Should I move to Vista?
Chops
I've got all the grunt to go to Vista, and my boss has offered to pay
for the OS, but should I?
Is anyone here running Vista? are you happy with it .... is there
anything in particular that you've found wont run on it.
I'm sorta hoping that drivers etc should be pretty much available now
... but just thought I'd ask here before blindly jumping off the
Microsoft cliff.
Cheers
CHops
Sandgroper
"Chops" <Ch...@biteme.com.au> wrote in message
news:13721kl...@corp.supernews.com...
NNOOooooooo !
Wait until at least SP1 has been released to fix the gazillion bugs it has.
You would be better off just with sticking to XP Pro.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
True Multitasking is having three computers and a chair with wheels.
Sandgroper
------------------------------------
Remove KNICKERS to Email
stev...@KNICKERSiinet.net.au
Rod Speed
> Chops <Ch...@biteme.com.au> wrote
>> I've got all the grunt to go to Vista, and my boss has offered to pay for the OS, but should I?
Probably, unless you have some hardware that isnt supported.
>> Is anyone here running Vista? are you happy with it .... is there anything in particular that
>> you've found wont run on it.
>> I'm sorta hoping that drivers etc should be pretty much available now ...
The main exception is TV capture cards currently.
>> but just thought I'd ask here before blindly jumping off the Microsoft cliff.
There is no cliff and you can always go back to XP if you dont like it.
> NNOOooooooo !
> Wait until at least SP1 has been released to fix the gazillion bugs
> it has. You would be better off just with sticking to XP Pro.
The same mindless claim was made about XP too.
Ezra
no mate it's not worth it.
in the event that you do remember a good gig of RAM is in order.
also unless you go for the high-end model forget it.
maybe just wait until when Longhorn comes out in a couple of years.
that's my guess :)
Chops
I've got 4 gig of ram now and the boss offered to buy the Work Version
(one under ultimate).
C.
Kwyjibo
"Ezra" <e...@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:46710ca6$0$17159$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
WTF??? Vista IS the desktop version of Longhorn.
--
Kwyj.
Kwyjibo
Running Ultimate here on a dual core 3.2 with 2G of RAM and, aside from a
crappy Windows Explorer interface, it seems ok. (Then again - I've also got
XP available in a VM if I get sick of Vista)
--
Kwyj.
russell
"Kwyjibo" <kwy...@removeozdebate.com> wrote in message
news:467112e1$0$22459$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
WHOOOOSHHH
Swampfox
What, if any, are the improvements?
I'm happy with XP and see no reason to switch, unless
there are concrete benefits.
Chops
But other than that I am not sure ..... I would imagine it would make
better use of things like hypertheading and multiple CPU's .... but that
may not be true at all.
C.
Kwyjibo
> Swampfox wrote:
>> "Kwyjibo" <kwy...@removeozdebate.com> wrote in message
>> news:46711636$0$22443$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>> "Chops" <Ch...@biteme.com.au> wrote in message
>>> news:13721kl...@corp.supernews.com...
>>>> Hi Guys,
>>>>
>>>> I've got all the grunt to go to Vista, and my boss has offered to pay
>>>> for the OS, but should I?
>>>>
>>>> Is anyone here running Vista? are you happy with it .... is there
>>>> anything in particular that you've found wont run on it.
>>>>
>>>> I'm sorta hoping that drivers etc should be pretty much available now
>>>> ... but just thought I'd ask here before blindly jumping off the
>>>> Microsoft cliff.
>>>>
>>> Running Ultimate here on a dual core 3.2 with 2G of RAM and, aside from
>>> a crappy Windows Explorer interface, it seems ok. (Then again - I've
>>> also got XP available in a VM if I get sick of Vista)
>>>
>>> --
>>> Kwyj.
>>
>> What, if any, are the improvements?
>> I'm happy with XP and see no reason to switch, unless there are concrete
>> benefits.
Not a huge amount of benefits.
Bitlocker is usefull for my work notebook. Windows Meeting Space is handy.
The firewall works both ways now. (inbound AND outbound filtering based on
local and remote port, local and remote IP, and executable name)
For the average mum and dad user, the UAC is probably a bit safer (but it
gave me the shits so I turned it off)
For corporates there are some huge benefits. You can use Group Policies to
lock down things like CD burners, digital cameras, external hard drives,
fash drives etc. The new imaging format means that you can use the same
image across mutiple brands/platforms of PC. etc.
>>
>>
> It is prettier!
>
> But other than that I am not sure ..... I would imagine it would make
> better use of things like hypertheading and multiple CPU's
Nope. Same as XP in that regard.
Mike Rotch
Del Boca Vista should be nice this time of year
BernardZ
01.iinet.net.au>, kwy...@removeozdebate.com says...
> >>
> >>
> > It is prettier!
> >
> > But other than that I am not sure ..... I would imagine it would make
> > better use of things like hypertheading and multiple CPU's
>
> Nope. Same as XP in that regard.
>
Actually some of my clients are saying that VISTA runs much slower.
Mike Rotch
less painful installing WinStyler. And Hundreds of colours and
styles to choose from, how many styles and colours in vista ?
steam3801
Think about it this way ....
When they released Windows95, they had to release version B, then
version C before they got it "right"(?)
Then they released Windows98 .... then SP1 ... then SP2 .... and had
to "re"release it as Windows98SE before it was any good (which it
bloody well was, well and trully - probably the best Windows version
for its time!)
Then they released WindowsME .... 'nuff said... *cough*crap*cough*
(And in between we won't even talk about NT or 2000 .....)
Then they released WindowsXP ..... then SP1 ... then SP2 before it was
reasonably acceptable.
So, would you really buy a first edition/first release of the next
level of an operating system .....
--
steam3801
God hates homos .... but he likes tabouli.
Kwyjibo
"BernardZ" <bern...@BluesystemNospam.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.20dbebcf75f20dec989eb2@news...
I wouldn't say MUCH slower, but it's probably a little bit slower than XP on
the same hardware.
The same goes for just about any OS upgrade though. They add more stuff in
which creates more overhead.
--
Kwyj.
Kwyjibo
"steam3801" <tryspam...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:h6g273d40p43rkv8i...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 19:12:52 +1000, Chops <Ch...@biteme.com.au> - in a
> blinding flash of brilliance - wrote:
>
>>Hi Guys,
>>
>>I've got all the grunt to go to Vista, and my boss has offered to pay
>>for the OS, but should I?
>>
>>Is anyone here running Vista? are you happy with it .... is there
>>anything in particular that you've found wont run on it.
>>
>>I'm sorta hoping that drivers etc should be pretty much available now
>>... but just thought I'd ask here before blindly jumping off the
>>Microsoft cliff.
>
> Think about it this way ....
>
> When they released Windows95, they had to release version B, then
> version C before they got it "right"(?)
>
95 worked fine for what it was.
> Then they released Windows98 .... then SP1 ... then SP2 .... and had
> to "re"release it as Windows98SE before it was any good (which it
> bloody well was, well and trully - probably the best Windows version
> for its time!)
The original 98 was fine too.
>
> Then they released WindowsME .... 'nuff said... *cough*crap*cough*
>
Yep - ME was a dog.
> (And in between we won't even talk about NT or 2000 .....)
>
NT and 2000 were both fine for their target markets - business use.
> Then they released WindowsXP ..... then SP1 ... then SP2 before it was
> reasonably acceptable.
What bullshit. The original XP was fine too.
>
> So, would you really buy a first edition/first release of the next
> level of an operating system .....
Yep. Especially considering I don't pay for it :-)
--
Kwyj.
Swampfox
In that case I'll leave it alone.
The only improvement that applies to me is the
firewall, and I don't use the Windows firewall anyway.
Thanks for the info.
Hunter01
>
> I wouldn't say MUCH slower, but it's probably a little bit slower than XP on
> the same hardware.
> The same goes for just about any OS upgrade though. They add more stuff in
> which creates more overhead.
Dunno, way back when we were arguing about whether to jump to 2000 or XP
from crappy old NT, everyone was afraid of going to XP, our trials had
shown it to actually be a tad quicker than 2000, and seemed a tad more
stable too, which luckily led to us winning out over the 2000 fans.
We were hoping for the same with Vista, especially since it's got much
better toys for hardware independent imaging and so on, but our trials
found it a LOT slower unless you had top a top end machine, a shitload
of software that wasn't happy to run (whereas when we moved to XP there
was very little), and when it dies it dies in a heap, a basic software
install that bluescreened it wasn't fixable from a recovery, we're now
putting it off for as long as we possibly can, we don't feel like going
downhill....
Rob
>>to "re"release it as Windows98SE before it was any good (which it
>>bloody well was, well and trully - probably the best Windows version
>>for its time!)
>
>
> The original 98 was fine too.
>
>
>>Then they released WindowsME .... 'nuff said... *cough*crap*cough*
>>
>
>
> Yep - ME was a dog.
>
>
Lots of others may agree with you but - I never had a problem with ME
it did fix the shutdown problem I had with 98SE - still have it up on an
old, networked in, P500 still working fine, attached to a film printer.
>>(And in between we won't even talk about NT or 2000 .....)
>>
>
>
> NT and 2000 were both fine for their target markets - business use.
>
>
Used both without problems.
>>Then they released WindowsXP ..... then SP1 ... then SP2 before it was
>>reasonably acceptable.
>
>
> What bullshit. The original XP was fine too.
>
>
I had the original XP up, worked without problems.
>>So, would you really buy a first edition/first release of the next
>>level of an operating system .....
>
>
> Yep. Especially considering I don't pay for it :-)
>
I haven't bought my Vista copy as yet, waiting for the right price
version (legitimate version BTW) to come. But I can't see MS releasing
the OS if there were so many problems or is it just operator induced
problems?
The main concern is drivers for my older bits like scanners. This was a
problem in the initial stages of XP, most there was a work around like
2000 drivers.
Rod Speed
>>> Then they released Windows98 .... then SP1 ... then SP2 .... and had to "re"release it as
>>> Windows98SE before it was any good (which it bloody well was, well and trully - probably the
>>> best Windows version for its time!)
>> The original 98 was fine too.
>>> Then they released WindowsME .... 'nuff said... *cough*crap*cough*
>> Yep - ME was a dog.
Nope. Worked fine.
> Lots of others may agree with you but - I never had a problem with ME
Me neither.
> it did fix the shutdown problem I had with 98SE
Me too.
> - still have it up on an old, networked in, P500 still working fine, attached to a film printer.
I run XP on everything now, even a P400 that I dont use anymore.
>>> (And in between we won't even talk about NT or 2000 .....)
>> NT and 2000 were both fine for their target markets - business use.
> Used both without problems.
Both were rather limited in some areas, particularly USB.
>>> Then they released WindowsXP ..... then SP1 ... then SP2 before it was reasonably acceptable.
>> What bullshit. The original XP was fine too.
> I had the original XP up, worked without problems.
Yeah, tho it improved with the wireless wizard etc.
Tim Fairchild
> Rob <me...@mine.com> wrote
>> Kwyjibo wrote
>>> steam3801 <tryspam...@ozemail.com.au> wrote
>
>>>> Then they released Windows98 .... then SP1 ... then SP2 .... and had to
>>>> "re"release it as Windows98SE before it was any good (which it bloody
>>>> well was, well and trully - probably the best Windows version for its
>>>> time!)
>
>>> The original 98 was fine too.
>
>>>> Then they released WindowsME .... 'nuff said... *cough*crap*cough*
>
>>> Yep - ME was a dog.
>
> Nope. Worked fine.
>
>
>> Lots of others may agree with you but - I never had a problem with ME
>
> Me neither.
>
>> it did fix the shutdown problem I had with 98SE
>
> Me too.
The most stable game box I had was ME (before XPSP2). It was better in that
role by far than the original XP. ME did need a bit of a lobotomy and pull
out the crap, but as a leaned down box it was stable.
--
Tim Fairchild - Queensland Australia
Mandriva Linux release 2007.0 (Official) for x86_64
Linux 2.6.20.8 x86_64 AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 2800+
NVRM version: NVIDIA UNIX x86_64 Kernel Module 1.0-9746
Kwyjibo
"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5deaohF...@mid.individual.net...
> Rob <me...@mine.com> wrote
>> Kwyjibo wrote
>>> steam3801 <tryspam...@ozemail.com.au> wrote
>
>>>> Then they released Windows98 .... then SP1 ... then SP2 .... and had to
>>>> "re"release it as Windows98SE before it was any good (which it bloody
>>>> well was, well and trully - probably the best Windows version for its
>>>> time!)
>
>>> The original 98 was fine too.
>
>>>> Then they released WindowsME .... 'nuff said... *cough*crap*cough*
>
>>> Yep - ME was a dog.
>
> Nope. Worked fine.
>
>
>> Lots of others may agree with you but - I never had a problem with ME
>
> Me neither.
>
>> it did fix the shutdown problem I had with 98SE
>
> Me too.
>
>> - still have it up on an old, networked in, P500 still working fine,
>> attached to a film printer.
>
> I run XP on everything now, even a P400 that I dont use anymore.
>
>>>> (And in between we won't even talk about NT or 2000 .....)
>
>>> NT and 2000 were both fine for their target markets - business use.
>
>> Used both without problems.
>
> Both were rather limited in some areas, particularly USB.
>
2000 USB was fine.
--
Kwyj.
OnTheWagon
I can only comment on Vista Home Basic. Piece of fucking shit.
steam3801
blinding flash of brilliance - wrote:
>Lots of others may agree with you but - I never had a problem with ME
>it did fix the shutdown problem I had with 98SE
And so did the free, small program patch dowloaded from Microsoft
(239887up.exe) - without having to buy and install a whole new OS.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> Then they released Windows98 .... then SP1 ... then SP2 ....
>>>>> and had to "re"release it as Windows98SE before it was
>>>>> any good (which it bloody well was, well and trully -
>>>>> probably the best Windows version for its time!)
>>>> The original 98 was fine too.
So was the original 95, just needed an update for bigger drives and USB when they showed up.
>>>>> Then they released WindowsME .... 'nuff said... *cough*crap*cough*
>>>> Yep - ME was a dog.
>> Nope. Worked fine.
>>> Lots of others may agree with you but - I never had a problem with ME
>> Me neither.
>>> it did fix the shutdown problem I had with 98SE
>> Me too.
> The most stable game box I had was ME (before XPSP2).
Yeah, here too.
> It was better in that role by far than the original XP.
Cant agree with that. The only thing SP2 added was some extra capability, not stability.
> ME did need a bit of a lobotomy and pull out the crap,
Nope, never did any of that.
> but as a leaned down box it was stable.
It was as stable as 98 without that.
Rod Speed
Nope, not as good on automatic recognition as XP.
Rod Speed
> Rob <me...@mine.com> wrote
>> Lots of others may agree with you but - I never had a problem
>> with ME it did fix the shutdown problem I had with 98SE
> And so did the free, small program patch dowloaded from Microsoft
> (239887up.exe) - without having to buy and install a whole new OS.
Nope, didnt help here on a number of systems. ME fixed it completely.
Kwyjibo
What types of devices are you talking about?
Every USB key or external HDD I've tried worked fine on W2K.
--
Kwyj
will_s
"Chops" <Ch...@biteme.com.au> wrote in message
news:13721kl...@corp.supernews.com...
> Hi Guys,
>
> I've got all the grunt to go to Vista, and my boss has offered to pay for
> the OS, but should I?
>
> Is anyone here running Vista? are you happy with it .... is there anything
> in particular that you've found wont run on it.
>
> I'm sorta hoping that drivers etc should be pretty much available now ...
> but just thought I'd ask here before blindly jumping off the Microsoft
> cliff.
>
> Cheers
>
> CHops
The drivers are there but not for everything. So firstly check to see if
their are drivers for your hardware and I am not just talking about Graphic
Cards, Sound Cards are very iffy and cards like the basic SB Audigy has just
basic drivers . Also their are some programs that wont run and need an
upgrade like Adobe Photoshop Elements ( you need PSE 5 ) and Nero ( Nero
). Their may be others.
I am happy with Vista but it is still a long way from been a must to buy. If
I used my computer for work I would stay were I was for now .
Anyway the best option would be to make a dual boot system with your current
system ( I assume XP ) . You are allowed to do this.
Rob
> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 10:40:56 +1000, Rob <me...@mine.com> - in a
> blinding flash of brilliance - wrote:
>
>
>>Lots of others may agree with you but - I never had a problem with ME
>>it did fix the shutdown problem I had with 98SE
>
>
> And so did the free, small program patch dowloaded from Microsoft
> (239887up.exe) - without having to buy and install a whole new OS.
That didn't work on on two particular computers - thinking something to
do with the chipset on those particulars boards VIA????
JimW52
> Hi Guys,
>
> I've got all the grunt to go to Vista, and my boss has offered to pay for
> the OS, but should I?
>
> Is anyone here running Vista? are you happy with it .... is there anything
> in particular that you've found wont run on it.
>
> I'm sorta hoping that drivers etc should be pretty much available now ...
> but just thought I'd ask here before blindly jumping off the Microsoft
> cliff.
>
> Cheers
>
> CHops
Read this and make up your own mind
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html
Jim
Greg
bundled with a direct X 10 video card games are supposed to look and perform
heaps better.
"Chops" <Ch...@biteme.com.au> wrote in message
news:1372abq...@corp.supernews.com...
Tim Fairchild
> Direct X 10 support is only available from Windows Vista. and by all
> reports bundled with a direct X 10 video card games are supposed to look
> and perform heaps better.
So the main reason is games?
--
Tim Fairchild - Queensland Australia
Mandriva Linux release 2007.0 (Official) for x86_64
Linux 2.6.21.4 x86_64 AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 2800+
Kwyjibo
"Tim Fairchild" <use...@bcs4me.com> wrote in message
news:46729317$0$886$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
> So then this guy called Greg said something like:
>
>> Direct X 10 support is only available from Windows Vista. and by all
>> reports bundled with a direct X 10 video card games are supposed to look
>> and perform heaps better.
>
> So the main reason is games?
Nope - The main reason is to avoid turning into a brain-dead linux zealot
with a fucking silly sig.
--
Kwyj.
Rod Speed
Mostly the more exotic stuff.
> Every USB key or external HDD I've tried worked fine on W2K.
Sure, but the more exotic stuff often didnt.
Rod Speed
Didnt work with some intel chipset motherboards here.
Tim Fairchild
Only appears to be windows Zealots here tho. I still have a windows game box
running in the house, so I was curious about the games capabilities, speed,
etc compared to XP.
As for my sig, it does the job intended:
#!/bin/sh
echo Tim Fairchild - Queensland Australia
cat /etc/release
uname -srmp
head -c 57 /proc/driver/nvidia/version
echo
Tim Fairchild
> Kwyjibo wrote:
>
>> "Tim Fairchild" <use...@bcs4me.com> wrote in message
>
>>>> Direct X 10 support is only available from Windows Vista. and by all
>>>> reports bundled with a direct X 10 video card games are supposed to
>>>> look and perform heaps better.
>
>>> So the main reason is games?
>>
>> Nope - The main reason is to avoid turning into a brain-dead linux zealot
>> with a fucking silly sig.
>
> But it was properly delineated!
And it's there to piss off winzealots, which it does very well...
Kwyjibo
> So then this guy called Craig Welch said something like:
>
>> Kwyjibo wrote:
>>
>>> "Tim Fairchild" <use...@bcs4me.com> wrote in message
>>
>>>>> Direct X 10 support is only available from Windows Vista. and by all
>>>>> reports bundled with a direct X 10 video card games are supposed to
>>>>> look and perform heaps better.
>>
>>>> So the main reason is games?
>>>
>>> Nope - The main reason is to avoid turning into a brain-dead linux
>>> zealot
>>> with a fucking silly sig.
>>
>> But it was properly delineated!
>
> And it's there to piss off winzealots, which it does very well...
>
I don't know about 'piss off', but I do 'piss myself laughing' at the self
absorbed nature of those who have such sigs, and actully believe that anyone
could give a flying fuck what OS they are using.
Is that close enough to your intended result?
--
Kwyj.
Tim Fairchild
Oddly enough you do tend to get the more computer and OS aware types on a
computer forum.
Funny that.
Anyway, it absorbed you :)
BernardZ
01.iinet.net.au>, hunt...@iinet.net.au says...
On an old 2000 network running a program using VB and SQL. My client
decided to upgrade to VISTA. Almost all the machines were changed to new
ones as he considered them to being too old except his best machine
which was left with 2000. That old machine now is the worst machine on
his network yet it is the fastest running that program.
SG1
> So then this guy called Greg said something like:
>
>> Direct X 10 support is only available from Windows Vista. and by all
>> reports bundled with a direct X 10 video card games are supposed to look
>> and perform heaps better.
>
> So the main reason is games?
>
Yes games have always driven the chippies to produce more & faster. After
all mine IS bigger than yours????????? Microsnot has to produce an operating
system to use all that extra speed so the average Bruce or Sheila won't
notice that the machines got faster!!!!!!
none
"SG1" <Lo...@the.races.com> wrote in message news:XIZci.15005$wH4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
to 64k and so on..
So aren`t you doing the same SG1?.
Don`t criticise what you follow; cause it`ll
always come back and and bite you..
My 433mhz, is ok for me.;)