Who's got Vista?
Originally Posted by eclipse23
Running it on my brand new IBM T61p fully loaded laptop and on an HP Desktop PC about 2 months old.
No problems for the most part, reboot once every two weeks.
I recommend 3GB + for ram seems to run very smoothly with alot of ram.
No problems for the most part, reboot once every two weeks.
I recommend 3GB + for ram seems to run very smoothly with alot of ram.
I just got a T61P as well
I own vista but I didn't like it so I'm back with xp. Actually my HD died yesterday so Ubuntu live cd. Slower, more annoying and all of the options are buried somewhere nonsensical. Seriously I use linux/osx/windows, I'm not afraid of change but there is just nothing in Vista for me to like.
another ME
If they included a journaling fs I would probably have stuck with it
another ME

If they included a journaling fs I would probably have stuck with it
My folks just bought a new PC with Vista. I kind of like it, but find it odd. Like when I want to select a certain file it doesn't highlight it when I want to select it and move it to another folder. I think the switching between screens is a neat feature.
Until some killer application comes out that requires Vista, I can't see us moving from XP and Office 2003. Right now there is nothing we can't do on XP and everyone knows how to use it so no reason to upgrade.
Originally Posted by 04EuroAccordTsx
My folks just bought a new PC with Vista. I kind of like it, but find it odd. Like when I want to select a certain file it doesn't highlight it when I want to select it and move it to another folder. I think the switching between screens is a neat feature.
Well, if you want eye candy use Ubuntu.
If you want speed use XP.
If you want cutting edge, use Vista.
If you want to drink lattes and occasionally suck a cock use Tiger.
If you want a challenge go back to DOS you fucking noobs. :P
Originally Posted by Whiskers
You know, I really don't know why Windows ME got such a bad rap....It worked.
Originally Posted by Billiam
Oh yeah, that's another thing. You STILL can't fully manage Exchange 2003 servers from Windows Vista workstations. At this point I'm assuming it will never be possible.
Originally Posted by srika
there's no problems but your shit would be 2x faster on XP :P
Originally Posted by eclipse23
Well, if you want eye candy use Ubuntu.
If you want speed use XP.
If you want cutting edge, use Vista.
If you want to drink lattes and occasionally suck a cock use Tiger.
If you want a challenge go back to DOS you fucking noobs. :P
If you want speed use XP.
If you want cutting edge, use Vista.
If you want to drink lattes and occasionally suck a cock use Tiger.
If you want a challenge go back to DOS you fucking noobs. :P

i had the vista, just not something i need right now. playing around with the betas and then playing around with compiz in ubuntu....no challenge. as a side, the new office2K7 is solidly slick and functional, but u dont need vista to run it.
Thread Starter
Needs more Lemon Pledge
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 52,768
Likes: 2,000
From: Phoenix, AZ
Originally Posted by Malayalee King
as a side, the new office2K7 is solidly slick and functional, but u dont need vista to run it.
Really? I hate the new interface... Haven't looked into a way to make it look like 2003 yet though. Too lazy.. Anyone? Anyone? Bueler?
i thought so at first too but then i got used to it. its intuitive and gives you options based on what you are doing, or common tasks. like in if you highlight a dataset or a table with data in it it'll move the make chart, or calc function tabs forward and things like that. i just cant get enough now.
I have Vista (Premium) on my home computer. It runs fine, but that is probably because it came preinstalled on my new computer (Core 2 Quad 2.4Ghz with 2GB ram).
I installed Vista (Business) on my old PC (P4 2Ghz with 640MB ram) and it ran like total crap. XP Was way better on it.
Also, I think the wireless config on Vista sucks ass. I am not saying that the zero config utility in XP was great, but I never used it as most times I could use a different client to control my wireless.
I installed Vista (Business) on my old PC (P4 2Ghz with 640MB ram) and it ran like total crap. XP Was way better on it.
Also, I think the wireless config on Vista sucks ass. I am not saying that the zero config utility in XP was great, but I never used it as most times I could use a different client to control my wireless.
Thanks for injecting some substantive evidence into this thread (other than the article). If you get a new computer and it has Vista on it, how would you know how it would have performed with XP on it. 
ps. nice setup.

ps. nice setup.
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 92,740
Likes: 4,676
From: ShitsBurgh
Originally Posted by Kikaida
I have Vista (Premium) on my home computer. It runs fine, but that is probably because it came preinstalled on my new computer (Core 2 Quad 2.4Ghz with 2GB ram).
I installed Vista (Business) on my old PC (P4 2Ghz with 640MB ram) and it ran like total crap. XP Was way better on it.
Also, I think the wireless config on Vista sucks ass. I am not saying that the zero config utility in XP was great, but I never used it as most times I could use a different client to control my wireless.
I installed Vista (Business) on my old PC (P4 2Ghz with 640MB ram) and it ran like total crap. XP Was way better on it.
Also, I think the wireless config on Vista sucks ass. I am not saying that the zero config utility in XP was great, but I never used it as most times I could use a different client to control my wireless.
Originally Posted by Kikaida
I have Vista (Premium) on my home computer. It runs fine, but that is probably because it came preinstalled on my new computer (Core 2 Quad 2.4Ghz with 2GB ram).
I installed Vista (Business) on my old PC (P4 2Ghz with 640MB ram) and it ran like total crap. XP Was way better on it.
Also, I think the wireless config on Vista sucks ass. I am not saying that the zero config utility in XP was great, but I never used it as most times I could use a different client to control my wireless.
I installed Vista (Business) on my old PC (P4 2Ghz with 640MB ram) and it ran like total crap. XP Was way better on it.
Also, I think the wireless config on Vista sucks ass. I am not saying that the zero config utility in XP was great, but I never used it as most times I could use a different client to control my wireless.
Minor glitch i'm sure on the list to be fixed.
Other than that I think they actually made the wireless setup utility harder than easier.
Originally Posted by Malayalee King
no MMC plugins or terminal services into EX2K3 boxes? hmm weird.
Even more problematic than server management is basic Level I and Level II account stuff. You have to isntall the Exchange management tools to get mail related tabs in AD Users & Computers. This means that your Help Desk staff is forced on their own machines to choose between either running Vista to assist with OS issues or running XP so that they can do basic adds/drops/changes for user accounts.
I've been on Vista Ultimate for several months now, and I like it a lot. It looks a lot better than XP, it actually uses your graphics card more than just in games. I love how my Desktop has nice graphics too.
There are a few quirks in application and driver support, most of all in sound drivers, but no show stoppers. I like the Media Center, I like how it wakes up and suspends faster. I can't complain about game performance either, I didn't notice it being slower than XP.
I used to use ME and I don't think it's anything like that. First of all ME was also competing against 2000 at the time, so you had a more stable choice. Vista is not unstable. Vista is more secure. The GUI improvement from XP to Vista is huge, it's the biggest graphical overhaul since the Windows 3.1 to Windows 95 change. That's worth the upgrade IMO.
Plus Vista is not the bastard child in the family, it's THE OS Microsoft is selling to everyone at the moment. You know they're commited to it. They're selling it to companies, not just consummers.
Comparisons with ME are baseless.
There are a few quirks in application and driver support, most of all in sound drivers, but no show stoppers. I like the Media Center, I like how it wakes up and suspends faster. I can't complain about game performance either, I didn't notice it being slower than XP.
I used to use ME and I don't think it's anything like that. First of all ME was also competing against 2000 at the time, so you had a more stable choice. Vista is not unstable. Vista is more secure. The GUI improvement from XP to Vista is huge, it's the biggest graphical overhaul since the Windows 3.1 to Windows 95 change. That's worth the upgrade IMO.
Plus Vista is not the bastard child in the family, it's THE OS Microsoft is selling to everyone at the moment. You know they're commited to it. They're selling it to companies, not just consummers.
Comparisons with ME are baseless.
Originally Posted by Belzebutt
Plus Vista is not the bastard child in the family, it's THE OS Microsoft is selling to everyone at the moment. You know they're commited to it. They're selling it to companies, not just consummers.
Great. I dunno, you kinda assume they used the SAME BASIS for the test???? Whatever happened to validity and reliability??? Have these people never taken a stat class???? 
http://www.betanews.com/article/XP_S...ion/1196208954

http://www.betanews.com/article/XP_S...ion/1196208954
XP SP3 outperforms Vista SP1, but less when running same Office version
By Scott M. Fulton, III, BetaNews
November 27, 2007, 7:32 PM
A heavily promoted performance test by an evaluation software firm appeared to situate Windows Vista SP1 performance against Windows XP SP3. But the initial workloads were actually different due to the Office software used, testers admitted to BetaNews today.
Devil Mountain Software's test results comparing similar workloads on systems with varying editions of XP and Vista -- including the latest service packs or their equivalents -- show the Vista system performing astonishingly more poorly, by a staggering 144%.
But a breakdown of the team's initial tests reveal that, although they used identical Dell computers, they actually compared Office 2007 performance on Vista to Office 2003 performance on XP.
"All testing was conducted against fresh installations of the respective OS platforms," the CTO of Devil Mountain Software, Craig Barth, told BetaNews this afternoon. "In the case of Vista, we installed the RTM code only -- no updates were installed in order to preserve a pristine image. We then installed Office 2007 and the DMS Clarity Studio and Tracker tools. Once benchmarking was complete, we upgraded the installation with the v.658 build (RC0) of Service Pack 1."
For the XP test, Barth said his team followed a similar methodology, but one which equipped the older operating system with the older applications suite.
Barth said his tack for the XP rig was "first, installing and testing a pristine XP + SP2 image (via the integrated CD ISO image from MSDN); adding Microsoft Office 2003, DMS Clarity Studio and Tracker; testing under SP2; then upgrading with Service Pack 3 and repeating the tests under the updated configuration."
But some readers noticed that both systems weren't being tested using the same workload. And since the team's testing software focuses on such factors as ActiveX Data Objects (ADO), whose deployments are very different for Office 2003 than for Office 2007, the differences do matter.
So by their request, the team installed Office 2003 on the Vista system, keeping in mind that Vista may still replace much of the infrastructure from the OS upon which the suite relies. When that happens, the performance gap narrows...to a mere 82%.
It may still be enough, though, for the team to uphold its claim from last week that Vista SP1 is "a performance dud." "Extensive testing by the exo.performance.network research staff," reads the team's blog, "shows that SP1 provides no measurable relief to users saddled with sub-par performance under Vista."
Barth revealed to BetaNews further details about the hardware platforms his team used. "The test system was a Dell XPS M1710 notebook," he said, "equipped with a Core 2 Duo CPU at 2 GHz (T7200), 1 or 2 GB of Corsair Value Select DDR-2 667 MHz memory, a Hitachi 7200 RPM 80 GB hard disk and nVidia GeForce Go 7900GS video adapter."
Devil Mountain Software does not appear to have compared performance when running Office 2007 on both Windows XP and Windows Vista.
By Scott M. Fulton, III, BetaNews
November 27, 2007, 7:32 PM
A heavily promoted performance test by an evaluation software firm appeared to situate Windows Vista SP1 performance against Windows XP SP3. But the initial workloads were actually different due to the Office software used, testers admitted to BetaNews today.
Devil Mountain Software's test results comparing similar workloads on systems with varying editions of XP and Vista -- including the latest service packs or their equivalents -- show the Vista system performing astonishingly more poorly, by a staggering 144%.
But a breakdown of the team's initial tests reveal that, although they used identical Dell computers, they actually compared Office 2007 performance on Vista to Office 2003 performance on XP.
"All testing was conducted against fresh installations of the respective OS platforms," the CTO of Devil Mountain Software, Craig Barth, told BetaNews this afternoon. "In the case of Vista, we installed the RTM code only -- no updates were installed in order to preserve a pristine image. We then installed Office 2007 and the DMS Clarity Studio and Tracker tools. Once benchmarking was complete, we upgraded the installation with the v.658 build (RC0) of Service Pack 1."
For the XP test, Barth said his team followed a similar methodology, but one which equipped the older operating system with the older applications suite.
Barth said his tack for the XP rig was "first, installing and testing a pristine XP + SP2 image (via the integrated CD ISO image from MSDN); adding Microsoft Office 2003, DMS Clarity Studio and Tracker; testing under SP2; then upgrading with Service Pack 3 and repeating the tests under the updated configuration."
But some readers noticed that both systems weren't being tested using the same workload. And since the team's testing software focuses on such factors as ActiveX Data Objects (ADO), whose deployments are very different for Office 2003 than for Office 2007, the differences do matter.
So by their request, the team installed Office 2003 on the Vista system, keeping in mind that Vista may still replace much of the infrastructure from the OS upon which the suite relies. When that happens, the performance gap narrows...to a mere 82%.
It may still be enough, though, for the team to uphold its claim from last week that Vista SP1 is "a performance dud." "Extensive testing by the exo.performance.network research staff," reads the team's blog, "shows that SP1 provides no measurable relief to users saddled with sub-par performance under Vista."
Barth revealed to BetaNews further details about the hardware platforms his team used. "The test system was a Dell XPS M1710 notebook," he said, "equipped with a Core 2 Duo CPU at 2 GHz (T7200), 1 or 2 GB of Corsair Value Select DDR-2 667 MHz memory, a Hitachi 7200 RPM 80 GB hard disk and nVidia GeForce Go 7900GS video adapter."
Devil Mountain Software does not appear to have compared performance when running Office 2007 on both Windows XP and Windows Vista.
Originally Posted by Billiam
From every industry article I'v read the situation is more like they're offerring it to companies, but actually selling it to consumers. Regardless of how committed Microsoft is to Vista, the simple truth is that there is a substantial, if not overwhelming, resistance to Vista on corporate desktops.
Our company has one machine for testing, but will not make any other installations. Alot of the software my company uses isn't compatible and in our industry companies aren't jumping to rewrite code to accommodate vista.
Originally Posted by Malayalee King
i thought so at first too but then i got used to it. its intuitive and gives you options based on what you are doing, or common tasks. like in if you highlight a dataset or a table with data in it it'll move the make chart, or calc function tabs forward and things like that. i just cant get enough now.
At first I didn't like it, but now I am used to it and actually like how things are setup/layout etc.
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/dOvfXuk_3oQ&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/dOvfXuk_3oQ&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
Originally Posted by eclipse23
My experience has been (and I had to get a WPA2 aruba network to work on this thing) is that is tries to connect too quickly so it shows failed. Then, it connects after bootup.
Minor glitch i'm sure on the list to be fixed.
Other than that I think they actually made the wireless setup utility harder than easier.
Minor glitch i'm sure on the list to be fixed.
Other than that I think they actually made the wireless setup utility harder than easier.
At least Vista supports WPA2 out of the box. I would still rather use a vendors client though, especially since Vista doesn't support LEAP, and many vendors XP clients do.
XP's WPA supplicant add-on was kinda iffy for me.

Do any of you guys know if it's possible (XP or Vista) to somehow "package" wireless network configuration settings in any way other than Group Policy? I didn't see anything in local policy settings and I've done registry searches for SSID strings. Nada.
Our company ship only Vista Ultimate. It's definitely looks nicer than XP. I deal primarily with the media center interface than anything else. MS needs to support HD-DVD natively in media center. All the 3rd party plugin gives many problems. I may switch to Vista @ the end of the year because my XP just look so plain.
Originally Posted by Billiam

Do any of you guys know if it's possible (XP or Vista) to somehow "package" wireless network configuration settings in any way other than Group Policy? I didn't see anything in local policy settings and I've done registry searches for SSID strings. Nada.
Originally Posted by srika
our company is planning on moving to Vista around 2014 or so.
Apple was never able to embrace the business world even if it was simply a marketing failure, Novell didn't have a desktop OS to win us over and their absolutely HORRIBLE marketing department kept the rest of the world from knowing who the fuck they even were. Microsoft sold themselves right, took 80% of the marketshare and pulled themselves into almost every business.
No one talks about how good Microsoft Server 2003 is, maybe I'm the only person running 14 different servers at my job all doing different jobs from application hosting to backup with hardly any reboots or problems. Yes I have linux boxes, sun boxes and other flavors but our core user network is domain controlled and running very well.
I guess my point is while I see your stance it's kinda silly to me because in a year from now most people here will be on Vista and in 3 years from now the same discussion will occur for the next OS.
i guess i just need my computer to run as fast as it can. eye candy is fun but processing power is more important to me. :P
a few years down the road, yes most everyone will probably be on Vista, myself included. but, my computer is also going to be much much faster.
in the end, yes, it's pretty silly.
a few years down the road, yes most everyone will probably be on Vista, myself included. but, my computer is also going to be much much faster.
in the end, yes, it's pretty silly.
Originally Posted by eclipse23
Not for nothing Srika but you are obviously very slanted away from Vista. While it's easy to throw rocks at the Microsoft Goliath I'm glad to see that they still keep moving forward with new operating systems even if they tend to prematurely release them.
Apple was never able to embrace the business world even if it was simply a marketing failure, Novell didn't have a desktop OS to win us over and their absolutely HORRIBLE marketing department kept the rest of the world from knowing who the fuck they even were. Microsoft sold themselves right, took 80% of the marketshare and pulled themselves into almost every business.
No one talks about how good Microsoft Server 2003 is, maybe I'm the only person running 14 different servers at my job all doing different jobs from application hosting to backup with hardly any reboots or problems. Yes I have linux boxes, sun boxes and other flavors but our core user network is domain controlled and running very well.
I guess my point is while I see your stance it's kinda silly to me because in a year from now most people here will be on Vista and in 3 years from now the same discussion will occur for the next OS.
Apple was never able to embrace the business world even if it was simply a marketing failure, Novell didn't have a desktop OS to win us over and their absolutely HORRIBLE marketing department kept the rest of the world from knowing who the fuck they even were. Microsoft sold themselves right, took 80% of the marketshare and pulled themselves into almost every business.
No one talks about how good Microsoft Server 2003 is, maybe I'm the only person running 14 different servers at my job all doing different jobs from application hosting to backup with hardly any reboots or problems. Yes I have linux boxes, sun boxes and other flavors but our core user network is domain controlled and running very well.
I guess my point is while I see your stance it's kinda silly to me because in a year from now most people here will be on Vista and in 3 years from now the same discussion will occur for the next OS.
I run it all at my job.
We have Windows 2003 servers that only get rebooted once every 3 months to apply the patches, but all our servers do that, Solaris, AIX, HP-UX, Linux and Mac OSX. Windows is just as stable as the other OS's as long as you don't constantly install and deinstall software. If you set up the server and let it do it's job it will run forever.
Originally Posted by srika
a few years down the road, yes most everyone will probably be on Vista, myself included.
Originally Posted by fdl
I'm not too sure about that. VIsta has been a colossal failure. It's time for plan B.
Dude, I can't imagine you running any of the audio applications you use with less then 4 gigs of memory! But again, 4 basic shit.... vista works.
Originally Posted by srika
i guess i just need my computer to run as fast as it can.










