|
Douglas,
I don't have Vista, just XP. But I'm building a new Quad Core computer (hopefully online by Thanksgiving Break for a programming stint). I am contemplating Vista only because of DirectX10 and Crysis.
I'm not a heavy duty gamer, but that would be the only compelling reason in my mind. If MS relents and puts DX10 into XP, then I'll never switch.
I don't have it so I can't say its crap, but from everyone who does have it that I know, they've all installed Win XP onto those computers.
So MS IS selling Vista, and its preinstalled, but how many people are using it is the indicator people want.
Their unification of OSs will be their downfall. Their supposed next OS where they have finally figured out that the Linux way of handling things is better (i.e. Load the OS modules that you need). You get a minimalist Ring 0 Core OS and everything else is outside of that. They are putting in a hypervisor as well. This will reinvigorate their OS market if the project doesn't get canned. Consumer choice!! Oh what a new concept.
|
|
|
|
|
MajorTom123 wrote: because of DirectX10 and Crysis.
Yes, this is a typical corporate tactic to 'force' users to switch; same as, say, a hardware vendor not updating drivers for older equipment to support a newer OS ... emmm ... gee, that sounds familiar ...
MajorTom123 wrote: I don't have it so I can't say its crap, but from everyone who does have it that I know, they've all installed Win XP onto those computers.
I wouldn't call it "crap"; but I have had enough problems with it to leave a sour taste in my mouth. There's just not enough in it that makes me say "Wow!", this is leaps-and-bounds better than XP! Nothing.
MajorTom123 wrote: a minimalist Ring 0 Core OS and everything else is outside of that
Yes, I've been following the whole "MinWin" concept, and I am keeping my fingers and toes crossed that they continue down the path ... but I won't hold my breath.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Excellent link. Thanks. Flame wars broke out between the "MS wouldn't do something like that" crowd and the "Tweak this and it increases detail" crowd. As usual in the tech community it skewed off topic. There's just so much to talk about .
It answers some questions, but the jury is still out on others. i.e. Does Crysis really need DX10? It sounds like for me the answer is no, DX9 will do with this config change. If I were hard core, then yeah Vista is the way the truth and the life. Sorry I don't drink that Kool-Aid.
Thanks for the follow-up.
|
|
|
|
|
Well said! I completely agree. I had many problems in Vista while developing an application to integrate with QuickBooks. And yes, i don't know why Microsoft doesn't release something like Windows Developer Edition with full features and targeted only for developers 
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
had a little fear  to vote the last choice, having no practical experience in vista.
But wondering: I found myself in a group of about 27%!
 Sigh - I'm not absolutely outdated.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm running Vista on a P4 2,8 GHz with 1GB of memory and a 256MB PCI-E graphics card.
It installed in 15-20 minutes and is running just fine after you've switched of the UAC and the DEP.
And if my memory serves me well, Xp had similar compatibility problems at its release...
I wouldn't upgrade just for fun though, it's not better than Xp, but when you get it with a new machine... why not?
(I have to admit I didn't use it for development yet)
V.
No hurries, no worries
|
|
|
|
|
V. wrote: but when you get it with a new machine...
But is everyone so lucky to get a new machine at thier whims and fancies? 
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, XP also had problems when it was released. I stuck to Win 2k for quite some time after the release of XP and I intend to do the same with Vista.
|
|
|
|
|
But when buying a new product the question should rather be WHY than WHY NOT?
With a new machine it's ok. I would do the same
|
|
|
|
|
i don't like vista...
i don't like transparency, disolvence aeroglass etc etc
i used to use always the windows classical theme also in xp.
i use xp pro sp2 and i think it's a good os... perhaps the best microsoft os
i suppose we have to wait for vista sp1 for releasing a real impression on vista.
someone would say: always wait for sp1 in microsoft os
but the real new vista features i were interested in as winfs!!?? where are they???
i think that the windows server 2008 will be a new os and not an new graphic interface as vista (i read some really interesting new features in a microsoft powerpoint)
----------------------------
nowhere now here-------> giammin.blogspot.com
|
|
|
|
|
giammin wrote: always wait for sp1 in microsoft os
The classic Windows 98 is a very good example. Isn't it? The then system administrators would normally prefer installing Windows 98 Second Edition.
|
|
|
|
|
i fear that Vista is going to be a fake as windows me....
|
|
|
|
|
giammin wrote: but the real new vista features i were interested in as winfs!!?? where are they???
Winfs was scrapped a few years ago because performance was very bad.
John
|
|
|
|
|
I have installed and used Vista since it was in Beta version. I've seen how much it has changed till now. Now I'm using it as my primary OS for development. I have to say that it has cute interface and Microsoft has tried to make it more useful for people. But lets face the truth, windows Vista is a big memory waster. I don't care if it boots up or shuts down faster than any other OS, it just wastes system resources. I assume any professional developer may need VMWare or some kind of Virtual Computing software for development purposes. A fresh installation of windows XP takes about 150MB of memory space and leaves the rest of it for your usage. Windows Vista takes about 700MB of memory if you don't install any other 3rd party application on it. My development platform uses about 1.2GB memory when it boots up and during my work it consumes much more. I was able to have 3 VMs up and running during my normal development in windows XP but now i can hardly have one VM working during my normal activities. basically Vista uses more than 4 times as windows XP's memory usage! Isn't there any optimization process during the OS development phases anymore?
By the way, had anyone of you seen WinFS in the early Longhorn Beta Releases? Vista's name was still Longhorn and it had WinFS service in it too. It used 170MB of memory only by it self when the system came up!!! Fortunately they decided not to release it because i think it would have added much more mess to Vista.
During my experience with windows Vista and using it as development platform i have encountered the following problems may times on a system that only has Visual Studio 2005, MS SQL Server 2005 Developer Edition and VMWare Workstation installed on it.
1. Numerous application crashes or short-time hangs especially for Visual Studio 2005 IDE
2. Countless explorer long delays because of no reason
3. Confusion between multiple network devices installed on the system resulting in complete disconnection of network access
4. At least 2 or 3 Blue Screens in a week
So, my conclusion is Windows Vista has got a long way to go to become a stable operating system.
|
|
|
|
|
Osama Askari wrote: Its not developer friendly
Significantly. I think the Shell Extensions have significant impact at least with respect to Vista. Isn't it?
|
|
|
|
|
Does everyone remember when microsofot released that horror of an operating system Windows ME (HOW COULD YOU FORGET!)...As terrible as it was, it was ultimately a vital stepping stone towards the creation of Windows XP. Similarly, and perhaps more so, Vista is simply a stepping stone towards something greater, a steep learning curve if you like. This is especially true with vista because its almost entirely new, built from the ground up, hence its long production time. Now i don't think i'm telling anybody anything they didn't already know but my point is this:
If you realise that Vista is just a prototype for a faster, better, more user friendly, secure and reliable operating system...then stop complaining and get over it. Of course its going to have bugs and glitches, security issues and user unfriendliness in parts, but overall it will result in a much better end product.
Even when windows XP was released it had its fair share of problems, but two service packs later and the majority of complaints die down, Vista will be the same, two service packs later and we'll all wonder why we ever used XP (maybe). Anyway, that's my opinion and the reason why i haven't bought it yet, i'm gonna wait till the complaints die down, then i know it will be better and good enough for me to make the move.
|
|
|
|
|
The ANZAC wrote: Windows ME (HOW COULD YOU FORGET!)...As terrible as it was, it was ultimately a vital stepping stone towards the creation of Windows XP.
In term of kernel ME was the last offshoot of the ignominious 9x series, when XP is the grandson of NT4.
Capitalism is the exploitation of man by man. Syndicalism is the opposite.
Fold with us! ¤ flickr
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps i ment millenium, regardless a learning curve is still a learning curve, just as windows realised that the 9x series was finished it has also decided to move off from the NT4 design.
|
|
|
|
|
So Microsoft is asking us to pay hundreds of dollars for a prototype so they can produce the real thing in 2012 and charge us again?
You aren't helping ANZAC
regards,
Paul Watson
Ireland & South Africa
Andy Brummer wrote: Watson's law:
As an online discussion of cars grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving the Bugatti Veyron approaches one.
|
|
|
|
|
Damn Right! What else would you expect out of microsoft. The point is...things will get better.
|
|
|
|
|
I thought I'd put in a good word for Vista. I've been using it as my (only) primary OS for the last 3 months and wouldn't even think of switching back.
Firsts things first I've got a computer that is capable of running it: an AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+ with 2GB of DDR2-6400, a 320MB nVidia 8800 GTS and close to a terabyte of storage, and a 22" widescreen TFT.
I've actually got two 120GB disks, one with system disks for XP and one with Vista. The XP disk is still in the computer but I've hardly ever rebooted into it, on the rare occasion that I have I've noticed how slow XP is compared to Vista, yes that's right slow, it takes about 4 times as long to get everything up and running under XP compared to Vista. Vista may be caching things, I haven't checked but do I care? No, with the space available I'd rather have things boot quickly.
Regarding drivers I did have a problem initially however these are down to the manufacturer of the said product rather than Vista. One which peeved me was DVDs were appearing washed out, even under XP but this turned out to be a problem with the nVidia drivers which an update soon fixed. Wireless drivers haven't been a problem and can connect to the IC wireless network when I want to, although I don't since this I've got a proper RJ45 socket in halls.
I've just received a Brother laser printer and a Canon scanner and neither of these had problems with installing drivers onto a Ultimate x64. In fact the only problem I've got with drivers now has been an ancient Lego Cam which I wanted to use the microphone on but considering that this thing is close to a decade old I don't blame it. I can however boot into an XP VM and use it just fine.
Regarding development work and normal work I haven't had a problem and in fact prefer Vista to XP for this purpose, the only issues I've had have been when trying to publish stuff to the local IIS when not running VS2008 under administrator priviledges, which makes sense really. The other usual stuff I haven't had a single problem with, if I create a new database on my SQL server I do need to be running SSMS with admin priviledges but again there's a reason for that, and normally you don't need to do so.
The only occassions where I've had to use an alternative OS has been to use Quartus (digital circuit simulator), OrCAD and a few other packages for my university course, however these are not Vista problems, it's problems with the companies who write them not supporting things properly and it's no bother to boot up a VM with the stuff in it. In fact I've created a VM especially for Imperial work to keep my main machine nice and clean.
Unusual I think but I actually like the UAC because it lets me know when a program is trying to do something special and gives me a greater understanding of what's going on with particular programs. The other little things people have critized such as the eye-candy I don't mind and prefer the Aero look to XPs, even with different themes. Perhaps this is because my graphics card is more than capable and by shifting off the rendering to the hardware Vista is actually faster, this I think is the a major factor in the speed difference between XP and Vista on the same PC. The Start menu search I absolutely love and also the way that explorer defaults the focus to the search box, the only major criticism I have of explorer is the way it forgets about my "default" view and continually changes it. There is a hack for this but I haven't bothered tracking it down yet.
Plus IIS7 makes it even better, just wish the FTP was included under the 7.0 management interface rather than the 6.0.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm running a core2duo 2.66GHz, 2GB DDR2 800mhz, a 320GB HDD as my vista hardrive (and a load of other stuff on it too) and 2 8600GT's in SLI... so far the only problem I've had with vista is that my wireless microsoft keyboard hasn't functioned correctly (think it's just an issue wih the base plugged into a PS2 slot, will try a converter later.) sure I've experienced a few hangups, but honestly, I've seen "not responding" way more on XP. plus the frequent explorer.exe crashes on XP. as far as I'm concerned, I've got at least one service packs 'til I can actually say whether or not I'm disatisfied by vista  so far, GUI looks sweet, drivers are manufacturer issues, not issues with vista, and my games run strong like bull  . quite honestly I welcome and accept change.
|
|
|
|
|
twinscythe12332 wrote: I've seen "not responding" way more on XP
I've seen a few more than normal but Vista recovers from it more gracefully, i.e. before I had to hunt around in the process list for the application and if it was explorer I'd frequently kill off the wrong process.
|
|
|
|
|
It's all about product rollover and sales not useful apps and services. It should have been a service pack on XP.
You would have to be right up there to make a case to any boss I've ever had that spending the money was a benefit - and the purchase is only the beginning....
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
