HardOCP News
[H] News
- Joined
- Dec 31, 1969
- Messages
- 0
Is Windows Vista finally hitting its stride? Analysts seem to think so and, if the companys latest quarterly results are any indicator, it just might be.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
-
Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.
Vista Is Hitting Its Stride
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
- Status
BladeVenom
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2005
- Messages
- 7,707
Seems to me like they were helped more by strong PC sales. They make money whether people buy XP or Vista with their computer.
I wonder if MS is counting all of the downgrades to XP as Vista sales. I don't see any benefit to moving to the DRM infested Mell, but I do see additional costs. Setting up/maintaining a license server for corporate volume licenses is an expense MS should be picking up not the end users.
I've not personally heard of any company near me (in terms of colleagues I talk to) that has moved to Vista at all. Most aren't even trying it beyond testing for compatibility for their apps. Basically speaking, today's workstations in the office are powerful enough to suffice in XP for another life cycle (~3-4 years). Vista changes that and offers very little necessary functionality. Eye candy? Not of concern to the corporate world. Security? Perhaps...if you rely solely on workstation security.
Really, I think MS analysts speaking that Vista is hitting its stride is about as amusing as Sony saying the PS3 was hot, hot, hot early this year...
Really, I think MS analysts speaking that Vista is hitting its stride is about as amusing as Sony saying the PS3 was hot, hot, hot early this year...
The only reason I think it can be hitting it's stride is that its sales are based on NEW PC sales.
I personally think it would be a VERY bad move for companies to do any sort of mass upgrade to Vista before they get 2008 server in place. As a system admin you really need to keep an XP box around just to run a bunch of the Active Directory Tools and Exchange tools. MS does not have 2003 server compatible tools.
If you haven't upgraded to Exchange 2007 yet you still want to wait on that as well Since SP1 is supposed to fix a whole whack of issues.
I personally think it would be a VERY bad move for companies to do any sort of mass upgrade to Vista before they get 2008 server in place. As a system admin you really need to keep an XP box around just to run a bunch of the Active Directory Tools and Exchange tools. MS does not have 2003 server compatible tools.
If you haven't upgraded to Exchange 2007 yet you still want to wait on that as well Since SP1 is supposed to fix a whole whack of issues.
Vista sales are boosted due to things of the following:
1) DX10 : Crysis, Bioshock etc
2) Forced to buy it due to no options when purchasing desktops or laptops
Why do you think Dell went back to selling desktops with XP for? Customers were whining about having to buy a desktop with Vista and now we have to comfort the users into letting them know XP will soon be a non-supported product.
1) DX10 : Crysis, Bioshock etc
2) Forced to buy it due to no options when purchasing desktops or laptops
Why do you think Dell went back to selling desktops with XP for? Customers were whining about having to buy a desktop with Vista and now we have to comfort the users into letting them know XP will soon be a non-supported product.
- Joined
- May 24, 2006
- Messages
- 17,077
This is not a surprise. FYI, Chrysler and GM are both committed to switch by 2nd quarter 08 Guess what area of teh country I live in... ;-)
I'd recommend an upgrade to Vista in a business environment the very second someone showed me that it was in any way superior to XP. From tests I've done all it seems to do is infuriate users, hog resources, and generally slow everything down.
Vista isn't an upgrade so much as a side-grade, a tangent into bells and whistles that no one really needs and in business you don't really want.
Vista isn't an upgrade so much as a side-grade, a tangent into bells and whistles that no one really needs and in business you don't really want.
- Joined
- May 24, 2006
- Messages
- 17,077
Well, i don't know what kinds of tests you can do but at least two of your issues are user issues and the third...
1, Infuriate users.
You either work with execs who have no patience, didn't give it a chance, or are PC retarded (lol). 99% of the stuff the average business person, or the average user at all, are all in the same spot. Vista isn't so big of a departure that they can't just go in there and start using it right away. My wife is REALLY bad with computers (a teacher in foreign language). When we got her a new vista-laptop, I got very few questions at all...
2) hogs resources.
I assume you mean ram and cpu. I love this complaint from my customers ("My pc is always running, and task manager says half of my ram is in use!"). The difference is that it actually USES your PC. When you aren't using much in terms of resources, Vista defrags your HD, does disk checks, and populates the ram with the superfetch cache. I have no problems there.
3) slows things down
This I can agree with when it omes to old pc's. I have customers come in all the time with 512 mb of ram in their system that they upgraded to Vista from XP complaining about how it runs slower. Yea, that happens with so little ram. I mean, few XP machines came with only 512 mb during all of 2005/2006, so to expect a 7 year-newer OS to be ok with the same amount, well...
So it depends on the system. Mine (see sig) actually sped up when I added vista. faster boot and shut-down times, programs are more responsive etc... Would I put it on my 'rent's system, however (p4, 1.5gig ram, 9800 pro)? Hell no.
I am IT support for several smaller companies and also do support for a lot of home users. I also sell a lot of PC's on the side -- so far I can't GIVE copies of Vista away -- all anyone wants is XP. This is especially true of gamers -- XP just runs faster. Even Crysis doesn't appear to have any real benefits under Vista -- you can go in and tweak the config file to where it is virtually indistinguishable under XP from the DX10 settings under Vista -- AND it runs faster.
However, Microsoft *is* being truthful on sales of Vista Business -- every business I deal with has started buying Vista Business instead of XP Pro -- but, as is often the case, Microsoft is only telling PART of the story. The reason the companies are buying it is because Vista Business counts as a legal Windows XP Pro license as well -- so, for the same price, it's a better deal. You get an XP Pro license for now and a Vista Biz license for when (& if) it becomes viable.
The fact that Microsoft seems to be omitting is that even though businesses are BUYING Vista Business -- they are only buying it for licensing reasons and then exercising their downgrade rights and installing XP Professional. To date, I know of ZERO companies I support that are actually RUNNING Vista Business on ANY of their machines. EVERY single copy of Vista Business they have purchased has been re-installed/re-imaged with XP Pro.
If anything, I see less & less actual use of Vista now than six months ago. Six months ago, people were trying it and testing it. Now, most people I deal with have basically decided it offers no worthwhile benefits over XP and have just quit bothering with it.
However, Microsoft *is* being truthful on sales of Vista Business -- every business I deal with has started buying Vista Business instead of XP Pro -- but, as is often the case, Microsoft is only telling PART of the story. The reason the companies are buying it is because Vista Business counts as a legal Windows XP Pro license as well -- so, for the same price, it's a better deal. You get an XP Pro license for now and a Vista Biz license for when (& if) it becomes viable.
The fact that Microsoft seems to be omitting is that even though businesses are BUYING Vista Business -- they are only buying it for licensing reasons and then exercising their downgrade rights and installing XP Professional. To date, I know of ZERO companies I support that are actually RUNNING Vista Business on ANY of their machines. EVERY single copy of Vista Business they have purchased has been re-installed/re-imaged with XP Pro.
If anything, I see less & less actual use of Vista now than six months ago. Six months ago, people were trying it and testing it. Now, most people I deal with have basically decided it offers no worthwhile benefits over XP and have just quit bothering with it.
DeChache
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2005
- Messages
- 7,087
I think that there are more miss conceptions with Vista than anything. I was just starting to get into comps when XP came out and I remember all this FUD happening then too. People want more and more new features built into an OS and then when they get it they complain that it isn't right or its to slow yadda yadda yadda. Vista for me runs better than XP ever did on my main rig. I loose a whole 3% percent in games. General usage is faster and my Rig is nothing special Opty 170(AT STOCK) 2 gig of ram.
As for the it needs Quad core with 8 gigs of ram and all that. I've run Vista since the betas on A P4 with 1 gig of ram and it was just fine and don't ask me why but this comp actually runs games better in Vista. I had it running on a P3 with 384mb of ram and it ran paged the hell out of the hard drive but it ran.
Vista does use a lot of RAM but its used for what RAM is meant for storage of programs so you don't have to go to the hard disk every time. If people would watch when you open a program ram usage really doesn't change I had no problems getting XP to use half my Ram either. But you know what Vista doesn't really use all that much more doing the same things as XP. It is a lot better a memory management than XP is.
Ignorance annoys me. Half of all the problems with Vista come down to the OH GOD ITS NEW WHAT SHALL WE DO syndrom its not safe and cozy what what everybody is used to so it is instantly junk.
As for the it needs Quad core with 8 gigs of ram and all that. I've run Vista since the betas on A P4 with 1 gig of ram and it was just fine and don't ask me why but this comp actually runs games better in Vista. I had it running on a P3 with 384mb of ram and it ran paged the hell out of the hard drive but it ran.
Vista does use a lot of RAM but its used for what RAM is meant for storage of programs so you don't have to go to the hard disk every time. If people would watch when you open a program ram usage really doesn't change I had no problems getting XP to use half my Ram either. But you know what Vista doesn't really use all that much more doing the same things as XP. It is a lot better a memory management than XP is.
Ignorance annoys me. Half of all the problems with Vista come down to the OH GOD ITS NEW WHAT SHALL WE DO syndrom its not safe and cozy what what everybody is used to so it is instantly junk.
I've been leading the roll out project at my company for 3 months now, most users seem to like it to be honest.
It's crap for games as we all know but in a corporate environment it seems pretty good. Lots of our software is still being rewritten for it though, we're a software development company and a load of the compilers still don't work lol
It's crap for games as we all know but in a corporate environment it seems pretty good. Lots of our software is still being rewritten for it though, we're a software development company and a load of the compilers still don't work lol
A
altcon
Guest
I work as a programmer.
From my experience at work only two people are running Vista in the whole company and that's our CTO and our leader of R&D.
To upgrade to Vista would require us to change some of the familiar working programs and to upgrade everyone's PC so they would handle it properly. It would also require us to relicense half of our Programs since they were bought in OEM.
The benefits of moving to Vista or our work environment are ZERO. The costs are plenty.
Seeing that we gain nothing by moving to Vista I really don't see why anyone would recommend it as a business decision.
Six months ago when I was still running a PC shop I can tell you one in ten customers bought Vista, and that only when they invested in an above average system.
I can also say the amount of calls with questions I got after the sale were VERY annoying, and detracted from my enthusiasm selling it.
From my experience at work only two people are running Vista in the whole company and that's our CTO and our leader of R&D.
To upgrade to Vista would require us to change some of the familiar working programs and to upgrade everyone's PC so they would handle it properly. It would also require us to relicense half of our Programs since they were bought in OEM.
The benefits of moving to Vista or our work environment are ZERO. The costs are plenty.
Seeing that we gain nothing by moving to Vista I really don't see why anyone would recommend it as a business decision.
Six months ago when I was still running a PC shop I can tell you one in ten customers bought Vista, and that only when they invested in an above average system.
I can also say the amount of calls with questions I got after the sale were VERY annoying, and detracted from my enthusiasm selling it.
- Joined
- May 24, 2006
- Messages
- 17,077
This seems to be the biggest issue: cost (high) vs benefit (low).
I think that the numbers will be skewed at first when it comes to corporate adoption since only huge companies with the money to do so will switch.
A
altcon
Guest
defuseme2k
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2004
- Messages
- 1,074
Vista is going to happen, it has to. In fact at least where I work (large rental car company 
the move to Vista hasn't happened yet due to some incompatibilities with web based applications and IE7. Now that we have applicatoin vitualization - we're virtualizing IE6 for use on Vista for compatibility reasons. We're dying to move to Vista as a whole though, and most places with tons of computers are. For instance, with Vista / 2008 server we will be able to control power options through group policy. Something as enforcing the monitors to all go off after some amount of inactivity would save a lot of money in electricity.
Always more pieces to the puzzle that you can never see from your perspective.
the move to Vista hasn't happened yet due to some incompatibilities with web based applications and IE7. Now that we have applicatoin vitualization - we're virtualizing IE6 for use on Vista for compatibility reasons. We're dying to move to Vista as a whole though, and most places with tons of computers are. For instance, with Vista / 2008 server we will be able to control power options through group policy. Something as enforcing the monitors to all go off after some amount of inactivity would save a lot of money in electricity.Always more pieces to the puzzle that you can never see from your perspective.
albert6719
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2005
- Messages
- 140
Vista is going to happen, it has to. In fact at least where I work (large rental car company
Always more pieces to the puzzle that you can never see from your perspective.
You know I had to write about this one because I find comments like this very disturbing. Do you people all mean to tell me that it is INEVITABLE that we all switch to Windows Vista just because it is the newest thing out there? Need I remind you all about the inevitability of Windows 95 and Windows ME? Many people I know and knew at the time did NOT adopt Windows 95 and ME just because it was the newest thing out there but rather after MS finally got off their butts and released software development kits (SDKs) to the programmers so that they could update their code for compatibility with Windows 95 and ME.
The inherent problem with Windows Vista as I see it is that it offers NO benefits to the users while forcing them to adapt to a new way of using their computers even though these computers are not used for much except e-mail, web surfing and posting on forums.
The true fact of Vista will emerge when it has gained ground after about a YEAR or so when applications programmers have developed programs to significantly increase the speed of Vista without having users spend additional amounts of money on RAM, larger hard disks and USB drives. THEN and only THEN will Vista truly become a viable operating system for the masses of computer users out there.
You know I had to write about this one because I find comments like this very disturbing. Do you people all mean to tell me that it is INEVITABLE that we all switch to Windows Vista just because it is the newest thing out there? Need I remind you all about the inevitability of Windows 95 and Windows ME? Many people I know and knew at the time did NOT adopt Windows 95 and ME just because it was the newest thing out there but rather after MS finally got off their butts and released software development kits (SDKs) to the programmers so that they could update their code for compatibility with Windows 95 and ME.
The inherent problem with Windows Vista as I see it is that it offers NO benefits to the users while forcing them to adapt to a new way of using their computers even though these computers are not used for much except e-mail, web surfing and posting on forums.
The true fact of Vista will emerge when it has gained ground after about a YEAR or so when applications programmers have developed programs to significantly increase the speed of Vista without having users spend additional amounts of money on RAM, larger hard disks and USB drives. THEN and only THEN will Vista truly become a viable operating system for the masses of computer users out there.
No benefits? Perhaps you need to read this:
Arstechnica In-Depth Vista Article Part 1
Arstechnica In-Depth Vista Article Part 2
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2007
- Messages
- 11,610
Careful what you post, Steve. When the two Linux-fanboy butt-buddies find out about this thread, they will come in and flame everyone who doesn't agree with them!
Would somebody please list the MAJOR changes between any version of windows that ahve been must have? That seems to be a thing that keeps poping up, that there aren't any major changes that make it worth the upgrade. But I myself really don't see much changes between 95 up to Vista if you want to look at just the interface and what new programs they give you.
Windows 95 to 98 gave you nothing
98 to 98 se gave you nothing
NT 4 to 2000 gave you a device manager
2000/98 to XP gave you themese, new look to the start menu, new look the to the control panel, new login screen. Setting all this back to classic gives you nothing.
XP to Vista gives you new theme, new look to the start menu, new look to the control panel, new login screen. Most can be set to classic giving you very little new.
Looks to me that there is as much reason to go to Vista as there was to upgrade to xp. and no reason to ever upgrade from 95 to 98/98se. I'll leave ME as as all that gave you is a broken computer.
If we are just going by visual changes, then there has never been a reason to upgrade from 95 to anything. By the logic most are posting 95 and vista are exactly the same only difference is the vista has a new theme and eats your resources.
So what if they have kept the user interface pretty much unchanged 95 on. It is to help keep people able to use the new version with little to no time to get use to the new stuff.
A lot of changes are things you won't see. New kernel design that includes changes such as drivers outside the kernel. Various security modifications such as having OS info that is setting in your RAM put get a random location every time you run windows so that viruses can no longer just say modify RAM location xyz to screw with your machine. New backup and encryption tools for the higher versions. New defrag tool that runs automatically. Right there are three things that can save compnay time and money by not needing to get extra software to do that or have their IT staff work extra hours to degrag their machinces if they are a smaller business. Right now your choices are pretty much have your IT team do it after hours, have users run them if they haver permission to run a defrag and know how to do it, never run a defrag on any machine, run it when a machine is being worked on, or get 3rd party software. With that being a builting function of the OS that gets rid of all any of those choices. Backup and encryption are also things that compnaies probably spend money on and again having them built into the OS could save them the need to buy 3rd party apps, or it could even allow companies that didn't have the money to do that type of stuff before the ablity to start doing it.
I think better security, better stablity, better relability, and better management are plenty of good reasons to upgrade to a new OS. They aren't reasons why you have to upgrade, but they are pretty good reasons to consider upgrading.
However I am fully aware that doing so might require addition fees as you might need to upgrade other software. However that isn't something that I would require a reason why nobody should upgrade to it, that is what I consider a factor that should go into evaluating the OS to see if you should / can upgrade. That is the same thought of upgrading to any new software though.
In reality the only thing that really MAKES you have to upgrade is the desire to keep running newer software.
Windows 95 to 98 gave you nothing
98 to 98 se gave you nothing
NT 4 to 2000 gave you a device manager
2000/98 to XP gave you themese, new look to the start menu, new look the to the control panel, new login screen. Setting all this back to classic gives you nothing.
XP to Vista gives you new theme, new look to the start menu, new look to the control panel, new login screen. Most can be set to classic giving you very little new.
Looks to me that there is as much reason to go to Vista as there was to upgrade to xp. and no reason to ever upgrade from 95 to 98/98se. I'll leave ME as as all that gave you is a broken computer.
If we are just going by visual changes, then there has never been a reason to upgrade from 95 to anything. By the logic most are posting 95 and vista are exactly the same only difference is the vista has a new theme and eats your resources.
So what if they have kept the user interface pretty much unchanged 95 on. It is to help keep people able to use the new version with little to no time to get use to the new stuff.
A lot of changes are things you won't see. New kernel design that includes changes such as drivers outside the kernel. Various security modifications such as having OS info that is setting in your RAM put get a random location every time you run windows so that viruses can no longer just say modify RAM location xyz to screw with your machine. New backup and encryption tools for the higher versions. New defrag tool that runs automatically. Right there are three things that can save compnay time and money by not needing to get extra software to do that or have their IT staff work extra hours to degrag their machinces if they are a smaller business. Right now your choices are pretty much have your IT team do it after hours, have users run them if they haver permission to run a defrag and know how to do it, never run a defrag on any machine, run it when a machine is being worked on, or get 3rd party software. With that being a builting function of the OS that gets rid of all any of those choices. Backup and encryption are also things that compnaies probably spend money on and again having them built into the OS could save them the need to buy 3rd party apps, or it could even allow companies that didn't have the money to do that type of stuff before the ablity to start doing it.
I think better security, better stablity, better relability, and better management are plenty of good reasons to upgrade to a new OS. They aren't reasons why you have to upgrade, but they are pretty good reasons to consider upgrading.
However I am fully aware that doing so might require addition fees as you might need to upgrade other software. However that isn't something that I would require a reason why nobody should upgrade to it, that is what I consider a factor that should go into evaluating the OS to see if you should / can upgrade. That is the same thought of upgrading to any new software though.
In reality the only thing that really MAKES you have to upgrade is the desire to keep running newer software.
I'm currently using Vista Business at work (IT for a bank) and I'm able to do everything I could do in XP. Had no problems joining a 2003 domain, outlook 2007 works fine with our old version of exchange, I can remote no problem, and have had no problems with our "bank apps." Our processing system that was originally coded in '98 works along with our legacy report processing system that's run off of an NT4 server. All other apps have run no problem from VNC to OnBase to Hummingbird Bi-Query. So from a software standpoint, I've had no issues and wouldn't have a problem setting up an end user on a Vista machine.
Having said though, Vista's a hardware hog, and you have to be cognizant of what hardware you're putting it on or buying it with. Yeah, we still have the XP rollback, but that won't always come with new systems in the future and we'll be stuck with Vista only... I would go as far as saying 2gb ram min with a dual core to have it run smoothly for as long as possible while the end user is abusing it....and the eventual defrag/cleanup/format happens to speed it up again. I can barely get a 32 bit business install under 250mb idle usage without taking out services and background programs that's needed for normal everyday usage. That definitely rules out 512 machines and makes 1gb start to chug after a few apps are runnin and have 20 pages in firefox open.
For home usage, I've had no issues really..runs nice on my q6600 2gb ram. I'll upgrade to 4gb once I grab a copy of 64bit Vista and two 8800gt's (gotta be careful how I type that now). Using a 8500gt right now, was waiting for g92 to come out to upgrade vid card, so I haven't gamed too much. TF2 runs fine.
Having said though, Vista's a hardware hog, and you have to be cognizant of what hardware you're putting it on or buying it with. Yeah, we still have the XP rollback, but that won't always come with new systems in the future and we'll be stuck with Vista only... I would go as far as saying 2gb ram min with a dual core to have it run smoothly for as long as possible while the end user is abusing it....and the eventual defrag/cleanup/format happens to speed it up again. I can barely get a 32 bit business install under 250mb idle usage without taking out services and background programs that's needed for normal everyday usage. That definitely rules out 512 machines and makes 1gb start to chug after a few apps are runnin and have 20 pages in firefox open.
For home usage, I've had no issues really..runs nice on my q6600 2gb ram. I'll upgrade to 4gb once I grab a copy of 64bit Vista and two 8800gt's (gotta be careful how I type that now). Using a 8500gt right now, was waiting for g92 to come out to upgrade vid card, so I haven't gamed too much. TF2 runs fine.
XP to Vista makes the handwriting on my tablet work about 10x better, also makes workgroup-style networking behave properly (at least, after you shoot the copy/delete bug in the nuts - but just running Windows Update seemed to do this the last time I installed Vista). The interface changes are just icing. I haven't had to hunt for a program in the Start Menu *at all* since I stopped using XP regularly thanks to the focused-by-default search within Start Menu, and well-used install tends to run me into about three columns. It's just minor thing, but now it annoys me whenever I have to use XP.
When it comes down to it, truly vista is what most people will be using. Period. Vista is not even remotely bad compared to what ME was so don't even try to bring it down to that. The only windows EVER made that made you go WOW I WANT THAT. DOS > Windows 3.1, And Windows 3.1 > Windows 95.
Windows vista is a complete rewrite making a much more solid kernel and trying to standardise the way they accomplish things better. Vista is significantly more stable, much faster, more intuitive. A tech savy person can find everything they want by putting it into classic mode menus, a person not so understanding can figure things out very easily by the menu layouts. Vista comes with more features that your avg joe might actually wish to have. IE basic photo editing with windows picture. Windows XP had no program to remove red-eye (MCE05 did tho).
Microsoft isn't trying to sell us Windows Vista. It's trying to sell it to average families who want things to be simple and included. Get over it. Denying vista has benefits is just mindless ranting.
Windows vista is a complete rewrite making a much more solid kernel and trying to standardise the way they accomplish things better. Vista is significantly more stable, much faster, more intuitive. A tech savy person can find everything they want by putting it into classic mode menus, a person not so understanding can figure things out very easily by the menu layouts. Vista comes with more features that your avg joe might actually wish to have. IE basic photo editing with windows picture. Windows XP had no program to remove red-eye (MCE05 did tho).
Microsoft isn't trying to sell us Windows Vista. It's trying to sell it to average families who want things to be simple and included. Get over it. Denying vista has benefits is just mindless ranting.
QFT
People have been getting on MS for Vista for no reason. They've had two solid OS launches in a row, 3 if you count win2000, which is my fav all time OS. Outside of the usual driver headaches and increased hardware requirements for an OS launch, Vista was a completely viable OS when it was released, just like win2k and xp before it.
Complete and total drivel.
People buy it because it comes with a new computer and because it's new. Most average families don't know or care about an OS. They just want what is new! It has absolutely nothing to do with any improvements over its predecessor...because for $200(+), there are none. But the average family doesn't care about that.
Is it all that bad? No, because you can turn off all of the completely stupid and useless apps. that come the Vista. What am I left with? A $200 (that no longer lives in my wallet) version of XP with DX10 support. P-e-r-i-o-d.
JHFC!
- Joined
- May 24, 2006
- Messages
- 17,077
I'm not sure what you mean by no difference...Complete and total drivel.
People buy it because it comes with a new computer and because it's new. Most average families don't know or care about an OS. They just want what is new! It has absolutely nothing to do with any improvements over its predecessor...because for $200(+), there are none. But the average family doesn't care about that.
Is it all that bad? No, because you can turn off all of the completely stupid and useless apps. that come the Vista. What am I left with? A $200 (that no longer lives in my wallet) version of XP with DX10 support. P-e-r-i-o-d.
JHFC!
UAC protects the retarded masses from installing malware as often.
Superfetch speeds up your system.
Auto-defragging in the background.
Tighter security and (finally) some level of ditched legacy support.
Hard-drive encryption.
...ad nauseum (sp) ...
That's the first thing my mother wanted switching off.
Not as much as $200 of hardware would.
Why?
More to go wrong.
- Joined
- May 24, 2006
- Messages
- 17,077
Unless she is a knowledgeable user, bad idea. My parents are computer-dumb. They need it on, as do %80 of people out there.
But it comes with the OS, so why spend more on the hardware?
So you don't have to do it yourself. Seems obvious to me...
Immature comment. I was responding to someone who said there were no differences. So to say new things are pointless because they could go wrong simply means you would be happy with Windows 98, or 95...
Which we both know you wouldn't be. So try again...
All those companies out there who have had employees lose laptops with customer data on them LOVE this new feature, I bet!
It's highly annoying.
Rather than spending $200 on a OS to speed up your computer you should spend it on some better hardware.
Scheduled tasks?
Why would average joe want to encrypt his hard drive?
I know, so it is more difficult to recover files.
/me
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2007
- Messages
- 11,610
I'm willing to bet that those who's identities were stolen due to laptop theft from government agencies would glady vote in favor of hard drive encryption. It isn't a feature that's on by default, but if these organizations insist on storing this information on client machines, it needs to be included in the OS, plain and simple.
I'm still of the opinion that Vista offers no SIGNIFICANT benefits over XP to be worth the hassles -- and there ARE hassles.
When Vista works it is not unbearable as an OS -- it is still a resource hog -- but it works ok. The problems are when Vista does NOT work -- which are far too common and unbelievably frustrating. Even with all patches downloaded, there are still situations where it just acts "weird" -- especially when you are in a mixed 2K/XP/Vista networking environment with individual machines running workgroup shares (which is common even in a Domain). Getting Vista machines and XP/2K machines to see each others shares on a network can often be like pulling teeth. In many cases it works just fine -- especially after you get all the updates for XP -- but there are many cases where I have NEVER been able to get the machines to see each other reliably (and I'm IT support and do this for a living -- and know all the tricks and registry/policy settings that often cause issues).
Many of the quoted "improvements" in Vista are not that big a deal anyway:
1) UAC -- unbelievably annoying and most users just learn to blindly click "ok" far to quickly and it this feature becomes like the boy who cried wolf one time to many. As a real feature, the only thing UAC protects is Microsoft -- it gives their legal department the ability to say "but you clicked ok" when a critical business system gets trashed.
2) BitLocker -- this is a reasonable feature but of value to very few users except in a corporate environment. Additionally, XP Pro already offers per folder encryption. Personally, I like TrueCrypt (or PGP Desktop -- buggy though it be) better as they offer more choices in encryption and better key/password management that is not tied into the OS and having to back up keys. From a safety standpoint encryption should ONLY be password based (long and complex, to be sure) but it needs to be fully portable to other systems. The only caveat with non-whole drive encryption is Windows stupid use of temp files in obscure locations that do not get encrypted nor deleted. That said, encrypting the entire user directory works pretty well.
3) DX10 -- nice but only applies to gamers. And there are zero reasons it couldn't have been released for XP.
4) Stability -- this is complete and utter nonsense. A fresh XP install with all patches and updates, that is setup PROPERLY is quite stable -- my own development system (which is used daily) hasn't been rebooted in over 3 months and my office machine is currently at 31 days. With Vista on the other hand, I have seen more weird lockups and reboots than I have seen on XP in YEARS. My Vista test platform -- which is a Dell Precision 390 E6600 with 3Gb -- rarely stays usable for more than 3-4 days at a time. With all the updates and all the most recent drivers, it no longer reboots spontaneously, but it just gets into a state where you can't actually DO anything (Mouse works, Taskman works, apps TRY to launch but fail).
5) SuperFetch/Memory Management -- nice in principle. That said, why is it that my XP machine with 2Gb runs the same applications faster than my Vista machine with 3Gb? This is especially true when dealing with applications that need lots of memory (like Photoshop). A lot of what Vista promises can also be achieved in XP -- with some effort you can have XP put its paging file on a high speed flash drive, which works mucho faster than removable storage does.
6) Background defrag/search indexing/etc -- nice for the neophyte, but why don't you just setup scheduled tasks to do the same thing??? Personally I don't like having my hard drive chirping away at full throttle during the middle of the day or when I'm doing something. I much prefer it to do maintainence tasks at 3am when I'm sleeping.
7) Power Policy/etc -- this is probably one of the better improvements in Vista from an IT perspective. You actually CAN set and control more things via Group Policy than you can in XP. That said, Vista NEEDS better power management because with Aero running it typically USES 5%+ more electricity on average than a similar XP system does due to the 3D hardware being active more. Similarly, if you are an IT person who actually know what you are doing you can still do the same thing under XP or 2K -- it just takes more effort (i.e. our Domain startup scripts push out registry updates on logon that set the power policies on XP/2K right now).
Versus an aging XP install, Vista "out of the box" is probably a better system. Versus a NEW XP SP2 install, properly updated, Vista is simply not "all that".
Don't get me wrong -- there are many things I DO like about Vista (especially the UI): the theme is pretty, the visual task tips are nice, the off-screen rendering/compositing feels "smoother", Gadgets, many of the new media management options are useful, etc. The thing is, many of these improvements can just as easily be implemented in XP with lower overhead and better functionality (i.e. Yahoo Widgets nee Konfabulator -- which I actually run in Vista as well [I like the Widgets better, plus it uses less memory], Visual Task Tips, etc).
And don't even get me started on the actual interaction model in Vista -- although pretty, the actual User Interface in Vista is the least "self-consistant" beast I think I have ever seen. There is absolutely no rhyme or reason as to what options are on menus vs icons vs folder side scripts -- nor is their behaviour for what opens new windows, stays in the same window, etc. in the slightest predictable. Basically it has all the markings of a UI that went through a bunch of engineers and graphics artists and then never got reviewed by a good Human Factors person before final release. Which only strengthens my belief that Vista was rushed out before it was ready (primarily to satisfy their stock holders).
Lastly, to all the people who say that the Vista rollout has not been that different that past OS upgrades, I beg to differ. I have been through every single one of them and the last time I saw this many headaches and application incompatibilities was with the initial switch to Windows NT 3.0 and the Win32 model. Even the POS that was WinME didn't have this many APPLICATION incompatibilities -- it wouldn't stay stable and had driver/networking problem beyond belief but at least applications ran as expected.
When Vista works it is not unbearable as an OS -- it is still a resource hog -- but it works ok. The problems are when Vista does NOT work -- which are far too common and unbelievably frustrating. Even with all patches downloaded, there are still situations where it just acts "weird" -- especially when you are in a mixed 2K/XP/Vista networking environment with individual machines running workgroup shares (which is common even in a Domain). Getting Vista machines and XP/2K machines to see each others shares on a network can often be like pulling teeth. In many cases it works just fine -- especially after you get all the updates for XP -- but there are many cases where I have NEVER been able to get the machines to see each other reliably (and I'm IT support and do this for a living -- and know all the tricks and registry/policy settings that often cause issues).
Many of the quoted "improvements" in Vista are not that big a deal anyway:
1) UAC -- unbelievably annoying and most users just learn to blindly click "ok" far to quickly and it this feature becomes like the boy who cried wolf one time to many. As a real feature, the only thing UAC protects is Microsoft -- it gives their legal department the ability to say "but you clicked ok" when a critical business system gets trashed.
2) BitLocker -- this is a reasonable feature but of value to very few users except in a corporate environment. Additionally, XP Pro already offers per folder encryption. Personally, I like TrueCrypt (or PGP Desktop -- buggy though it be) better as they offer more choices in encryption and better key/password management that is not tied into the OS and having to back up keys. From a safety standpoint encryption should ONLY be password based (long and complex, to be sure) but it needs to be fully portable to other systems. The only caveat with non-whole drive encryption is Windows stupid use of temp files in obscure locations that do not get encrypted nor deleted. That said, encrypting the entire user directory works pretty well.
3) DX10 -- nice but only applies to gamers. And there are zero reasons it couldn't have been released for XP.
4) Stability -- this is complete and utter nonsense. A fresh XP install with all patches and updates, that is setup PROPERLY is quite stable -- my own development system (which is used daily) hasn't been rebooted in over 3 months and my office machine is currently at 31 days. With Vista on the other hand, I have seen more weird lockups and reboots than I have seen on XP in YEARS. My Vista test platform -- which is a Dell Precision 390 E6600 with 3Gb -- rarely stays usable for more than 3-4 days at a time. With all the updates and all the most recent drivers, it no longer reboots spontaneously, but it just gets into a state where you can't actually DO anything (Mouse works, Taskman works, apps TRY to launch but fail).
5) SuperFetch/Memory Management -- nice in principle. That said, why is it that my XP machine with 2Gb runs the same applications faster than my Vista machine with 3Gb? This is especially true when dealing with applications that need lots of memory (like Photoshop). A lot of what Vista promises can also be achieved in XP -- with some effort you can have XP put its paging file on a high speed flash drive, which works mucho faster than removable storage does.
6) Background defrag/search indexing/etc -- nice for the neophyte, but why don't you just setup scheduled tasks to do the same thing??? Personally I don't like having my hard drive chirping away at full throttle during the middle of the day or when I'm doing something. I much prefer it to do maintainence tasks at 3am when I'm sleeping.
7) Power Policy/etc -- this is probably one of the better improvements in Vista from an IT perspective. You actually CAN set and control more things via Group Policy than you can in XP. That said, Vista NEEDS better power management because with Aero running it typically USES 5%+ more electricity on average than a similar XP system does due to the 3D hardware being active more. Similarly, if you are an IT person who actually know what you are doing you can still do the same thing under XP or 2K -- it just takes more effort (i.e. our Domain startup scripts push out registry updates on logon that set the power policies on XP/2K right now).
Versus an aging XP install, Vista "out of the box" is probably a better system. Versus a NEW XP SP2 install, properly updated, Vista is simply not "all that".
Don't get me wrong -- there are many things I DO like about Vista (especially the UI): the theme is pretty, the visual task tips are nice, the off-screen rendering/compositing feels "smoother", Gadgets, many of the new media management options are useful, etc. The thing is, many of these improvements can just as easily be implemented in XP with lower overhead and better functionality (i.e. Yahoo Widgets nee Konfabulator -- which I actually run in Vista as well [I like the Widgets better, plus it uses less memory], Visual Task Tips, etc).
And don't even get me started on the actual interaction model in Vista -- although pretty, the actual User Interface in Vista is the least "self-consistant" beast I think I have ever seen. There is absolutely no rhyme or reason as to what options are on menus vs icons vs folder side scripts -- nor is their behaviour for what opens new windows, stays in the same window, etc. in the slightest predictable. Basically it has all the markings of a UI that went through a bunch of engineers and graphics artists and then never got reviewed by a good Human Factors person before final release. Which only strengthens my belief that Vista was rushed out before it was ready (primarily to satisfy their stock holders).
Lastly, to all the people who say that the Vista rollout has not been that different that past OS upgrades, I beg to differ. I have been through every single one of them and the last time I saw this many headaches and application incompatibilities was with the initial switch to Windows NT 3.0 and the Win32 model. Even the POS that was WinME didn't have this many APPLICATION incompatibilities -- it wouldn't stay stable and had driver/networking problem beyond belief but at least applications ran as expected.
- Status