Windows 7 -> 2011

[milkweg]

You're generalizing. The drivers for Vista are much more mature than they were a year ago. Sure, they got more maturing to do. And with Vista SP1 coming out soon there will be more improvements. XP had its share of issues with drivers well past a year of release. XP wasn't really solid until SP1 came out and got even better after SP2.

I bought XP the day of release and I bought Vista on the day of release. XP was far less problematic. Vista even had issues with my MX518 USB mouse being connected to a PS2 adapter on a PS2 KVM. XP had no such issues with that setup at all, nor Linux, nor WinME. I had to go spend over fifty bucks for a new USB KVM thanks to Vista.

 

[eeyrjmr]

Well the driver model 2K => XP was very similar and for most parts a 2k driver would work. Vista completly changed and and thus major driver re-write to hook into the OS

A similar thing happened when kernel-2.4 went kernel-2.6 alot of driver breakage

 

[Mithent]

Well the driver model 2K => XP was very similar and for most parts a 2k driver would work.

Yeah, that was part of what I was referring to. XP already had 2 years of Windows 2000 behind it for Microsoft to have the core components pretty well worked out and for drivers and software to get up to speed. However, for those many people who were still suffering with Win9x, XP appeared out of nowhere, and it seemed like Microsoft had just programmed a fantastic new OS, rather than just finally releasing a minor update in the Windows NT line to home users.

This reminds me of the situation with Firefox and the Mozilla suite.. it seems like most people have the impression that the Mozilla Foundation just suddenly released this great browser, Firefox, rather than it being a cut-down version of Mozilla with a simplified UI and modified extension system. (I feel disappointed in this especially because Firefox's success caused Mozilla to drop official support for the suite, which I use.)

 

[MrGuvernment]

But it doesn't work better or faster. An OS should be efficient and unobtrusive. Vista is neither. You know why consoles can run games so well for a fraction of the cost of a gaming PC? Because they are designed to be efficient from the ground up. PC's use the all muscle and no brains approach to run games. Sort of like American muscle cars from the '60's and '70's. That's backwards thinking IMO and needs to be changed.

works faster for me!

• boots/loads faster
• programs load faster (superfecth)
• the interface is faster due to using my GPU that usually would sit idle doing nothing
• searching for files on 1.5T of disk space is screaming fast (750g drive and a 500g drive and a 250g main drive)

so ya, for me it is faster, vista is not for older rigs, for sure, and i am glad. i do have a newer system , was an e4400 / 7600Gt and 2g of ram and a 260 segate perp drive, which isnt high end by any means and it ran fine, even on my Apple macbook vist with a c2 2ghz / 1g of ram 80g 5400 drive and integrated Intel 950 it ran smooth for it's use... now have a 6600 @ 3ghz / 8800GT / 4G of ram and53 segate perps (750 / 500 /250 , 2 x 250 in raid 1)

How can an OS be completly efficient with a never ending list of software and hadware to support, copmparing it to a console is useless because it is meant to run a set hardware list that wont change thus it can be optimized specifically for that hardware.

MS runs on how many various processors alone ?

iF MS turned into Apple i am sure the OS would become lightning fast, and opposite if apple open there doors like MS it would become slow and bogged down at certain things.

 

[MrGuvernment]

More mature drivers? WOW where have you been, MS has not even alowed for drivers that have been used for years now with some hardware to work in vista. All MS is worried about is if they are signed. Witch(get me a broom) they will not be because most sever software which I use there is not up to date program for, so why would they want signed drivers. Qlogic, Supermicro and others just are not getting things signed by the software police.

All they are doing is making life a nightmare for people using workstations. So the high end hardware it going elsewhere I guess. I shure will not build anymore for Vista for my customers.

Okay so microsoft should not force companies to PROPERLY write drivers for hardware that pass the requirement to run with out fubaring your whole rig?

so when you install NVIDIA's latest beta drivers and they crash and give crap performance, you'll then blame MS and how crappy vista is, when it isnt even their fualt as most people do, always blame the OS for poorly written drivers......

and as said, why install vista on a server? or a workstation, it isnt needed, as above, most companies dont roll out a new OS until years aftter it's release or support of the prior OS is coming up for expiration.

most companies could still run, and probably do off NT4.

 

[MrGuvernment]

I bought XP the day of release and I bought Vista on the day of release. XP was far less problematic. Vista even had issues with my MX518 USB mouse being connected to a PS2 adapter on a PS2 KVM. XP had no such issues with that setup at all, nor Linux, nor WinME. I had to go spend over fifty bucks for a new USB KVM thanks to Vista.

That is the cost of progress, dropping old legacy devices, it is the only way an OS can move forward, how often when Apple releases a NEW os they completly drop support for X OS / hardware and prior, done, finish, people dont complain

how can you expect progress when people want their 10 year old PS2 ports to work and their parallel ports... if you want your dinosaour hardware to work, you have to stick with an OLD OS, it is the cost of progress, whether you personally think there is any or not.

i wish MS would ship a version of Vista, or even Xp with NO legacy support, nothing!!! none of the old crap, ditch it and sell a trimmed up version.

 

[Verge]

It offers UAC. Now, I don't know how well Server 2008 can tune this, but it could be a huge advantage in controlling your network.

All the advanced security features are much better. Windows Defender is built in.
Superfetch means people can work faster.

Very many features I'd love to have. My main problem is the big amount of complaining I'd get introducing something different from what they are used to.

UAC, it's called permissions and group policies. None of the morons on our network will be installing/executing anything without somebody from IT and a local administrative logon... so once again, uac does what for businesses ?

Introducing something different is hardly an excuse.. run windows classic and you can setup vista to look just like xp.

 

[eeyrjmr]

...

RS232 port is VERY useful. From a hardware enthusiast purspective it is VERY easy to work with, as opose to USB...

PIC's come with an RS232 UART and it is easy to send ASCII strings via RS232. The likes of Python make it even easier from the PC side

The same goes for the parallel port


JUST because you don't have a use for it doesn't mean millions don't how short sighted...

 

[jimmyb]

Maintaining support for the serial port is not going to be detrimental to any operating system. It boggles my mind that some people here think that's what's stopping progress.

 

[TechieSooner]

UAC, it's called permissions and group policies. None of the morons on our network will be installing/executing anything without somebody from IT and a local administrative logon... so once again, uac does what for businesses ?

Not having users be local admins can cause many issues for businesses. I know some of our apps require it. Now, I personally have a flexible policy on them being able to install some things- that's fine. Keeps them happy. You restrict it too much and they LOOK for things to get around.
Yahoo Messenger- fine. Things like crap screensavers, toolbars and the like I do not allow. I issued a warning ONCE for the people having issues with those things- and haven't had problems since. I guess I'm lucky to have the folks I have, but having UAC would be handy (If I can set it to not prompt for things on the local PC, but prompt for any new program installers, that'd be great).

Just me though, I could have a use for it. Just depends how well Server 2008 turns out to manage it.

Introducing something different is hardly an excuse.. run windows classic and you can setup vista to look just like xp.

It's still different. If you argue otherwise, well... you're just ignorant. It isn't just the LOOKS. The looks they could get used to. Black instead of blue, got that covered already.

Maintaining support for the serial port is not going to be detrimental to any operating system. It boggles my mind that some people here think that's what's stopping progress.

Ditto. Some folks gotta bitch about Windows just for the sake of bitching about it. I use a serial port myself. While I think it'd be great for another interface to come along (USB a possibility, but the 5m restriction is a downside), serial is just too simple to affect anything at all in an OS.

That is the cost of progress, dropping old legacy devices, it is the only way an OS can move forward, how often when Apple releases a NEW os they completly drop support for X OS / hardware and prior, done, finish, people dont complain

And IMO, Vista is more stable than Mac OS. I've seen the Mac OS crash ten times (often on a weekly basis) doing nothing more than displaying some videos. This is all with Apple writing their own drivers for their own hardware. You'd think if a company dictated what goes into their system, they could write something VERY solid for it.

I'd venture to say MS could write a 99.9% perfectly stable system if they were just writing for a single set of hardware as in Apple's case.

i wish MS would ship a version of Vista, or even Xp with NO legacy support, nothing!!! none of the old crap, ditch it and sell a trimmed up version.

If it wasn't made in the last 2 years, it isn't supported, is what I'd like to see.

Yea, and they effed it up so had to go back to square one and use Windows Server 2003 as the base code instead of XP

While I'm not commenting on the rest of the ridiculous comment, I'd just like to say I'm a hellofa lot more happy they based it on Server 2003 vs. XP.

And FWIW it's still based on the old NT kernel. I remember seeing some article awhile back from Microsoft saying something like 60% of the base OS was re-written, but it's still the same old NT kernel. Same Server 2003 uses and the same XP uses. Same Server 2008 will use, and who knows what Windows 7 will use (my guess is the same ol' same ol').

 

[Verge]

Not having users be local admins can cause many issues for businesses. I know some of our apps require it. Now, I personally have a flexible policy on them being able to install some things- that's fine. Keeps them happy. You restrict it too much and they LOOK for things to get around.
Yahoo Messenger- fine. Things like crap screensavers, toolbars and the like I do not allow. I issued a warning ONCE for the people having issues with those things- and haven't had problems since. I guess I'm lucky to have the folks I have, but having UAC would be handy (If I can set it to not prompt for things on the local PC, but prompt for any new program installers, that'd be great).

Just me though, I could have a use for it. Just depends how well Server 2008 turns out to manage it.

08 is out, been out in beta's with now featureset changes for some time.. and went RTM today. We have a few copies installed here and there but i honestly haven't looked into UAC controls from within, namely because we have no vista boxes, i guess i could set up some vm's and test but too much superbowl fun last night.

You should have the maximum amount of security and restrictions possible for users to complete their computer specific tasks. Thus, we have 0 local admins, and never will. If our developers write a program that will not work under these guidelines.. then it looks like that program isn't gonna run ... crazy dev's.