1535
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=2006-6264

There was an Teredo DoS attack, but I can't find it anymore... I really like Vista and there strange bugs... There was a bug that ~10 <ovject /> tags crash ie7, ARP DoS, and the list of Vista security bugs on http://osvdb.org/ is constatly growing....
http://osvdb.org/searchdb.php?action=search_title&vuln_title=Vista&Search=Search
and thats only the results that have Vista in the title

and there are yokals to this forum that dress down those that recommend waiting for SP1 "cause SP1 isn't going todo anything worth waiting for". Well if I was incharge of an Operating System rollout within a company in light of all the networking bugs/DoS, remote exploits... that there is (which some may or may not experience cause every system is different) like hell would I be rolling Vista out until SP1 at the earliest
 
A friend of mine recently bought a Dell XPS, which came w/ Windows Vista Home Premium (he now calls it "Pissta"). He's really starting to dislike it (he wrote a laundry list of things when I asked) and is looking to "downgrade" to Windows XP Pro SP2.

Some of the things he cited are:
"Sidebar keeps dying, incompatibilities for my hacked SW, Sometimes the cpu runs up just opening IE (but not Firefox), when trying to move large files, or compressing files, it will hang for 30 sec before starting."
 
beowulf7 said:
Some of the things he cited are:
"Sidebar keeps dying, incompatibilities for my hacked SW, Sometimes the cpu runs up just opening IE (but not Firefox), when trying to move large files, or compressing files, it will hang for 30 sec before starting."
Click to expand...

SP1 beta definitely fixes the file transfer issued. I just installed SP1 beta today and so far every thing's well, knocking on wood.
 
rahavsmt said:
SP1 beta definitely fixes the file transfer issued. I just installed SP1 beta today and so far every thing's well, knocking on wood.
Click to expand...

SP1 needs to fix a lot of things to make Vista a worthwhile "upgrade". Good to see the beta version seems to be living up to the promise - so far.
 
Uh, the compatibility/reliability hotfixes should have cured the long transfer times...

~Ibrahim~
 
I hven't read all of the thread so I'll just relate my experience.

After some hardware issues I rebuilt my comp (Q6600, 8800GTS, Xfi Platinum, 2gb Ram, 80gb raptor, 36gb raptor, 2x300gb Maxtors, 1 external 750gb Seagate, 1 USB hub with wireless mouse.

I haven't touched Vista or really looked at it at all with the exception of helping setup one of the PCs at work. We are a MAC based ad agency. On my home comp I've used XP up until Friday when I installed Vista Ultimate x64..

Well Vista picked up and enabled most of my hardware. Had to install video and audio drivers. Installed chipset etc drivers to be safe.

The only problem i've had is with iTunes. When I start iTunes i get an error message saying it wasnt installed correctly and that i cant burn music or something. I assume thats a compatibility issue as a reinstall did nothing to change that.I keep all of my music on an external drive where I also keep the iTunes library. There was some time getting it to work because of Vistas retarded sub folders in the USER section. I guess the best corollary is User/GIGANTOID/ is the new My Documents except with added FAIL. On a new install i usually set XPs My Documents folder to a RAID or external away from the OS in case I need to reinstall. This has worked great bt it seems like I may need to change that in Vista some how. I guess I rambled a bit on that.

Anyway Steam works fine frame rates seem to be marginally bettr in Vista. I'm seeing a minimum 75 in TF:2. Adobe CS3 installed and worked without a problem. mIRC same. I even downloaded a copy of Acronis True Image Home and was able to back up vista and move it to another drive without issue. haven't installed Office 2007 yet. May or may not but I don't expect any issue.

I think the largest issues with Vista are useability. The constant nag screens to Ok things you're doing. The change in the My Documents handling. The way the Start bar handles the Programs list. The transparency for transparency's sake in the UI seems to have grown me.
 
Thanks for the report, GIGANTOID. Glad to hear Vista 64 is working well for you so far.

Does anyone know if any Fortune 500 companies have rolled out Windows Vista to all their computers yet? My company (Fortune 100) has just finally finished getting every user off Windows 95/98/ME and onto 2k or XP (vast majority on the latter). So I think it'll be a long time before we have Vista installed on every desktop. :D
 
For those running Windows Vista, here's an interesting article from techtarget.com on if you should keep IPv6 enabled or disable it. I believe the link requires a free login acct., so I'm copying and pasting it.

Disabling IPv6 in Windows Vista -- Pros and cons

By now, you have probably heard that Windows Vista features a dual stack, which allows it to run IPv4 and IPv6 simultaneously. Although Vista isn't the first Windows operating system to support IPv6 (I think Windows 2000 may have been the first), it is the first Windows OS to have IPv6 enabled by default.

The fact that IPv6 is enabled by default in Vista, combined with the notion that almost nobody is really using IPv6 (yet), raises the question: Why not just disable IPv6?

Why disable IPv6?

There are actually compelling arguments both for and against leaving IPv6 enabled. Let's start out by talking about some reasons for disabling IPv6. We all know that Windows Vista is a system resource hog. The IPv6 protocol consumes resources such as CPU time and system memory; it also consumes network bandwidth. Since the IPv6 protocol consumes system resources, and you may not even be using it, disabling the protocol seems like a no-brainer.

Conserving system resources is one possible reason for disabling the IPv6 protocol. Another is that disabling the IPv6 protocol may possibly increase the security of your system. At first, that statement probably sounds ludicrous. After all, IPv6 was specifically designed to overcome some of the security shortcomings of the IPv4 protocol. Even so, there is a law of computing that states that the larger the size of your code base, the greater the chance that the code will contain an exploitable security vulnerability. Adding an additional protocol to Windows increases the size of the Windows code base, which could potentially lead to security problems.

Keep in mind that at the time of this writing, I am not aware of any serious security problems specifically related to the IPv6 protocol in Windows Vista, but adding IPv6 to the mix does provide an additional method that a workstation can use to communicate across the network. It doesn't seem that farfetched to think that adding an extra protocol could potentially lead to security problems.

One more reason why you may want to disable the IPv6 protocol is that IPv6 is nothing like IPv4. The Windows Vista implementation of IPv6 is self configuring, but if the administrators in your company make a habit of monitoring network traffic, they will probably need additional training so that they can learn the anatomy of an IPv6 packet.

Why you should think twice before disabling IPv6

There are obviously some reasons why you might want to disable the IPv6 protocol, but Microsoft enabled the protocol by default in Windows Vista for a reason. In fact, IPv6 is not only enabled in Windows Vista, it is the preferred protocol. For example, if a Windows Vista workstation performs a DNS query, and the query returns an IPv4 address and an IPv6 address, Vista will use the IPv6 address every time.

This prompts the question: Why has Microsoft placed so much emphasis on IPv6 in Vista? I will be the first to admit that many of the reasons behind the IPv6 push are political. For example, the federal government has mandated that federal agencies make the transition to IPv6 by June 2008. Microsoft wants to sell software to the government, so why not offer an operating system in which IPv6 is already in place?

The reasons for including IPv6 go beyond politics, though. IPv6 offers the potential for better security than is available with IPv4, and the IPv6 protocol also overcomes the problem of a global shortage of IP addresses.

Of course, I still have not given you any compelling reasons for leaving the IPv6 protocol enabled, if you are not actually using it. The main reason for leaving IPv6 enabled is that some Vista features break when it is disabled.

The reason for this is that Vista includes a new discovery service that is dependent on the IPv6 protocol. For now, the discovery service is mostly involved in peer networking. To see why this is important, imagine an end user trying to set up an ad hoc network for the purpose of collaborating on a project, or even accessing a resource that is stored on another user's PC.

Although the current wireless networking technology makes creating ad hoc networks simple, name resolution has always been a bit problematic. In an ad hoc network, there is no DNS server that can resolve host names into IP addresses. The discovery service overcomes this problem, though, by allowing ad hoc network participants to identify themselves to other network users and to get the identities of the other network participants.

For the most part, you won't have to worry too much about the discovery service right now if your users do not form ad hoc networks, but the discovery service is also involved in identifying resources on corporate networks. Windows Vista is capable of browsing a corporate network without using the IPv6 protocol or the discovery service, but some hardware manufacturers are starting to create network devices, such as switches and routers, that will respond to multicast discovery packets. This means that when users browse the network, they may eventually be able to identify specific devices, such as routers and switches, in addition to other PCs on the network.

Conclusion

So should you disable the IPv6 protocol or leave it enabled? I think that the answer really depends on your individual needs. My personal feeling is that as long as your workstations are not strapped for resources and your network's bandwidth isn't saturated, you should leave IPv6 enabled. Even if you aren't really doing anything with IPv6 right now, I think it's a safe bet that IPv6 will be much more heavily used in the future -- especially after Windows Server 2008 is released.

About the author:

Brien M. Posey, MCSE, is a Microsoft Most Valuable Professional for his work with Windows 2000 Server and IIS. Brien has served as CIO for a nationwide chain of hospitals and was once in charge of IT security for Fort Knox. As a freelance technical writer, he has written for Microsoft, CNET, ZDNet, TechTarget, MSD2D, Relevant Technologies and other technology companies. You can visit Brien's personal Web site at www.brienposey.com.
 
beowulf7 said:
Thanks for the report, GIGANTOID. Glad to hear Vista 64 is working well for you so far.

Does anyone know if any Fortune 500 companies have rolled out Windows Vista to all their computers yet? My company (Fortune 100) has just finally finished getting every user off Windows 95/98/ME and onto 2k or XP (vast majority on the latter). So I think it'll be a long time before we have Vista installed on every desktop. :D
Click to expand...

You know, a lot of people use the fact that companies aren't jumping on Vista as proof that Vista must suck because of that. As you point out for your company, you're only now just rid of 95/98 desktops. My last company finally upgraded to XP from NT4 desktops last year as well. The fact that companies such as these haven't rolled out Vista is somehow proof positive that companies hate it? (not you Beowulf, just the media in general)

I have a few friends that, even though they have never even touched Vista, cling on to that as proof. Of course they never have worked in the IT field, never have been responsible for testing and rolling out hundreds, or thousands of PCs that need to work seemlessly with existing apps (many home grown) and hardware.

It's just not historically uncommon for companies to wait years before commiting to a new desktop.
 
griffinhart said:
You know, a lot of people use the fact that companies aren't jumping on Vista as proof that Vista must suck because of that. As you point out for your company, you're only now just rid of 95/98 desktops. My last company finally upgraded to XP from NT4 desktops last year as well. The fact that companies such as these haven't rolled out Vista is somehow proof positive that companies hate it? (not you Beowulf, just the media in general)

I have a few friends that, even though they have never even touched Vista, cling on to that as proof. Of course they never have worked in the IT field, never have been responsible for testing and rolling out hundreds, or thousands of PCs that need to work seemlessly with existing apps (many home grown) and hardware.

It's just not historically uncommon for companies to wait years before commiting to a new desktop.
Click to expand...
Yes, it seems like companies usually wait a full OS cycle (~4-5 yrs.) before they completely transition the vast majority or all of their users from one OS to another.

Windows XP came out in 2001, if memory serves me right. (And Windows 2k, despite its name, I believe was out in 1999). I'm trying to recall when I first got a Windows XP computer at work. It was probably around 2003. That laptop replaced an older Windows 2k laptop. So maybe I'll get a Windows Vista laptop in 2009. I don't necessarily care about "upgrading" from XP to Vista. But I would like 2 GB RAM and a dual-core processor that many new laptops now have (compared to my 1 GB RAM and single core CPU).
 
It's not historically uncommon yes but Vista is an absolute nightmare in business enviroment as it is. It breaks two things: Existing apps and NERVES.
 
Vista, the walking dead of the operating system world

Vista has turned into the desktop operating system no one wants, and even Microsoft is beginning to get it. Today, I think of Vista as the zombie operating system. It stumbles around, and from a distance you might think it’s alive, but close up it’s the walking dead.

Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols, Night of the Living Vista

Stephen writes: There are many reasons why Vista is doing the zombie stumble. Microsoft has and continues to mislead customers about how much PC is really needed to run Vista. Even some of Windows’ most loyal users are finding that its poor performance, lousy software support and pathetic driver support is too much to stomach. And, last but never ever least, if XP isn’t broke, why “fix” it with Vista?

Now you might think some of this is legacy backlash. People don’t like change. They’d rather use Windows 2000 than XP, Windows 98 SE than 2000,and Windows ME more than…well, OK, no one liked ME. But I’ve been through these cycles many times before. This is different… I can’t think of a single reason to switch from XP to Vista. I’m not talking a good reason, I really mean any reason.
Click to expand...
 
Wow, this guy is pretty clueless. From his article:
The first sign that Vista was in real trouble was when major vendors started to offer XP again on new machines. In February, Microsoft insisted it had already sold more than 20 million copies of Windows Vista. Oh yeah, like there were actually 20 million copies of Vista already out there and running. Pull the other leg, it's got bells on.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure where he is getting his facts from, but if he can't get basic info right, like how many copies of Vista have been sold I'm not going to take him seriously.

According to:http://www.windowsitpro.com/Articles/ArticleID/97467/97467.html?Ad=1
Last month, Microsoft announced that it had sold 85 million copies of Windows Vista, compared with just 45 million copies of Windows XP during the same time span in its initial release. This milestone is particularly impressive given the widespread negative articles one reads everywhere online about Vista, though most of that is anecdotal. But Microsoft says the reality of Vista is all upside and that Vista's growth is making a sudden surge.
Click to expand...

The 20 million number was from it's first month of sales. The guy simply isn't fact checking and just writing anti-vista FUD to increase the traffic to his articles.
 
Lots of good feedback in here.

My experience with Vista has been a bumpy one at best. With my current hardware (specs in sig) I decided I would try Vista Ultimate 64 as I had obtained a free (legit) copy. After the install completed, I installed the most current Vista 64bit drivers for chipset, video and audio. Everything seemed to run smooth with the exception of random BSODs. They did not seem to occur while I was doing anything in particular..it could either be in the middle of playing Crysis...to encoding a movie to just surfing around. I received the same stop code and was unable to locate any information on it from MS or any other sites.

I do have a Creative X-Fi card and I understand these have issues within Vista, so I tried a fresh install once again and did not install the audio drivers...and once again more BSODs. So I figured just to rule out a possible issue with Vista 64, I tried the 32bit install. I wasn't even able to complete the installation of Windows Updates before I had another BSOD.

It was a very frustrating experience as during the short time I was able to use Vista before a BSOD, I found it to be noticably quicker than XP and I very much enjoyed the eye-candy. I'm hoping perhaps with SP1 or another windows update my issues will be resolved, but for now i've gone back to XP without an issue to date.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top