backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 206 comment(s) - last by tcsenter.. on Oct 18 at 3:19 PM
OEMs now have the option to provide XP downgrade to Vista Business, Vista Ultimate customers

Windows Vista is Microsoft's current flagship operating system for consumers. The operating system launched in late November for OEMs and was released to consumers on January 30.

Microsoft has long-touted the operating system as a revolutionary product for desktops and notebooks -- a product that would leave no consumers longing for the 5-year-old Windows XP operating system.

"Windows Vista and Microsoft Office 2007 will transform the way people work and play," said Microsoft chairman Bill Gates on January 30. "Windows Vista and Microsoft Office 2007 squarely address the needs and aspirations of people around the globe."

"The visual effects are spectacular; the navigation is streamlined and intuitive," added Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer. "They make it much easier to protect your PC, yourself and your children online. And they work together to help you accomplish more throughout the day."

In the months following the consumer launch of Windows Vista, Microsoft played the numbers game with sales figures. The company announced in late March that it sold 20 million licenses of Vista within two months compared to just 17 million for Windows XP. The number crept up to 40 million by mid-May and by late July; Microsoft reported that 60 million copies of Windows Vista had been shipped around the world.

Microsoft expects to have shipped one billion copies of Windows by the end of 2008.

Despite the many successes that Microsoft has touted with its operating system, some consumers just aren't impressed. Some have derided Windows Vista as being a bloat-fest with a prettier GUI and slower performance than its well-seasoned Windows XP predecessor -- ironically, both of those "flaws" were leveled against Windows XP in comparison to Windows 2000 after its launch in late 2001.

Other features that have irritated a number of consumers include the intrusive User Access Control (which can be turned off), application and driver incompatibilities, beefed up anti-piracy/activation scheme and Explorer's inability to remember View Settings among countless others -- feel free to add your own in the comments section.

The numerous issues many customers have with Windows Vista are compounded by the fact that many feel that Microsoft's pricing for the operating system doesn't quite mesh with the perceived value offered over Windows XP. Windows Vista is priced at $199/$99.95 for Vista Home Basic, $239/$159 for Vista Home Premium, $299/$199 for Vista Business and $399/$259 for Vista Ultimate (full/upgrade).

As a result of the complaints from customers and businesses regarding Vista, Microsoft recently began offering an "XP downgrade" option for OEMs. The decision to downgrade a Vista installation is fully supported by Microsoft, but it’s up to each individual OEM to provide the option to its customers. Unfortunately, the option only exists for Vista Business and Vista Ultimate installations – Vista Home Basic and Vista Home Premium users are out of luck.

Fujitsu, which took matters into its own hands by offering copies of Windows XP with its Vista notebooks and Tablet PCs, fully embraces Microsoft's decision.

"That's going to help out small- and medium-size businesses," said Fujitsu's Brandon Farris to CNET News.

Other PC retailers such as Hewlett-Packard, Dell and Lenovo also provide their customers with Windows XP if they so choose.

"For business desktops, workstations and select business notebooks and tablet PCs, customers can configure their systems to include the XP Pro restore disc for little or no charge," said HP spokeswoman Tiffany Smith.

"We've been offering it and we're still offering it," added Dell's Anne Camden.

While Vista Business and Vista Ultimate users have always had the right to downgrade to Windows XP per the licensing agreement, the actual implementation of the program has been lacking. The process by which to get XP media for new systems with Vista Business or Vista Ultimate pre-installed was often complicated and troublesome, but changes made over the past few months have made it considerably easier for customers.

Some companies, such as Dell, have even gone so far to allow consumers to purchase new PCs with Windows XP pre-installed; thus leaving Vista completely out of the equation.

With that said, the window of opportunity to acquire Windows XP is slowly closing. Direct OEM and retail license availability of Windows XP will cease on January 31, 2008.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Well
By KeithTalent on 9/24/2007 11:33:09 AM , Rating: 4
While I do not doubt the validity of some of the complaints, I think there are many people that have no clue what they are talking about.

I have been running Vista for several months now and have had next to no problems. UAC is barely intrusive if you set things up correctly (it's actually a great security feature) and overall the OS runs smoother and faster than XP ever did for me.

I think a lot of the time, these 'issues' that people are having would not exist if they just did a little reading, particularly those people who say it is a huge memory hog.

Just my $0.02.

KT




RE: Well
By TomZ on 9/24/07, Rating: 0
RE: Well
By othercents on 9/24/2007 1:48:39 PM , Rating: 2
When you add all the "features" into Vista and compare it to XP, some people think Vista is slower. The menu takes longer to come up because instead of instantly being there is slowly shows itself to be cool. Someone told me today that the game Hearts runs slower and my only response is thats the way it was created. It looks better and is more animated, so it seams to run slower.

Most people want their computer operating system to take a background role instead of this foreground role that MS things it should have. Let me use my apps and let them perform well. Beyond that everything else usually just causes the computer to run slower.

Other


RE: Well
By Samus on 9/25/2007 2:49:13 AM , Rating: 4
Vista with 2GB RAM performs much like XP with 1GB of RAM.

XP with 512MB RAM performs much like Windows 2000 with 256MB RAM.

Windows 2000 with 128MB RAM performs like Windows NT with 64MB RAM.

Gee, go figure. Newer operating systems with new features and new security need more RAM. I would have never thought that computers would need more memory in the future!? /sarcasm


RE: Well
By leexgx on 9/25/2007 7:10:50 AM , Rating: 1
both of those "flaws" were leveled against Windows XP in comparison to Windows 2000 after its launch in late 2001

i agree and with your comment as well (i been useing XP when it came out and has been rock sold for my use)

but vista should of been an step forward all thay realy done is added DX 10 and Aero and UAC yes there other inprovements but you need an PC thats 20% faster then the Same spec pc to run vista as to XP

Xp and windows 2000 can run on the same hardware Vista cant
your OS should Not be Boltware and thats what vista is XP needs 64mb or so more ram than windows 2000 so 512mb is recommended but id recommed 512mb for windows 2000 any way

vista is an resource hog and you not got an fast pc to hide that it shows

i got VIsta and XP dual booting and vista is far slower even with the 4gb of ram

gameing on vista requres 3gb if useing high settings or game may stutter alot on high Q settings


RE: Well
By colonelclaw on 9/25/2007 11:49:34 AM , Rating: 2
can someone explain something to me, preferably someone who uses vista day to day?
i use my computer for work, i am a 3d artist, and i spend most of my day in either 3dsmax or photoshop. now when im working i want every last drop of cpu power and available memory working for me and my programs. all i want from my operating system is for it to sit in the background, let me work without interruptions, and never crash. so why does vista have sky-high requirements? why does it appear to want a quarter of all my memory (i have 4gb) to run and generally do it's thing? for me it doesn't seem to make any sense. also i rely on the power of my quadro gfx card to enable be to work fast. as far as i have read, vista will also be using my gfx card to do some of it's stuff - again, why? i need the gfx for my modelling.

i don't mean to bash vista unnessecarily, but it doesn't seem to offer me anything whatsoever, and even looks like it would slow me down. maybe you could confirm or deny this?


RE: Well
By elgoliath on 9/25/2007 3:49:54 PM , Rating: 2
What you are probably referring to is the fact that Vista doesn't typically let RAM go unused. It prefetches app's that you use a lot and preloads them into RAM so that they load faster. I haven't seen any more processor cycles going to Vista than went to XP (not that there aren't, just that I don't notice any difference and I dual boot with XP). My recommendation to you would be to just try it. We can go back and forth with this, but it all depends on your setup which we don't know.


RE: Well
By mindless1 on 9/25/2007 4:10:36 PM , Rating: 3
Why are you encouraging someone to try something when they have not expressed any need for it, quite the opposite colonelclaw has clearly expressed a scenario which XP comes closer to meeting.


RE: Well
By elgoliath on 9/25/2007 6:26:34 PM , Rating: 2
Perhaps you should re-read my post. I am not encouraging anyone to do anything. He asked some rather broad questions to which I gave a possible answer. I do believe I told him that without knowing his current spec's and more of what he is trying to do, his best bet is to just try it.

But if you want to really get down to it, more than likely 2000 will work even better unless something he needs is not supported.

Regardless, I don't think he gave enough info to decide which OS is better for him, but continue the FUD by all means.


RE: Well
By mindless1 on 9/26/2007 12:57:16 AM , Rating: 1
Actually, throwing around the word FUD causes you lose of credibility.


RE: Well
By elgoliath on 9/26/2007 12:18:59 PM , Rating: 2
lol- ok, I guess I have no credibility cause I said FUD. Do you even read what others or yourself write?


RE: Well
By mindless1 on 9/28/2007 2:47:07 AM , Rating: 2
Get over yourself, what you might have (or might not have) meant is not what I replied to, rather what was written.


RE: Well
By InsaneScientist on 9/25/2007 9:15:09 PM , Rating: 3
I can't claim to be a 3D artist, and I'm sure I don't need quite as much out of my computer as you do, but I do play high end games a lot, and, more importantly, I do quite a bit of video conversion (into H.264) on my computer.

I was actually quite worried about that initially, too, but I got to play for Vista for a while before release as a Microsoft beta tester, so I knew what I was getting into (I was really scared initially... you should see some of the memory requirements for the beta builds... >_< They finally got that sorted just a few builds before the final.).

I have, on several occasions, noticed that Vista starts unloading (a lot of) things from the physical memory (RAM) when you're doing something that demands a lot of RAM. Sometimes I'll exit from a game, and it'll be under 300, as opposed to the 700-900 that it normally sits at.
Since Vista tries to learn what you do, and loads those applications before you actually run them, it seems like the OS itself has a much larger memory footprint than it actually does. If those programs aren't running, though, which presumably they wouldn't be while you're trying to render something, then it's trivial for Vista to reallocate that memory space to what you're working on, since that memory wasn't really being used for anything more than an educated guess. And if you were running the program... well, it'd have to page it to the HDD if the program is idle, but XP has to do that too....

Personally, in what I do, going to Vista had a sideways effect on performance... it didn't go up at all, but it didn't go down any either (as far as processing tasks are concerned. Overall responsiveness feels much better than XP when using anything over 1GB of RAM... probably because of SuperFetch, the very thing that makes Vista look like a memory hog)

Like I said, though, I'm not a 3D artist (though I do use Photoshop a lot... I think I forgot to mention that), so the way it affected me may not be representative of how it'll work for you. Hopefully I've at least given you some food for thought, though. :)


RE: Well
By Nekrik on 9/26/2007 1:46:53 AM , Rating: 2
As far as Vista goes I don't see why you would need to be running any one of the heavier Vista versions. Ultimate requires the most resources, go figure, it has a ton of services. If you just want a workstation for a dedicated task you might try something lighter like Vista Business, it is much lighter than Ultimate, Premium, or Enterprise.


RE: Well
By colonelclaw on 9/26/2007 8:24:04 AM , Rating: 2
thanks for all the answers guys :)

btw the pc i use is a bog standard workstation - the newish 3ghz xeon dual core, 4gb ram, quadro 3500, fast hard drives etc

i think i'll just stick with xp64 for the time being until im actually forced into going to vista for some reason


RE: Well
By elgoliath on 9/25/2007 3:44:17 PM , Rating: 1
Vista should have been more of a step forward? How big of a step were any of these transitions:
3.x to 95? Big
95 to 98? average
98 to 98 se? small
anything to ME? downgrade
98 to 2000? average
2000 to XP? average
XP to VIsta? Average

The difference between Vista specs and XP specs is about relatively the same as the difference between 2000 and XP.

2000 can run on hardware XP can't. Go figure. Not really an argument against Vista unless you for some reason think the hardware industry is stagnant?

XP was slow on the first system I put it on.

It sounds to me like you have something else wrong with your system that you need to check out before you blame the OS. I've seen games run fine on Vista Ult with 1GB Ram and with 4 GB RAM. If your's is slow with 4 GB, as I said, there is something else going on.


RE: Well
By mindless1 on 9/25/2007 4:16:38 PM , Rating: 5
Another opinion-

DOS to Win n.n GUI - Revolutionary
3.x to 95 - Big
95 to 98 - small
98 to SE or ME - small
9x to 2K - Biggest change since the move from DOS
2K to XP - Small, the same OS but XP has apps and related services tacked on

XP to Vista - Medium, the 4th largest change since DOS


RE: Well
By afkrotch on 9/25/2007 8:30:48 PM , Rating: 3
Windows NT and Windows 2000 are not considered home consumer products. I'm not saying the change from 9x to NT was small, but should it even be part of this topic as majority was never using it.


RE: Well
By mindless1 on 9/26/2007 1:06:43 AM , Rating: 1
Does someone really need to tell you it's a home consumer product before you'd consider using it, so long as it meets your needs?

You write "majority" but you really mean multimedia home PC, right? Businesses were running more Win2k boxes than WinXP boxes even three years after XP had launched! While that's no longer true today, I would expect it will be the same with Vista vs XP in 2010.


RE: Well
By Procurion on 9/26/2007 2:26:26 PM , Rating: 2
Speaking as a gamer since the Commodore 64 and Apple 2e days-owned both in addition to a 2c(how many remember THAT one?) the transition from 95 to 98 was not "regular" or "average" by ANY stretch of the imagination. BSOD's in the midst of a game were non-existent compared to 95. Does anyone remember gaming boot disks? Then having to reboot when done playing so you could use your computer again? 98 was HUGE for gaming.

I spend a lot of time using Photo, Lightwave, Maya and several others. You cannot compare gaming setups to workstations with Quatro or Fire graphics cards. It is like comparing a VW Beetle to a 1-ton pickup. On paper the truck has 4 times the horsepower and torque while carrying 5 or 6 times the payload.....but put both on a winding mountain road and try to have fun with them and you'll drive the VW every time. Apples and oranges.


RE: Well
By mindless1 on 9/26/2007 10:58:40 PM , Rating: 2
I saw plenty of systems that were similarly instable running 98, and/or evetually became stable running 95. The difference was drivers, while both 9x OS were fairly fragile, it was poor drivers largely to blame for the crashing (and apps too, but pertaining to gaming,) and later generations of drivers fixed more problems than the transition from 95 to 98 did. It just happened that by the 98 era a lot of driver bugs present in 95 era had been worked out.


RE: Well
By luhar on 9/28/2007 1:51:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
2c(how many remember THAT one?)


Mine's still in the garage! That was the computer I had through high school. I did start on a Vic20 though...


RE: Well
By just4U on 9/26/2007 9:50:58 PM , Rating: 2
I would say for the vast majority the step to XP was a very large one. It was the first OS based on the NT Kernal to be sold to the "masses"... and most who were moving to a new OS were on some variant of win 9x... Not window's 2k which was considered to be more of a business Operating system.

Win 2k was also a step in the right direction as it made the setup of the OS a cake walk compared to NT. But it was not targeted towards your everyday computer user and that's key to remember.


RE: Well
By mindless1 on 9/26/2007 11:02:15 PM , Rating: 2
I don't subscribe to the idea that 2k wasn't "for the masses". Then, like today, you had a choice of what to buy bundled with an OEM system, or as a separate OS purchase. In retrospect which would have been the better choice, 2K or ME? 2K by a landslide.


RE: Well
By just4U on 9/27/2007 1:17:27 PM , Rating: 2
I kinda agree but we are not talking about enthusiasts here or technically minded individuals. MOST people who owned a computer went with 9x not win2k which was not widely adopted accross the board. (A assumption on my part as I don't know anyone who bought win2k) With winxp there was no longer a choice Microsoft finally had their mainstream operating system based upon NT.


RE: Well
By Pythias on 9/27/2007 6:29:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
anything to ME? downgrade


Quote of the millennium. I almost fell out of my chair when I read that.

Keep em' coming!


RE: Well
By mindless1 on 9/25/2007 4:07:47 PM , Rating: 2
The thing is, it doesn't.

When there's more code occupying more memory and we're contrasting XP or Vista on the same system with any given memory throughput, it really takes longer to juggle that code in memory.

Further, it's arbitrary and wrong to think "just add more memory" as someone could as well do that with XP and enjoy more performance too.

Finally, your memory figures are not even close to correct. Vista might use a few hundred MB more than XP, XP may use a few dozen MB more than 2K.

The important factor is whether the OS is doing what the owner wants with the memory, or if the owner would rather not be hosting these applications and services they didn't. Everyone's idea of "need" is not the same.


RE: Well
By kileil on 9/25/2007 6:20:42 PM , Rating: 1
"640K ought to be enough for anyone"...


RE: Well
By headbox on 9/24/07, Rating: -1
RE: Well
By kirbalo on 9/24/2007 2:03:02 PM , Rating: 5
You CANNOT score higher than a 5.9 on the Vista Experience...iirc.


RE: Well
By cochy on 9/24/2007 2:05:41 PM , Rating: 2
He's probably been watching too many Apple commercials.


RE: Well
By h0kiez on 9/25/2007 2:31:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You CANNOT score higher than a 5.9 on the Vista Experience...iirc.


Not yet. MS has said that they will adjust these numbers as time goes on (read: make higher scores possible). I don't think it ever was supposed to be out of 10, though.


RE: Well
By crimson117 on 9/24/2007 2:12:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's not just about performance. MS made approving drivers very difficult, so more than a year after developers got their hands on Vista, there are still no drivers for a lot of hardware. Many of the drivers that do exist were rushed out the door.


That doesn't make any sense...

MS made it hard to get drivers approved, so that's why there are so few...

And yet the few that exist were "rushed out the door" but still passed MS's hard driver approval process?


RE: Well
By threepac3 on 9/24/2007 2:42:47 PM , Rating: 2
There was an article the explained point for point many Vista myths -- This happened to be one of them.

Yes, the software must be approved for use in Vista x64 mainly, but its not like the code has to be shipped to Microsoft and tested by them like most people think. Developers use a tool that does that...


RE: Well
By omnicronx on 9/25/2007 9:54:55 AM , Rating: 2
Its not even the software has to be approved for x64, its that any Microsoft certified driver for vista has to be available in 32bit and 64 bit versions. If you only have one of the two drivers, it will not be vista certified. So in reality companies are just too lazy or think it will take too much time and money to develop drivers, so they dont, especially for legacy products that don't officially 'support windows vista'.

People should realize this is not fault of MS, companies just feel they have already sold you a product made for windows xp, so they feel no need for making a vista version, when it means more less in their pockets.

Microsoft's certified driver approach really is a good idea in theory, as driver incompatibilities have plagued windows users for years, and is really the only thing in my mind MAC OSX has over windows.


RE: Well
By encryptkeeper on 9/25/2007 10:12:44 AM , Rating: 2
Right now, driver incompatibility and a poor first impression are the biggest hurdles to get over (sounds like Windows 2000). Many consultants still see these as a great reason to avoid Vista for the business segment. The features just haven't been worth the headache in that sector, but it's also one of the biggest opportunities to make sales. If people use it at work, and they like it, they'll get it for home use.


RE: Well
By afkrotch on 9/25/2007 8:41:42 PM , Rating: 2
[quote]That doesn't make any sense...

MS made it hard to get drivers approved, so that's why there are so few...

And yet the few that exist were "rushed out the door" but still passed MS's hard driver approval process? [/quote]

It actually makes sense if you think about it some.

Rushed out the door. Let's say Nvidia makes a driver that works with Vista, is approved for Vista, but is rushed out the door, what could that mean?

That many features normally found within their drivers are simply striped out, so they can at least get the hardware to work. If they threw one out with lack of tempature monitoring, color controls, multiple monitor support, AA/AF settings control, and so on, but you could still view Vista, play games, and whatever else, that driver would have been rushed or feel rushed, yet could still pass the approval process.


RE: Well
By Behlal on 9/24/2007 2:30:12 PM , Rating: 2
Hi,

Just to back up what the other poster said, the Experience Index range is 1.0 to 5.9. Therefore, you are getting 5.9/5.9, i.e. 100%.

This is described here: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsv...


RE: Well
By Locutus465 on 9/24/2007 9:34:48 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
And my system with overclocked quad-core, two 10k rpm HDs in Raid 0, 8800GTS, and 4 GB of RAM scored only a 5.9/10 for the lame Vista experience system test.


OH-EM-GEE, Vista doesn't give you extra credit like I used to get back when I was in grade school?


RE: Well
By geddarkstorm on 9/25/07, Rating: 0
RE: Well
By rdeegvainl on 9/24/2007 11:50:34 AM , Rating: 3
I've been using it pretty dominantly for the past few months, most everything works right, only a few quips right now, but that is just me still getting use to the way vista was set up to operate, the only thing is i would take XP over vista on the hardware i have right now, due to the following,
1. only 2 gigs of ram
2. no dx10 vid card
3. well there isn't a three for me,
that's all problems with the hardware, not vista, and these are legit issues to alot of people. so i can see both sides of this pendulum


RE: Well
By TomZ on 9/24/2007 1:13:57 PM , Rating: 2
2GB of RAM is plenty for Vista - there's no need for more unless you're running pretty memory-intensive applications on it (as you would with XP).


RE: Well
By Locutus465 on 9/24/2007 9:38:24 PM , Rating: 1
No it's not... My development machine was fine with XP and 2gb memory... Now it is hurting really bad... 4GB is required with Vista (64bit at anyrate).


RE: Well
By TomZ on 9/24/2007 9:54:48 PM , Rating: 2
I'm running 32-bit; maybe that makes a difference.


RE: Well
By Locutus465 on 9/25/2007 1:50:57 AM , Rating: 2
Probably does, 64b inherintly uses more memory anyway, plus there are architechual differences between the two. I choose 64b now because it seemed like a great time to finally make the switch and take advantage of all this 64bit hardware I have! Plus the added security etc... Honeslty I kind of wish they haddn't made a 32b version. It wouldh have been a bigger shock, but it damn well would have gotten hardware companies in line. Nothing pisses me off more than hardware OEMs that claim vista compatibility because their old 32b XP drivesr are supported by Vista 32b!!!


RE: Well
By leexgx on 9/25/2007 7:17:05 AM , Rating: 2
if your not useing DX10 for the work you do get windows XP x64 installed as that be able to use all your ram and your dev programs will work faster

my next reload on this pc will be windows XP 64 (Got vista 64 dual booting as well)

as vista Has 64bit at the same time as 32 bit one M$ will only cert drivers if thay have 64 bit ones as well and there are norm windows XP 64 drivers as well (you allso have Less M$ spware on XP 64x as well {no WGA})


RE: Well
By colonelclaw on 9/27/2007 8:25:51 AM , Rating: 2
XP64 is in my opinion the best OS microsoft ever released. when we rolled it out across my office, it required no relearning from XP32 yet the performance gains we noticed in 3dsmax and photoshop were enormous

turn off the nasty plastic interface and it's a rock solid and super fast OS that doesn't nag you every 5 minutes


RE: Well
By retrospooty on 9/25/07, Rating: 0
RE: Well
By TomZ on 9/25/2007 2:43:29 PM , Rating: 1
You posted that somewhere else, too, and I think it's completely an incorrect statement. I've got Vista running on a number of machines here, and it is neither slow, nor does it churn away at the HDD as you say.


RE: Well
By geddarkstorm on 9/25/2007 3:40:02 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, the feature in Vista that does that is an intelligent preloader system. Vista DOES chug away at the HDD, especially for the first 2 weeks, while it learns what programs you commonly access and then, upon boot up, it puts all of those programs directly into RAM memory. This increases program loading speed, for those programs Vista has learned you like. Also, because of this, Vista will gobble up all the RAM you have. Basically, you can never have too much RAM for vista as long as it's less than the amount of program data on your HDD. However, the preloaded programs that go into RAM are easily displaced by accessing other programs, and so there isn't a "full memory" issue--it just puts empty memory that would go to waste to use.

I think that's where a lot of Vista myths come from. As it is, it actually should be a bit slower than its max for the first two weeks as it learns how you work, then it'll be a lot faster.


RE: Well
By retrospooty on 9/27/2007 1:37:45 PM , Rating: 2
That and all the benchmarks showing Vista is far slower. LOL.

I just don't want to pay extra cash to be slower and have compatibility issues with certain hardware.


RE: Well
By Etsp on 10/11/2007 11:26:10 AM , Rating: 2
What benchmarks? Where? What kind of hardware? I think at this point, the difference is marginal at best using the hardware that vista was designed to use.


RE: Well
By audiomaniaca on 9/24/2007 7:23:49 PM , Rating: 2
So do I.

Switched from OsX to VISTA many months ago and NO PROBLEMS.

Vista is Heaven if compared to XP and even OSX. These people having problems must be doing something wrong or they're really unfortunate ones.


RE: Well
By StevoLincolnite on 9/24/2007 11:06:10 PM , Rating: 2
I'm happy with my Modified Windows 2000, only consumes 30mb of memory on Idle, and I have it dual-booted with Vista, I grabbed a copy of Halo 2, and managed to get it working on Windows 2000, and got a 30% increase in performance.

I think Vista is great I have allot less "crashes" than I would with Windows 2000, and it looks puuuurty to boot, then again people are complaining about performance, those same people should upgrade, every new Operating system ever released has needed higher system requirements, why should vista be any different?

Those that are worried about System requirements should stick to Microsoft Dos, or Windows 3.1.


RE: Well
By jajig on 9/24/2007 11:35:29 PM , Rating: 2
The lack of drivers and DirectX in DOS are causing issues for those people too


RE: Well
By StevoLincolnite on 9/25/2007 3:13:03 AM , Rating: 2
Windows 95 and 98 might be usable.
If not... God forbid... Windows ME... (Screams!)


RE: Well
By littleprince on 9/24/07, Rating: -1
RE: Well
By MatthewAC on 9/24/2007 12:07:35 PM , Rating: 2
You can disable the UAC, just go in user accoutns and check the box :P.

I've been running Vista since june, not a single problem except getting my HP printer to work, but that's HPs fault...


RE: Well
By cochy on 9/24/2007 12:17:10 PM , Rating: 5
You obviously have no idea what UAC is intended for. Most people run their Windows machines with a superuser account. Therefore malware that compromises your system won't be able to install/do much without you noticing the illicit activity via the pop-up dialogs.

Keep watching tv commercials champ.


RE: Well
By dijuremo on 9/24/2007 12:56:13 PM , Rating: 3
UAC is completeley retarded, those people who you are talking about will click continue no matter how many UAC prompts they get, they have no idea of what they are doing. It is very stupid that Vista comes with a disabled Administrator account, asks you to create an account that has administrator rights and the prompts you for every decision using UAC. Then anybody with phisical access to your machine can basically boot safe mode, then own your machine. If you did not know this, I will strongly encourage you to enable the admin account and set a password for it, then remove the account you created during setup and create a new account without admin rights.

Running a Windows box with Administrator rights is retarded, you really do not need to do it and if you do to use a specific kind of software, then whoever made the software to only work with Administrator rights is completely stupid (Quickbooks rings a bell.. took them 10 years to figure out how to set permissions on some registry keys to allow any user without administrator rights to run it). In all of the systems that I configure, I lock the C: drive (remove write permissions to regular users on C:, they can only write to their profile) and run the systems using accounts without administrator rights. I explicitly remove the default permissions that any user can write to C:. This basically stops any malware, virus, etc as the user without admin rights cannot simply write to C: or the Registry. If you ever want to install or run something you want then you can use "Run as" and use the Administrator account.


RE: Well
By peritusONE on 9/24/2007 1:15:36 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
UAC is completeley retarded, those people who you are talking about will click continue no matter how many UAC prompts they get, they have no idea of what they are doing.

quote:
Running a Windows box with Administrator rights is retarded, you really do not need to do it and if you do to use a specific kind of software, then whoever made the software to only work with Administrator rights is completely stupid.

So how is any of this Microsoft's fault?

I do not envy Microsoft, that's for sure. People scream and shout because they want something completely new out of their next OS, but then they scream and shout because their now-legacy hardware doesn't work anymore. Granted, they need to quit promising features and then not delivering, but I think they've done a fine job with Vista. It's stable as hell, it actually uses my RAM instead of letting it sit there (some call it bloat, I call it productive), and it has ran almost every piece of hardware and software I've thrown at it without issue (the only exception was their own Zune software, of which a quick google search at the time showed that I was apparently the only one with the problem of it crashing all the time....it's long been fixed, though). I'm happy with my purchase.


RE: Well
By threepac3 on 9/24/2007 1:17:14 PM , Rating: 2
I think the main point of UAC was to prevent spyware from installing unknowingly onto your computer. I don't think they will have physical access to ones PC in order to boot into safe mode?

I personally like the UAC feature the only reason I don't use it is because it makes some of my applications non functional.


RE: Well
By cochy on 9/24/2007 2:09:40 PM , Rating: 2
BTW, No system is safe no matter what OS/security measures you have in place if a malicious user has physical access to it.


RE: Well
By Some1ne on 9/24/07, Rating: 0
RE: Well
By Belard on 9/24/07, Rating: 0
RE: Well
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 9/24/2007 4:28:58 PM , Rating: 4
I'm not sure what you guys are smoking but I can open control panel, I can delete stuff from the desktop and more and I never see the UAC popup. The only time it comes up is when i try to open RegEdit, but it damn well should.


RE: Well
By murphyslabrat on 9/24/2007 5:01:01 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Vista is SO bad on memory, that I'm starting to see $500PCs come with 2GB of RAM! 512mb was FINE for XP for basic users and $400~500 PCs of last year. 1GB was still better. But a 1GB Vista BASIC PC is WORSE than a 512mb XP.

Newsflash, A old Pentium III/NVidia Vanta LT 16MB/PC-133 256MB system that ran System Shock 2, cannot run it's successor (Bioshock) at all! And, that old P-III ran System Shock 2 better than my state-of-art (almost) computer runs Bioshock! But, you expected this, right? It makes absolute sense, as there is so much in Bioshock that developers way back when only dreamed of. Progression in features usually lends to progression in system requirements. While the contrast between System Shock 2 and Bioshock is quite stark, so is the comarison between Vista and XP.

With Vista, MS decided to set a much higher goal than previously. And what is the result? You can now afford to build a PC for $500 (I can do it for $320) with 2GB of memory. And that isn't sacrificing any other functionality, it has just driven RAM prices down that much. Look at the enormous plateau in RAM pricing that we've been seeing for the past several years, then out comes Vista and you have cheapo computers with the RAM actually work.

Then, on top of that, the average user actually has a need for a decent graphics accelerator. The areo interface, as well as all the anti-aliasing and visual effects, ?won't even run? on an old Vanta LT 16MB card. Now, people need new and cheap graphics cards capable of running a semi-modern 3D environment. And, like with the RAM, this means cheaper and better performing graphics accelerators.
quote:
Streamlined? The Display Properties on XP and older is far faster and easy to use with TABS than the new browser-type on Vista... which requires more hunting and going BACK to the main page to get somewhere. Never mind hiding some Network settings deeper rather than where it has been since Win98 (on the network tool tray icon or control panel).

Lo and behold, MS tries to make things easier and gets crucified. I happen to like the re-organization. It is remarkably intuitive, once you get used to it. Instead of jamming the 'up' button to back down a several-layer directory tree, then navigating back up a different branch; by default you now have the explorer panel, which lets you just click out the tree you want, and you are there. You can even drag and drop to two seperate drives, from the same folder. And yes, you do have to go to the control panel to change settings now. That is not a terrible loss, nonetheless, it is now easier to do with the new layout. Though, this is again assuming that you force yourself to get used to it, as it is quite different from the default view. Though, I admit, I have no idea about the saved view settings. I haven't tried changing any of them, so I haven't witnessed this behavior. Nonetheless, it would be a definite downside.
quote:
Truth, talk to many people at FRYs who sell or work on PCs - they don't like Vista. The sales people WISH they could sell HPaqs etc with XP. Yeah, you may say "Fry's is a bunch of idiots" - but they know more than more retail stores and even THEY know XP is junk. Business-only resellers are still only pushing XP... too many vista problems.

Of course, a new product is going to be frustrating for people who are only recently learning XP. And, it is a natural progression that they will get more customer-service calls. However, some people still want Vista, because it does have legitimate advantages over XP: it's newer, flashier, and the 64-bit versions don't suck (I haven't used XP-64, but I have heard almost as many horror stories about it as I have heard about Vista; but, a friend of mine has Vista Business 64-bit, and is seeing gaming performance increases over XP on the order of 1-13%). And, most critical in the minds of PC salesmen, it's a reason for people to buy better computers.
quote:
When it comes down to it, *WHAT* exactly does Windows 5.2 actually offer over 5.1(XP)?

Go read the wikipedia article. There are a lot of things that Windows Vista "offers" that XP doesn't. The consequentiality of these items is sometimes questionable, but the net effect is one of larger change. Also, Vista is not "XP with a facelift." It is actually based on Windows Server 2003...
quote:
The original "Longhorn", based on the Windows XP source code, was scrapped, and Vista development started anew, building on the Windows Server 2003 codebase, and re-incorporating only the features that would be intended for an actual operating system release.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_vista
quote:
Apple is still making their OS better and better but without the RIP-OFF pricing that M$ does

One disadvantage of the nature of software that is an Operating system: it is a low consumability product. Most customers aren't going to come back every two years, and buy a new version of Vista. So, MS and Apple both charge through the nose for their OS's, though Apple has much better prices (I like that 5-pack price).
quote:
Vista is a bad joke. 5 years, this is ALL they could come up with? Apple's Aqua GUI is older than XP... Vista has some aspects of it - but it's still not even close.... funny, 5 years and its nothing that can't be added to XP in minutes - then charge $200~400 to the masses! Bwahahahaha!

Again, Vista has significant (quantity of?) improvements over XP. However, I again agree with you, Vista could've pushed the envelope further. Even Apple has nothing on what is available in Ubuntu (the Linux distro I most often use). It is amazing, the visual effects go a long way to taking the computer from digital workspace to virtual environment. And, that was part of Vista's goal: to make web-browsing and text editing an excursion into a fanciful new world, a world that is fun to just use, let alone work in. And, I don't think it met that goal, but it did make a nice start.

As anyone who has bought RAM recently can tell, Vista has made steps to improve the virtual standard-of-living. But, whether the baggage that comes along with it is worth the advance is a question that we'll all asking again in five years, as MS releases a new Windows that, again, dwarfs the incumbent Version's system requirements.

As someone, somewhere, has probably said by now,
quote:
Shut up and eat progress!

And thanks for reading this book...


RE: Well
By retrospooty on 9/25/2007 12:21:51 AM , Rating: 1
Its not the qty of RAM, but you are right Vista is slower, and your hdd will chug away... The problem is it does it no matter how much RAM you have.


RE: Well
By TomZ on 9/25/2007 9:09:05 AM , Rating: 2
That's FUD, and you know it. Everything you said there is completely wrong.


RE: Well
By retrospooty on 9/27/2007 1:45:01 PM , Rating: 2
No, not fud, that is my experience with it on 3 separate machines, Visa ultimate on a mid range and a high end desktop, and Vista basic on a laptop.

My main machine is a Core2 running at 4ghz, with 2gb ram, an 8800GTX video card and a Raptor 150gb hard drive. Even with these great specs Vista is noticably slower in every action (except waking from sleep mode, that is good) Slower in everyday windows, slower in 3d games, slower in everything. Even with 2gb ram, it reminds me of my old laptop running XP with only 256m ram. HDD chugging away constantly.

If you like it, you can keep it. I am glad it works well for you. Major manufacturers disagree, and even Intel is offering downgrades for free... When was the last OS release you saw that had THAT value added option ?


RE: Well
By cochy on 9/25/2007 12:34:59 PM , Rating: 2
I have 4GB and my Vista system hardly swaps to the page file if at all.


RE: Well
By SavagePotato on 9/25/2007 12:50:13 PM , Rating: 1
The hard drive is "chugging" away because vista is doing tasks like indexing, superfetch, or even background defragmentation when there is free cpu overhead to do so.

The OS is working on optimization in the background rather than sitting there idle and doing nothing but soak up power.

The interface in vista based on initial articles I read at the time of release pegged the overhead of the interface at something like 15% compared to XP's at 30%. Those numbers may not be 100% and are a ballpark recollection.

All that "chugging" of the hard drive is the difference of say IE, or windows mail opening in half a second rather than sitting for 15 seconds opening the program.

Vista is attempting to be smart by precaching frequently used programs so that they open seamlessly (and they sure do). This is called superfetch I believe.

Please go out and get informed before spouting FUD as fact. The blatant Vista bashing with no informed fact behind it just doesn't cut it anymore, people are using it, liking it, and not accepting pure BS because they have tried it themselves and know it works fine.

I absolutely love it when customers try to get a little vista bashing on with me on the phone thinking "oh this is a tech, he's gonna hate vista and well bash it together and it will sound like i know what im talking about"

The absolute KICKER. One guy tried to tell one of the other techs that vista caused his Linux box to get a virus over the network(yes I'm serious). This is the level of asinine crap that people make up in the blind rush to get on the vista hate bandwagon. If you don't question that BS you might think that even a little bit of it is true but in the end it's 100% pure FUD.


RE: Well
By omnicronx on 9/25/07, Rating: -1
RE: Well
By SavagePotato on 9/25/2007 3:20:32 PM , Rating: 1
Grow up, seriously.

Learn to read and communicate on an adult level.

What is up with the comment about XP indexing? where did I say that XP indexes better than Vista?

Honestly you need to pull your head out of your ass before you go on an incoherent rant that makes no sense whatsoever based on the context of the message you are replying to.


RE: Well
By retrospooty on 9/27/2007 1:49:08 PM , Rating: 3
Nice post, it makes sense as to what is going on in the background, but the fact remains it benches far slower in 3d Apps, and when your HDD is chugging away constantly, your performance sucks... As the article indicates, Even Intel is offering downgrades. what do you think brought them to that end? Happy wonderful working OS? I don't think so. Its not bad, but I for one, just wont pay to be slower, and have compatibility issues. That is not worth any money.


RE: Well
By murphyslabrat on 9/27/2007 3:40:24 PM , Rating: 2
smart-allecky I know, but what is Intel doing offering free downgrades for Microsoft's product? ;j


RE: Well
By retrospooty on 9/27/2007 3:44:50 PM , Rating: 2
LOL... I get my multi-billion dollar companies mixed up sometimes. Obviously I meant MS. Now if Intel would have offered downgrades, it wouldn't go over nearly so well hehehe


RE: Well
By murphyslabrat on 9/27/2007 3:59:28 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, you were close, though, their both monopolies...well almost.


RE: Well
By Zelvek on 9/24/2007 12:53:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Opening the control panel causes a box to come up.


I just opened control panel and then individually open every option from within control panel guess what no UAC. Not until I ether try to do something like uninstall a program or open a program that could compromise my system do i get a UAC box. I have not done a single tweak to UAC its just like it would be out of the box.


RE: Well
By thesid on 9/24/2007 1:10:14 PM , Rating: 2
If you arent skilled (if skilled is the word) enough to disable UAC, then you probably need it coz you dont want your system messed up cause of your own actions do you?


RE: Well
By SavagePotato on 9/24/2007 2:15:47 PM , Rating: 2
Here is how much skill it takes.

Click on start.

Click on user portrait.

Click on conspicuously titled link "turn user account control off"

Click continue and reboot when prompted.

I can see how that gets alot of people up in arms, it's pretty advanced.


RE: Well
By The Sword 88 on 9/24/2007 2:42:49 PM , Rating: 2
You would be amazed how many people are confused by that. Seriously, lots of people have never used their control panel on the PC, I know they all ask me for help.


RE: Well
By BMFPitt on 9/24/2007 6:46:45 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Seriously, lots of people have never used their control panel on the PC, I know they all ask me for help.
These people. They're also known as the reason UAC exists.


RE: Well
By colonelclaw on 9/25/2007 11:55:37 AM , Rating: 2
what are the actual dangers of turning off uac? if i do it i'd like to know what im potentially letting myself in for


RE: Well
By SavagePotato on 9/25/2007 12:18:39 PM , Rating: 1
Nothing more than the dangers in XP.

If you conceivably try to install something you shouldn't, Example Winantispyware2007(malware rogue spyware app,) you would not get prompted whether you want to continue or not.

Which of course wouldn't likely save 90% of the average user base anyway, since they click anything that comes up in their face.

As long as you use common sense you won't have a problem.


RE: Well