backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 267 comment(s) - last by SlyNine.. on Nov 22 at 12:58 PM

Turns out some of Vista's strongest critics may not even know what they're criticizing.

Microsoft, the reigning OS king, has received more than its share of criticism for Windows Vista.  The OS, which suffered both from poor initial hardware compatibility and from relatively large resource demands has been shunned by many of the largest players in the business community.  Some have come out in vocal support of Vista, arguing against those who feel Vista is broken an XP downgrade might be in order. 

These supporters got a little more ammo to back their arguments thanks to a comical experiment put on by Microsoft.  As part of its new PR efforts, which include "anti-Mac Guy" commercials, Microsoft conducted a top secret experiment known as the "Mojave" Experiment.

Inspired by an employee email from Microsoft's David Webster, the Vista team gathered over 120 XP users in San Francisco who were critical of Windows Vista.  After being questioned on video about their Vista impressions, Microsoft told them it was giving them a stunning opportunity -- the chance to view their secret operating system they had been cooking up, codenamed "Mojave".  The excited users showed great enthusiasm for the new operating system, with over 90 percent giving positive feedback of the 10 minute demo of the system.

The comic twist is that there is no "Mojave" and it wasn't a pre-release version of Windows 7.  "Mojave" was simply a fictitious title applied to a standard Windows Vista install.  Interestingly, the XP users seemed utterly unable to recognize Vista or its features, despite criticizing it.  Remarked one user on the new features, "Oh wow!"

While it has been pointed out that the experience neglects to consider installation and networking setup, the "Mojave" experiment provides a strong case for the upsides of Vista analogous to the classic blind taste test advertising gimmick.  While Microsoft is still deliberating on how to incorporate the footage into its advertising campaigns, suffice it to say, it is coming soon.

Windows unit business chief Bill Veghte says big efforts are needed to step up Microsoft's image against competitors like Apple and Google.  He states, "We have a huge perception opportunity.  We are going to try a bunch of stuff."

Mr. Veghte points to the "Assurance" campaign for Vista launched earlier this month which offers free technical phone support for the first time.  While the move will likely cost Microsoft in the millions, many believe it will help Microsoft show that it is willing to support Vista fully, including when users encounter trouble.

Footage for the campaign was first revealed last week.  The site which they will be featured on is here.  The footage will be released to the public on Tuesday of this week.

However, trouble in Vista Mr. Veghte asserts, is a rarity and the main problem for the OS is perception.  Mr. Veghte is known to stew over Apple commercials on his morning jogs.  His decision to encourage Microsoft to commit to the massive new PR effort was finally solidified when he decided that Apple had "crossed a line" from factual to fallacious accusations.  Marketing vice president Brad Brook echoed similar sentiments, stating that Microsoft would be "drawing a line in the sand'

Steve Ballmer, Microsoft CEO also shares these feelings, stating, "In the weeks ahead, we'll launch a campaign to address any lingering doubts our customers may have about Windows Vista.  And later this year, you'll see a more comprehensive effort to redefine the meaning and value of Windows for our customers."

However, at the end of the day the Mojave ruse may prove a more valuable marketing tool than anything Mr. Ballmer or Mr. Veghte could say or do on their own, as it’s the voice of everyday users.

With rival Apple showing strong signs of hardware growth, fueled by its virulent advertising campaign, which many call factually questionable, Microsoft has decided to step up to the plate to challenge its assertions.  Mojave should be a key effort in this new campaign.  Mr. Veghte believes that the Vista team cannot wait for Windows 7 to change their fortune; they must attack now.  He states, "I've got to start having that discussion in the marketplace.  I've got to start driving that now. People feel guilty (about Vista). It's wrong."

Don't be surprised if you start seeing Microsoft "Mojave" commercials coming soon to a television near you.  



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Unsurprising
By masher2 (blog) on 7/28/2008 4:34:27 PM , Rating: 5
Show 100 people anything you call "new and revolutionary" and 90% of them will say they love it.

Show 100 random people a petition and at least half will sign it, even if its a request to remove womens suffrage or something equally silly.




RE: Unsurprising
By DASQ on 7/28/2008 4:42:56 PM , Rating: 5
Show a website full of geeks statistics with no backing, and they'll rip your credentials out of your spine >: )


RE: Unsurprising
By wordsworm on 7/28/2008 10:49:52 PM , Rating: 4
As to the women's suffrage statistic - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-fY1YvHGjc

Most people at universities are against women's suffrage. If you don't believe it, go around to some colleges with a petition.


RE: Unsurprising
By SlyNine on 7/29/2008 12:08:59 AM , Rating: 5
Are you implying that in the USA their is more female suffering then male suffering, even though the suicide rate among males is much much higher?

Anyways, the point is, people can be idiots.


RE: Unsurprising
By L33tMasta on 7/29/2008 12:28:56 AM , Rating: 3
We know. That's why they hate Vista.


RE: Unsurprising
By StevoLincolnite on 7/29/2008 3:22:05 AM , Rating: 3
I'm an XP user, I wouldn't say I "Hated" Vista, but I don't see the point upgrading to Vista for the simple reason that XP works perfectly fine. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".

However, I did try Vista out for a few months, Possibly the more annoying thing for me that I found would have been the "Revised" Networking set-up.


RE: Unsurprising
By kc77 on 7/29/08, Rating: 0
RE: Unsurprising
By murphyslabrat on 7/29/2008 1:45:34 PM , Rating: 1
I would also say, "what's the point" about upgrading to Vista. I am certainly not gonna pay another $90-$360 for a computer that aint broke. However, I bought a new laptop that came with Vista Home Premium....and it was a lot less than I was expecting, in both ways.

I like a lot of the new interface stuff, with a few glaring exceptions--like the networking setup. Overall, there is nothing to write home about, but there aren't any things I despise, either.

If you want something interesting, grab a copy of Ubuntu 7.04 or later, and you get Compiz.


RE: Unsurprising
By kc77 on 7/29/2008 4:42:00 PM , Rating: 2
Ubuntu is what I use at home and work. :)


RE: Unsurprising
By fibreoptik on 8/4/2008 2:38:47 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sure all those mainstream Windows/Mac games run real well in Unix...


RE: Unsurprising
By kc77 on 8/4/2008 4:37:35 PM , Rating: 2
Actually the mainstream stuff works pretty well.


RE: Unsurprising
By kondor999 on 8/5/2008 11:09:27 AM , Rating: 2
When I see Crysis running *well* on Linux.

Maybe then.


RE: Unsurprising
By kc77 on 8/5/2008 4:55:07 PM , Rating: 2
Crysis barely runs on Windows..LOL give me a break. Although it does run on Linux . Here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYf6yJ5zKks


RE: Unsurprising
By Hare on 7/29/2008 2:47:41 AM , Rating: 4
English is not my native tongue but I don't think suffrage has anything to do with suffering...

Suffrage:
right to vote: a legal right guaranteed by the 15th amendment to the US Constitution; guaranteed to women by the 19th amendment;


RE: Unsurprising
By afkrotch on 7/29/2008 3:03:54 AM , Rating: 2
Don't worry too much about him. He clearly doesn't know about suffrage. At least you were smart enough to look it up.


RE: Unsurprising
By tmouse on 7/29/2008 7:35:15 AM , Rating: 5
Not sure but I think that was his point (he failed to display the sarcasm flag). MOST of the people who "sign those petitions" mistake the word suffrage and suffering. To be fair MOST of the people pushing these "petitions" are doing so to prove how foolish people are but they take advantage by selecting the busiest people and often use completely improper english to further confuse them into signing. Things like rapid talking and slipping in sentences like don't you want to stop the women from suffraging in the US? Another thing to keep in mind is you do not see the editing. In one joke poll I saw during its filming 90% told the guy to f-off but the edited piece look like most of these films giving a totally fraudulent impression. Now, unfortunately I have heard two city high school students on a bus arguing whether the US had 49 or 52 states....


RE: Unsurprising
By feraltoad on 7/30/2008 3:38:09 AM , Rating: 2
I think he's employing some master level sarcasm. Although, it's so good I'm not sure.


RE: Unsurprising
By SlyNine on 7/31/2008 9:34:26 PM , Rating: 2
“When you do things right, people won’t be sure you’ve done anything at all.”


RE: Unsurprising
By fibreoptik on 8/4/2008 2:23:19 PM , Rating: 1
suffrage does not = suffering

KNOB!


RE: Unsurprising
By SlyNine on 11/22/2008 12:58:41 PM , Rating: 2
Yea, I know....


RE: Unsurprising
By MFK on 7/29/2008 2:32:40 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Show a website full of geeks statistics with no backing, and they'll rip your credentials out of your spine >: )


Read it 5 minutes ago and I'm still laughing!
=D


RE: Unsurprising
By drebo on 7/28/2008 4:48:46 PM , Rating: 5
I think the point is that the majority of people who badmouth Vista have never actually seen it, much less used it.

I get it all the time in my shop--some guy comes in and says "I need a new computer, but I don't want Vista because 'everyone' says it sucks." I've had people who didn't know a stick of RAM from a floppy disk tell me how much better XP is than Vista.

While I presently see no reason for me personally to upgrade to Vista, I do not think it is inherently a bad operating system. It's different, that's all.


RE: Unsurprising
By geddarkstorm on 7/28/2008 5:52:07 PM , Rating: 1
I don't think this experiment shows for a fact in any way that most people who criticize Vista haven't used it. It might be the case, it might not. I haven't used it though I've seen it, so I have no opinion on it, but this is definitely not a "study" that proves anything other than that word of mouth and perception are two very powerful things.


RE: Unsurprising
By threepac3 on 7/28/2008 6:03:35 PM , Rating: 5
Wasn't that the whole point of the experiment?!!?!


RE: Unsurprising
By leexgx on 7/28/2008 10:47:03 PM , Rating: 3
maybe but i am an tech gui my self small time really (do mostly home users and small bis networks) and i have more networking problems with vista then i do with XP (more the bigger the network) as i was unable to share an printer on an Vista completely due to the PC Dropping off the network (it just went into ignore and reject mode)

in the end i just slapped an Dell XP disk in it as it was an dell any way and after 1 hr (+ install) i had every thing ready shared and files back on his PC, and had 0 problems with the printer and file shearing on XP

the main reason IT support big to small size companies do not want to use vista is due
1, Cost Vista will not work on Most computers due to needing 1gb of ram to be usable (not every company burns money every 3 years on new computers)
2, programs that work on XP do not work on Vista (the programmer who ever made the database software and so on,)
3, to its unpredictable bugs in networking (format reload norm fixs it but should not be needed)
4, some users are very dim when thay come to computers so going from XP to vista is like going from XP to Mac, and in doing so means productivity is down or retraining is needed (that norm involves money)

i can see alot of companies are likey to just wait and see what windows 7 is like but if its far away like Vista is to XP its uptake will still take along time alot of companlys i have been with have Only gone from windows 2000 mostly due to that its support had been droped so thay had to move to XP as the dead line for XP is 2015 if the pcs even last that long may still be quite an number of pcs out there on XP

my View on Vista is i do realy like it looks very nice SUperfetch is very usefull tool (once it has finished filling your ram and stops messing with hdd), once it has finished faffing around with your hard disk Vista is nice and fast, but as an user my self there are an big list that would just turn this into big rant i guess (i can think of 10 or more anoying things in Vista)


RE: Unsurprising
By tmouse on 7/29/2008 7:59:42 AM , Rating: 2
Well I'll bet if anyone did a real study they would find that business adoption of VISTA is no worse than any other version. Companies simply do not upgrade operating systems, they phase things in by hardware attrition where the cost is simply not an issue (you have always gotten more for the same price over the last two decades). The custom apps are a problem but they simply do not make up the majority of the computers in most enterprises. Many enterprises were waiting for the proper version of VISTA to come out anyways. For the general populace VISTA is good since they are, by and large, too lazy or stupid to secure their systems. The point is VISTA had a lot of driver issues, which now are mostly solved. I also do not like the networking control panels (just because I do know what I am doing and now it takes a lot more steps to get things done when they do not work the first time). The interface issue is always a problem, I don't know how many times I have told my department head do not try to switch people from Macs to PC's or vice versa, since we have the software for both systems. Just let people use what their familiar with and do not take the productivity loss, this is not due to the users being dim its just human nature, I for one hate the new MAC OS interface but I can see how others love it. I do not expect windows 7 to be a major change, it will probably just have some of the things that were pulled from the VISTA development, but from a user point will not be noticeable and if it does not get as much bad media coverage (some was deserved some was not) many will have the same reactions as the test group.


RE: Unsurprising
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 7/29/2008 8:42:29 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Well I'll bet if anyone did a real study they would find that business adoption of VISTA is no worse than any other version. Companies simply do not upgrade operating systems, they phase things in by hardware attrition where the cost is simply not an issue (you have always gotten more for the same price over the last two decades). The custom apps are a problem but they simply do not make up the majority of the computers in most enterprises.

Bingo, you nailed it. It takes time, testing, and changes to make legacy apps work with new operating systems, I remember the same song and dance when we rolled out XP just 3 years ago. It took us until just a few months ago to phase out the last of the 2000 machines in active use (still some stragglers at a failover site but thats less of a problem).


RE: Unsurprising
By kc77 on 7/29/2008 9:00:47 AM , Rating: 1
I think you are doing a little bit of a bait and switch. You don't think XP's slow adoption rate had anything to do with Win 2K launching in 2000 and XP launching in 2001 under a year later? I don't care how big a business is no IT Dept or business budget can move that fast. What would be the point?

Compare that with XP being 7 years old and then Vista coming out, that puts it into a totally different light because the reason behind the slow adoption is different.


RE: Unsurprising
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 7/29/2008 10:45:42 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Compare that with XP being 7 years old and then Vista coming out, that puts it into a totally different light because the reason behind the slow adoption is different.

Not really. It took until 2004 before the majority of our apps, drivers, and legacy apps were fully supported on XP. We faced the same problem with Vista right out of the gate. Hell, we still have Novell Netware on our systems, yea thats right NOVELL NETWARE. When all your network shares are built on the Novell systems, without a working and bugfree Novell Client for Vista, we were sunk without even getting to testing the other apps we use in the environment. XP, Vista, same adoption problem from my standpoint. Support for XP was minimal until after SP1, and XP didn't even get rolled into most companies until SP2. With the long delay between XP and Vista, the procurement budget for a new OS has been slashed into oblivion. The price tag to upgrade an enterprise agreement from XP to Vista is high and management generally chooses to wait as long as they can and "save money" as they like to call it. We only pushed XP adoption because we knew that 2000 was EOL and didn't want to support a product that Microsoft themselves won't support. This is what is also driving the Vista adoption, we know when XP dies, we need to be off it by then. With the current 4 year hardware refresh cycle, starting Vista into the environment now should put us on track for a complete switchover just before the XP EOL date.


RE: Unsurprising
By kc77 on 7/29/2008 5:01:39 PM , Rating: 2
EEEEEEKKK Novell... I feel sorry for you. Although what version where you using when Win2K was out?? I mean 5 was pretty well supported and worked on Win2k and Win XP. The only problem with XP would have been adding back IPX if you were still on 5, which would have sucked, but it wouldn't have been that bad.

I do wonder what kind of applications, drivers you used (not that you have to tell me). Especially since the last version of Win2k kernel and the Windows XP kernel were minimal in their distinction. Most drivers were interchangeable.

In the grand scheme of things I still do disagree. The change from Win 98 to Windows 2K was absolutely unbelievable. I don't think there were many domain controllers which stayed on Win NT for that long once Win2K came out. Likewise for the clients, keeping Win 98 on a Win2k network while fine, does deny you the granularity that Win2k brings. The addition of Active Directory and managing domain forests was heads and shoulders above anything NT could do. That's not even talking about the stupid service packs.


RE: Unsurprising
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 7/29/2008 8:22:57 PM , Rating: 3
No doubt the change from 98 to 2k was good. We actually went from 95 to 2k at work. At the same time we also migrated from Token Ring to Ethernet (Yea in like 2002). My company is ass backwards more than I want to know, just tellin you what I face daily.


RE: Unsurprising
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 7/29/2008 8:23:29 PM , Rating: 2
Novell 4 still, and we still are using Novell 4.91.


RE: Unsurprising
By johnsonx on 7/31/2008 4:04:41 PM , Rating: 2
wow, running NetWare 4 in 2008? I took my (customer's) last NetWare 4.11 server out back and shot it about 6 months ago, and before that I hadn't seen one in years. That last 4.11 server might still be running today, except that the customer had gone out and bought 2 vista boxes at office depot or whatever, and then called me up to put them on the network. You guessed it: NetWare 4.11 doesn't speak IP (at least not for file/print services), Vista doesn't speak IPX.

Now that customer runs Linux.


RE: Unsurprising
By InsaneScientist on 7/31/2008 12:16:52 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I think you are doing a little bit of a bait and switch. You don't think XP's slow adoption rate had anything to do with Win 2K launching in 2000 and XP launching in 2001 under a year later? I don't care how big a business is no IT Dept or business budget can move that fast. What would be the point?

Compare that with XP being 7 years old and then Vista coming out, that puts it into a totally different light because the reason behind the slow adoption is different.


Actually, the price thing wasn't likely much of a factor.

When a corporation buys licenses for Microsoft products, they don't buy them individually at the retail price, they buy them through volume licensing.
One of the perks (to some extent) that can come with a volume license is a package called software assurance.

Basically, what that does is that you're not buying 50, 100, 1000, or however many licences for Windows 2000/XP/Vista/etc, you're buying that many workstation licences.... for whatever Microsoft's current workstation OS is, and if the OS is upgraded before the license runs out (usually 2 years), you effectively get the upgrade for free.

Many system admins opt for software assurance, even though it costs a bit more, because it's a failsafe, and because Microsoft has usually only waited about 2 years between releases.

Thus, the 1 year gap between 2000 and XP wasn't a problem price-wise, you get it for free off of a software assurrance package, the problem was that it was new, the bugs hadn't been worked out, and nothing was compatible with it yet.

Price wise, the 6 year gap between XP and Vista was more of a problem for us (system admins) than the 1 year gap between 2000 and XP.

Also, people's memories are getting awfully short. (not neccesarily yours, I'm just complaining in general now)
Compared to 2000 (not 98, and certainly not ME), XP wasn't as good of a platform initially. SP1 helped a bit, but it wasn't 'till they rewrote half the kernel in SP2 that it really became the OS that we know now.
Vista started out on a much better foot than XP did (as far as the OS itself is concerned, not driver support), so we'll see where things go from here.


RE: Unsurprising
By kc77 on 7/31/2008 7:26:47 PM , Rating: 2
My memory is pretty good (not that you were saying mine wasn't) SP1 for Windows XP brought about stability for the OS. At that time if you weren't doing anything wireless, XP with SP1 was pretty darn stable. Even without SP1 you had the messaging bug that was causing instability but the first few patches addressed that.

Comparing XP to Vista at first launch there just isn't a contest first you have driver compatibility since Win2K drivers for the most part worked with XP.

It's actually easier to talk about what XP doesn't do than what Vista did when it launched. First, XP didn't implement UAC which normally would be a negative except Vista's implementation hides behind windows and doesn't always grab focus. XP's driver compatibility was and still is heads and shoulders above what Vista was capable of doing at launch. You didn't have video drivers crashing out repeatedly while playing games. XP doesn't nor ever did have problems adding jetdirect printers. XP didn't have a problem transferring files. XP didn't require 4 times the minimum spec requirement of it's predecessor, XP didn't have a negative impact when running games.

Like I said my memory is pretty good in terms of what XP did versus Vista :)


RE: Unsurprising
By JediJeb on 7/29/2008 10:07:20 AM , Rating: 2
We still have a Win 3.1 computer running, just because the piece of equipment attached to it requires it. Once the computer dies we will have to invest about 30k in a new piece of equipment because there is no longer an interface to work with newer computers. If only computer systems would last as long as our equipment.

As for VISTA, I have used it but don't really care for the interface, but then when I use XP I always turn on the Classic view lol.


RE: Unsurprising
By mondo1234 on 7/28/2008 7:48:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
"Mojave" was simply a fictitious title applied to a standard Windows Vista install


Well if they couldnt spot a "standard Vista Install" then they have never even seen Vista (not even in Best Buy?) It would be a great commercial for the opponents to do the same with showing the Vista Haters an XP install with a new theme and call it "Cherokee". There could be some funny anti MS commercials on this if the other side wanted.


RE: Unsurprising
By retrospooty on 7/28/2008 6:10:44 PM , Rating: 1
"I think the point is that the majority of people who badmouth Vista have never actually seen it, much less used it."

I disagree, alot of people use it and hate it. I use it and don't have any problems - I only keep it because its pretty LOL.

But seriously - most (normal) people say "My IT Guy (or nerdy little brother or whatever techy in thier circle) says it sucks, so I think it must suck. The fact is that person has not used Vista, but the nedry dood did, and didnt like it.


RE: Unsurprising
By Targon on 7/28/2008 7:36:32 PM , Rating: 5
Many people hated Windows XP when it first came out for various reasons, but look at how it is accepted now. People do not like change, and not SAYING the word "start" scares many people. These are the same people who freak out if you move the bar from the bottom of the screen to the top of the screen, just because it's not what they are used to.


RE: Unsurprising
By rudy on 7/28/2008 7:52:45 PM , Rating: 1
This is true if there is not a significant reason to change then people will resist it. With windows 98 it sucked and people really needed to upgrade cause it was an instable buggy OS. But when XP got into full swing people had a fairly solid OS and had no reason to upgrade. The massive success of XP is probably M$s worst enemy.

On top of that M$ has never been very good at advertising. Apple just does a better job in that area. And people do tend to believe the junk on the apple commercials. M$ now perhaps to late is seeing this and is finally ready to strike back. Lets see how it pans out.


RE: Unsurprising
By tmouse on 7/29/2008 8:05:57 AM , Rating: 2
Keep in mind XP was out a lot longer, people just got used to it. I did not see any real differences between XP and 2000, out side of some pretty interface changes, which I quickly changed (heck I’m so set in my ways I have made my VISTA desktop look like the old classic desktop, just a matter of preference.


RE: Unsurprising
By mindless1 on 7/29/2008 1:52:58 PM , Rating: 2
True, many feel MS changed Vista for no good reason other than to make it seem more different from XP.

MS' test though, it ignores two important factors: What system it was running on, whether anyone who genuinely liked it more than XP for everyday use, liked it enough to pay for a beefier system to run it. Secondly, liking something doesn't make you more productive using it. There's retraining time that is lost but even then an individual may find one OS or the other more friendly to use.


RE: Unsurprising
By Mutz1243 on 7/28/2008 4:54:10 PM , Rating: 3
One of the reasons half the people will sign a petition to remove women's suffrage is because they do not know what it is. As far as Vista goes too many people have never used it and bad mouth it. I have been using Vista for since January 08 and love it.


RE: Unsurprising
By DASQ on 7/28/2008 5:02:32 PM , Rating: 5
"Women suffering?! That sounds horrible! Better add my vote to the petition!"


RE: Unsurprising
By rollakid on 7/28/2008 8:19:18 PM , Rating: 2
I love how vista looks. No comment on how it functions. But I hate the system requirement.

That experiment isn't all that useful if they do not let the user "use" it. If I were to just sit there and let them show me what "mojave" looks like, I'd love it too. But if they say "Hey, take this dvd home and try Mojave on your pc and tell me how you think of it", I think I'll hate it as well.

For the record I've used vista, on similar spec pc to mine (well, mine has more ram) and it was horribly slow, especially transferring data from a pendrive to the pc.

Not to say I won't move on though, my next pc upgrade would see me moving to vista or window 7, depends on when I actually do it.


RE: Unsurprising
By afkrotch on 7/29/2008 2:59:57 AM , Rating: 2
I've got Vista Home Premium on my laptop. Transferring files from usb key to laptop or over the network to another comp isn't all that change. It's a little slower by like 20 secs or something, but hardly "horribly slow."

I use Win2k, WinXP, and Vista at home. I prefer Win2k for my file server, as the file sharing is very simplified and left open as hell. I'm not to worried about someone accessing my system. If they want to, they can go ahead. Just get past the crap firewall on the router. Everything else is open.


RE: Unsurprising
By rollakid on 7/29/2008 6:26:25 AM , Rating: 2
That's interesting. Slower by 20 second over how many second?

Maybe it's my usb drive, kingston's first affordable 4GB usb drive, somehow slower than their 1GB and 2GB counterpart (tested by myself, especially when you're copying a whole folder of hundreds of files, single large file isn't that bad).

I remember my brother having problem with installing that korean MMORPG on his vista on one go, so we tried to just copy the whole folder over from my XP system.

When I tried to copy from my usb drive to his hard disk, it takes nearly double the time than it did when I copy the whole game folder into the usb drive.

Curious, I tried copy it back to my system to see if it is the difference in read and write, but it was not. Vista just sits there do nothing with the transfer window not showing any movement before and after the transfer for quite some time... wonder if it is checking for something.

So... it could well be my usb drive's fault, or maybe my bro's laptop have a really slow hard drive...


RE: Unsurprising
By afkrotch on 7/29/2008 8:15:44 AM , Rating: 2
I usually transfer around a few thousand little png files around. I read a lot of manga at work, so I do this daily. It's around 6-7 mins for me to transfer these files. Either via usb or through my network (use gig-e on mobo and gig-e switch).

Vista's copying/moving is different than XP. It doesn't finish, til it finishes. As in all cache must be cleared out and data sitting where it was copied to be considered complete in Vista. With XP, as long as the data makes it to the cache, it's considered complete, even if the data isn't fully written onto the other device.

I'm not a home, but here's an example on XP for what I copy around. 2468 files in 169 folders totaling 519 MBs. It's "To Love Ru" manga.


RE: Unsurprising
By rollakid on 7/29/2008 9:16:09 AM , Rating: 2
Certainly make sense. Too bad my brother's not here, he's overseas studying. I wanted to test out if SP1 did any major change as well.

For the record, the game folder we copy (cabalSEA) is about 2.18GB 14,827 files and 425 folders. I can't remember exactly how long it took but on vista it's almost twice as long.

I don't really hate Vista, it's not the right word. It's just that I do not want to "upgrade" to something and it ran slower on my machine without any change in specs.

Next PC upgrade is in order :D end of the year most probably getting ready for Fallout 3. Been waiting for it since... er...Fallout 2. Probably triple boot it with vista/xp/ubuntu...

ps: how nice... you get to read manga at work... all i ever read at work is dailytech ;)

I read COUGHdoujinCOUGH manga at home... sometimes...


RE: Unsurprising
By meewok on 7/28/2008 4:58:55 PM , Rating: 3
I think it's all just a matter of context, with which marketing people all love to play with.

For example, UAC is annoying when it's framed in the context of the cool mac guy against the boxy microsoft guy. "do you want do to something?". But the fact of the matter is that it HELPS a lot of people, especially people who don't realize that when they click on a fake advertisement for free virus checking software they may be installing potentially damaging software on their machines.

At this point, I feel that the Mac advertisements have manipulated context to the extent that much of the populace will make decisions based on emotions or hearsay rather than practicallity. I must say that their marketing team is quite impressive.

While I personally use Ubuntu/XP, I do feel that Vista has gotten a bad rap. For me, I don't see a need to move to it from XP, but for most people purchasing a new Windows-based a machine, Vista would be a great way to go (coming from the context of the designated family IT guy who has to clean up XP/virus/spyware messes and hasn't had to clean up a Vista one yet).


RE: Unsurprising
By Belard on 7/28/08, Rating: -1
RE: Unsurprising
By meewok on 7/28/2008 6:21:09 PM , Rating: 5
A agree that UAC annoying, especially for people of your level of expertise. The implementation *could* be more user friendly. So in our opinion, this was a poor design decision from the user experience designer. But the people who are disabling UAC on their own accord probably know better anyway. I still maintain that for those people that don't really know what they're doing are better off leaving it enabled.

As for your comment about the "skin-job loaded with DRM and bad memory management", you are essentially saying none of the extra features of vista really matter to you, which is fine (I know, DRM isn't really a feature for the end-user). But for a lot of people, these features (eyecandy, etc) make a difference and are a selling point.

I can't say whether the memory management is good or bad, since I don't know what they defined as their requirements/constraints nor do I know details about the implementation, but I do know that, in general, more features means higher memory requirements. Perhaps they should have tightened down their constraints more, but I have seen vista machines running fine with 2GB memory and last I checked, you can get two gigs easily for < $40. Perhaps this was a factor in determining/prioritizing their requirements. True, it's no excuse for sloppy code, but do you really know if the code is sloppy?

Bottom-line, I disagree with your "vista sucks" comment, but the user experience and memory management could be refined in several areas.


RE: Unsurprising
By Belard on 7/29/2008 5:36:49 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
of your level of expertise.


You don't know my level of expertise. So because you don't like my opinion on a product (which by fact, is a memory & CPU hog) you feel the need to insult me?\

quote:
none of the extra features of vista really matter to you


What features are so earth shattering or not available for WindowsXP. The "eyecandy" is easy enough to add to XP without the resource requirements. A 500K program would give me a functional "Vista" Start menu (even transparent)in XP... which is one of the good neat features of Vista.

quote:
True, it's no excuse for sloppy code, but do you really know if the code is sloppy?


When a new OS/program comes out that does do anything severely different from a previous version yet requires 4x the CPU & memory resources - yes, its sloppy. Yeah, great $40 for another 2GB is cheap. But its stupid to require 4GB of RAM just to open a web-browser and word-processor at the same time. That is about the most the average person does. A $500 computer nowadays has 4GB of RAM. The only PCs with 2GB come with Vista BASIC and cost $400 with a monitor.

Vista, at its core - its XP/2000. When XP came out, the system requirements didn't change much from Windows2000. Vista is a fixable product... hopefully Windows7 will address those problems.

PS: Its rather stupid to see microsoft employees or vista panty wetters vote me down for voicing my views on a product. I'm not calling it a total POS or cursing.


RE: Unsurprising
By rdeegvainl on 7/29/2008 8:09:18 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
You don't know my level of expertise. So because you don't like my opinion on a product (which by fact, is a memory & CPU hog) you feel the need to insult me?\


You really need some reading comprehension. He said there was a point at which a users knowledge of computers would make UAC and annoyance and that you surpassed that point. Way to fly off the handle bud.

quote:
A 500K program would give me a functional "Vista" Start menu (even transparent)in XP... which is one of the good neat features of Vista.


That is part of the GUI to make it look better, which the person you replied to already covered. Yeah maybe you could find a program to make it look like vista, but guess what. The MAJORITY of computer users wouldn't know the first thing about that.

quote:
Yeah, great $40 for another 2GB is cheap. But its stupid to require 4GB of RAM just to open a web-browser and word-processor at the same time.


Wow, way to overstate requirements. If it took you 4GB Ram to open those at the same time, I'm gonna have to either call bull, or say it's the fault of whoever set that machine up.

quote:
A $500 computer nowadays has 4GB of RAM. The only PCs with 2GB come with Vista BASIC and cost $400 with a monitor.


OH NOES THE REQUIREMENTS!!!!11!!!1one!!12
Seriously you just negated any stance you had about the requirements being higher when you showed ENTRY level computers having more than enough power to run Vista smoothly. You would have to search for a computer that couldn't use Vista nowadays. Besides, OEM's are where Microsoft makes the most money. Do you really think they care if you don't upgrade your OS, when upgrades are such a tiny portion of the market? especially this far into the life cycle.

quote:
PS: Its rather stupid to see microsoft employees or vista panty wetters vote me down for voicing my views on a product. I'm not calling it a total POS or cursing.


wow complain some more. Your views are not popular here. Instead of complaining that people aren't being nice to you on the internet, and calling people names to either write them off or give yourself some feeling of superiority, get over it.


RE: Unsurprising
By theapparition on 7/29/2008 8:46:51 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
So because you don't like my opinion on a product (which by fact, is a memory & CPU hog) you feel the need to insult me?\

I read his original comment. It was a complement. he was trying to say the UAC was annoying for user who had advanced experience. So either you really get offended by compliments, or your so blinded rage, that you can't comprehend a simple sentence. My bet is the latter, and that is truely sad.

quote:
What features are so earth shattering or not available for WindowsXP.

DirectX 10 much in XP do ya? How about a completely re-written kernel that's a million times more secure? Guess those don't mean much to you.

quote:
A $500 computer nowadays has 4GB of RAM.

You make the argument that Vista requires tons of memory, then go on to say that memory is sooooo cheap, that even the lowest cost PC's come with plenty. Which is it?

If you don't like Vista, fine. I have no problem with that. But don't try and spin it that Vista is XP with higher memory requirements.


RE: Unsurprising
By Icelight on 7/29/2008 9:31:29 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
You don't know my level of expertise.


By claiming that "basic users" will require at least 4 - 8GB of memory for a Vista system I think I can get a pretty good idea of your level of "expertise".


RE: Unsurprising
By meewok on 7/29/2008 2:12:50 PM , Rating: 2
My apologies if you took that comment as an insult. It was not meant as one.

There are several sections on wikipedia that outline several new/improved features to Vista: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vista#New_or_...

Perhaps the features are not in your opinion, earth shattering, or perhaps they don't justify an increase in memory requirements, but the bottom line is that they do, for whatever reason. These reasons CAN be plentiful and are usually the result of constraints that are set down from product/technical marketing people during requirements gathering.

My point is that use of more memory, while it may be sub-optimal, doesn't necessarily equate to sloppy code. I'm also not saying that there is absolutely no sloppy code in there. With what I imagine is a large codebase, I'm sure there is sloppy code somewhere and it may be legacy code as well. But this will be the case with pretty much ANY large body of code with so many contributors.

You do make the qualification that you feel that the OS does not do anything severely different from a previous version. A think that the new/improved features list looks pretty long and could justify increase memory consumption. 4x consumption? Maybe? Maybe not? But without being there and knowing what decisions had to be made, you can only fault it so much.

Ultimately, I think part of the issue is that Microsoft is in the somewhat unenviable position of building a platform that needs to support almost every piece of third party hardware/software under the sun and the need to generalize the platform incurs overhead in all aspects of the code.

BTW I just did a search on newegg on desktops between $300-400 that come with Home Premium. There are 3 new (not recertified) machines that come with 2GB. On Frys.com, there are another 2 that come with 2GB+ (one comes with 3GB). It's not uncommon to find a decent machine (2GB, dual core, home premium) for < $400. These all run Vista just fine. In addition, I don't think it's valid to assume the common system configurations these days (3GB+ RAM) nean that these are the minimum system requirements.

Again, I've used Vista and found no need to switch to it because to me, the added features don't justify the cost for an upgrade especially when XP is running just fine and Ubuntu is great. For an average person buying a new machine, I don't see anything wrong with it and I would actually argue that unless they had any special software/hardware requirements that bound them to XP, it would be a better decision to go with Vista.


RE: Unsurprising
By kc77 on 7/29/2008 5:35:55 PM , Rating: 1
By and large I think your opinion of Vista is fine. After all it's your opinion.

Although I am going to take you to task on the sloppy code argument because there just isn't anything that Vista is doing that any other OS can't do with far less. I believe earlier you listed Ubuntu and Mac OS, both of these OS's can easily do what Vista does and more often times than not do it better with less resources.

From a evaluating software kind of perspective, hypothetically, if you reviewed 3 OS's they all offered more or less the same features but you had this one OS that required double the power as the other two, I would think a siren or something would go off within you to ask "why?"


RE: Unsurprising
By meewok on 7/29/2008 6:25:09 PM , Rating: 2
I actually don't have very much opinion on Vista since I don't despise it nor have I adopted it. I guess overall my personal opinion is "meh".

In any case, I can see what you're saying about other OSes being able to accomplish *similar* things with less resources. But I do feel that these comparisons all need to be more closely scrutinized because...

1) It is difficult to make OS/minimum resource comparison since it's not truly apples:apples as the feature sets are different and the minimum resource comparison is even somewhat subjective. How can this be quantified?

2) The "less" resources numbers are showing up as 2x-4x. Where are these numbers coming from? Who makes this determination that the feeling I get from using XP with 1GB of RAM is about equivalent to the feel of Vista with 4GB of RAM? Or even Hardy with 2GB or MacOS with 4GB?

3) As for the sloppy code thing. I would still argue that increased memory consumption is not necessarily the result of sloppy code. It could be one of the contributing factors, but there are many other things that need to be considered. What were the requirements that were request and how were they prioritized?


RE: Unsurprising
By kc77 on 7/30/2008 7:05:00 AM , Rating: 2
1) Not really, it's not really an apples and oranges type of thing. Remember we aren't in the server area where things are more stark in comparison on features, we are talking about client side.

2) Maybe in Mac OS, but in Linux they show up as quantifiable numbers, which I will get to in a sec.

3)That's just the point, to see that kind of increase in memory requirements Vista should be doing more, way more. I'm not even getting into "feeling" or smoothness" I'm going to get into applications.

OK I can't talk about Mac OS. I've got OS9 on the floor in an old iMac but I'm not about to use that.... Anyway here goes.

Ok on my Linux box here's what I have running.

PulseAudio + Alsa: Sound Server / HAL (Allows me to play music in one location and pump it throughout my home - also is standard with hardy)
MythTv Server / Backend : Controls my TV Cards which records and distributes movies throughout my home
MYSQL: My database server for my applications which require it.
Xorg: Foundation for Gnome / KDE / sets the groundwork for video/sound/USB/Harddrives, etc
Gnome: OS GUI Frontend + KDE Extensions for my rare KDE apps
Apache: Web Server allows me to test new ideas at home before rolling them out at work.
Java: Some of my web applications require it so it's always running.
Amarok: Music Program
Ktorrent: Torrent Program
Evolution: Mail Program)
AWN: 3d Toolbar
Cups: Print Server
Vino Server : RDP
Firefox: self explanatory
Compiz: Gives me those cool effects that completely blow Vista's away
Screenlets: Gives me Widgets
(This isn't even everything)

With all of this running my memory is at 741 MB, with no swap file. I've got 2 GB on this machine, which means I could basically double this configuration and still be running within memory without a swap file, or play a memory intensive game with all of this running and most likely still be within memory without a bump, skip, or hiccup.

This is what I'm talking about. A basic Vista install without anything running just the OS, maybe some extensions for IE / .Net framework services, you are looking at 1GB. If you open any application outside of IE you will be in swap file land quicker than you can say "Go". This is a problem.


RE: Unsurprising
By meewok on 7/30/2008 2:48:15 PM , Rating: 2
I think we are talking about two different things here. The examples you bring up are more about the end-result which, arguably, is ultimately the most important number. You're basically saying "I have these features on Linux and a similar set of features on Vista requires much more memory". And I agree with you on this for the most part as it matches my experiences as well. I even mostly agree with the "to see that kind of increase in memory requirements Vista should be doing more, way more". But these are from external eyes who are looking at these things after the fact. If you talk to any developer who reviews existing code, they'll probably come up with ways that they would have done it better.

Saying that the engineers wrote sloppy code is a different problem, which may be related, but it is entirely different. It sounds like you're in software development so you should know what I mean. There are SO many factors that are considered when designing/implementing/releasing an actual product in the field. There a almost an infinite amount of design choices that an engineer or a team can make based on a set of requirements they are given. Perhaps these design choices are based on requirements that get cut close to completion. Perhaps the actual requirements are poorly written. The whole product can't be rewritten every single time these requirements change and thus you end up getting code, which may be extremely well written, that was designed for a larger set of features that never ended up making it into the product. This is just one of the many scenarios that occur.

I'm not necessarily saying this is the reason why Vista may be "bloated". I'm just saying that sloppy code is not the only factor that affects "bloat".


RE: Unsurprising
By kc77 on 7/30/2008 7:40:40 PM , Rating: 2
I think you are making a distinction between sloppy and bloated. In this area I can agree with you. There is a difference. However, if we go with that distinction the problem then would fall on the project manager to find out what the reason could be for the machine specification increase.

If we go for the bloated distinction then someone stills has to figure out what kind of checks or subroutines are being run that would cause that kind of increase. What's going on?? It doesn't matter that we as end-users don't get to see the code in action when you have UNIX, LINUX, Mac OS, Windows XP, Windows 2000, Windows 2003 Server, and on and on and on as a reference. Writing code to get a particular job done, once it's been done a thousand times over is the same no matter when you do it. Over time you either become more efficient or you don't.

Vista has done the opposite. You can make the case that the default install is working with more integrated services than any OS before it. That is totally possible, and highly likely, but at the end of the day time is money and so is memory. So the justification has to be made if you are buying two machines one requires more memory / CPU time and thusly more power to do the same work and the other doesn't. So the question for the CEO is the same that we are debating here .... What is Vista doing that another OS that costs less and requires less resources isn't doing that can directly benefit my business??


RE: Unsurprising
By meewok on 7/30/2008 10:55:14 PM , Rating: 2
My main assertions were:

1) We can't assume it's sloppy code, though it may use more memory than is acceptable to some people. It sounds like you agree that part of the fault for this bloat falls on all aspects of the process (the people who gather/set/prioritize requirements, the project managers/leads, the testers, developers). At some point in the cycle, someone made the decision that the memory usage was acceptable for most of the consumers and decided to move forward with the the release.

2) Vista does not suck. Vista is fine for the average user who's buying a new machine and isn't bound to XP by either software or hardware requirements. Sure, the other options (Linux, MacOS) are fine, too.

Finally, your last question is a question that I asked myself and my personal answer was "nothing" and as a result, I chose not to "upgrade", but that doesn't mean that I'll tell everyone that Vista sucks or that they should wipe their Vista install and install something else. Every business/person will have a different answer.

P.S. I was just reading more about Vista memory management, the SuperFetch feature and it's impact on reported free memory. It's definitely something to consider if you are using TaskManager as a gauge of baseline memory consumption. It seems like you would need to disable this feature to actually get a good baseline. I'd actually be very interested to see where a comparison of where memory is going with it enabled/disabled. Unfortunately, I don't have a Vista system to try it out... :/ Anyone?


RE: Unsurprising
By elgoliath on 7/31/2008 4:01:55 PM , Rating: 2
My Vista Business install with multiple programs open (Firefox, IE, Groupwise, Virtual PC etc.), I am running at just over 600 megs. With my XP virtual PC running in the background nd a few admin programs running on the virtual PC and the aforementioned programs still open, it hits 1.1 GB over all.


RE: Unsurprising
By kc77 on 8/5/2008 4:58:54 PM , Rating: 2
What's the size of your swap?


RE: Unsurprising
By kc77 on 7/29/2008 5:18:56 PM , Rating: 2
Sheesh I was going to try and jump in there and help you out but you shot yourself in the foot. First what machine can you buy with monitor (since I really can't see the family not getting a new monitor with the machine) and 4GB of RAM that's $500? At that price it's a stripper or an E Machine.

Trust me if you don't want to be attacked don't exaggerate and make sure you actually check your facts before posting. Even if you get attacked at least you won't look bad.


RE: Unsurprising
By OCedHrt on 7/28/2008 6:24:40 PM , Rating: 3
Most of those UAC popups have been removed since SP1.

But it is true that it is very annoying to have to click on multiple UACs per action, and some of those situations still exist.

But the checkbox that says "remember this action/program" is just as bad is disabling UAC. Because once you accept an action, it can be exploited.

Additionally, the average user does NOT go into Hardware Device manager, Control Panel, have more than 1 drive or even move files. They live within My Documents and that is their universe.

UAC is a pain for the average geek, and when they get infected, they wish they never turned it off in the first place.


RE: Unsurprising
By johnsonx on 7/28/2008 7:46:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Most of those UAC popups have been removed since SP1

True that. I haven't seen nearly so many since SP1. I didn't turn UAC off because I advise my customers to leave it on; if I'm helping them on the phone I like to know where they're going to see UAC prompts.


RE: Unsurprising
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 7/28/2008 7:54:00 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
I've seen a reponse someone on Dailytech saying "the UAC only shows up because software developer didn't make their program right and Vista is protecting the end-user" -er, uh no. Because UAC pops up with the most basic computer functions such as :

I made the comment about UAC, and I'm going to call you on it.

1) Yep, hardware device manager is a SYSTEM TOOL and therefore requires you to accept a UAC prompt. Why? Because you can uninstall/disable/change drivers. I can see several avenues to screw with an unsuspecting user in there.

2) Wrong on both counts. I can copy, paste, rename, delete, restore files and shortcuts to those locations without any prompt other than "Are you sure you want to delete this?".

3) Wrong here, unless your trying to copy a file or folder in a SYSTEM directory, in which case you had better get a UAC prompt. Nice try though.

4) Yes, opening something like WINDOWS FIREWALL will generate a UAC prompt, imagine that? The panel that procects your computer will want a UAC authorization before it will let someone in. What a concept there....

quote:
It gets old very quickly and killing the UAC is the easist way to make vista USABLE.

Short of opening a sytem tool or other panel that most users don't regularly open, UAC will likely only trigger on an Autorun from an older piece of software, or if you try to install a piece of software that does not adhere to the rules and requires writing to places it probably shouldn't (System32, etc..)

quote:
There is a simple solution to this (And MacOS has its own "UAC" like tool), its called a check-box. A checkbox that says "remember this action/program" - OMG, that is SOOOO hard!

Kind of defeats the purpose of UAC if you can make it remember your action and away it goes. Then any EXE per se would run without a prompt, yea thats fun when a virus comes through.

quote:
Stupid stuff like this is why vista sucks. Its a thrown together skin-job loaded with DRM and bad memory management. Explain how we go from a 512/1GB OS to a 4-8GB OS for basic users?

Hrm, we have a few hundred laptops at work running on 2GB of ram, with our bloated corporate image on it and its more responsive than our XP image. Mainly due to the fact that 1 system process won't cause the rest to sit and wait for the first one to finish. As for memory management, Vista is far better than XP could ever hope to be. XP was a joke in regards to memory management, especially giving memory back when it was done with it. Not sure where you pulled the DRM argument from though. I have heard DRM and Vista thrown together a few times, but have yet to find anyone that can prove to me that there is any more DRM in Vista than there was in XP. Your welcome to give specific examples that can be independently verified though.

quote:
I can prove that the BASE Vista computer is 4GB now because you can WALK INTO BEST BUY and buy a 4GB PC for $500~550! 2GB is the new 256mb! 3GB is new 1GB.

Hrm, perhaps because DDR2 prices are so low that it makes sense from a marketing standpoint at these big box stores to say hey you get twice as much memory for your computing needs. It's not like its costing you anything over a 2GB system. Not to mention that most Vista installs are 32-Bit so you would be wasting about 800MB from each system anyways.

quote:
This is NOT impressive... to more sloppy code and DRM control of a persons computer. And if Windows7 is more of the same - then why bother with that OS as well?

No real details have been given yet your already criticizing and trashing it. I'm still waiting on your examples of DRM control of a persons computer though.


RE: Unsurprising
By GreenEnvt on 7/28/2008 8:08:59 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks for the sensible post.
I'm certainly not a vista fanboy, i won't put it on our work machines yet (mostly 512mb of ram), but I do use it at home and it's fine.

I agree on the ram point too. Ram is so cheap that manufacturers are loading it in to be seen as offering extra value.


RE: Unsurprising
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 7/28/2008 9:40:16 PM , Rating: 2
Yea, I wouldn't stick even XP on a 512mb machine. We set it at 1GB minimum during the XP rollout, and moved it to 2GB shortly thereafter. This was mostly due to the fact that the extra 1GB could be had for almost nothing, so it made sense to make them all 2GB.


RE: Unsurprising
By SlyNine on 7/28/2008 10:14:16 PM , Rating: 2
I agree 100%. I have a partition open for Windows XP. I had it there because I was unsure when I installed Vista64 ultimate and figured if I ever needed it I had a image that I could install quickly..

But so far all the stuff I've heard about vista is BS and its a great OS. I've only had moderate problems with a very small number of programs, Gears of War, and Nvidia's Profile manager( I have to dissable UAC make the changes then reenable it).

So 2 problems, and other then that 99% gravy. Oh and the fact that it can handle the 4 gigs of ram I have is great, you'll never get XP 32 to use more then 2 gigs properly.

Its more stable, and a better OS then XP so far, with a small penalty in gaming performence. However It seems that has went away to.


RE: Unsurprising
By afkrotch on 7/29/2008 3:36:53 AM , Rating: 2
I have Vista Home Premium on my laptop. Disabled themes, cause a crap onboard vidcard and 1 gig of memory just doesn't work to well with Aero. It'll run Aero, just that anything I do on the laptop would double in time.

Disabled UAC also. I hated it prompting me whenever I deleted items out of my start menu. Course I only delete items out when I first install the system and programs. After that don't do it anymore, but had no real reason to bother turning UAC back on.

With themes, UAC, and Windows firewall off, it works no different than my XP box.


RE: Unsurprising
By Iger on 7/29/2008 3:57:04 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
With themes, UAC, and Windows firewall off, it works no different than my XP box.


Kind of defeats the purpose of upgrading, eh? :)


RE: Unsurprising
By afkrotch on 7/29/2008 5:22:39 AM , Rating: 2
Not really, as Vista still has many improvements over XP.

I really don't see much need in upgrading to Vista. If you're on XP, might as well stay on it. If your new machine came with Vista, no need to go back to XP.

I'd still be on Win2k, if it weren't for the few games (mostly Microsoft games) requiring XP or higher. Higher performance computer make up for the lack of improvements, even though being on the new OS's will make that performance increase more.


RE: Unsurprising
By Belard on 7/29/2008 6:09:51 AM , Rating: 2
You're an end-user... so you're not having the problems that those in IT or business have with Vista. Sp1 has fixed many reliability problems with Vista. But it's still a skin-job. Come-on, even Intel isn't wasting their time with Vista... and I think they can afford to add a few sticks of RAM per computer.

The BS about Vista are true. I've talk with IT and others in the tech and business field refuse to bother with Vista.

Trust me... When I upgraded my computer, I would have prefered to install the newest OS. But I saved about $50 on memory and have a solid running system.

quote:
So 2 problems, and other then that 99% gravy. Oh and the fact that it can handle the 4 gigs of ram I have is great, you'll never get XP 32 to use more then 2 gigs properly.


Yeah, but unlike Vista - over 95% XP users don't need more than 2GB of RAM! Those few workstations and servers are using XP64 or Server2003. Vista needs 4GB for basic operations and that is sad.


RE: Unsurprising
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 7/29/2008 8:40:11 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You're an end-user... so you're not having the problems that those in IT or business have with Vista.

I haven't come across any show stopping problems to prevent the rollout of Vista at my company. I've already rolled out several hundred Vista based systems, with more on the way as hardware is refreshed.

quote:
Sp1 has fixed many reliability problems with Vista.

Compatibility problems yes. Reliability was never a problem with Vista.

quote:
But it's still a skin-job.

Only if your looking at the cosmetic changes and not the real changes. A prime example of nice changes would be IE7 Protected Mode, Firewall (Outbound and Inbound control settings), Group Policy, and more....

quote:
Come-on, even Intel isn't wasting their time with Vista... and I think they can afford to add a few sticks of RAM per computer.

I see the FUD is strong with you. Intel has stated they have no current plan to upgrade to Vista right now, which is normal, most companies I know are still removing 2000 from their environment (Intel included). Vista rollouts won't start until they are gone. No sysadmin wants to deal with the headache of 3 MS operating systems in the environment at the same time.

quote:
Trust me... When I upgraded my computer, I would have prefered to install the newest OS. But I saved about $50 on memory and have a solid running system.

For $50 you could have had a better solid running system, your loss.

quote:
Yeah, but unlike Vista - over 95% XP users don't need more than 2GB of RAM!

2GB is the standard minimum for XP with modern games and applications. Running it on less will produce performance problems in several areas.

quote:
Those few workstations and servers are using XP64 or Server2003.

If your server is using anything less than 2GB of ram you need to be shot, infact shot twice. Most people with workstations are using XP-32, or Vista-64. Few people are bold enough to try XP-64 as it was quite unstable the last time I saw it in action, vendor support was also pretty miserable.

quote:
Vista needs 4GB for basic operations and that is sad.

No it doesn't. I have 4GB in my home desktop and it barely makes it past 2GB of memory range when I'm running 2 games and visual studio 2008 (Dual 24" Monitors). To think the average user would be stupid enough to try that is wrong. With just 1 game running, and the standard suite of background applications and services, you will still have memory to spare.


RE: Unsurprising
By DASQ on 7/29/2008 10:19:22 AM , Rating: 2
Removing 2000 from their systems? Until about a year ago the company I was with still had some monochrome greenscreens!

It was probably a Tandy. And was likely older than I was.


RE: Unsurprising
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 7/29/2008 10:50:14 AM , Rating: 2
Hah, this one takes the cake. Last year I got a call from the VP that oversees our records division, they were referred to me for a "less than standard fix" for a "completely bizzare problem" they were faced with. Turns out they had old 5 1/4" Floppy disks stored in file folders from the late 80's and early 90's. They wanted me to rig up a system to read them, and software that could interpret them. It was saved in Lotus 1-2-3. We pieced together a semi-modern system using parts from an old Compaq Desktop and an IBM Telex box. My jaw almost dropped when they told me what the problem was.