backtop


Print 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
RE: I Like how
By Spivonious on 5/8/2008 1:27:04 PM , Rating: 2
RE: I Like how
By nolisi on 5/8/2008 2:18:52 PM , Rating: 2
You must have intentionally ignored neweggs XP pro 64 bit price:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...

$139.99

Still cheaper.

If you wanna compare apples with oranges, that's fine because I can find copies of XP pro for as little as $50-75.


RE: I Like how
By mikefarinha on 5/8/2008 4:58:44 PM , Rating: 2
You must have intentionally ignored neweggs Vista Home Basic 64 prices

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...
$89.99

Still cheaper.

Let's see your links to the $50 XP pro.


RE: I Like how
By RogueLegend on 5/9/2008 12:14:57 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, first of all, he was referencing Microsofts own retail pricing, and then you guys jump to NewEgg and compare MS retail to the OEM versions that Newegg sells. I may not agree with him on the whole superfetch deal, but 9 times out of ten, going to a third party source for the software is going to get you lower prices, especially on OEM versions.

Secondly, you know NewEggs prices are going to be dependant on the volumes they purchase as well as the incentives Microsoft ties to certain versions of OS's. I'm sure very few people are buying the Home 64 bit edition in favor of Premium or Ultimate- I bet you Microsoft is coupling Home 64 with a lot of incentives.

Thirdly, he compares a pro version of XP to a pro version of Vista, then you go and compare the cut down home version of Vista? Why don't we bring the Vista Starter version into this so that you can be even more right.

If you want to look at it from a point of view of what end users will see as far as pricing, you need to look at actual machine configurations- take this Dell XPS M1730-

http://www.dell.com/content/topics/segtopic.aspx/s...

XP Pro is included, while Vista is $40 more- this is represetnative of the prices people will get.


RE: I Like how
By jonmcc33 on 5/8/2008 1:37:52 PM , Rating: 1
Have you missed that AnandTech (parent of DailyTech) uses only Windows Vista in it's testing/benchmarking and has done so for over a year now?

Maybe you should go post your thoughts at THG instead since that's where most novices go?


RE: I Like how
By BansheeX on 5/8/08, Rating: 0
RE: I Like how
By SavagePotato on 5/8/2008 5:04:47 PM , Rating: 4
The USB speed and file transfers sounds like something you are misinformed on completely.

File transfers and handling of Zip files initially experienced slowdowns, and that was addressed in SP1. Initial reports claimed that USB speed was crippled in SP1, however my own personal tests showed no slowdown of USB transfer rates in spite of what those articles claimed.

In addition Zip file handling and file transfers work just fine now in SP1. It is an example of a known issue getting addressed in a service pack.

This is a perfect example of what I pointed out, you sorta think you know what you are saying, but not really, and you are going off articles you misinterpreted and a mixture of fud from the comments section.

As to your last point, Microsoft is a commercial entity they are in it to make money, not like this is a surprise. They update their software and sell new versions of it, this is how progress and innovation occurs. By doing so they are able to put more into research and development to continue to provide new products and the cycle continues.

If you are going to fault a corporation for trying to make money, load up Ubuntu, open office, have a coke and a smile and be happy.


RE: I Like how
By mikefarinha on 5/8/2008 10:48:24 AM , Rating: 2
So why doesn't Toyota just keep selling their 94 corolla model? It was a perfectly good model and does everything just fine. It gets good gas mileage and is cheap to maintain. Why oh why do they need to keep reinventing the wheel? We all know what happens when you try to make a circle more round...


RE: I Like how
By mattclary on 5/8/2008 11:51:49 AM , Rating: 2
Toyota didn't add 2000lbs between year models or change it so that you entered the car through a locked hatch beneath the spare tire.


RE: I Like how
By mikefarinha on 5/8/2008 11:54:34 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
*FUD*Toyota didn't add 2000lbs between year *FUD* models or change it so that you entered the car *FUD* through a locked hatch *FUD* beneath the spare tire.


You're right!

What's your point?!??!


RE: I Like how
By mattclary on 5/8/2008 12:04:54 PM , Rating: 2
I take it you are pro-Vista. Not surprised I need to explain the concept of analogy to you. ;)

Just kidding, had to get that dig in.


RE: I Like how
By mikefarinha on 5/8/2008 12:18:06 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not only the president of the Pro-Vista club... I'm also a member!

Also, I don't hate XP. XP is awesome and Vista is better. I just like to shine the light of truth and justice on the FUD spewed by trolls like you.


RE: I Like how
By mattclary on 5/8/2008 1:34:54 PM , Rating: 2
An opposing opinion <> troll


RE: I Like how
By mikefarinha on 5/8/2008 2:10:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
An opposing opinion <> troll


That's what all trolls say...


RE: I Like how
By jonmcc33 on 5/8/2008 1:47:15 PM , Rating: 4
Games are now using 15-20GB of installation space and come on a dual layer DVD. Why complain about a 7GB Windows Vista install, of which half the data is merely for backwards compatibility for older applications? So really, Windows Vista is about a 4GB install. Not sure why anyone complains about that.


RE: I Like how
By AlphaVirus on 5/8/2008 2:22:29 PM , Rating: 2
In reality Vista can take a LOT of your hard drive space from you if you do not regularly run Disk Cleanup. And if you have not ran it since Day 1, which the average user does not, then most likely there is 10GB extra of space being used by Vista.

Not a bad thing though since most computers now come with at least 250GB of HDD space.


RE: I Like how
By jonmcc33 on 5/9/2008 3:48:57 AM , Rating: 2
In reality that's not Vista, that's Shadow Copy, which will not use up more than 15% of your total storage space and does so to create backups so you can revert back in the event of a problem. So people with smaller drives it uses up less storage space.


RE: I Like how
By Staples on 5/8/2008 12:32:43 PM , Rating: 3
When Vista boots, it uses up all your memory. I think that is why people say it is a resource hog. It uses all the memory in the system by design, it is not bloat or whatever others claim it is. In XP, if all your memory is taken up, Windows slows to a crawl. In Vista that is not a problem. Everything loads and closes as fast as it would in XP.


RE: I Like how
By jonmcc33 on 5/8/2008 1:53:07 PM , Rating: 3
I have Windows Vista Business (32-bit) and 4GB RAM installed. I sure don't see it using up all of that memory one bit. But I'd have to say that I'd rather Windows Vista use all the memory I paid for to improve performance rather than not - as what happens in Windows XP.


RE: I Like how
By tomal on 5/9/2008 6:41:21 AM , Rating: 2
ya exactly ..... some people like to see lots of free ram in task manager ..... but vista actually uses them ...... it actually gives a better usage of free ram ........

and vista is not comparingly resource hog ...... xp was released back in 2001 and despite that, it needs atleast 256 MB for good performance (256 MB RAM was high end in those days) ...... but you can get decent performance with 1 GB RAM in Vita and Vista normal uses around 400 to 500 MB RAM ...... and 1GB ram was not high end in 2007.


RE: I Like how
By Belard on 5/8/2008 10:15:14 PM , Rating: 2
While I am someone who is not impressed with Vista. You should, by all means - try it for yourself if you can.

My experince with Vista has been "so, this is it?" Yeah, on the exact same PC, what would have taken Vista 20mins to unpak a 40mb ZIP file (it spent 2 mins showing a pretty animation of it "calculating" the time it will take to unpack it), yet after I installed XP on the exact same PC, it unpacked the SAME ZIP file in 30seconds.

Many of the Vista supports say the same thing "Vista runs fast once you disable many of the services, disable the UAC (or MCP of TRON), etc, etc" Er... so then, whats the point of Vista then? You of course cannot turn off the DRM which is most likely one of the biggest causes of problems with Vista.

When Amiga DOS went from 1.3 > 2.x, it used the same memory, was a graphic change a bit and added a lot of important functions. From 2.x > 3.0, it used LESS memory, ran faster, added more colors abilitys... that is what I call an upgrade.

Now, keep in mind - when Gates says that 140million PCs have been shipped with Vista, that doesn't mean 140million people are actually using it. If upwards of 20% have upgraded to XP, then that'll reduce the number down to 28million users have switched. Look at these internet usage, is almost a year of Vista, less than 8% of web users are using Vista. Here ya go: http://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php

Vista should be better, could be better - especially for what they are charging for it.

BTW: The new MS Office 2007 is something that MS did quite a bit of good work on. They didn't update everything, but for the most part - they actually made the functionality better.


RE: I Like how
By Verran on 5/8/2008 10:22:40 AM , Rating: 2
I always see this argument to combat the anti-Vista crowd, and to me it's paper-thin.

Yes, people complained about the bulkiness of XP too back in the day. So what did they do? They didn't adopt it right off the gun but instead waiting for average PC specs to grow to the point where the bulk was acceptable. That's the same thing they're doing with Vista. Waiting.

People need to understand talking about the sluggishness and bulkiness of a piece of software is a relative topic. Implying any sort of "flip-flop" mentality because these opinions change over half a decade or so is just ridiculous.


RE: I Like how
By SavagePotato on 5/8/2008 10:28:18 AM , Rating: 4
It's simple understanding of history.

People will bitch, moan, complain and otherwise whine about the requirements of Vista, and in the end the result will be the same as that of the people who bitched, moaned, complained and whined about XP.

How is that paper thin, it's as obvious as the nose on your face. You don't have to stop there either, you can go back to win98 v win95, win95 v Dos, and see the same pattern with the same results.


RE: I Like how
By CyborgTMT on 5/8/08, Rating: 0
RE: I Like how
By SavagePotato on 5/8/2008 10:47:03 AM , Rating: 3
Apparently you fail as well.

Honestly go out and learn about what new stuff there actually is in Vista before you stomp in and blow the fud trumpet.

You just look stupid when you make asshat statements like that. By the way, mission accomplished.


RE: I Like how
By mattclary on 5/8/2008 12:14:23 PM , Rating: 2
Please educate us as to these new features. Then we can contrast removed functionality.


RE: I Like how
By SavagePotato on 5/8/2008 12:27:03 PM , Rating: 3
The features of Vista are common knowledge, that anyone who can type wikipedia can find.

Explain to me why I should waste my time typing out ten paragraphs to tell you something that you are just going to make a stupid troll comment over in the first place?


RE: I Like how
By jonmcc33 on 5/8/2008 1:55:53 PM , Rating: 2
I'd have to agree. Not worth your time at all. The haters will learn when they eventually upgrade in due time. Those waiting for Windows 7 will find an even bigger mountain to climb anyway.


RE: I Like how
By LorenHeiny on 5/8/2008 1:19:34 PM , Rating: 4
Flipping the question around a little: What features are in Vista that I use every day that aren't in XP?

* Better WiFi management
* Search box in Start menu. No add ons required.
* I trust sleep/shutdown to work.
* Snipping tool. I use 3rd party screen capture apps too, but the Snipping tool is always there.
* I own a Tablet PC and there are several great improvements including: checkboxes in Windows Explorer for selecting multiple files, flyout Tablet Input Panel (TIP) for writing on, best handwriting recognition I've seen anywhere, and customizable handrwriting recognition when it doesn't understand what I'm writing, incremental input using the TIP in IE's address bar.
* Battery meter seems a lot more accurate, especially when the battery is nearing the end of a charge.

All of these are things I miss when using one of my XP machines.


RE: I Like how
By mattclary on 5/8/08, Rating: -1
RE: I Like how
By SavagePotato on 5/8/2008 2:58:59 PM , Rating: 2
I know, clicking start, connect to is amazingly difficult. I don't know how you manage. You should receive a purple heart for the horrors of Vista.

[Violin music]


RE: I Like how
By LorenHeiny on 5/8/2008 3:20:31 PM , Rating: 2
In terms of the link you give about sleep/hibernate issues with Vista, it's from 2006. Further, at the top of the post the person reports that the problems were solved via an update last year. I've seen similar improvements. That being said, I do have one system that still has problems when the system is already asleep and you disconnet a USB device and it wakes up again, but that's one out of many that work just fine.

You have to admit though that after the initial problems with sleep/hibernate, things are much better in Vista. The differences aren't caused by clumbsy development, but rather the fact that the Windows developers knew they had issues about apps over-ruling shutdown/sleep requests in previous versions of Windows (preventing a shutdown/sleep)--so they fixed it in Vista. Of course, things didn't go smoothly initially, but that was then.

Now in terms of WiFi connectivity, I haven't seen the problems you're talking about. All I can say is that my experience is different. However, I'm surprised you think that the XP way of managing connections (I'm not talking about 3rd part solutions, but rather the built-in Windows support) is better that Vista's. And a bit of perspective here: When I first started using WiFi cards with XP I had lots of problems. It's gotten better over the years as you suggest. So the trend is in the right direction. As to your connectivity issues, I see online that others have had problems. It appears that some are fixed with updated drivers, some by updates to CA firewall software (though I'm not sure if this really made a difference or not), and some things that have been updated to fix problems with older gateways (http://blogs.technet.com/steriley/archive/2006/11/... Maybe someone else has some suggestions here.


RE: I Like how
By CyborgTMT on 5/8/2008 3:22:40 PM , Rating: 1
You assume I don't have Vista myself and that I'm knocking the OS. Your point was that people are not switching because they are crying about the change from XP to Vista. My point, which you completely couldn't understand, is that for 90% of home and business users the changes in Vista are not enough for them to throw down $200 for an 'upgrade'. Between 98 and XP a lot of the changes, especially in the networking, had an impact on customers. If you sat down the average box store customer and asked them the changes between Vista and XP, most will respond probably like this 'Some stuff has been moved and it looks different'. A power user on the other hand will be able to sit here and list lines of changes to the OS. But all those changes don't mean crap to someones 60 year old mother who just wants the pc to do online crossword puzzles.

Next time try reading what someone actually wrote before you earn your paycheck from MS. To borrow your own line...
quote:
You just look stupid when you make asshat statements


RE: I Like how
By tomal on 5/9/2008 6:50:21 AM , Rating: 2
a 60 year old mother does not even bother with XP.

She just bothers about crosswords. For her even windows 98 will suffice with an internet connection.

Where is your argument?!?!


RE: I Like how
By Reclaimer77 on 5/8/2008 4:18:43 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Honestly go out and learn about what new stuff there actually is in Vista before you stomp in and blow the fud trumpet.


New stuff. Like the UAC which gets disabled right off the bat. Or Superfetch which most likely one will disable. Or the Aero Interface which doesn't support everyones hardware and has the same basic functionality as using Alt+Tab in XP.


RE: I Like how
By cmdrdredd on 5/8/2008 4:21:56 PM , Rating: 2
Superfetch works fine for me. Actually with it off I notice that certain appls open slowly. UAC is only annoying for a while, and after some time it won't even be noticable for most everyday people.


RE: I Like how
By Hoser McMoose on 5/8/2008 11:54:44 PM , Rating: 2
Rather then being annoying I actually quite like UAC. It's basically like the *nix 'sudo' command. Works great for working as a non-admin user and getting admin privileges only when necessary (fairly rare).

It's a good idea and really something Microsoft SHOULD have implemented years ago.


RE: I Like how
By jonmcc33 on 5/9/2008 7:39:46 AM , Rating: 2
According to research, 88% of people using Windows Vista still have UAC enabled.

Superfetch works in the background. No Windows Vista user will even be aware of it's presence in a negative aspect to even be aware of how to disable it.

Aero only works on systems that support it. If you don't have the ability you cannot use it so your point is moot. Current onboard graphics are able to support it without a problem anyway.


RE: I Like how
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 5/8/2008 11:13:17 AM , Rating: 5
Yes, but they don't want to admit that this is a continual cycle. Truth and logic has no place with them.


RE: I Like how
By retrospooty on 5/8/2008 10:27:47 AM , Rating: 2
" 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."

You are right about XP, it is 7 years old and has outlived its system specs... But if you have been paying any attention at all, even MS software engineers have admitted that Vista is bloated and hogs too much resources. They are also developing the next release of Windows 7 to be leaner and trimmer, so its not likely that history will repeat itself on Vista as it did XP.


RE: I Like how
By SavagePotato on 5/8/2008 10:32:27 AM , Rating: 2
Man, lets not even get into that bogus interpretation of an interview with a Microsoft employee that all the Vista haters cling to. It's so off base it's not even funny, it was the last time it was beaten into the ground by Tomz and justincase and it is now.

History will indeed repeat itself, and windows 7 will not be the messiah that people think it will be with somehow lower requirements than even XP. Windows 7 will very likely be the exact same repetition of history once again, with detractors stuck in the last generation and refusing to move on.


RE: I Like how
By edpsx on 5/8/2008 11:08:09 AM , Rating: 2
Vista is purposly a resource hog. That is why the RAM specs are so high on it. Its with good reason though, it just didnt get implemented properly to actually make the OS run as fast as it should. Vista uses RAM as a cache drive. Only problem with that is that it selects which things should be loaded into cache and not you. I love the idea of having whole programs loaded into RAM so that they load faster, but if you open a program that isnt cached, it has to dump something out of RAM then load it back up delaying the load time even more.

Now if I could specify what programs to load into RAM, it would work like butter for me. This is the reason Vista "appears" to be a resource hog. Its just doing what it "thinks" to be the best plan of action. And like everyone before me said, this is just like when XP came out, hell I think XP was alot worse in terms of driver issues. But that doesnt change the fact that Vista is the WinME of WinXP. And dont say it adds XX features that XP doesnt have. Of course it does/did until SP3 came out for XP. And XP had alot of stuff that 2000 didnt have too.

Windows 7 is just gonna be another rinse/repeat for the OS market.


RE: I Like how
By StevoLincolnite on 5/8/2008 11:46:15 AM , Rating: 2
Well to be honest, Vista itself with Superfetch Disabled does consume more memory than XP, To call it an Astronomical amount? No, not when compared with the cheap and powerful Hardware prices we have with us this day and age.
However, those with lower system requirements (512mb of memory) could complain that the operating system is intensive in comparison to XP, as they find they have very little resources to play around with, Thats where Ready Boost steps onto the scene.

I did play around with Vista on a Friends Pentium 4 1.8ghz, 512mb of RDRAM and a Geforce MX4000 - I enabled Aero with a simple registry edit, to enable it to run on the Direct X 7 class Graphics Card, and the machine was fine.
However, you could not do anything intensive, like running Oblivion or anything (The Graphics card would laugh at you for a start) but they could play Popcap and Gamehouse games, and Word Processing easily enough.

Then Another Friend with an Athlon XP 2600+, 1024mb of memory, and a Radeon 9700pro decided to jump on Vista, the machine ran fine and managed Oblivion on medium quality settings without a hick-up. - And most people these days usually have a system either comparable to this or exceed it, if not it's easy enough to buy a cheap box, and drop a better GPU and memory into to surpass those specs.

But you are correct, there were similar issues with XP's inception, the main reason was that the vast majority of users were using Windows 98 (Everyone wants to forget about ME, I don't blame them), thus when they jumped aboard the Windows XP band wagon, they found there Pentium 2 300's, 64mb of memory and 4mb S3 Virge systems were having troubles keeping up, but thats only the performance side of things, most games and applications refused to run on Windows XP at the time, thus most people had to wait for patches, or new versions of the game/software to be released before using it, drivers were also horrible, buggy as crap and hard to find for most hardware, most of the not-as-common-components ha to use Windows NT drivers, or Windows 2k drivers (Like 3dfx Voodoo cards, and the Aureal Vortex sound cards) - Even high profile games like Dungeon Keeper 2 had alot of issues with XP, and still games like X-Com Interceptor have problems while running under XP, even with compatibility mode enabled.

We all complained about Windows 95 when it was released, and most of us stuck with Windows 3.11 for the better performance and support, and Stability, thus when a new Operating system is released....

... and your not happy with performance ...

... Upgrade, or stay with the current operating system ...


RE: I Like how
By retrospooty on 5/8/2008 12:17:55 PM , Rating: 2
"windows 7 will not be the messiah that people think it will be with somehow lower requirements than even XP. "

I dont know anyone that said, nor thinks that. What I read and saw myself from that famous MS briefing/meeting/whatever it was is that they are working to make it more efficient than Vista... I would expect it to be a bit more efficient than Vista, and of course, the standard system will be faster when it is released.

As for Tomz beating it into the ground, NO... I totally disagree with that. Tomz did the typical stubborn, arrogant not listening, not comprehending, just spouting off and refusing to admit that for even a split second that he can possibly be mistaken regarding the words spoken by the MS employee.

Ultimately being fair, all we can say is that the verdict is still out and we wont know for sure until pre-release betas are out (at best)...

I will say one thing for sure... I sure as hell wont listen to anything you or Tomz says on the matter. I will be making up my own mind based on facts, than you very much.


RE: I Like how
By SavagePotato on 5/8/2008 12:35:17 PM , Rating: 5
It's alright, you have a good time with the next 2 years managing with a 32 bit system and hoping that windows 7 actually releases in 2010 (almost 100% likely to be delayed) and does what you think it will do.

In that time I will be enjoying a 64 bit OS with stable drivers (read: unlike XP64) oozing with ram and enjoying all those features of Vista you find frivolous, or take up too much resources for your underpowered PC to pull off.

If you really get off on squeezing the most life out of an old system possible, more power to you. I will be embracing the world of quickly evolving hardware and enjoying it.


RE: I Like how
By retrospooty on 5/8/2008 1:56:11 PM , Rating: 2
Actually Captain know it all, I am using Vista, and happily so. I switched about 4 months ago, and I don't have any issues or complaints at all. But unlike you, the fact that mine works great, does not make me think that everyone else whos Vista isnt working great is an idiot. There are real issues out there, even if you and I dont have them, others do, and its not all imaginary, and/or user error.


RE: I Like how
By just4U on 5/9/2008 1:13:26 AM , Rating: 2
Captain Obvious Here just checking in ...

You said that it doesn't make you believe that everyone else's Vista is working fine.. But the same holds true for XP as well .. I think. I'd even go as far as saying that there are way more xp machines out there in dire need of help then Vista ones.

I mean it's just common sense really.


RE: I Like how
By retrospooty on 5/9/2008 9:16:34 AM , Rating: 2
Nice misinterpretation, followed up by deflection.

All I am saying is that you are in no position to make such a harsh judgement on the many thousands of people that are having negative issues with Vista. Not low system specs, not poor device driver support, not UAC, other than that there are still real issues that cannot be ignored. Just be grateful that you and I don't have them and move on.


RE: I Like how
By just4U on 5/9/2008 11:51:47 AM , Rating: 2
The harsh criticism he makes is aimed more at "OFF" posts rather then any real view held. (You know that right? Forum and all)

I install Vista on a wide range of differently configured machines. My problems are few and far between, just like on XP installs. Occassionally something rears its ugly head but I've narrowed down most of those problems to faulty hardware. Vista is Ready, and I can see where some might be frustrated when others claim it's not. The first reaction I got to is ... they simply don't know any better.


RE: I Like how
By retrospooty on 5/9/2008 3:44:56 PM , Rating: 2
sorry, for some reason I thought your post was from potato head, and was responding as if that was the case.

"The harsh criticism he makes is aimed more at "OFF" posts rather then any real view held. (You know that right? Forum and all)"

I guess I don't. SP is kind of a troll here at at/dt. Not a regular troll, but very inflammatory, regardless of the issue.


RE: I Like how
By 67STANG on 5/8/2008 2:52:12 PM , Rating: 2
Is it me, or this a case of the pot calling the kettle black?

Potato, you call everyone a troll, but on every single Anand thread about XP or Vista, you are the one trolling.

Please.... we've all heard you make the same arguments over and over again-- some valid, some not. The bottom line is, some people like Vista, some don't. I'd say it's about a 50/50 split. Trying to call the end to every argument by saying "I bet so and so has never even used Vista." is complete bs.

What I find interesting is you tout all of the pluses of Vista (which it does indeed have) over XP, but none of it's minuses(which it does indeed have). Perhaps we should use an analogy?

A 1965 Shelby 427 Cobra is a very fast, very respected car, albeit a bit outdated. A 2008 Mustang GT is pretty quick and pretty well respected, and much newer with all the bells and whistles you can't find on a 1965 Shelby. The are both cars, they are both Fords, they both drive.

Do you want Cruise Control and Air conditioning or brute muscle? It's preference. That's all.


RE: I Like how
By SavagePotato on 5/8/2008 5:16:43 PM , Rating: 1
I don't see any minuses in my use of Vista. Losing 2fps in a game is not a minus worth my time. Taking a few extra seconds to extract a zip file when I use winrar for everything anyway is not anything that's worth my time.

I have a problem with lies and fud, and personally I am very tired of reading the SAME fud over and over and over from the same people.

The only thing one can conclude when time and time again the same thing that simply does not happen gets posted is that either the person has no understanding of and has never used the program, or they are a flat out liar.

In reality liar is probably the more common.


RE: I Like how
By 67STANG on 5/8/2008 6:22:41 PM , Rating: 2
True, but for people that game (like myself) or do a lot of archiving, those are minuses. Of course, I know to get DX10, I'll eventually have to reload Vista on my main PC (I'm hoping it does better with SP1)

Just goes to show, Vista is better for some people and XP is better for some people.

And I think that liar is a strong term. I think a lot of people on this board embelish, I certainly know quite a few.


RE: I Like how
By retrospooty on 5/8/2008 7:23:51 PM , Rating: 2
Strong term indeed... Savage tater just cant seem to grasp the fact that some people have legitimate issues/bugs with Vista. He is very narcissistic in his dealings... "I dont have any problems with Vista, therefore Vista has no problems. Forget the thousands and thousands of negative reports and findings by thousands of others. Mine works, therefore everyone else is retarded".


RE: I Like how
By just4U on 5/9/2008 1:36:50 AM , Rating: 2
I just see a vicious cycle that rears it's ugly head every time a new OS comes out. For the most part people that are now on the PRO Vista side feel that it's "Ready" for prime time. I know I am one of them. I install it on every new machine I build now (if they don't give me a working OS) because I am confident of it's capabilities.


RE: I Like how
By ToeCutter on 5/10/2008 12:05:20 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
In that time I will be enjoying a 64 bit OS with stable drivers (read: unlike XP64) oozing with ram and enjoying all those features of Vista you find frivolous, or take up too much resources for your underpowered PC to pull off.


Damn!

That makes you the baddest mother f&cker in this whole damn thread!

(And you gots a 5 to prove it!)


RE: I Like how
By rippleyaliens on 5/8/2008 2:32:56 PM , Rating: 2
In all fairness VISTA does Rock. On laptops we have noticed a huge increase in productivity. Speed (RAW) is not there, but overall capabilities are definetly increased.
Desktop- That is a different beast..
Identical system - Identical system.
Quad core, 4gb ram, 4x 500GB drives striped. (necessary for very high disk i/o) 8800gt cards..
The vista machine, would take 30-40 seconds to load vmware virtual server 1.4/1.5.. VM's would take 20-40 seconds LONGER to boot.. Copying files- a whopping 40-58 MB second speed.

XP same mashine. like night and day. instant vmware virtual server launch. VM's fully booted in 15-25 sec. more importantly, copying 1GB of files, (loose files) takes under 30 sec. Something with Vista and hard drives....

Gaming.. we tried.. DX 10 is sweet, but still the cards that can run it well, ($500 cards), still dont shine in my book as a reason to upgrade.

Even home users.. problems.. not really microsoft problems, but more so, driver issues. Compatibility issues. Maybe in 12-18 months.. But considering, that dual / quad core cpu's are becomming common place, it is still a 3 year cycle for hardware, both home and business.
Vista will come alive in 2k9..

as was mentioned, win 3.x to 95 (big time roar), 95 to 98, (not a big roar, but a roar), 98 to 2k.. (MASSIVE roars), 2k to xp, not as bad.. but same issue.. hardware was too slow..
xp to vista..(same thing, except, it is highly demanding on resources..
Once 64bit hits mainstream, it will be a little different..
but now, it is just a stopgap,, like WinME was,


RE: I Like how
By andrewoah on 5/8/2008 3:03:33 PM , Rating: 2
I've heard comments about Vista's ups and downs, as an employee of a computer store for over 7 years. I remember all the same comments being said about Windows XP when it came out.
Everyone in my family has been using Vista since it first came out with no issues. They all now are also running the Service pack as well.
Two nice features of Vista that I applaud are the parental control feature built in, which works awesome if you have younger kids. Also, the Vista Media Center portion is definitely an improvement over XP Media Center (it always seemed buggy).
I agree I had to buy newer hardware to improve performance; But, that is expected with newer software you require newer hardware.
I myself am currently running Vista 64 SP1 and it works great!


RE: I Like how
By Reclaimer77 on 5/8/2008 3:54:47 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Two nice features of Vista that I applaud are the parental control feature built in, which works awesome if you have younger kids. Also, the Vista Media Center portion is definitely an improvement over XP Media Center


Man now that you told me that, I'm going to run out and buy Vista right now. Why use Winamp and Bsplayer when I can use the Vista Media Center !??

/sarcasm off


RE: I Like how
By StormEffect on 5/8/2008 6:54:31 PM , Rating: 3
There are a bunch more combative posters you could've been a jerk to, but instead you chose the guy who made the most benign comment I've seen in this shredder thread.

Geez, dude, do you run over old ladies for putting their carts away too slowly at the supermarket? Find someone as bitchy as you to fight against instead of this nice guy.

That said, I love my Vista installation, but these internet wars over XP vs Vista are completely overblown. People who like XP need to shut up, use their OS, and leave Vista users alone. And people who use Vista need to shut up and stop telling XP users how much better Vista is. People have long since dropped any rational argument on the subject, and this has devolved into the kind of shit throwing you normally see in politics or console wars.


RE: I Like how
By just4U on 5/9/2008 1:43:08 AM , Rating: 2
I was accually thinking the same thing..


RE: I Like how
By tomal on 5/10/2008 6:13:29 AM , Rating: 2
ya i was thinking the same too. That guy is sissy.


RE: I Like how
By mindless1 on 5/9/2008 1:35:14 AM , Rating: 2
The important thing to remember is that people aren't looking to slow down the new computer they just paid hundreds for. When each successive windows was released, it was true that in the beginning the hardware had to catch up because MS was making decisions not so much based on customer need but rather what they wanted to do.

You wrote that hardware has long since outpaced it's requirements but you are missing the bigger picture. The goal is not that a system be just fast enough to run some OS, the OS is SUPPOSED to be merely a means toward the end - running applications.

People should make up their own mind about what OS suits their system and use, and for some that is an nLited Win2k or XP, for some it's a lite Win9x, and for some Vista.

The interesting thing in all this is those who are for Vista seem to think those who know their own needs and reject it, need to be *enlightened* as if they must not be capable of making their own decision. Remember that PCs and users do many different things, even some generic category of usage like photo editing doesn't tell you so much about that user's specific requirements.

You are acting like a MS shill when you write "angry detractors". What don't you grasp? Everyone is quite entitled to like or dislike any given product and prefer a different one. Note for example how there isn't just one make and model of car, house, trash compactor. It is entirely reasonable to assess a product and state you prefer something else. Everyone does not have to prefer what you do.

You seem to act as though you feel you have some special insight that history will repeat itself. What you are missing is that many people do not want the OS to consume so much of their system resources, and so it is entirely valid to refrain from the newest bloatware. Same goes for upgrading many other software packages, many people do not have any desire to run Office 2007 for example nor to keep upgrading acrobat reader except for the annoying nag screen that pops up often if using some older version, regardless of the fact that once the nag screen is gone it works to suit their needs.

Slim and trim is always going to be relative to the contemporary hardware. Suppose you bought a half ton pickup truck. To you, a quarter ton load would then be moderate, and to you a three quarter ton load would be excessive. Although it's a half ton truck that doesn't necessarily mean you want to always have a half ton of weight in it, might want some reserve capacity for passengers, and the better handling and performance that comes with it not being at full capacity.

Now contrast that with someone owning a ten ton dump truck. Their concerns may be similar but with a larger relative capacity. So it goes with computer hardware as well, eventually it becomes fast enough that the relative capacity is at the threshold the operator desires. Such people will tend to use each OS further into successive generations of hardware and these people tend to be those who have far more experience - I mean hands on perspective over many years rather than the kids who just want the latest thinking it's the greatest.

The really wonderous part is that many tout certain OS features as if they couldn't get their job done otherwise. Take security for example, anyone who thinks XP's SP2, let alone Vista, is important for security is among the last people competent at security. Everyone else already found safe practices instead of waiting around for a patch.

Someday people who dislike Vista now may like it more, but it's likely part of the reason you perceive them as angry is your illogical stance that they are supposed to change to suit your ideal. That attitude tends to irritate people, the same as you would be irritated if in your daily life someone decided to try and impose upon you that you change something else in your life to suit them.

You need to step back and take an objective rather than subjective perspective. Line item features in a (new OS) are only as important as the value they cause others to perceive, and many do have a cost in one form or another. Customers should have choices and be able to dislike anything they want to without being labeled in some MS-hater kind of way.

If you didn't like some other product you have, are you supposed to pretend it's ok? Would you feel it's reasonable if people continually tried to argue with you to justify your opinion against their needs instead of your own?

People don't like being cattle, herded onto something they don't choose. There is a lot to be said for not fixing something that isn't broken and for many people XP is not broken. To them, Vista has only detriments even if you or another user likes and values those features more than the XP user does. Many are not interested in relearning computer tech, not interested in paying more (even $10) to do the same job they always have. To them a computer is a basic tool, not some hot rod car that would have all kinds of bolt-on enhancements. They may want a means to run apps and nothing more. No background superfetching or anything else, just an interface between hardware and applications.

To those people Vista is a step in the wrong direction. Perhaps XP was too, but as we know Win9x was too easily crashed due to inherant design so we have now a divergence of needs. Some want their computer doing things they didn't specifically tell it to, and others don't. Subjective differences in need don't necessarily make people angry detractors, it's generally the case when others try to make decisions for them.

Can you say freedom in computing?


RE: I Like how
By jvillaro on 5/10/2008 1:48:09 AM , Rating: 2
WOW!!! That was a long thread.
Meanwhile Microsoft made a billion more! Good for them...


Postcard from the Edge
By HarryLemon on 5/8/2008 11:18:14 AM , Rating: 3
Having just built a new PC to replace the one I built five years ago, I was also intent on sticking with XP due to all the reports of added slowness, etc., and since hardware prices continued to fall all throughout this interim, I wanted my new system to be considerably more powerful than before. But XP can't recognize more than 3.25Gb of RAM, and with 8Gb of SLi certified, performance memory costing about $160 (after a $30 rebate), I decided to study a bit more about how Vista actually performs with a "scaled" system.

Having made the switch to Vista Ultimate (64 bit), all I can say is *I*am*very*happy*. The OS has come way down in price as well (spent $179 @ Newegg), and it runs very fast, very smooth, and very stable. The only thing I'll need to upgrade is my Nero burning suite - all my printers and scanners, etc. work fine with it (I didn't get them yesterday either) and all told I only spent a little over 2k for the following:

- Core 2 Duo Q6700 Quad Core 2.66GHz CPU (running at 3.33GHz)
- 8Gb DDR2800 (PC6400) SDRAM
- 4 x 500Gb 7200RPM Seagate Barracuda Hard Drives in RAID 5 for 2Tb total (1.36Tb usable)
- nVidia GeForce 8800GTS (G92) 512Mb graphics card
- my old DVD burners
- Antec P182 stainless steel case
- PC Power & Cooling Silencer 750W Quad power supply
- Samsung 245T 24" LCD monitor

All my games run like butter, and I absolutely love all the new features, plus the fact that it recognizes all 8Gb of RAM, and uses no more than about 19% of it at any given time for itself. The number of programs I can work within simultaneously is just mind-blowing.

It's all about scale, and the hardware is just ridiculously cheap now anyways, so go for it! =)




RE: Postcard from the Edge
By SavagePotato on 5/8/2008 11:24:12 AM , Rating: 4
That's an awesome system, but hold on tight for the torrent of anti Vista clowns that are about to tell you why you should have gone with XP.

There is what Vista was made for, new machines, not for whiners with a p4 1.4ghz and a penchant for whining.


RE: Postcard from the Edge
By mikefarinha on 5/8/2008 11:30:21 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Having made the switch to Vista Ultimate (64 bit), all I can say is *I*am*very*happy*.


Welcome to the club!

Vista 64 is definitely a pleasurable experience on an up-to-date PC. However, be prepared to grow thick skin when dealing with the XP-or-die zealots.

Be patient with them for they know not what they speak of.

*Ducks for cover*


RE: Postcard from the Edge
By mattclary on 5/8/2008 12:08:30 PM , Rating: 2
You are right, that is why I currently run XP64.

Eventually, due to lack of drivers and such, we will all be dragged kicking and screaming aboard the the Vista Short Bus, whether we like it or not.


RE: Postcard from the Edge
By allometry on 5/8/2008 1:10:07 PM , Rating: 2
I use Vista 64 and it's pretty good.

Here's the recommendation I give to power users wanting to give Vista an objective shot: drop what you know about Windows and act like you're a brainless user going at Vista for the first time.

Here's what you will learn. If you've got a system that's relatively new, drivers shouldn't be an issue; this is if you have a PC built within the last 3 to 4 years.

My computer is nearing the 3 year mark and I have had 0 problems with Vista thus far.

Learn to love the search bars on damn near everything; search, control panel, etc. Power users will find Vista easier to use if you stop using the menus and start using the search.

Lastly, UAC is only a bitch when you are in your first run. It's constantly in your face if you're trying to push through updates as part of your first-run-setup. Here's the trick; don't worry about the updates. Windows will download and install them without asking you; granted, if you told it to do update aujumatically.

The hardest thing for power users with Vista is just to let go. We're used to not using search on Windows, because it sucks. We're used to manually updating Windows, because Update can be spotty. We're used to do a lot of driver installs, because newer hardware is rarely supported. Vista has done better in all three.

Fact of the matter is the OS will drive itself if you let it. I gave Vista another shot and followed these directions and have found myself in a non-hating-position because of it.

Just my $0.02.

Here's my rig, btw:
AMD64 3800+ X2
MSI nVidia nForce4 2X-16 PCI-Express Diamond
Integrated Sound Blaster Audigy
1 7900GT MSI Video
Seagate 320GB 7200.9 w/external FreeAgent 500GB USB
NEC DVD/RW 8XDL

Again, no issues with the above rig on Vista64


RE: Postcard from the Edge
By AlphaVirus on 5/8/2008 2:47:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Here's the trick; don't worry about the updates. Windows will download and install them without asking you; granted, if you told it to do update aujumatically.

Telling a techy to not download updates is like telling a fish to get out the water, 99% of the time it won't happen.


RE: Postcard from the Edge
By allometry on 5/8/2008 5:40:38 PM , Rating: 2
Heh, you're right. I was discussing this very thing with a friend of mine this morning. It's like saying, "it's so crazy, it might just work."


RE: Postcard from the Edge
By mattclary on 5/8/2008 3:02:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Here's the recommendation I give to power users wanting to give Vista an objective shot: drop what you know about Windows and act like you're a brainless user going at Vista for the first time.


That's my biggest problem with Vista, is I feel it has been dumbed down to the point it is more difficult to use if you actually know what you are doing.


RE: Postcard from the Edge
By Reclaimer77 on 5/8/2008 7:37:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Here's the recommendation I give to power users wanting to give Vista an objective shot: drop what you know about Windows and act like you're a brainless user going at Vista for the first time.


Kind of defeats the point of being a " power user " doesn't it ? Besides everything you said is pretty much moot because " power users " know better than to run Vista.


RE: Postcard from the Edge
By killerb255 on 5/8/2008 1:33:07 PM , Rating: 3
That build is very similar to my home system, except:

- No RAID. My main drive is an older 250 GB 7200 RPM SATA 3.0 Gb (can't remember the model or brand name off-hand)
- Q6600 instead.
- 8800 GT

In any case, I'm loving my setup as well. I use Media Center and 64-bit, and there is no XP MCE x64 version.

I have had Superfetch cache almost 4 GB of data into RAM before. Still no slowdown, since I had the RAM to spare!

...and I LOVE the Search feature--XP's old search would take forever to search through TBs of data.

Breadcrumbs are also nice--no more rapid-pressing of the back button or "Up one level."

In any case, I think the reasons people are so vocal about Vista are:

1) Vista seems like "change just for the sake of change."

What is Vista really fixing that was problematic in XP, other that security?

XP had three predecessors: 98, Me, and 2000.

Me to XP: SOLD!

98 to XP: Gamers were hesitant, since many games were written with the 9x kernel/FAT32 file system in mind and a lot of them choked on XP. Other than that, the stability and future patches/hotfixes/better versions of software sold people on XP.

2000 to XP: This was a tougher sell in the business world. XP was 2000 with a coat of paint and more compatibility modes for legacy OSes (which was eventually put in 2000 SP3 anyway). Going from 2000 to XP became more of an issue of discontinued support than anything.

2) People had too much time to grow comfortable with XP.

Windows 95's predecessor came out roughly 2-3 years later (98).
Windows 98's...uh...predecessor (Me) came out 2-3 years later.
Windows NT 4.0's predecessor came out 4-5 years later (2000).
Windows XP succeeded Me after 1 year, 2000 after 1.5 years, and 98 after 3-4 years.

Vista succeeded XP after SIX YEARS! We just got too comfy with XP!

3) XP may (arguably) be the best OS to come from Microsoft. Those that have problems with XP typically have problems with Windows in general and are using Linux or Mac anyway. People aren't convinced that Vista suits their needs better.


RE: Postcard from the Edge
By killerb255 on 5/8/2008 1:36:48 PM , Rating: 2
In other words, if may wall-o-text is too overwhelming:

32-bit XP >>>>>>>> 32-bit Vista
64-bit Vista >>>>>>>> 64-bit XP

Vista should have been x64 only, but then again, that would have significantly dropped sales, and older hardware wouldn't run it...

...but it's not like 32-bit Vista runs on older hardware all that well anyway...


RE: Postcard from the Edge
By Hoser McMoose on 5/8/2008 4:59:20 PM , Rating: 2
Chalk up another satisfied Vista customer here. It's a great OS and a big step forward from WinXP in my opinion.

My system is rather more modest then the above setup:

Vista Home Pro x64
Athlon X2 4400+
4GB DDR2-800 (was only going with 2GB, but the second 2GB was only $25)
- 200GB + 80GB hard drives
- nVidia GeForce 8600GT

Other then the memory this is actually a pretty low-end machine by today's standards, like $300 or so? Maybe $400? And if you keep an eye open for deals on RAM a memory upgrade isn't expensive either.


Sales versus usage
By Screwballl on 5/8/2008 10:28:34 AM , Rating: 2
The numbers prove otherwise:

http://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php

This still shows that for April 08, there is less than 8% of the world's internet user market using Vista.




RE: Sales versus usage
By omnicronx on 5/8/2008 10:43:58 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
This report was generated 04/30/2008 based on the last 23,198,062 unique visits to all tracked websites at that time. W3Counter's sample currently includes 10,104 websites. The last 25,000 page views to each website are analyzed to identify unique visits. Some visits may occur before the month of the report.
I know statistics usually do not lie, but what sites are they tracking? And who is likely to be going to these sites? For example if they were tracking mostly business oritented sites, then it is quite possible people at work are using their XP machines to access these sites (most places have not shifted to Vista). I have real doubts that sites like facebook, youtube and myspace are included in these stats.


RE: Sales versus usage
By Screwballl on 5/8/2008 11:16:26 AM , Rating: 2
The sites are people and companies that have voluntarily added the w3 counter to their site. they can either use the free setup for 5,000 or less visits per day or the premium paid version is for larger sites/companies.

Its not perfect but it does paint a reasonable picture of the statistics out there.


RE: Sales versus usage
By omnicronx on 5/8/2008 11:54:03 AM , Rating: 3
I know exactly how the W3 or W3C counters work, what I also know is that most of the sites that have these are business oriented. Every site that shows these stats paints a different picture, Go look at the market share table on wiki to see what I mean.
quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Windows
Hitsilnk shows Vista with 15%, Awio claims as low as 7%, Xiti claims 11.5% and Onestat claims 13.5%. There is really no wrong number here either, it all depends on the sample pool, who is accessing the sites they are tracking, and what content is on these sites.


RE: Sales versus usage
By AntiM on 5/8/2008 12:09:57 PM , Rating: 2
That's a good point. A person can buy a Vista license and install XP.
There is licensing option in Vista Business and Vista Ultimate that lets PC makers provide XP under the Vista license, which Microsoft calls a "downgrade" license. (Enterprises with site licenses have these same rights with any version of Vista.) In essence, the user is buying a Vista license that it can apply to XP, and Microsoft can still claim a Vista sale.

This lets MS artificially inflate their Vista sales figures. I don't see why MS seems so compelled to make everyone think Vista is selling like hotcakes. They keep announcing these marvelous sales figures, thinking everyone will be impressed and run out and buy it and love it.


RE: Sales versus usage
By allometry on 5/8/2008 1:14:23 PM , Rating: 2
Whether or not it's an OEM or Retail sale of Vista, it's still a sale.

I don't think that's artificial inflation; it's just not labeled the way you want it to be.


RE: Sales versus usage
By AntiM on 5/8/2008 1:50:45 PM , Rating: 2
I think you missed the main point. People are buying a license for Vista, but installing XP instead. (on a newly purchased machine) Even though the customer is using XP, MS counts it as a Vista sale.
I have nothing against Vista, but MS seems awful anxious to assure people that it's selling well.


Thinking back
By 325hhee on 5/8/2008 1:34:41 PM , Rating: 2
When XP came out, I think most computers were only outfitted with 256 megs of ram. And that was pathetic. Here now people are ranting and raving that Vista is a resource hog... Ok... How about, it's been 7 yrs, and your computer only has 2 gigs of ram. I figure we should be at 16 gig of memory as a standard by this time.

Come on people, Ram is dirt cheap now for 4 gigs. Just a year and a couple of months ago I paid $100 bucks for 2 Gigs. Now you can find 4 gigs for like $60 aMIR. So what Vista uses more memory, who wouldn't want to put more memory into their computer anyway? And if you're foolish enough to think Windows 7 is going to run fine on 2 gigs, you really live in a hole. I already see many of Vista memory management system in Windows 7.

What you non Vista needs to realize, even though Vista takes up more memory, it uses the memory a lot smarter than XP. I'm happy that the updates have been improving the OS, but just think back, when XP came out, it was not any better than Vista at the same time. AND there are many people out there that was diligently awaiting SP3 since '05, because they still feel XP isn't functioning as it should be.

I do see some memory holes in XP to this day, it's still buggy. Why do I not always have all my progs boot up along with XP, when I log in, and sometimes those progs automatically logs in. Yet on another system it always logs in. XP is still buggy, people have just gotten used to it and its bugs. BSoD is still plaguing XP with some things.

I was not happy with Vista when it released, but I'm happy now. And I'm happy that I went with Vista 64, it's nice having an 8 gig OS.




RE: Thinking back
By Reclaimer77 on 5/8/2008 3:10:11 PM , Rating: 2
I think what people like and you and Savage just don't get, and what we do, is that the only reason you need 4-8 gigs of system ram is Vista. Applications and games don't require that, and the fact is, the huge majority of desktop PC software can't even make use of that much ram, let alone actually need it.

Yes, Vista 64 can address and make use of larger amounts of ram. Guess what ? Applications still don't. The only thing Vista is doing is using more ram for its new features by caching large portions of the OS so it actually feels faster. And you honestly wonder why people call it a resource hog ?

Funny, I built my PC last year with 2 gigs of system ram. Hmmm what changed suddenly in PC's that a year later I now " need " 4-8 gigs of system ram ? Nothing ! Vista came out, thats what.

Are you telling me that XP required a three to four times increase in system ram and CPU power over Windows 2000 ? I call BS on that too.


RE: Thinking back
By HarryLemon on 5/8/2008 3:29:53 PM , Rating: 2
With all due respect - because I do see your point - it still fails to take in the big picture:

I didn't build my new rig with Vista in mind - just XP - but realizing how cheap 8Gb of high quality RAM goes for today, I liked how there'd be all this overhead available for running all my apps AND games at the same time. I can switch between them all and enjoy blazing speeds with each of them now.

I don't want to build a new rig every 2 or even 3 years, I build my rigs for a 5 year life span. So apps today only use 2Gb RAM tops, great! Before you know it that will largely no longer be the case, and I'll relish in my overhead up & until that time with comfort. If Windows 7 comes out and entices me again, so much the better.

Vista is not the only reason why it makes sense to have more than 2Gb of RAM on your PC. The year is 2008, and you can get 8Gb RAM for less than the cost of 256Mb just yesteryear. Apps won't take long to catch up. It's like moving into a bigger house!


RE: Thinking back
By Reclaimer77 on 5/8/2008 3:48:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
With all due respect - because I do see your point - it still fails to take in the big picture:


Your big picture and my big picture are not the same.

quote:
I don't want to build a new rig every 2 or even 3 years, I build my rigs for a 5 year life span. So apps today only use 2Gb RAM tops, great! Before you know it that will largely no longer be the case, and I'll relish in my overhead up & until that time with comfort. If Windows 7 comes out and entices me again, so much the better.


Yes but I'm holding out building a new PC for a while so theres no need to dump tons of Ram into my perfectly fine PC when I'm just going to wait till Windows 7 to build a new one anyway.

quote:
Vista is not the only reason why it makes sense to have more than 2Gb of RAM on your PC. The year is 2008, and you can get 8Gb RAM for less than the cost of 256Mb just yesteryear. Apps won't take long to catch up. It's like moving into a bigger house!


I didn't say having 4-8 gigs of system ram didn't make sense. I just pointed out that the only reason one would think they need that much is because they are running Vista.


RE: Thinking back
By LorenHeiny on 5/8/2008 5:19:51 PM , Rating: 2
There are applications where the extra memory is useful. I know several amateur photographers that typically work with huge images. They like the extra memory. I know people doing video editing, they like it too. And as a developer, I see performance gains with several gigabytes of memory when compiling. None of these are because of Vista. 64-bit Vista enables them, however.

Now, do most people need 4, 8 or more GB of memory today? No. I agree there.

Likewise, does Vista run a lot better on 2GB of memory rather than 512MB? Yep.

And finally, is it reasonable to wait until Windows 7 to replace your latest machine? If you don't have an immediate need, waiting shouldn't be a problem.


RE: Thinking back
By Reclaimer77 on 5/8/2008 7:32:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There are applications where the extra memory is useful. I know several amateur photographers that typically work with huge images. They like the extra memory. I know people doing video editing, they like it too. And as a developer, I see performance gains with several gigabytes of memory when compiling. None of these are because of Vista. 64-bit Vista enables them, however.


I totally agree. Thats why I was careful to say MOST applications don't make use of that much ram.

quote:
Now, do most people need 4, 8 or more GB of memory today? No. I agree there.


Well apparently if you use Vista you do need that much. But all I see here from the Vista crowd is a circular logic argument " Its 2008 and Ram is cheap so just ram up ". I'm sure it sounds catchy but its totally avoiding the main issue and point reasonable people are trying to make. No modern OS should use or need that much Ram. Sorry, but if it does its a hog.

quote:
Likewise, does Vista run a lot better on 2GB of memory rather than 512MB? Yep.


Anything would run better on 2g vs 512. Who actually is still trying to use a P3 with 512mb of ram ? According to exremeists like Potatoe, if you have an issue with Vista you MUST be using a PII with 512MB of Ram. Again this is just more of the 'FUD' that hes so adamant against.


RE: Thinking back
By just4U on 5/9/2008 1:58:30 AM , Rating: 2
I just upgraded a ladies machine... she's been using windows xp with 128megs of ram since 2004. Why? Because she didn't know any better.


Vista is a media appliance
By panhead20 on 5/8/2008 12:45:49 PM , Rating: 1
With all of the code bloat in Vista to support DRM media and the protected process architecture, the OS is strictly for media centers. It has no place in a corporate or performance environment. Processor usage is at 65% playing MP3s through ITunes due to audiodg.exe. This process is the DRM component of Vista protecting your non-DRM'ed MP3s from you. Virus and malware writers have already exploited the protected process to hide their code. Hopefully, MS will not make the same mistake with Windows 7 and leave the DRM/protected process out of the OS.




RE: Vista is a media appliance
By cmdrdredd on 5/8/2008 4:11:27 PM , Rating: 2
Then why do I play multitudes of DRM free music through Zune Player, iTunes, media Player etc etc etc etc etc etc

The DRM inside Vista that you claim to witness hasn't stopped me from getting music without DRM, playing videos or anything media related. Plus, Vista x64 with 4GB or more memory given to it runs quite a bit faster than XP ever did on my PC.

BTW: I'm playing a music file while running a game in the background with a 3.2Ghz Core2Duo and I see ~30% CPU usage right now, plus I have All this going on while running Firefox and I see only 50% total memory usage of my available 4GB.

Try again because you failed.


RE: Vista is a media appliance
By Reclaimer77 on 5/8/2008 4:12:42 PM , Rating: 2
Where in his post did he say Vista prevented you from opening DRM free music ?

I think you missed his point big time.


RE: Vista is a media appliance
By cmdrdredd on 5/8/2008 4:18:30 PM , Rating: 2
Actualy no. I proved him wrong, he said Vista is protecting me from my DRM-less music. It is not doing anything to hinder my usage whatsoever. Furthermore he claimed that it used 56% CPU time. I wonder where that number came from.

People spew a bunch of BS about DRM and how because of Vista having all this DRM stuff that your experience will be terrible. It's not true. Absolutely nothing happens to prevent you from doing anything. Not to mention the fact that nobody can ever point to a link of someone somewhere with absolute proof that Vista's DRM hinders you and somehow makes your experience poor.


RE: Vista is a media appliance
By cmdrdredd on 5/8/2008 4:20:09 PM , Rating: 2
slight mistake...he actually claimed 65% CPU time which is even more ridiculous than my typo of 56%


RE: Vista is a media appliance
By panhead20 on 5/8/2008 6:27:51 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't state that the DRM process prevented me from listening to my MP3s. I stated that the CPU usage was at 65%. Here's the entire rant

Vista's been out almost a year, and SP1 is right around the corner. I've been running it at work on my personal machine for about seven or eight months now, just to try and get used to it so when we don't have the option of getting new computers with XP anymore, I'll be able to answer the inevitable questions from the users "where did x y and z go?" Because technically you can install an OS license on two computers if you really read into the fine print, I took the Express Upgrade disc from my computer at work home and installed it on my desktop computer.

Home Computer - P4 2.4Ghz, 1gb RAM, 80gb PATA OS, 2x250gb SATA data array, ATI Radeon 9600 256mb, SB Audigy+ 7.1 channel audio

Work Computer - Core 2 Duo 2.0Ghz, 4gb RAM, 80gb SATA, nVidia GeForce 7300 256mb, Intel integrated audio

My work computer rolls right along with multiple applications open, Symantec Corporate Edition 10 in the background, WMP 11 in toolbar mode playing MP3s, Outlook 2007 open, Active Directory Users & Computers MMC snap-in open, Foldershare satellite in the taskbar and then whatever else I'm working on at the moment.

My home computer runs AVG Free version in the background, uTorrent in the background, Foldershare satellite and iTunes. Generally there's an explorer window or two open, as well as iTunes minimized when I'm not there and open and playing MP3s when I am around. That's all.

My average processor usage is around 65%. 65% of my computer's resources are used up while it's sitting "idle" or doing something I consider extremely low-key, like playing MP3s through iTunes. It's so bad that iTunes actually starts "skipping" while trying to play MP3s. Doing anything, skipping forward to another song, opening a window, changing folders in Explorer, renaming a file, ANYTHING causes the processor usage to spike to 100% and slow everything down to a crawl. Heaven forbid I try to listen to music while doing anything file intensive.

Oddly enough, as resource intensive as it is, watching videos with Nero Showtime (I'm forcing myself to use it instead of VLC right now because I paid for Nero 7... right before Nero 8 was released and offered me the chance to upgrade for a low 39.99) doesn't seem to be a problem for the system at all.

I was watching the processor usage today while iTunes was skipping, trying to see WHAT was causing the processor usage and skipping. It didn't add up... I was using maybe 30% of the processor, but the reported usage was 65-70%. I checked "show processes from all users" box and there it was: Audiodg.exe was hogging up 30-65% of the processor cycles, iTunes went between 6% and 30%. What the hell is audiodg.exe? Is it something to do with the new Sound Blaster Audigy card I put in a few weeks ago?

I looked around online and found a pretty good description of it here.

The short answer is that audiodg.exe hosts the audio engine for Vista. All the DSP and other audio processing is done in audiodg.exe. There are two reason it runs outside of the windows audio service.

The first is that there's 3rd party code that gets loaded into audiodg.exe. Audio hardware vendors have the ability to install custom DSPs (called Audio Processing Objects or APOs) into the audio pipeline. For a number of reasons (reliability, serviceability, others) we're not allowed to load 3rd party code into svchost processes (svchost.exe is a generic host process for services that's used inside Windows). So we need to move all the code that interacts with these 3rd party APOs outside the audio service (that way if an APO crashes, it won't take out some other critical part of the system with it).

The second reason for using a separate process for the audio engine is DRM. The DRM system in Vista requires that the audio samples be processed in a protected process, and (for a number of technical reasons that are too obscure to go into) it's not possible for a svchost hosted service to run in a protected process.

UGH. So this piggy process was introduced in Vista to allow audio processing to run in a protected process because of DRM. Double-ugh. Everything in my iTunes library are plain-Jane VBR MP3s that I ripped from my own CDs. There is no DRM on them, there does not need to be any DRM on them, but they have to be processed through this audiodg process so they CAN. Lame. All it's doing is chewing up resources and making my audio playback skip. It's what the French call "Le Suck".

Vista's vaunted new User Account Control sucks, too. I left it all on to force myself to get used to it. I installed EAC to rip a couple new CDs that I bought, and it installed fine. I navigated to C:\Program Files\EAC and created a new folder called LAME and then unzipped the LAME_enc.dll and exe files into it and told EAC to use the external compressor... but it wouldn't. It would inexplicably fail. I dropped to a command line and tried it myself and got "Access Denied". Turns out that even with an administrator account, you can't execute an .exe file in the program files folder unless Windows/msiexec has put it there itself. If you have a program that didn't come in an .msi installation file, then it won't be able to run. On a whim, I went to Control Panel and turned off UAC. It warned me three times that it was a bad idea, and then asked me to reboot. After a reboot, EAC worked as expected, and I now have a red shield with an X over it in my system tray that periodically reminds me that I've left my system open to unauthorized use and click here to turn UAC back on. At work it's even worse. I had to disable UAC right off the bat in order for ScriptLogic to even run my logon script.

There's a whole laundry list of all small, niggling things that just don't work in Vista. My USB TV Tuner is unsupported in Vista and now has been discontinued. My Microsoft(!!) branded keyboard with the integrated UareU biometric fingerprint scanner doesn't work. The keyboard works, but the fingerprint scanner doesn't.

Probably my biggest gripe with Vista at work (aside from the UAC business described above) is the lack of adequate management tools. I'm a Network Administrator. I spend a lot of time in the Microsoft Management Console (MMC). Active Directory Users and Computers in particular just doesn't work very well. I don't have icons telling me if an object is a user, group, disabled, computer, contact or anything. EVERY icon looks like a text file. Exchange 2003 System Manager won't run, so I can't do anything mailbox-related without VNC'ing to the server or using Remote Desktop to one of the Domain Controllers. ISA management doesn't work (2004 OR 2006), Websense Manager won't run and ScriptLogic Desktop Authority sort of works, but is pointing at the wrong server (although that's not a Vista gripe)

I'm at the point now where I'm ready to declare my experimentation phase with Vista over and roll back my desktop computer at home to XP SP2. Fortunately when I installed Vista, I used an extra hard drive, and I can go back as easily as opening the case, pulling the drive and putting the old one back in. There will be a little work after that, Windows updates and a few driver changes for new hardware. At work it's a little more work to downgrade, but because they're new machines, I've been proactive and made a Ghost image of the new Optiplex with XP SP2. That's another post though :)


By Hoser McMoose on 5/8/2008 11:48:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
rocessor usage is at 65% playing MP3s through ITunes due to audiodg.exe. This process is the DRM component of Vista protecting your non-DRM'ed MP3s from you.

Just as an FYI, I just payed a non-DRMed mp3 in iTunes on my Vista system.

audiodg.exe started but never went higher then 1% processor usage the entire time. This is on an Athlon X2 4400+ under Vista Home Pro x64.


XP Sales
By pattycake0147 on 5/8/2008 9:55:42 AM , Rating: 2
140 million seems like a pretty big number. Does anybody know how XP sold when it first came out?




RE: XP Sales
By peldor on 5/8/2008 10:09:48 AM , Rating: 2
For comparison, Gartner put the PC market at about 271 million worldwide in 2007 (while this Vista number seems to include 2008 thus far). So Vista has been on a lot of systems since its launch, but not a majority.

http://gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=584210

OTOH, Vista is likely shipping on a larger percentage of systems now than in early 2007.


RE: XP Sales
By amanojaku on 5/8/2008 10:10:38 AM , Rating: 1
I don't think 140M is large at all when you consider several factors are at work. The first is that more PCs are sold today than there were when XP came out. As a result, the number of OS licenses sold increased.

The second is that MS has done everything in its power to make Vista the default OS for new PCs. This makes plenty of sense considering all the work put in to develop, build, and sell this OS.

The last is that VARs, OEMs, etc... buy licenses in bulk, so a large number of the licenses sold may not actually be in use. Counting the chickens before they hatch is never recommended, but it's a safe bet the Vista licenses will be used eventually.


RE: XP Sales
By Reclaimer77 on 5/8/2008 3:13:09 PM , Rating: 2
Remember we don't know how many of Vistas sales are the downgradable to XP versions that OEM PC companies are buying just so they can provide the end user with an XP loaded PC.

You can be damned sure those are being included in those " vista sales " numbers.


RE: XP Sales
By retrospooty on 5/8/2008 10:31:49 AM , Rating: 2
" 140 million seems like a pretty big number. Does anybody know how XP sold when it first came out?"

You cant really make a direct comparison... There are alot more computers sold these days than there was 7 years ago. It doesn't really matter anyhow, if you like Vista, get it, if you like XP, get it. Why do so many people complain about either or, when both are easily available? (not that you specifically are, just people in general).


RE: XP Sales
By mikefarinha on 5/8/2008 10:52:02 AM , Rating: 2
You can't really compare the Vista launch with the XP launch. When Microsoft launched XP they did so with a massive advertising campaign that lasted for at least a year.

I don't think I've even seen a Vista commercial or ad outside of the internet.


Many thanks to all!
By PimpHand on 5/10/2008 12:42:51 AM , Rating: 1
My friends and I would like to thank each and everyone one of you for contributing to this thread, it's been an absolute RIOT!

We were fucking off before going to the bar and I just had to show my buds how you techy geeks argue over lame shit and damn did we strike gold with this one! We're betting there are a few IT goons from our office in here right now!

We've been sitting here reading through this thread like a script, pissing ourselves! You all sound like a bunch of retards fighting over a bag of gummy bars!

Maybe someone here can help us print it out so we can take it to the bar with us?!

Thanks to all the tech geeks out there for keeping our notebooks working until we really need them for something important. Now we know WTF you guys are always doing back in that dank computer room!




RE: Many thanks to all!
By William Gaatjes on 5/11/2008 9:00:37 AM , Rating: 2
Can the webmaster fix their website please. Posting is not possible.


RE: Many thanks to all!
By William Gaatjes on 5/11/2008 9:01:53 AM , Rating: 2
Hahahaha ....

Your comment is Priceless indeed :) :) :)

However, the übergeek in me feels it has to respond too to this bash and defend nonsense.

Hello everybody , i am new to the forum, i have been reading DT for a few years now.

A little background info

Since i am a hardware and a software guy (that means i can and do design hardware and program software) since being a kid,
i have enough knowledge to dig a little deeper then most people.

I have always had a lot of fun laughing about early adopters
(cause they pay more, they get to live with and sometimes even plain accept the errors that slipped in because of time to market issues).

I have been one of the few it seems that had very few problems back in the day when using W98SE.
that was way back when pentiums and 64 MB of memory where a standard.
I noticed back then that IE and outlook where the main causes of problems and crashes so i dumped that garbage for opera and never looked back.
Got myself sygate firewall(software) and a virusscanner and never had any problems.
The firewall came in handy lot's of times. Especially during al those nasty outbreaks using those handy easy acces windows ports.

One of microsofts bigges misktakes was to sell an os where the ports where open by default.
Back then they should already have went for the descision of a home version and a corparate version.
Most people don't have networks but they do have internet. SO it is logical to close those ports or do not provide those services at all.
If you want a network , buy the network pack you better and know what your doing or it is your own fault.
But that is more or less all in the past.

The virus scanner was more like a seatbelt in a car. You use it but you never really need it.
However, when you do need it you have a bigger chance of survival.
I had 2 viruses in 10 years : 1 of a floppy and one inside a zip sent to me by email.
The combination of Sygate and Opera and at the time mcafee(now it is NOD32) is marvellous.
Anti spyware programs are a yoke. Don't use IE and don't surf for porn/cracks/serialz and you will not really have a problem.

Once in a while W98SE would crash wile playing Unreal Tournament but 9 out of ten times it would go back to the desktop wihtout stability issues.
Years later when i bought a new and faster machine (athlon850 with 512 MB of main memory),
i felt it was time for a improvement of kernel. So i switched to windows 2000 with SP4.
At that time SP1 was coming out for windows xp.
Kicked the usual garbage out like IE, outlook and messenger...
Did some registry tweaks and violá .
A machine that would not crash and was blazing fast.
Later i bought halo and untill today it is the only game that was able to destroy my spotless record of 0 crashes(and i mean use of the reset button with that).
18 months passed...
I bought new hardware later on (dualchannel board with 1GB of memory)but stayed with W2000 since Wxp offered nothing i needed.

Now ironically...
I bought an IPOD classic and itunes would not install on w2000 and thus for the first time i felt like it was time to install xp.

OK...


RE: Many thanks to all!
By William Gaatjes on 5/11/2008 9:03:36 AM , Rating: 2

SInce SP2 was already out and i had mostly positive experiences so far with xp on my work.
The problems i did had however where network and AD related so not an issue for home use.
I changed to xp and running it now. As geek i tweaked it again and removed the garbage people referr to as IE and outlook and the other stuff.
Made again a script to automate and speed up the process.
As usual stable as a horse.
And as a free ride my camera now does not need a seperate program to download my foto's. I can do that now in explorer.
That makes it easy for me cause i was writing a simple explorer like program for foto's intended to run on windows 2000.
End of history.

I have been always able to solve the problems. But i can understand that most people do not have the time or the desire to technically dig into the pc.
For them it is a tool and it just has to work. And i fully agree.
And my pc will get a 1 lesson crashcourse to fly out of the window.
Cause if i have to do everyday maintenance on my pc, i go back to my typewriter and pocket calculator.
A computer is a tool to improve the quality of life PERIOD.
If you want to use the pc as your genuipig then go ahead. It never hurts to have a hobby.

I repeat : "A computer is a tool to improve the quality of life PERIOD. "
And that is where the innovation lies. Now we see memory used for useless things by lazy programmers and by good programmers with time to market pressures.

1 other thing, most drivers are checked by microsoft. When they are WHQL that should guarantee that they work and not crash.
Friends who use vista have made it clear that that WHQL marking does not provide much confidence.

But then again the eula says it all does it not ?
The reason why nvidia had so much problems is because microsft directx 10 spec and documentation was not finished.
Ati had the same problems. Hoewever everybody want's nvidia so afcourse nvidia is the big scapegoat.
I have nvidia and my next buy will be ati if they promise what they deliver with rv770. I am not a fanboy.
I buy gfxcards that are reliable and do not get too hot.
Good knowledge :Nowaday the best way to solve crashes is to check your heatsink of your gfxcard before you install it.


RE: Many thanks to all!
By William Gaatjes on 5/11/2008 9:04:30 AM , Rating: 2
As CyborgTMT has written...

Now, most home users went from w98 to wxp. Since xp is NT kernel based it offered huge improvements over w98se which was still patched up mix
of semi pre empitve kernel but mostly co-operative. Google for more info.

Speaking of innovation, microsoft made the pc buyable for the masses. If they where not at that sweetspot in time someone else would have.
If you want to know how to buy luck, ask Bill.
But google made easy acces to the internet and information possible. That is innovation.

It won't be long anymore before someone says : "i am googling for my keys" when someone asks what he is doing.

Nowadays home users go from wxp to vista and i can understand that lot of people say it has not much to offer.
The early adopters need something to brag so afcourse they will run into the usuall problems every OS has when it comes out.
The other early adopters need to defend their spending of time and money.
And for some people it really has something to offer they have been waiting for (the good kind:).

* Kernel wise vista really is an improvement over xp when it comes to memory management and process/thread scheduling.
* Also the final decision to start forcing users and programmers and that included microsoft itself too to run software in reduced rights mode.
* Improved driver model.
* More per user options. When you login you get more of your own personelised windows experience. Less sharing of settings.

However microsoft would not be microsoft if everything they did great was not nullified by everything they did wrong.
The large amount of DRM. It seems Apple has quite some control over the music industry and Old Bill would not be the same if he didn't bet higher.
Hollywood.

So vista is packed with DRM. Nothing wrong with preventing illegal copying. But never annoy an honest user.

Useless features like superfetch.

I quote afkrotch :

"And don't even bother telling me you'll feel the 10ths of seconds it requires to clear the memory to recache the data."
If this is the case, then it is not usefull to store it in your main memory anyway because you could not tell the difference since main memory is lot's faster then you HD.
You see when super fetch is wrong it still has to reload from your HD.

When i start a game, it want's lot's of memory so my memory needs to be freed. Then the game is loaded and after i close it down superfetch starts to load all the programs into my memory again.
More load and wait time because the program i want to load does not get loaded fast enough because superfetch is busy.
I am wondering about that. Anybody have serious comment on that how superfetch deals with that situation ?
If it delays in anyway, in my opinion it is useless because it was the idea superfetch would cause less delays.

In the case where superfetch would be handy :
The only thing i could think of would be if you could tell superfetch what to load. If you have a new program it would not need to learn.
You just make a list for it which program (with data of last opened file for instance) to load in memory and what not.
Usuall these are small handy utilities.
Hmm.. does that sound like some sort of background running program or perhaps a program hiding in the taskbar ?

Main memory is data memory used it for that and not as cache for program memory.
Use main memory as buffer for audio and video. But since DRM is build in through vista, less unencrypted data is buffered cause you just might be able to acces that data.
That data can be music or video for instance. No more hardware audio ? Different driver model for video ? More function in user space ?
To be honest having lot's of functions previoue running in kernel mode now running in user mode has it's advantage. Less context switches. Less security to worry about(usefull for DRM too).
A typical opensource os has it a lot easier. It buffers more and there is where a lot of speed comes from. If vista buffers it will be encrypted.

Use main memory as buffer.
And since the hardware audio can use dma to excess the data in your main memory you don't need a stupid service to make sure the software audio stack
get's enough cputime to process your audio(network slowdowns ?).

And i personnaly love to see that microsoft took an more active role in the gpu programming part as use as coprocessor for calculation tasks
in normal non games programs through a new api. And don't say that directx is for that. It's for gaming nothing more.
You cannot cad design with directx. That says enough.
That aero is fun for a while but it has to be usefull too. If it causes delays it is not usefull. It has to make time behind your pc more efficiënt.
The only thing aero has been usefull for is the upcoming power management and runtime frequenty and voltage control of graphics cards(similair like amd Q and C or intel advanced speedstep).

If you for example would encode your typical 8MB mp3 on your gfx card it would be ready in less then a second.
The whole point is that kernels really depend on hardware to take away some of the workload.
And the OS depends on the kernel and the programs.

Also i would like to see that they start developing 1 reliable api instead of changing it all the time.
With WIN32 they just kept adding and adding. They have started new but they keep changing and adding garbage to it.

I have played around with vista and did my research. I do not feel the desire to upgrade espically since SP1 just came out.
Maybe with SP2 or SP3 vista will be interesting. Untill that time i will wait.

This is afcourse my opinion based on background research and experience.

If i made any grammatical errors, i apologize because english is not my native tongue.


RE: Many thanks to all!
By William Gaatjes on 5/11/2008 9:05:34 AM , Rating: 2
I guess my text was to big and had to make multiple posts.


Of course its moving up in sales.
By edpsx on 5/8/2008 9:55:04 AM , Rating: 2
XP is almost at EOL and you cant get XP on any machine in any retail store anymore. Gee, I wonder why sales are up?

I still prefer XP over Vista any day. Sure, Vista has gotten better, but its still not what they claimed it would be.




By Polynikes on 5/8/2008 10:08:37 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I was gonna say, sales are up because people don't have a choice, for the most part, or they don't know you can ask for XP instead.


RE: Of course its moving up in sales.
By mikefarinha on 5/8/2008 10:55:54 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Sure, Vista has gotten better, but its still not what they claimed it would be.


Whoever told you that Vista would cure cancer was lying to you.


By edpsx on 5/8/2008 11:10:34 AM , Rating: 1
M$ claimed it was gonna be better than XP, which IMO and alot of other people, it isnt. Vista may not cure cancer, but the PS3 does! LOL


By mattclary on 5/8/2008 11:56:29 AM , Rating: 2
Chuck Norris' tears will cure Vista, I heard.


I Like How
By mrdeez on 5/8/2008 10:54:57 AM , Rating: 2
What I don't understand is why MS feels it is necessary to embed thier browser and security features. Why cant you have a custom Installation of windows that gives users the ability to install what they want? MS could even charge companies that design Antivirus and firwalls and even internet browsers to bundle it with windows. This I think would make everyone happy. I mean wouldn't it be swet to install an OS that takes up maybe 1 1/2 gb and then have the option to install Firefox and Antivir by checking a box and not installing the UAC by checking boxes?




RE: I Like How
By edpsx on 5/8/2008 11:17:45 AM , Rating: 2
The bundling reason is because they got into trouble with it before. It was the whole IE vs Netscape browser battle. Netscape was claiming that since IE was installed automatically with Win95, that M$ had an unfair advatange and led to legal battles. Im not sure how this effects them today, but I can slightly remember the whole debacle.


RE: I Like How
By bobsmith1492 on 5/8/2008 11:48:46 AM , Rating: 3
You HAVE to embed security features. If there was no security by default, viruses would spread like wildfire through the non-computer-savvy crowd.

This same crowd (maybe 80% of computer owners) would have no idea they what Firefox or Norton or Panda or UAC or whatever were and would just go by the default anyway.

On that note, with IE7, Microsoft is headed that way, incidentally, for security reasons. (IE7 is a separate program)


RE: I Like How
By allometry on 5/8/2008 12:58:35 PM , Rating: 2
Microsoft isn't in the business of making other people money; they are in the business of selling a product. They sell Internet Explorer, security and many other features as part of Windows.

The general consensus is, if you don't like the product, don't use the product. Moreover, if the product doesn't meet your requirements, why continue using it?

Microsoft doesn't just want to give you a platform. They want you to use their process and their platform. They are IE, they are Defender, they are Virus Protection. Why the hell would Microsoft want to give you vanilla? So you can use someone else's product and not theirs?

Ignorance has lead people to believe that Windows is a community driven product when it isn't. The reality of Microsoft and their product Windows, is what I've noted above.

Yes, it would be sweet to have a vanilla copy of Windows, so I can do what I want to do, but that's not the reality of the situation and that's something I'll have to work around. Thankfully, there are alternatives (for people looking for them) like OS X and Ubuntu. However, the irony of the situation with the alternatives is that you run into the same problems with Windows; using someone else's products. OS X: Safari, iWork, iLife, etc. Ubuntu: OOo, Firefox, etc.

My solution is not to worry about it and just work with what you got. I use all three platforms for different things and I have no qualms about any of them.


Few problems with Vista...
By umeng2002 on 5/8/2008 4:03:05 PM , Rating: 2
I liked Vista and wanted to keep it, but compatibility with old hardware and software made me switch back to XP - not to mention better gaming performance on my older 7900GS (over clocked).

My scanner's manufacturer won't make Vista drivers, my video editing software hardly works and crashes every 5 minutes in vista, and my TV tuner card software breaks Vista's Aero interface and the channel overlays don't work.

Vista was more stable than XP, but you should only consider it if you also want to get all new software apps and peripheral hardware.




RE: Few problems with Vista...
By cmdrdredd on 5/8/2008 4:14:53 PM , Rating: 2
Or maybe you should do your homework before trying to jump into a new OS. This is like the people who went from Win 98 to XP. Obviously you didn't search for compatibility before install. If you did, you would not blame the OS for lack of support.

It works like this guys. The Hardware and Software/drivers have to support the OS. The OS doesn't have to support anything. The People making your printer need to code up drivers, if not then your SOL. The OS doesn't make stuff automatically work.


retail sales
By tastyratz on 5/8/2008 4:50:19 PM , Rating: 2
Microsoft bombards us with total sales propaganda but that doesn't say how successful their new OS is, most of those are from OEM shovelware.

Why is it I have not once seen Microsoft release its retail channel sales figures? The one that actually shows how much people electively choose to upgrade?

I don't care if you like vista, xp, os/2 or ubuntu - raw sales #'s are what I am curious to see.




RE: retail sales
By FreeTard on 5/9/2008 6:49:06 AM , Rating: 2
See what he really means is that the person at Best Buy (or other retail store) is taking your money faster. That's what he means by a rapid sales rate.

Instead of taking 30 seconds to ring it up, it now takes 15 seconds. That's twice as fast, and it's not technically lying... it's just spinning.


140M copies
By mattclary on 5/8/2008 11:53:39 AM , Rating: 2
OK, they sold 140 million copies of Vista. How many new computers have sold since the Vista launch? 139.5 million?




real fast
By guy007 on 5/8/2008 12:18:23 PM , Rating: 2
I guess if we use Gates' definition of rapid; turtles rapidly reach their destination, MAC's are rapidly gaining ground on PC's and Crysis runs rapidly on most computers.




By fri2219 on 5/8/2008 1:20:29 PM , Rating: 2
Their lips are moving.




"Well, we didn't have anyone in line that got shot waiting for our system." -- Nintendo of America Vice President Perrin Kaplan














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki