backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 200 comment(s) - last by William Gaatje.. on May 11 at 9:05 AM
Gates says that Microsoft has sold over 140 million copies of Vista worldwide since its launch.

Windows Vista seems to be everyone's favorite whipping boy these days. PC World labeled it the #1 Biggest Tech Disappointment of 2007 and mini "E-Wars" are guaranteed to prop up anytime the names Windows Vista and Windows XP are uttered with the same breath.

Despite the explosive nature regarding any discussion of Vista, Microsoft chairman Bill Gates says that the operating system is doing just fine. According to Gates, Microsoft has sold over 140M copies of Vista globally since its consumer launch on January 30, 2007.

"That's a very rapid sales rate," said Gates who has been very supportive of the operating system despite the backlash.

Windows Vista is a competent piece of software and most consumers who purchase new computers running the operating system won't encounter many -- if any -- problems during day-to-day usage. Power users, however, have been quick to point out inadequacies in the operating system including its penchant for memory and resources, User Account Control (UAC), and sometimes shaky driver support.

OEMs have also expressed little faith in Windows Vista when it comes to performing on ultra-low-cost PCs (ULPCs). For this reason, many OEM have stuck with the slim and trim Windows XP operating system for better performance. Microsoft acknowledged the concerns of these OEMs by again extending the availability date of Windows XP Home for ULPCs until June 30, 2010 (or longer depending on when the next version of Windows is released).

But perhaps one of the biggest barriers to further adoption of Windows Vista -- at least until its successor arrives -- may be from Microsoft itself. The company recently released Service Pack 3 (SP3) for Windows XP which brings some Vista-esque security features, numerous patches/bugfixes, and improvements to overall performance.

With SP3 now making the rounds around the web, many XP users -- including large corporations -- see no reason to upgrade to Vista in the near-term.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
I Like how
By SavagePotato on 5/8/2008 9:55:11 AM , Rating: 5
I like how windows XP is now "slim and trim".

So all those enthusiasts that nlite the heck out of it and all those people that made the same complaints about XP and shouted win98 forever were doing so because it's slim and trim? Maybe the linux gurus with their single CD distro of Ubuntu would also agree that XP is slim and trim.

Hm no maybe it's just a 7 year old operating system and hardware has long since outpaced it's requirements. It is going to be interesting watching history repeat itself over the next several years with Vista as the loud angry detractors look more and more foolish while hardware capabilities leave Vistas requirements in the dust.




RE: I Like how
By FITCamaro on 5/8/2008 10:12:41 AM , Rating: 5
Well I think even those who do like Vista will probably switch to Windows 7 when its released in 2010 or 2011. Assuming its thinner and lighter as Microsoft says it will be.


RE: I Like how
By fake01 on 5/8/2008 11:06:37 AM , Rating: 5
I'm pretty sure Microsoft said that about Vista ;)


RE: I Like how
By Flunk on 5/8/2008 11:54:40 AM , Rating: 5
It won't be, Microsoft says that about every new Windows release. They said that about 95, XP and Vista (among others). When XP was released it was considered a huge hardware hog and many systems could not run it competently. Sub in the name of any version of Windows into that sentence and you have a winner every time.


RE: I Like how
By mondo1234 on 5/8/2008 10:27:44 PM , Rating: 1
Just because it sells rapidly doesn't mean its the dominant OS. The sales figures for all of 2007 was 250 million PCs. If vista was installed on 100 million of them, it is only being installed on 40% of all new PCs. There are more XP licenses being sold than Vista.


RE: I Like how
By BansheeX on 5/8/08, Rating: -1
RE: I Like how
By SavagePotato on 5/8/2008 10:40:30 AM , Rating: 5
There is a perfect example of why fud is a bad thing.

You have never used Vista but based on all the rants of people claiming it's a resource hog you are unwilling to try it for yourself because you have bought into the negative spin of the naysayers.

That's step one, step two is joining the naysayers in spreading the same misinformation so other people do the same thing you just did.

Thank you for helping to illustrate exactly how the circle of internet fud has perpetuated the negative myths about Vista.


RE: I Like how
By DingieM on 5/8/08, Rating: -1
RE: I Like how
By mikefarinha on 5/8/2008 10:53:34 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
I've tried out Vista and can definitely tell you Vista IS A RESOURCE HOG!!!


Playing around on a PC with Vista on it at Best Buy doesn't count as 'trying it out'


RE: I Like how
By SavagePotato on 5/8/2008 10:54:48 AM , Rating: 4
I guess you tried a different Vista than the one I and everyone else that has no issues with it use.

Let me guess, you are one of those trolls that never got past understanding why superfetch is using all the ram up aren't you.


RE: I Like how
By fake01 on 5/8/2008 11:11:00 AM , Rating: 3
He probably also enabled DreamScene and is now trying to call Microsoft support with confusion on why his desktop background is moving :P


RE: I Like how
By nolisi on 5/8/2008 11:59:14 AM , Rating: 1
I like how everyone who likes Vista automatically assumes that everyone who doesn't like Vista has not used it. It's interesting, they even say "based on your comments." but they don't usually specify which ones.

Ok- here's my comment- have you ever heard of disk thrashing under Vista? It's not a pleasant thing. You must not have ever used Vista because you've never experienced disk thrashing.

See how dumb that logic is? Some people have used it and have had bad experiences. Some have used it and had good experiences.

The truth is, Vista is a disappointment because of technical issues people have had to (and still are) facing. Between Superfetch slowing down any computer with less than 2 GB's of RAM, to it causing disk thrash, and then on top of that you can include the driver issues that a substantial number of nVidia users have faced.

But, let's address the superfetch issue since this is what you're talking about:

Does it really make that much sense to utilize more RAM to try to speed up the hard disk? It may make sense on the surface, but consider that most PC's are sold with less than 2GB's of RAM, then consider that there are yet no reliable statistics of Superfetch proportionally speeding up disk access to the amount of RAM resources utilized, then take into account that Superfetch (if it guesses wrong) can actually slow down your machine because it cached the wrong info in RAM.

Now, take into account the fact that it seems to be the cause of a ton of disk thrash, effectively reducing the life of your hard drive.

I'm sure the solution most people will give is "shut off superfetch" or "get an SSD."

So here are my choices: I should spend money on an OS that has features that are effectively useless to me and can even reduce the life of my PC -OR- spend a ton of money on a component that will effectively reduce the usefulness Superfetch anyway. Sounds like Microsoft troll's reasoning to me.

I've done over 250 installations of Vista, and I've seen the good and the bad. People who say Vista sucks aren't wrong- this usually reflects their experience. I run a QA test environment on which Vista is one of the 7 OS's we validate our hardware against. And even though the end users I deal with are all engineers (about 25+), Vista gets the vast majority of support requests and complaints regarding performance AND reliability.

So if Vista fails the test on both performance AND reliability- what's left? Usability? But aren't performance and reliability a substantial factor of usability? If a PC is not performant or reliable, it doesn't matter what fancy UI or search features you have.

But of course the Vista trolls will try to argue that there are no issues, and everyone is lying about their experiences. Yes, Intel is lying when they say nVidia has had tons of driver failures in Vista. The review media is lying when they write articles about disk thrash with superfetch and show people how to disable it.

Sounds like troll logic to me!


RE: I Like how
By SavagePotato on 5/8/2008 12:23:36 PM , Rating: 5
To address a few points.

Disk thrashing:

See Superfetch, in connection with lack of understanding why disk usage is taking place.

The reason the disk is spinning when nothing is taking place on the system is because superfetch is doing it's thing. Turn off superfetch and you won't have disk usage. Use the computer for a long period of time and the disk usage goes away, because Vista has learned your patterns and cached everything it is going to cache.

Excessive disk spinning is something that is only common in the early stages of a fresh load of Vista. My system does not excessively spin the hard drives as I have been using it for a long period of time and superfetch has done it's job.

Thank you for helping me illustrate how people such as yourself will use something for a few hours and rush to a judgment with little to no understanding of what is actually going on.

Nvidia Drivers:

Why do you mention this? what does the quality of Nvidia drivers have to do with the quality of Vista or Microsoft? Nothing that's what.

Ram usage:

Vista is an OS designed for the next several years, not the last several years. That means computers with 4-8 gigs of ram, dual or quad core processors, etc. Is it a sad thing that manufacturers sell under equipped Vista machines? sure, it was a sad thing when they did it with XP too. I have had plenty of old windows XP computers across the bench with 64 megs of ram.

Do you have any personal experience with how unbelievably bad an XP machine with 64 megs of ram runs? Yep they sold them that way to save a buck, welcome to the wonderful world of cheapskate system builders.

I'll put your name on the "I'm a tech" that really knows nothing list of shame with all the others.


RE: I Like how
By nolisi on 5/8/08, Rating: 0
RE: I Like how
By SavagePotato on 5/8/2008 1:13:37 PM , Rating: 2
Nvidia is a separate entity from Microsoft, Microsoft has no control over Nvidia. Blaming Vista for bad Nvidia drivers is like blaming a woman for getting raped.

I have seen no evidence whatsoever of superfetch causing an increased failure rate in hard drives. I have used Vista on a raid 0 array for over a year, guess what no failures, I haven't seen a single Vista computer brought in with a failed hard disk that can be attributed to superfetch.

I fully believe you that you work in the industry, the point is just like many others like yourself, your head is up your ass on Vista and you think you are a god.

PS: People that correct spelling mistakes do so because they have a weak argument in the first place and are scrambling for something to hit back with.


RE: I Like how
By nolisi on 5/8/2008 1:41:39 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
People that correct spelling mistakes do so because they have a weak argument in the first place and are scrambling for something to hit back with.


I think hit you back with more points than you initially presented against me, so I don't think I'm necessarily scrambling.

One might also say ignoring/dismissing points is a sign of a weak argument as well ;).


RE: I Like how
By Denigrate on 5/8/2008 2:04:15 PM , Rating: 2
What I like is you trot out a bunch of pointless arguments as to why you are the only one with a correct opinion, and when someone ignores the dribble, you ask why.

Typical troll.


RE: I Like how
By SavagePotato on 5/8/2008 3:04:06 PM , Rating: 1
Like the man said, your points are all nonsense, not much point in spending a whole lot of time addressing them.

Some other posters spent the time already and pointed out the fact that you are a wannabe anyway, so I'll just sit back and laugh thanks.


RE: I Like how
By robinthakur on 5/9/2008 6:59:43 AM , Rating: 1
You're just an idiot, and whilst many people dislike Vista for their own reasons, yours is just based on misinformation and lack of experience. Try USING the operating system for an extended period of time to realise its full potential. Better yet, have an understanding on how and why Superfetch works by reading about it.

Superfetch works for me really well even back when I only had 2GB RAM. Most of it was pre-allocated by Vista and once I realised why this was, and that that it wasn't actually actively utilising it, I was fine with it. At the end of the day if you're using an OS on hardware which does not hit the sweet spot for performance, you will see a slower experience than if you were using faster hardware. Vista requires higher hardware requirements to XP, its no secret. Maybe this was the wrong direction for MS to move in, but that's a different argument.

Nvidia (to use the english language which does not capitalise the second letter of a Noun), like Creative, had full visibility of when Vista was being released and release candidates going back many months before launch. They chose to focus their efforts developing XP drivers instead of planning for an imminent OS changeover. Microsoft have taken the heat which was rightly meant for them. I fail to see how this is Microsoft's fault along with many others, but it certainly has worked in Nvidia's favour..

As SavagePotato noted, its really sad when people claim to be "IT Professionals" but don't seem to be capable of understanding fundamental technical issues or adapting to change; and you wonder why companies recruit offshore...?


RE: I Like how
By robinthakur on 5/9/2008 6:59:58 AM , Rating: 1
You're just an idiot, and whilst many people dislike Vista for their own reasons, yours is just based on misinformation and lack of experience. Try USING the operating system for an extended period of time to realise its full potential. Better yet, have an understanding on how and why Superfetch works by reading about it.

Superfetch works for me really well even back when I only had 2GB RAM. Most of it was pre-allocated by Vista and once I realised why this was, and that that it wasn't actually actively utilising it, I was fine with it. At the end of the day if you're using an OS on hardware which does not hit the sweet spot for performance, you will see a slower experience than if you were using faster hardware. Vista requires higher hardware requirements to XP, its no secret. Maybe this was the wrong direction for MS to move in, but that's a different argument.

Nvidia (to use the english language which does not capitalise the second letter of a Noun), like Creative, had full visibility of when Vista was being released and release candidates going back many months before launch. They chose to focus their efforts developing XP drivers instead of planning for an imminent OS changeover. Microsoft have taken the heat which was rightly meant for them. I fail to see how this is Microsoft's fault along with many others, but it certainly has worked in Nvidia's favour..

As SavagePotato noted, its really sad when people claim to be "IT Professionals" but don't seem to be capable of understanding fundamental technical issues or adapting to change; and you wonder why companies recruit offshore...?


RE: I Like how
By ToeCutter on 5/9/2008 11:43:05 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
You're just an idiot,


Perhaps the finest gem ever unearthed from the now unquestionably irrelevant DT forums.

You call a poster an idiot, and top it off with a double post.

Truly priceless...


RE: I Like how
By Alexstarfire on 5/8/2008 1:52:25 PM , Rating: 2
What is your problem? He never blamed nVidia for Vista sucking. He merely pointed out that nVidia drivers were a factor in the OPINION/EXPERIENCE of the end consumer. If you're trying to say that it isn't, then....... I don't really know what to say.

Also, spelling has nothing to do with arguments. Stop trying to make your argument seem stronger by bring up random points for no reason.


RE: I Like how
By Denigrate on 5/8/2008 2:09:54 PM , Rating: 3
One that has been mostly fixed. Game performance is pretty well equal these days. Gotta love how people fixate on one thing and never check back to see if it has been fixed.


RE: I Like how
By Oregonian2 on 5/8/2008 3:00:54 PM , Rating: 2
You are quite right. If using Vista caused a bug in both Intel and AMD processors make the machine crash, wipe all disks, and produce a puff of smoke -- but the same machine worked fine with XP, that would be a VERY LARGE negative for Vista even though it's not Microsoft's problem causing it at all! That perception of Vista would be correct even if "unfair".


RE: I Like how
By Spivonious on 5/8/2008 1:21:47 PM , Rating: 5
If your hard drive dies after being "thrashed" for the first week after an install of Vista, then perhaps you should be looking for more reliable hard drives.

Superfetch does work. My system got noticeably faster after the first week. Commonly used applications open up nearly instantaneously with little or no hard drive usage. When Superfetch does not have data already loaded into RAM, it is no different than if Superfetch was turned off; there is no performance loss.

nVidia drivers are a moot point, since Microsoft is not responsible for making sure nVidia has working drivers. That would be akin to car manufacturers being responsible for drunk driving.

The link you posted about SP1 only says that it has some problems with a "small set" of device drivers. See the nVidia point above.

If Microsoft had planned the OS for the market as it is today, their OS would be obsolete tomorrow. Take game development for example. Crysis development probably started five years ago. Does the game run adequately on a Pentium III with a Radeon 9700 and 256MB RAM? Companies have to plan for the future or no one will desire the product.

I will agree that, as of today, an upgrade to Vista from XP does not make sense. However, if a new PC is being built/purchased, it makes no sense to avoid Vista.

Also, your credibility is suspect as Vista is not a server OS, yet you've claimed to install it on over 250 servers. Why force a consumer OS into a server role? You couldn't use Server 2005 or wait for Server 2008?


RE: I Like how
By SavagePotato on 5/8/2008 1:28:59 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
I will agree that, as of today, an upgrade to Vista from XP does not make sense. However, if a new PC is being built/purchased, it makes no sense to avoid Vista.


I would like to quote this line as the most missed point in 100% of Vista v XP arguments.

Why in any circumstances would anyone upgrade an older working machines OS.

This was not a good idea with any microsoft OS in history windows95 and up. A new OS is primarily for new PC's and in the case of those, there is no reason whatsoever to avoid Vista, (and pretty soon no choice).

That point should be made a sticky on every thread discussing Vista in the future.


RE: I Like how
By Denigrate on 5/8/2008 2:12:24 PM , Rating: 2
Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner!


RE: I Like how
By LorenHeiny on 5/8/2008 2:40:44 PM , Rating: 2
"Why in any circumstances would anyone upgrade an older working machines OS."

I've upgraded to Vista, the latest version of OS X, Linux--all on "older" machines. Come on, OS developers spend a lot of time trying to make this type of migration as successful as possible. If they didn't believe it was useful to people, they wouldn't spend their time with backwards compatibility.

That being said, I quite often purchase new systems during a major OS upgrade cycle and I suggest that others do the same if it makes sense (will their peripherals work with the new hardware/software?). I also take the idea further and before each major new project take the opportunity to start clean and upgrade my hardware. It makes me more efficient. I'm an edge case though and go through computers every six months or so.


RE: I Like how
By nolisi on 5/8/2008 1:31:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Also, your credibility is suspect as Vista is not a server OS, yet you've claimed to install it on over 250 servers. Why force a consumer OS into a server role? You couldn't use Server 2005 or wait for Server 2008?


The clustered storage product we sell are used by a mix of consumers/end users (being provided services by enterprises) and enterprises. As such we qualify our clusters against a variety of OS', including Solaris, 2K3, 2K8, XP, Vista, and a variety of Linux distros. The systems are multiboot.

The reason why we put a consumer OS into a server is for space/organization/management purposes. We are able to put equivalent hardware into a server as a desktop OS.


RE: I Like how
By Spivonious on 5/8/2008 3:40:08 PM , Rating: 2
Ah, okay. That makes more sense then.


RE: I Like how
By ToeCutter on 5/9/2008 11:47:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The clustered storage product we sell


Hmmm.

LeftHand?


RE: I Like how
By afkrotch on 5/8/2008 1:45:47 PM , Rating: 3
If you want to be rude, I can go ahead and make you look like a moron. Not a problem.

quote:
Based on what? I've given you my list of Vista qualifications (over 250 servers) I'll even take a picture for you and post it on a server of your choice to prove it.


No such thing as Vista Server. We have Win2k3 server. Win2k8 server just released in Feb 2008.

quote:
nVidia (proper spelling) drivers are all part of the user experience I was talking about that you seem to miss. A lot of users have had bad experiences with Vista that make Vista a disappointment. The driver issue is one aspect. Check this out:


Actually, it's NVIDIA, if you feel like being an ass.

If you go to Hawaii, have car problems, but the rest of Hawaii was great, what do you say? That Hawaii was crap or that the car was crap?

quote:
http://www.informationweek.com/news/security/showA...

Microsoft has a pretty big KB article regarding why Vista SP1 may not be available for upgrade on your PC:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/948343

The point here is that things that previously worked with Vista, now no longer work with SP1.


All that shows is that ppl have problems and other ppl don't. For example, the guy that upgraded 614 machines with SP1 with no issues.

quote:
No, the fault here is still with Microsoft- they didn't plan their OS for the market as it is. With OEM's like Dell and HP feeling downward pressure in terms of PC price from corporate and end users alike, they risk losing money by making their PC's more expensive.


Microsoft did nothing wrong. They built a future OS for future use. Are games built around old hardware? Is software built around old hardware?

Even then, they catered to those with old crap machines. It's called Home Basic. Or you can just start disabling Themes. If you don't have the best, you won't get the best out of Vista. Just like every single program available out there.

quote:
The fact of the matter regardless of WHY is the fact that Superfetch creates a higher rate of failure on hard disks. Is it really reasonable to you that an OS causes this??? Really? Please respond to this, I'm curious how you find this reasonable.


Yet you provide no proof of such, nor could you as Vista hasn't even been out long enough.

This is like the stupid debate of your hard drives survive longer if you turn the computer off or if you keep it on 24/7.

quote:
But from a professional and market perspective, and even a technical one, Vista does not make sense. An OS simply should not reduce the reliability and increase the failure rate of a hard disk. EVER.


Everything I have read from you has been opinionated. You provide zero technical data for a reduction of reliability or an increase of failure rates. Also other posts seem like just blatant lying.


RE: I Like how
By nolisi on 5/8/2008 1:57:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Everything I have read from you has been opinionated. You provide zero technical data for a reduction of reliability or an increase of failure rates. Also other posts seem like just blatant lying.


Wow, you even quote my links to sources, yet say everything I say have been opinionated. And yet I look like a moron?

I've provided links in this thread that show the potential for Vista hard disk failures is 8 times more likely than XP.

http://4sysops.com/archives/vista-burns-laptop-har...

Further- I never said there was "Vista Server"- but Vista can be installed on server class hardware- and I explained to another poster why that is.

quote:
All that shows is that ppl have problems and other ppl don't.


Which was my point to begin with. On top of that, you even acknowledged that I have shown that there are issues- which are not opinion.

Now, I've provided more links and resources showing Vista's issues. You've even quoted them. Do you have any links showing greater reliability or security? So far I haven't seen one link out of you. Seems more like all your statements are just opinion.

But, I will concede to you that the spelling of NVIDIA is currently caps. You were right.


RE: I Like how
By omnicronx on 5/8/2008 2:21:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Further- I never said there was "Vista Server"- but Vista can be installed on server class hardware- and I explained to another poster why that is.
Of course you can, but I bet you did not disable the features that would have been disabled in server 08, just as you would do the same on XP with server03. Basically unless you turned off superfetch and indexing, your tests are useless. A simple call to Microsoft, and they probably would have told you the this..

You come into every DT thread about vista claiming you have extensively tested Vista, when in reality you have not.. I don't see why anyone should listen to what you have to say.


RE: I Like how
By nolisi on 5/8/2008 2:34:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You come into every DT thread about vista claiming you have extensively tested Vista, when in reality you have not.. I don't see why anyone should listen to what you have to say.


So far, I have only responded to two, perhaps three thread on this topic. There have been plenty more which I happily ignored.

By that same token, why should anyone listen to you? I'm well versed in quality testing methodology and statistical analysis. It's my job to know this stuff so I can properly set up OS testing environments.

quote:
Of course you can, but I bet you did not disable the features that would have been disabled in server 08, just as you would do the same on XP with server03. Basically unless you turned off superfetch and indexing, your tests are useless. A simple call to Microsoft, and they probably would have told you the this..


We're not testing it AS a server OS- we're testing it as a user OS against clustered hardware to insure interoperability with our clusters features. So we want those features enabled to ensure we're most closely replicating the customer environment interacting with our clusters. We even replicate Active directory environments, and even individual system environments right down to file/folder sizes for testing and customer support.

Our tests would be useless IF we disabled those features and didn't simulate our enterprise customer's environments.


RE: I Like how
By omnicronx on 5/8/2008 2:49:26 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
By that same token, why should anyone listen to you? I'm well versed in quality testing methodology and statistical analysis. It's my job to know this stuff so I can properly set up OS testing environments.
I am not telling people too, I want people to make their own conclusions without have to listen to the countless amounts of BS that lingers on the net.. I could really care less about what your job is, you have clearly stated you are using a Desktop OS with all the desktop features enabled on a server machine, then you wonder why things are not up to par..

Previously I would have given you the benefit of the doubt, you are a tester and it is your job, but it is hard to listen to what you have to say, when you have not done the proper research into how Vista should be implemented if you want to use it as a Server OS.
quote:
By default, the Superfetch and Indexing services are installed on a Server 2008 system but left disabled.


RE: I Like how
By omnicronx on 5/8/2008 3:03:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We're not testing it AS a server OS- we're testing it as a user OS against clustered hardware to insure interoperability with our clusters features.
Well I am sorry but thats not what you wrote. I also do not see what features such as superfetch have to do with your cluster testing, whenever something intensive (such as cluster testing) is started, it should essentially stop superfetch in its tracks. I did not mean to disrepect you, but I fell that in reality your reasons for not using Vista are irrelivent for 95% of the users out there.


RE: I Like how
By omnicronx on 5/8/2008 3:06:32 PM , Rating: 2
And for the other 5%, disable the features that you are having problems with. (just like my work disables indexing over the domain in XP because it conflicts with some of their in house applications). This is not an uncommon business practice..


RE: I Like how
By nolisi on 5/8/2008 3:20:40 PM , Rating: 1
Perhaps I wasn't clear as to how it's being used(although I felt I stated it clearly before).

You're right, superfetch in and of itself has nothing to do with the clusters we test Vista against.

The problem with superfetch is this: we have experienced a higher rate of hard disk failures since Vista. The logical thing to do is shut it off since it doesn't directly interact with our clusters and a failed hard disk, creates downtime, renders tests incomplete, and costs more in hardware replacement overall, right?

Wrong. Unfortunately, superfetch takes up resources on the system which can change client performance data in several ways even if the feature itself doesn't interact directly with networked clustered hardware. This can affect data transfers of very large files (gigabytes) from the cluster to the Vista client and vice versa, etc.

When supporting customers- we need to mirror their OS environment as closely as possible to be able to track down variables. If we start creating environmental differences such as shutting off Vista features that we think has no effect, this just creates more variables and uncertainty.


RE: I Like how
By tomal on 5/9/2008 5:58:52 AM , Rating: 2
The article you quoted is related to hard disk failures in laptops and does not give any information about hard disks in desktops or servers.

You have claimed to install Vista in 250 servers and workstations right?

Could you please then explain with the help of your article how Vista has damaged your hard disk drives in servers and workstations??


RE: I Like how
By arsmitty86 on 5/9/2008 10:13:05 AM , Rating: 2
http://gizmodo.com/373109/who-will-get-hacked-firs...

If you look deeper into this hacking challenge you will find that it took 2 days to hack vista, and 2 minutes to hack MaC OSX
And before you scream fanboi... I'm a linux user primarily, I also use Vista for games and find it to be quite pleasent although frustrating at times. Hating an operating system just because its changed is completely anti-technology. I've said this stuff before and I'll say it again, there are several enhancments in Vista that make it worth while.... There is a new and improved TCP/IP stack for instance... And directX 10. Was it everything I hoped for... No. Is it an improvment over XP. In some areas yes. you remind me of the ppl who slammed 2000 when it came out and were holding onto it for dear life when XP came out... If your a cheap ass and don't put better hardware in a system with a new OS you deserve every problem you have. You want to slam an OS, slam WHS. I won't stop you there. But there is no proof that vista causes hardware or data loss.


RE: I Like how
By omnicronx on 5/8/2008 1:56:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Based on what? I've given you my list of Vista qualifications (over 250 servers) I'll even take a picture for you and post it on a server of your choice to prove it.
Are you implying that you use Vista as a Server OS?
That may be your first problem. If not and you slipped and meant to say 250 workstations, why on earth if you know how bad Vista is would you (as the person who runs the QA lab) even recommend the continued testing? Seems like a waste of money to me, or a load of crock..
quote:
The point here is that things that previously worked with Vista, now no longer work with SP1.
Come on buddy, even reading the comments of the article it plainly says that as long as you use the newest driver version of those intel chipsets, everything should work fine. As I have had the same problems in XP(and nix and so on) on countless occations where I needed to update my drivers to get things to work, I don't exactly consider this a Vista problem. I can't remember a major revision of any O/S that did not require some sort of driver updates for a certain set of hardware.(this includes MAC, NIX, and WINDOWS)
quote:
I understand WHY it's taking place. The problem is for many users, their pattern is never consistent, or Superfetch is incapable of learning. And if it caches wrong, performance is actually lost.
You do realize superfetch is the new implementation of prefetch, something you use everyday on your windows XP machine.
quote:
Windows XP introduced prefetching support that improved boot and application startup performance by performing large disk I/Os to preload memory with code and file system data that it expected, based on previous boots and application launches. Windows Vista goes a big step further with SuperFetch, a memory management scheme that enhances the least-recently accessed approach with historical information and proactive memory management.

quote:
The fact of the matter regardless of WHY is the fact that Superfetch creates a higher rate of failure on hard disks.
Totally baseless, infact if the program is already in the memory, the OS will read less from the hard drive not more. The small amount of writes to the superfetch DB file pretty much evens out the amount of writes vista makes to your hard drive.. In other words both XP and Vista are comparable in hard drive writing.(Infact if you only surf the net listen to music and read email, chances are you are actually writing less since they are usual tasks that superfetch would pick up)

I agree superfetch does have two issues, but you have no addressed any of them, leading me to believe you really don't know what you are talking about. Gaming is apparently one issue, although I have no personally noticed the difference, as it is probably only a few frames difference. Apparently some changes were made in SP1 to account for most of these problems though. The other issue is if you leave your computer, and an intensive task like antivirus starts up, this task will force the cached information from the memory, so that if you return right when it is finished, your system my be sluggish for a period of 30seconds to 1 minute while it reloads the data into the cache. I do not see this as a grave problem, because in most cases your PC will have recached the information before you start using your computer again.

As for Vista being a 'hog' here is an explination of how superfect effects the memory. (this is for all you guys out there that install vista, merely look at the system resources, and by this you make the assumption Vista is a resource hog)
quote:
After you’ve used a Windows Vista system a while, you’ll see a low number for the Free Physical Memory counter on Task Manager’s Performance page. That’s because SuperFetch and standard Windows caching make use of all available physical memory to cache disk data. For example, when you first boot, if you immediately run Task Manager you should notice the Free Memory value decreasing as Cached Memory number rises. Or, if you run a memory-hungry program and then exit it (any of the freeware “RAM optimizers” that allocate large amounts of memory and then release the memory will work), or just copy a very large file, the Free number will rise and the Physical Memory Usage graph will drop as the system reclaims the deallocated memory. Over time, however, SuperFetch repopulates the cache with the data that was forced out of memory, so the Cached number will rise and the Free number will decline.
Believe it or not Superfetch makes programs that you use on a daily basis start up almost instantly, XP can not do this as it must read from the hard drive (which was the very bottleneck issue MS was trying to limit) Hard drives are the current bottleneck in the computer industry, MS realized this an implemented code that would help limit this bottleneck.

One note I would like to add is in a server environment superfetch should be disabled (i am geussing in server 08 it will be) as it is primarily meant to foreground not intensive background tasks.

quote:
But from a professional and market perspective, and even a technical one, Vista does not make sense. An OS simply should not reduce the reliability and increase the failure rate of a hard disk. EVER.
Yet you still feel there is a need to test it on 250 machines..


RE: I Like how
By nolisi on 5/8/2008 2:07:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yet you still feel there is a need to test it on 250 machines..


I'm not going to point by point match your criticisms of how we run Vista on server class systems- there is a solid management reason that I previously explained, and that we use Vista to qualify our storage clusters. We don't just put Vista on servers for fun.

quote:
You do realize superfetch is the new implementation of prefetch, something you use everyday on your windows XP machine.


Yes I do realize that- I also realize that I've had more failures on Superfetch based systems versus prefetch based systems.

quote:
I agree superfetch does have two issues, but you have no addressed any of them, leading me to believe you really don't know what you are talking about.


I'm addressing Superfetch from an enterprise point of view, not a gaming point of view.

But, as I recall we debated the "useful" features of Vista in a prior thread, and you failed to mention DX10 as a useful Vista unique feature. I even named it as such. Interesting how you're bringing up the gaming aspects of Superfetch now with respect to gaming.

quote:
Totally baseless,


http://4sysops.com/archives/vista-burns-laptop-har...

I'm done here since you can't seem to read my other posts in the thread which point out rationale for why we use vista on server class systems or my links evidencing other issues I've brought up.


RE: I Like how
By omnicronx on 5/8/2008 2:26:22 PM , Rating: 1
BLah blah blah.. I'm done arguing with you, I have done so in many threads, you are using Vista in a server environment, yet you are complaining about features that you should not have had on in the first place in such an environment..


RE: I Like how
By nolisi on 5/8/2008 2:39:09 PM , Rating: 2
The server environment we set up is used to make sure we have the most stable hardware supporting the OS we're throwing at storage clusters. We then use stable hardware with typical OS features enabled to ensure there are no software based incompatibilities with the features of our product. It's pretty sound setup- we don't want unstable client hardware as a variable in our cluster software/hardware interoperability testing procedures.

Take a class in controlled test procedures and maybe you'll get it.


RE: I Like how
By omnicronx on 5/8/2008 3:22:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The server environment we set up is used to make sure we have the most stable hardware supporting the OS we're throwing at storage clusters.
But it is still running Vista I assume..


RE: I Like how
By mikefarinha on 5/8/2008 4:32:16 PM , Rating: 2
nolisi,

I've read your comments and your links and you provide nothing to qualify your criticism's.

You've posted 3 links, one was a German article about 'Vista burning up HDD's'. There was no technical information or explanation in the article, just some guy translating a German article. I did a search on Vista over heating HDD's... no results. Even the author of the blog post conceded:
quote:
I wonder how an OS can influence the temperature of a hard disk. I mean, I understand that a complex OS stresses a hard disk more. But, why is it happening even in idle mode?


I'd wager this was a result of a poorly run test and or a poorly designed laptop.

Verdict: FUD

Another of your links goes to an article titled:

"Vista SP1 Chokes On Widely Used Intel Chipset Drivers"

Notice the last word in the title 'Drivers' as in software. Yes there has been numerous reports that many companies, even large companies like NVIDIA and Intel didn't step up and provide Vista compatible drivers. This is despite the fact that Microsoft put Vista out there for a super long extended beta for Vista.... so these companies could update and test their drivers.

Microsoft introduced a whole new security model in Vista that requires even device drivers to follow Microsoft's new security guidelines. The fault here doesn't lie with Vista but rather Microsofts lax stance with security in their prior consumer OSes.

Before Vista Microsoft never enforced, or even encouraged, developers to write secure software. Vista is making this a requirement for the developer's, however they ignored it until the last moment and are now pissin' and moanin' about it. They don't have my sympathy. The end result is two fold

1. Some device drivers were crap and caused problems in Vista (Well over a year after Vista's release this isn't an issue anymore)
2. Windows is more secure and now actively encouraging developers to write properly secured code.
http://blogs.technet.com/security/archive/2007/06/...

Verdict: Issue for a few for a short period of time, FUD for the rest of us.

Your 3rd link was to a Microsoft kb article.... did you even read what you linked to? In case you forgot it was this link:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/948343

I really don't know what to say about you posting this link as a criticism to Vista. I read the KB article several times and still at a loss to what point you are trying to make with it.

Verdict: WTF?!?!

Sir, you try to come of as an IT intellectual however your anti-Vista arguments show your lack of knowledge and experience with Vista.

Also, you dance around what it is you actually do that makes you so qualified to criticize Vista; which leads me to believe you're ashamed to admit it here because it might taint the weight of your word.

If you don't like Vista, don't use it. Simple as that. If you haver personally had problems with it, then please share! However it is aggravating to have the masses amplify the problems of a few.

I've used Vista since Dec 06. Nary a problem outside a few motherboard driver issues in the beginning.


RE: I Like how
By RogueLegend on 5/9/2008 12:34:28 PM , Rating: 2
Ok, I think this whole thread is in desparate need of a reasonable perspective. I use Vista with 4 GB and superfetch on- I've experienced no slowdowns and no HDD thrashing.

BUT- I have noticed that on the system that used to have XP on it, there is definitely higher temperatures in my case running Vista even in idle, and there's no disputing that Vista utilizes hard disks more than XP. Is there anyone here who will disagree that more hard disk usage will not result in a reduced life? The same thing applies with batteries. The more you use it, the lower lifespan it will have.

I'm not sure you can necessarily blame it on Superfetch, but it is a logical conclusion- more use=less life. Vista happens to have more disk usage, but it also does more, has more features. It's up to you whether or not the things Vista does is worth it.

Secondly, as far as the Microsoft link goes, I think I can see what he's saying. Drivers that Microsoft supported before in Vista will not work with SP1

SP1 is billed as having wider hardware support. It's kind of rediculous to claim that SP1 supports more if you have to uninstall/update drivers. I had to uninstall a Biometric fingerprint driver on my HP notebook so that Vista would be available through Windows Update. But I think it's a valid point.


RE: I Like how
By gramboh on 5/8/2008 3:24:24 PM , Rating: 3
Sigh.

NV driver problems? It's not January 2007, the drivers have been fine for over 6 months, I've had zero issues and I use Vista x64.

Disk thrashing: HDD's are meant to be used. It's not like the thrashing is 100% throughput for hours at a time, it's maybe a few hours on your first install. My disks are hardly ever active other than when loading a game or copying large files.

Both those points are non-issues.


RE: I Like how
By Nihility on 5/8/2008 2:40:44 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Vista is an OS designed for the next several years, not the last several years. That means computers with 4-8 gigs of ram, dual or quad core processors, etc. Is it a sad thing that manufacturers sell under equipped Vista machines? sure, it was a sad thing when they did it with XP too. I have had plenty of old windows XP computers across the bench with 64 megs of ram.


DDR3 prices are up in the stratosphere and will be for a couple of years. Anyone building a reasonably priced new system with DDR3 will not have 4GB of RAM. Anyone who is further limited by budget will by an older system with DDR2.


RE: I Like how
By SavagePotato on 5/8/2008 3:16:46 PM , Rating: 2
DDR3 is currently very expensive and sees no volume of sales. That is why it is expensive.

People won't be building DDR3 systems that heavily till nehalem. Which is what, winter 08 now, which means more like summer of next year before it's even remotely close to mainstream.

By all accounts nehalem is enthusiast through and through, and when it creates a demand for ddr3 you can bet ddr3 will drop. That's how supply and demand works.

Vista created a huge demand for ram and look what happened to ddr2, it's cheaper than dirt.


RE: I Like how
By AlmostExAMD on 5/9/2008 12:54:32 AM , Rating: 2
Thanks for saving me a very long post, Spot on! :)
I still feel an urge to comment though,

Half of these noobs expect a perfect OS at release and expect it to run on pc's of yester year,They also have no idea what there computer is actually doing.

Just as I remember with every other Windows I have bought there were problems at the start which eventually get ironed out,95/98/xp were all the same.

Vista was the first OS for me to actually set up everything(network especially) without me having to do anything,Disk thrashing happens for a day or 2 then it's virtually non existent after it learns your patterns.

Nvidia drivers?
Dunno what setup u have but I am still using 8800GTS and install every new driver that comes out, All I can say is "What Crash?".

LOL it's just so funny to watch history repeat itself everytime a new Windows comes out, Probably the same old people that complained about previous OS,Maybe they need to upgrade there 286 machines or better still if your happy with it just stick to your damn XP and STFU,Cause no one is forcing you to go buy Vista!
Just remember though it's called progress and u will be left in the dust if u expect a company to keep supporting u if your still using 95/98/XP and even Vista in the future, So if you can't handle the heat then stay out of the kitchen, Find yourself another hobby! ;)


RE: I Like how
By afkrotch on 5/8/2008 12:39:20 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
But, let's address the superfetch issue since this is what you're talking about:

Does it really make that much sense to utilize more RAM to try to speed up the hard disk? It may make sense on the surface, but consider that most PC's are sold with less than 2GB's of RAM, then consider that there are yet no reliable statistics of Superfetch proportionally speeding up disk access to the amount of RAM resources utilized, then take into account that Superfetch (if it guesses wrong) can actually slow down your machine because it cached the wrong info in RAM.

Now, take into account the fact that it seems to be the cause of a ton of disk thrash, effectively reducing the life of your hard drive.


Yes, let's address the issue.

If superfetch guesses wrong, how exactly does this slow anything down? If you didn't have superfetch, it'd be reading off the hard drive. If it guesses wrong, it'll be doing what? Oh...reading off the hard drive.

And don't even bother telling me you'll feel the 10ths of seconds it requires to clear the memory to recache the data.

Reduction of life. The hard drive is designed to be used. I doubt you could find me any links about disk thrash shortening a hard drives life. Why? The platters are constantly being spun. The actuator arm uses electric magnets to move back and forth. So whether the arm is moving back and forth constantly or not, there is no mechanical wear.

quote:
I've done over 250 installations of Vista, and I've seen the good and the bad. People who say Vista sucks aren't wrong- this usually reflects their experience. I run a QA test environment on which Vista is one of the 7 OS's we validate our hardware against. And even though the end users I deal with are all engineers (about 25+), Vista gets the vast majority of support requests and complaints regarding performance AND reliability.

So if Vista fails the test on both performance AND reliability- what's left? Usability? But aren't performance and reliability a substantial factor of usability? If a PC is not performant or reliable, it doesn't matter what fancy UI or search features you have.

But of course the Vista trolls will try to argue that there are no issues, and everyone is lying about their experiences. Yes, Intel is lying when they say nVidia has had tons of driver failures in Vista. The review media is lying when they write articles about disk thrash with superfetch and show people how to disable it.

Sounds like troll logic to me!


I'm a network admin and we have roughly 400 machines. Mostly Windows XP. I am stuck fixing at least 20 different jobs each week. How many of them for Windows XP? Around none. It's the programs that are created for Windows XP that don't function all that well.

So please tell me, all those support requests and complaints revolve around what? You went out, changed registry settings, shutdown/restarted different services, or did you simply fix their Powerpoint?

We have 20 testbed Vista boxes. Haven't heard about anything wrong with them, except for the occassional Word doesn't work or Outlook doesn't work. Which I get with XP and before that 2K.

We also use specialized software too. Visual Weather, Mark IVB Forecaster, Namis, AOS, and other weather forecasting tools. They all made the transition to Vista without any hiccups.

Performance? Well, they were old crap machines on XP and they are still old crap machines on Vista. I couldn't tell you if there was a performance difference, as it sucks either way. No issues with drivers as I mentioned, they are old crap machines and Vista has all the drivers built-in.

Can't think of many businesses that are going to be the latest and greatest Nvidia cards to stick into a PC that does word, powerpoint, outlook, excel, etc. That's really a moot point at work. Big deal for the home user, but is Nvidia's drivers a Vista problem? Looks more like an Nvidia problem to me.

If Firestone makes faulty tires, you going to blame Ford because of that?


RE: I Like how
By LorenHeiny on 5/8/2008 12:50:23 PM , Rating: 3
nolisi: "I deal with are all engineers (about 25+), Vista gets the vast majority of support requests and complaints regarding performance AND reliability."

Not sure what type of engineers (EEs, MEs, CS) you work with, however, I know plenty that don't like anything new. They've spent years learning various tools and they don't want to spend their time having to relearn anything if there's no technical reason to do it. I'm not sure if this is what's going on in your case or not, but it's something I've seen over and over again.

Reliability problems though? Are you talking about the OS, browser, or third-party apps. In the first case, it would sound like a driver problem. In the second, sometimes it can be driver issue and sometimes it's an addin. And as for third-party apps, it all depends on what you're running. I've seen odd artifacts on the launch of Photoshop sometimes, for instance, because of how it displays its splash screen. However, generally, I've found apps run just fine in Vista. Granted, your mileage may vary.

In term of Vista performance. I'm wondering what hardware you're using. If they are workstations, I'm very surprised. Many desktops have plenty of horsepower to run Vista. I use a Mac Pro for a workstation and it runs Vista (and most engineering apps I use) very well. I don't use it on a domain and I keep most of my work local, so maybe that's a difference.

As for notebooks, most run Vista fine too, although for me I turn off Vista Sidebar and limit indexing. I'd rather have the screen real-estate and not pay any extra overhead. For notebook users there are also several enhancements including better WiFi management and a more accurate time-remaining indicator in the system tray.

And no matter which hardware I use, I like using the Start Menu's Search box to quickly get to things. No add on apps clogging the desktop or taskbar.

Superfetch? I don't use it. On a notebook I'd rather upgrade my harddrive and memory, but that's just me.


RE: I Like how
By nolisi on 5/8/2008 1:24:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Not sure what type of engineers


A good mix of MCSE's and RHCP's on the test end. Since we develop hardware storage, we also have developers who are extremely well versed in FreeBSD.

Most of the reliability issues we've encountered are Vista centric, our test beds are designed to run scripts which perform various tests against our clustered storage hardware.

The most annoying thing Vista seems to do (and this is extremely erratic) is re-enable certain services (firewall, UAC) after updates, which block our testing scripts. We use multiboot systems to test them out, and particularly annoying is the activation scheme, if an image of Vista stays dormant for periods longer than 30 days, it shuts off all services and forces us to connect to it physically to manually activate. It's a management nightmare in this respect.

quote:
Superfetch? I don't use it.


A wise choice, given how many hard disks I've had to replace from Vista installs. But most people don't know what it is, let alone how to shut it off.


RE: I Like how
By 4wardtristan on 5/8/2008 11:24:48 PM , Rating: 2
vista does alot of background tasks when the pc is idle, defragging is one of those background tasks.

you tell me how many non-tech-savvy, home users, who do not read dailytech, defrag their hdds? i can guarantee that 99.999% of those do *not* and probably do not know what defragging is.


RE: I Like how
By 4wardtristan on 5/8/2008 11:24:49 PM , Rating: 2
vista does alot of background tasks when the pc is idle, defragging is one of those background tasks.

you tell me how many non-tech-savvy, home users, who do not read dailytech, defrag their hdds? i can guarantee that 99.999% of those do *not* and probably do not know what defragging is.


RE: I Like how
By afkrotch on 5/8/2008 12:04:52 PM , Rating: 2
I use 2k, XP, and Vista. From 2k to XP, we got a slowdown. From XP to Vista, we got a slowdown. Why? All the new features tossed in are doing to use more resources. Is this a bad thing? Yes and no.

For those who upgrade on a yearly basis, this is really no big deal. For those who are on a 3-5 year upgrade cycle will feel it more.

Just like with XP, hardware will start outpacing requirements.


RE: I Like how
By nolisi on 5/8/2008 12:20:05 PM , Rating: 2
That is a perfectly reasonable assessment, afkrotch. And I think given another year of updates and patches, and performance increases in hardware, Vista will be a great OS. I'm not saying I won't upgrade ever, but Vista in its current state doesn't make much sense for most, especially power users.

One of the many problems I have with Vista is that many features (such as Superfetch) either don't make that much of a difference, or can have a negative effect on your PC- and superfetch is supposed to INCREASE performance, not decrease performance and the lifespan of a hard drive. Our data centers servers have experienced an increased hard disk failure rate since using Vista on our testbed clients. Even brand new servers we purchase to accommodate Vista see a higher failure rate.


RE: I Like how
By afkrotch on 5/8/2008 1:27:20 PM , Rating: 4
I don't see how your data center servers have higher failure rates due to Vista, as it hasn't even been out that long.

So you are trying to tell me that within the one year and 4 months that Vista has been out, that you swapped your clients to Vista on release day and somehow the hard drives started failing.

I highly doubt that is the case. Your servers were probably on the verge of breaking regardless of whatever OS your clients are running and how the hell does your brand new servers see higher failure rates? Even if you somehow were running Vista from it's 1st day of release (which I doubt any small, medium, or large business would do), I'd say you'd have a 0% chance of your hard drives failing because of Vista.


RE: I Like how
By nolisi on 5/8/2008 1:38:46 PM , Rating: 2
This is on mixes of new and old hardware. In fact, we purchased 50 brand new server class clients 4 weeks ago, set them up. Within 2 weeks, two failed- both were running tests using Vista at the time. Further, we buy clients several times a year to meet our testing needs.

But don't take my word for the higher potential of vista to cause disk failures:
http://4sysops.com/archives/vista-burns-laptop-har...


RE: I Like how
By SavagePotato on 5/8/2008 1:52:40 PM , Rating: 2
So you are quoting an article about notebook hard drives (which have a higher failure rate than desktops or servers to begin with due to being moved while in use) as a supporting argument that Vista is a hard drive killer.

Google recently released information that their research on their own drives indicated that they actually fared better when running hotter.

Why would you surmise that a mobile computer which is being moved and bumped around would have a higher hard drive failure rate when the disk is in use more often. I know I would extrapolate that there is a higher chance of causing damage to the drive through shock while in use if it is in use more often.

Very irresponsible and shoddy reference at best.


RE: I Like how
By nolisi on 5/8/08, Rating: 0
RE: I Like how
By SavagePotato on 5/8/2008 3:21:41 PM , Rating: 2
Yet as several other posters have pointed out there are not in fact more failures with Vista despite what that article tries to claim.

I think at this point you have pretty much been thoroughly exposed as a punk by several other posters here. Why not save face and go crawl in a hole somewhere before you look any more foolish.


RE: I Like how
By omnicronx on 5/8/2008 3:32:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Hard disks in idle mode have a five to seven degree Celsius higher temperature and hard disks in operation are seven to nine degrees warmer than under XP. The hard disk’s temperature can get ten degrees higher than the vendors’ specifications allow. This could cause hard disk failures eight times more frequent than with XP.
I love the internet, its the only place in the world where you can contradict yourself and have everyone believe it. Idle is Idle, nothing is happening, how can it be running hotter if they are both doing exactly the same thing.. nothing!


RE: I Like how
By afkrotch on 5/8/2008 1:53:53 PM , Rating: 3
They failed within 2 weeks and you attribute this to Vista? That's got to be the dumbest assessment I have ever heard. Never thought it could simply be crap hardware?

Great link, shows me nothing cept "it runs hotter" and no substatial data to back up such claims.


RE: I Like how
By nolisi on 5/8/2008 2:22:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Great link, shows me nothing cept "it runs hotter"

If you care to read the details, it states that Vista can run up to 10 degrees over manufacturer spec. That's a very important detail don't you think?

quote:
They failed within 2 weeks and you attribute this to Vista?


This is just ONE example I was citing- I have many other examples, including systems with hard disks that were already replaced due to failure, on which an identical Vista image was deployed (all our Vista testing images are identical) that I've had to replace due to failure while Vista is running.


RE: I Like how
By nolisi on 5/8/2008 2:50:16 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, I should correct myself, most of our Vista images are identical, we also have specific versions of Vista images which replicate customer specific environment scenarios, such as Active Directory clients, certain applications- but the vast majority of our scripted testing takes place on Vista images which are identical.


RE: I Like how
By arsmitty86 on 5/9/2008 10:32:28 AM , Rating: 1
I'm speechlesss,
YOU ARE CLAIMING THAT A PIECE OF SOFTWARE IS CAUSING AN ALMOST IMMEDIATE HARDWARE FAULT... NOT TO MENTION YOUR AN IDIOT FOR CITING ANYTHING TO DO WITH NOTEBOOK DRIVES... Guess what. Notebook drives ain't reliable... thats a fact. Theres less ventilation, movement while in use, occasional dropping, smaller parts, etc etc etc etc etc, go back to school you ignorant ass.


RE: I Like how
By omnicronx on 5/8/2008 3:44:47 PM , Rating: 2
As everyone else has stated, if you HD fails within 2 weeks you can not attribute it to an OS. How can I claim this? Well its very simple, there are countless servers, in countless places that are constantly running at high load yet they have no problems. I dont see how Vista Running at load is any different than server 03 at load.. either way yo are using up all the resources. Your argument makes no sense, and it is obviously a biases article.


RE: I Like how
By tomal on 5/9/2008 6:24:42 AM , Rating: 2
Again brother, the article you quoted is about laptop hdd failures. It does not have any data about server hdd. Plus the article is not a reputable one; Please quote sth from big tech sites such as news.com, pcmag.com or anandtech.com and people will believe you more.

Regarding superfetch, since you complained no1 gave u details about superfetch benefits, I am giving you some reputable links so that u can read them:

1. http://www.anandtech.com/systems/showdoc.aspx?i=29...

quote:
While it's very difficult to benchmark the impact of SuperFetch well, in our usage of Vista if you have enough memory it is a tremendous ally. Honestly SuperFetch is the biggest reason, in our opinion, to move to the x64 version of Vista so you can use even more memory.


Well anandtech seems to have advocated superfect to be one of the main reasons to move to Vista 64bit ...... and since servers use 64bit and have large amounts of memory, i dont know how it causes problems for them ......

2. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/windows-vista-...

The benefits of superfetch has been detailed there.


RE: I Like how
By sprockkets on 5/8/2008 2:51:48 PM , Rating: 2
I turned off superfetch and the computer runs quicker because it is not trying to fill 2GB worth of stuff at startup, nor is it running the hdd all day trying to make it run faster later by wasting time now.

Hey, whatever works for you. I like Vista now because of being able to kill superfetch.

I'll turn it back on say, at 3am so it can do its thing while I'm not around to be frustrated by it.


RE: I Like how
By Reclaimer77 on 5/8/2008 3:40:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I turned off superfetch and the computer runs quicker because it is not trying to fill 2GB worth of stuff at startup, nor is it running the hdd all day trying to make it run faster later by wasting time now. Hey, whatever works for you. I like Vista now because of being able to kill superfetch.


Thats the thing about Vista. Everyone tells me how cool all the new features are, but whats the point when any intelligent user is just going to disable them anyway ?


RE: I Like how
By Flunk on 5/8/2008 11:58:03 AM , Rating: 2
Come on there, no Microsoft operating system has ever been elegant, the price is the same, and many metrics show that Vista is more secure than XP.


RE: I Like how
By nolisi on 5/8/08, Rating: -1