| This 34 message thread spans 2 pages: 34 (  2 ) > > || |
|Five reasons to love (and hate) Windows Vista|
Vista launches today
| 10:40 am on Nov 30, 2006 (gmt 0)|
An interesting article that just happens to fall on Vista's launch date: Five reasons to love (and hate) Windows Vista [software.silicon.com]
Here's an outline of the article's key points:
Five things to love about Windows Vista Search or create virtual files
Need more oomph? Vista will find it for you
Five things you'll hate about Windows Vista Your current hardware won't fully run Vista
Vista's Aero graphics eat notebook battery power
User Account Protection
Missing drivers and incompatible applications
| 11:38 am on Nov 30, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I don't know anyone who actually wants Vista. My Nephew has decided to replace his laptop now to avoid it!
|Need more RAM? How about borrowing some from that 256MB or greater USB drive? In Windows Vista, the new Windows ReadyBoost feature can swap flash memory with any large USB device. |
They are joking aren't they. That operation could be anything from 10 times slower to 100 times slower than swapping with the hard disk - a feature that has been built into Windows since day one. Some journalists may be knowledgable but they understand nothing.
| 11:49 am on Nov 30, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|They are joking aren't they. That operation could be anything from 10 times slower to 100 times slower than swapping with the hard disk |
Nope, they're not. It is certainly slower than a traditional hard drive for sequential reading but not for random reading. Random fetching is used heavily when retrieving from cache.
Vista is designed to perform large, sequential read requests from the hard disk and not from a ReadyBoost configured USB drive.
| 2:13 pm on Nov 30, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Windows Vista is the first operating system to catch my attention since Windows 2000 (aside from opensuse...).
Each time I built a new computer I installed the old operating system. Based on what I've read, my hardware (2 gig ram, AMD 64X-2...) will run Vista just fine.
While XP had a media addition, Vista is Microsoft's first true run at entertainment. This is the start of a whole new PC revolution including home automation and entertainment.
| 4:50 pm on Nov 30, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|This is the start of a whole new PC revolution including home automation and entertainment. |
If I had a nickel for every time I've heard that over the past ten years, I'd have enough to buy an island or two worth of tropical paradise.
| 4:59 pm on Nov 30, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|Random fetching is used heavily when retrieving from cache. |
In vast database applications, maybe, just maybe, but it is normally program code that is swapped out to disk and that most definitely does not involve a lot of random fetches.
| 5:51 pm on Nov 30, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Nice one grelmar.
| 5:55 pm on Nov 30, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Will Vista run software based on older versions of Windows. If so, how far back are we talking?
| 6:06 pm on Nov 30, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|normally program code that is swapped out to disk |
When that code is swapped out it gets scattered all over the hard disk (situation is aggravated if the drive isn't defragmented often). So while it's not random in the database sense, the physical drive head has to randomly move all over the disk to find the data it's looking for.
| 6:39 pm on Nov 30, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I thought it highly significant that the Microsoft spokesperson who appeared on BBC's "Working Lunch" programme today said a lot, but communicated nothing.
More gimmicky toys for grown up children to play with? That's my suspicion.
| 7:50 pm on Nov 30, 2006 (gmt 0)|
What's this?!-I think the n00b will finally be able to contribute something worthwhile on the boards!
Another con of Vista -
Apparantly it will be even more of a hassle than XP to reinstall on your machine if you make significant upgrades to it. ... On XP if you do too much upgrading to your computer XP will say, "we're not sure this is the same computer" more or less. Vista will apparently be even worse as in if you replace your mobo more than once, you have to get a new copy of Vista. So DIYers really aren't looking forward to it.
And if you all haven't heard, you can apparantly get a copy of Vista Office 2007 and Vista Business for free by watching some webcasts on the net. Go to google and search for slick deals with vista or something and you should be able to find it,
| 10:01 pm on Nov 30, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Why do I need Vista?
| 10:54 pm on Nov 30, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Those who do are Dell, HP, Gateway, etc to sell us new computers.
Microsoft to sell Vista on all those new computers.
| 11:01 pm on Nov 30, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|We don't |
Those who do are Dell, HP, Gateway, etc to sell us new computers.
Microsoft to sell Vista on all those new computers.
Well say :)
Let's hope my XP and CPU will last for another ten years...
If not, I'll just buy a Mac or will ask a refund cost of Visat and install Linux (http://www.webmasterworld.com/microsoft_windows_os/3156071.htm)
| 1:09 am on Dec 1, 2006 (gmt 0)|
if defragmentation is the issue, it can be solved by either creating a swap partition or by creating the swap file at the opposite end of disk area. Even using an external hard disk on a firewire port as a swap area is crazy because it means that the user can totally crash the computer by unplugging the drive. So to avoid that, a whole new swap policy must have been created - a total waste of time.
Incidentally, considering that text search (within files) has never worked properly in any version of XP, I have my doubts about so-called virtual directories. In any case, that would be one of the first features I'd switch off.
| 1:20 am on Dec 1, 2006 (gmt 0)|
>>If I had a nickel for every time I've heard that over the past ten years, I'd have enough to buy an island or two worth of tropical paradise.
>>Let's hope my XP and CPU will last for another ten years...
Really? Did you upgrade from Windows 95 last year? That's too bad. Let's see..
In 1996 the Pentium Pro was released at a whopping 200 mhz. I'm guessing 8 megabytes of RAM were in those machines. By the end of 1996 you could pick up a 2 gig hard drive for only $450. Most PCs shipped with 500 meg drives.
Or maybe you were burning DVDs instead - wait a minute... The standard was only finalized in 1997 and they were first included in mainstream PCs in 2001.
I know the real problem. Your memory is too short ;)
| 1:38 am on Dec 1, 2006 (gmt 0)|
hrm? could this replace the dell's and the hp
A 20GB hard drive, high-def game support and a 500MHz ATI graphics processor: Glimpse the Xbox 360's system performance specifications as provided by Microsoft.
Custom IBM PowerPC-based CPU
• Three symmetrical cores running at 3.2 GHz each
• Two hardware threads per core; six hardware threads total
• VMX-128 vector unit per core; three total
• 128 VMX-128 registers per hardware thread
• 1 MB L2 cache
CPU Game Math Performance
• 9 billion dot product operations per second
Custom ATI Graphics Processor
• 500MHz processor
• 10 MB of embedded DRAM
• 48-way parallel floating-point dynamically scheduled shader pipelines
• Unified shader architecture
• 500 million triangles per second
Pixel Fill Rate
• 16 gigasamples per second fill rate using 4x MSAA
• 48 billion shader operations per second
• 512 MB of GDDR3 RAM
• 700 MHz of DDR
• Unified memory architecture
Memory Bandwidth • 22.4 GB/s memory interface bus bandwidth
• 256 GB/s memory bandwidth to EDRAM
• 21.6 GB/s front-side bus
Overall System Floating-Point Performance
• 1 teraflop
• Detachable and upgradeable 20GB hard drive
• 12x dual-layer DVD-ROM
• Memory Unit support starting at 64 MB
• Support for up to four wireless game controllers
• Three USB 2.0 ports
• Two memory unit slots
Optimized for Online
• Instant, out-of-the-box access to Xbox Live features with broadband service, including Xbox Live Marketplace for downloadable content, gamer profile for digital identity, and voice chat to talk to friends while playing games, watching movies or listening to music
• Built-in Ethernet port
• Wi-Fi ready: 802.11a, 802.11b and 802.11g
• Video camera ready
Digital Media Support
• Support for DVD-Video, DVD-ROM, DVD-R/RW, DVD+R/RW, CD-DA, CD-ROM, CD-R, CD-RW, WMA CD, MP3 CD, JPEG Photo CD
• Ability to stream media from portable music devices, digital cameras and Windows XP-based PCs
• Ability to rip music to the Xbox 360 hard drive • Custom playlists in every game
• Built-in Media Center Extender for Windows XP Media Center Edition 2005
• Interactive, full-screen 3-D visualizers
High-Definition Game Support
• All games supported at 16:9, 720p and 1080i, anti-aliasing
• Standard-definition and high-definition video output supported
• Multichannel surround sound output
• Supports 48KHz 16-bit audio
• 320 independent decompression channels
• 32-bit audio processing
• Over 256 audio channels
not a bad pc for 500 bucks ::: cant wait to see the next one
| 6:52 am on Dec 1, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|Will Vista run software based on older versions of Windows. If so, how far back are we talking? |
Here's just one example - SQL Server 2000 and all its variants aren't supported on Vista.
"Big deal", I hear you say - but MSDE 2000 is used as a snap-in database engine by lots of third-party products.
Now, if you're a third-party s/w vendor, you're going to have to make quite a bit of effort to port your app to use SQL Server 2005 Express Edition (which *is* supported on Vista).
Let's see - are you going to give this upgrade out for free? Of course not! This new version with be "compatible with Vista" and you'll be charging your customers for it.
My personal example - I own a copy of Nero 6. It doesn't run on Vista - I don't really know why - but if I want to burn CDs and DVDs using Nero, I'll have to buy Nero 7. IMHO this just sucks - for me there's nothing that Nero 7 does that Nero 6 doesn't already do.
| 10:46 am on Dec 1, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Thanks for that. Do you think this will affect all software or just a few?
With XP, at least it was backwards compatible with most software I used. Are you saying that Vista is going to mean buying completely new software for most applications? If so, I'm going to buy a couple of XP based comps which will see me through as far as I want to go.
| 11:05 am on Dec 1, 2006 (gmt 0)|
To Upgrade Or Not To Upgrade, That Is The Question
On the one hand, we have XP - a stable product that offers a reasonable enough platform to work with pleasantly, and is backwards compatible with a lot of software.
On the other hand, we have Vista. To many users, it will appear identical to XP, but with a new look. So they, like some posters here, feel no reason to upgrade. But like any technology, be it a car or a DVD player, it may appear to be the same, but there will be a lot of improvements under the bonnet. Security, file handling, internet access speed, High Definition TV support, future program support (as XP will one day stop being supported) and so on. So in theory it will make a lot of sense to upgrade.
The reasons not to upgrade are things like DRM, worse installation/reactivation problems (like having to buy a new copy if you change your mobo? No thanks!) and who knows what else they've added in the name of "customer enhancements". We need to be careful before making the plunge.
I'm on the fence right now. XP is "good enough" for me, but I like some of what I've seen of Vista. I'd like to get it, but not if it will cause problems with changing hardware and running old software. (And if it won't run Photoshop Elements 1 or 2, untested so far, forget it!)
So I'm going to wait and see. Besides, there'll be countless bugs to be fixed for a while yet. They're still fixing them in XP. (Or updating it to deal with hackers.) No doubt soon we'll see a major Vista security bug emerge, leaving all the XP users to laugh loudly. But the fact remains, especially when new programs are written for Vista, that one day we'll all have to upgrade.
| 11:46 am on Dec 1, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|but there will be a lot of improvements under the bonnet. Security, file handling, internet access speed, High Definition TV support |
Why would we assume that product version X+1 is better than product version X? Have we all conveniently forgotten what happened with Windows ME?
I have been involved in the Vista beta since it started. I have seen the bugs and comments reported during the beta. I have seem Microsoft representatives respond with "this is by design" or "this won't be fixed" or "this might get put in the next version of Windows - codename 'Vienna'". This always happens during a beta, but the frequency of these responses during the beta made me thing that someone right at the top of MSFT said "Vista ships before Christmas or heads will roll", despite Ballmer's assurances back in May that Vista will ship "when it's ready"
I will recommend to every single business client that they Wait And See(tm) as far as Vista is concerned. If they think they will need additional PCs over the next twelve months, I would recommend buying them NOW, to make sure they come with XP. If they come will an "update to Vista" voucher too, that could be useful in the future - but let's face it, who wants their business on the bleeding edge?
|But the fact remains, especially when new programs are written for Vista, that one day we'll all have to upgrade |
Well, unless you hold out on Vista long enough to skip Vista entirely and upgrade from XP to Windows 'Vienna'. I have clients who still run Office 2000 - because "it just works". One day, those clients will upgrade, but from what I've seen of MS Office 2007, it's more and more likely they'll upgrade to OpenOffice instead.
| 11:54 am on Dec 1, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|To many users, it will appear identical to XP |
My biggest frustration with Vista is the large number of user interface changes compared with the XP way of doing things.
MSFT are apparently convinced that every single one of those changes is a change for the better. I have gone through the retraining requirements with several clients (for both Vista and Office 2007) and we were not happy with what we came up with.
For home users - great, buy Vista, get more eye candy, get some new GUI features. A no-brainer (at least if you're a fan of eye candy).
For business - "Hello Help-Desk, where has the the File menu gone in Word? How do I do a 'Save As' now?"
Most big businesses seem to use Windows XP with the 'Classic' UI rather than the 'XP' UI. I'm guessing many of them will want to use Vista with the 'Classic' UI too - which leaves with you with... err... XP with a few extra bits, just slower?
| 11:21 pm on Dec 1, 2006 (gmt 0)|
| 8:57 am on Dec 2, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I don't want Vista either. Why should I pay MS more money to write more software designed to suit their advertising department?
If I didn't want to play PC games, I'd have jumped ship and gone over to Linux or FreeBSD by now. If only the PC games industry hadn't (mostly) fallen for DirectX.
| 5:35 pm on Dec 3, 2006 (gmt 0)|
From a complete amateur's point of view the Aero features seems a bit unnecessary, I can see from a home user point of view that a moving desktop background can be fun but what would a business user gain? Except maybe to have a little more fun infront of the computer... The Aero desktop seems very beautiful though but nothing I would change graphics card for.
To me it seems like the same problems every other windows version ever released have had.I had to change printer when Windows XP came out because it didn't support it. I don't blame Microsoft, the printer was old and syncing everything with all hardware manufacturers is quite a task. But I do hope they've done a better job this time, because there were lots of hardware issues during the XP release. With Windows 95 I had to change computer after a while, it was too slow. My trusty hand scanner also had to go when Windows 95 came out.
Another thing I noticed when both Windows 98 and Windows XP was released is people saying stuff like "I don't need it". I even did it when Windows XP was released, and I had Windows 2000 for quite a while. It was something magical with the Windows 2000 release. But yet most people have Windows XP today, in my view most Windows releases since 3.1 have been dramatized, I mean it's an OS not armageddon.
I'm one of the sorry sods (or lucky ones, yikes I don't even dare to write it:) who actually have preordered a version of Windows Vista for personal use, not business use. For business use Windows XP Pro will continue to reign in my view, at least for a while.
So why did I order Windows Vista? Well to me the gadgets was a major selling point. I'm so fed up with some third party programs, I mean some are great like Firefox, WinAmp and Itunes. But others are simply horrible and work bad together with other programs, and just the amount of time it takes for me to look up and download programs and test them makes Vista worth it.
Another interesting part of Vista in my view is the search and grouping of files that Microsoft offers, what they say is that it will be easier to find and group information. If it will be I don't know, but to me it seems like I can save some time here.
The security has been overhauled, however I'm a bit sceptical. Windows is the most popular Operating System and of course there are exploits, I can even bet you that they will find exploits on Februar the 1st :)
What I'm worried about is the backward compatibility of software, as some of you mentioned. A podcast mentioned something about built in support for virtual machines? That might solve some of the backward compatibility issues.
Anyway to me Windows XP has served well and continues to do well. But I want to see what Microsoft has been up to and as I said earlier I really want to try the gadgets and information grouping.
| 8:51 pm on Dec 3, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Right on Botha! I wish! I still miss NT 3.51. Can you imagine the speed our servers & applications would have if we still ran NT? Every win OS upgrade means we have to double the speed of our harware just to keep up with the crap many of us don't need. To this day I don't understand why we were not given a trimmed down, lightning fast Windows OS to run on decent hardware. My need for a server is limited to having it serve web pages, share files, print and run a databse.
Back in the day I used to serve an office of 50+ employees with a P-200, NT 3.51 and a SCSI drive array....and it kicked butt! What happened? No one asked me if I needed a graphics kernel to be able to play DOOM 3D on my server... No one asked me if I needed plug n play everything. I don't need those things on my server just like I dont need to plug in my video camera, watch TV, or have an animated GUI, in fact, I don't really need a GUI on my servers, they run in a closet and the Monochrome GUI from windows 3.1 was good enough.
XP, VISTA, and whatever else they come up with for the home user who want to waste their money every 2 years on a new toy is fine by me.... but what I want is a stable & fast server side Windows OS that will be maintained and is around long enough to be debugged and run bug free for a while.
[/End of rant]
| 12:42 am on Dec 4, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Oh, please. The good old days weren't all that good...
People love Macs because of the great GUI. Microsoft counters and it's unnecessary eye candy.
I remember in the good old days running Windows 95 at work and paying $800 for 8 megs of RAM. We ran a complex spreadsheet that took about 2 hours to calculate (it had circular references and needed to settle in on a solution.)
Today folks complain that they might have to buy another gig of ram at $120 to optimize Vista's performance.
My memory is pretty good. I remember losing work all the time. Applications crashing, systems freezing up. LAN servers going down. Rebooting was a once a day ritual. In the good old days PCs were expensive, slow and unreliable.
No one's forcing anyone to buy Microsoft's operating system. Take a stand, walk away.
| 6:20 am on Dec 4, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Maybe I'm too old, but all what I've read here, I've read it before when Windows 95 appeared, then 98, then 2000, then XP and now Vista.
The difference is now that, for example on Win 95 there were a lot of expectation, and everybody wanted to have it. Later we wanted 98 to get ride of the blue screens, which weren't fully resolved. Finally Windows 2000 came in and it give a lot of peace of mind for most software vendors. And with XP, specially after SP2 most things were resolved, and we all were really saying "I'm done!".
I personally can live with XP another 5 years and would be happy, I don't need more and I'm talking about productivity. I don't know if Windows Vista will make me do more things on less time, if it does, then welcome, if it doesn't than, my current desktop will wait.
| 12:49 pm on Dec 4, 2006 (gmt 0)|
The problem with Vista is, in some part, it seems to be a step in the wrong direction.
What do people want?
4) Simplicity (but that doesn't mean burying advanced options).
5) Menu items, etc, located broadly where they've come to expect them.
6) Eye Candy.
On this basis, Vista may get ticks for Reliability and Security (but that remains to be proven). On good hardware, it gets a tick for Eye Candy.
Windows 95 was a leap forward. Windows 98 and 2000 (compared to 95 and NT4) were essential since they added things like USB support and multiple monitors (but they got part of that badly wrong - shock!). XP added Eye Candy (of sorts) and user-switching (no need to log off anymore).
There may be some genuinely useful new features in Vista, but upgrading is likely to be a waste of time and money for most people.
In Microsoft's own notes for developers they state that (I paraphrase) 80% of a program's usefulness is normally provided by 20% of the features.
| 1:13 pm on Dec 4, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|XP added Eye Candy (of sorts) and user-switching (no need to log off anymore) |
Yes... but... we should note that when XP is attached to a domain, fast user switching is disabled, and in many corporate deployments, most if not all of XP's eye candy is disabled to save CPU cycles.
| This 34 message thread spans 2 pages: 34 (  2 ) > > |