dcsimg

View Poll Results: So When Will You Get Vista

Voters
58. You may not vote on this poll
  • Immediately

    4 6.90%
  • When i upgrade my computer

    8 13.79%
  • When i buy some components (OEM)

    2 3.45%
  • When an academic version comes out

    4 6.90%
  • I love the penguin (i use linux)

    12 20.69%
  • XP (2000/98/ME) is fine by me.

    26 44.83%
  • Do we need a vista poll?

    8 13.79%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 5 of 10 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 97

Thread: How long till you adopt Vista?

  1. #41
    Senior Member nihil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    United Kingdom: Bridlington
    Posts
    17,190
    Hi, ZomBieMann~,

    I posted that link to the Microsoft tool, and have been messing with it a bit recently. I get the message that the audio will not work properly but all I need to do is go to the Windows Update site and get the latest driver for the onboard sound chipset.

    Joe & Moira; my experience with Windows is that it is not too concerned with processor speed. Taking Windows ME as an example, I run it on boxes from PII/266 to P4/1.7GHz. The difference is barely noticeable.

    I have had the same with NT 4.0 (SP6a). A PI/166 with 64Mb of EDO RAM booted 2 seconds slower than a PIII/667 with 128Mb of PC133. Performance wise you couldn't really notice a difference with normal office applications. Take an industrial grade project management app and tell it to rework the project costings and the difference was enormous

    RAM does make a difference, and can be the most cost effective upgrade, depending on circumstances. Last week someone brought me a PIII which they had loaded XP onto. At first I thought the monitor was dead............then after a while a little light appeared in the top corner of the screen. It turned out it had 64Mb of PC133 and an onboard graphics chipset sharing the memory..........

    The comments from the Dell exec. were interesting to me..............do they suspect that Vista suffers from memory leaks like ME and to some extent NT 4.0???????????

  2. #42
    AOs Resident Troll
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    3,152
    What my question is...

    What version will be business be running?

    Aren't there several differnet Vista versions... I usually pick hardware for the software used and the function of the machine???


    I am afraid that I will be bullied into a business OS that is not REALLY needed....kinda like the new Office versions......

    Why run stuff not used..........

    isnt it security rule 1 disable none essential services,apps,crap not needed?

    Basic users on a network dont need all the crap XP Pro provides and we cant use xp home ( for some reason...domains and stuff ...default admin password...i bet)....

    they need to run local and network apps (without "issues" or being admin), save data where they SHOULD be saving it,

    Moira

    MS is probably spending more time on the 64 bit OS ..........getting it ready for servers

    Probably major performance differences 64....32....ya think

    an OS that actually uses the hardware

    and my new fav ...virtual servers...............


    I am sure your 64 bit utilizes the hardware resources available not currently used by most MS OSes



    MLF
    Last edited by morganlefay; November 4th, 2006 at 04:52 AM.
    How people treat you is their karma- how you react is yours-Wayne Dyer

  3. #43
    Senior Member nihil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    United Kingdom: Bridlington
    Posts
    17,190
    Hi Morgana~

    On first sight the Vista Business edition looks OK apart from the fact that it wants to use this "AERO" thingy, which is totally uneccessary for most business environments. It does claim to support the security/management features, which would be your complaint about XP Home?

    The problem for business would seem to be that the dumbed down home versions don't have the required controls and the business version will probably require hardware upgrades.

    I haven't bothered with it so far, but would want to test it on an under specified machine to see what the true workplace impact is? After all, if it works OK but just doesn't give you the fancy graphics, then that would be fine?

    You might like to get that MS tool I linked to and do some testing where you are?

  4. #44
    AOs Resident Troll
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    3,152
    Whether my current machines can run vista ....is not a concern....
    I know they cant


    Why I need vista to do what i am already doing??


    MLF
    How people treat you is their karma- how you react is yours-Wayne Dyer

  5. #45
    Senior Member gore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    7,177
    I'm going to be so rich when I invent a machine that uses just RAM instead of HDs. Imagine how fast it would be! (RAM = 100X faster than a HD, so if You don't need to wait for things to load form the HD.... Well ). Now I just need to write a Kernel than can address a TB or so of RAM that a home user can afford, make the whole industry rewrite all their software so that it supports this new model, and try not making it 20,000 dollars per inch.... In other words, I'll go through old Microsoft marketing on how they made everyone do ti 20 years ago lol.

  6. #46
    Disgruntled Postal Worker fourdc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Vermont, USA
    Posts
    797
    Having seen all the FUD about registrations, genuine copies etc etc, I will probably leave the Microsoft train with this product.

    XP has served me well, still does. Unless there's an OMG app that requires Vista, I'll still use XP until it's end of life.

    Suse Linux 10.1 with OpenOffice does everything i want a computer to do.
    ddddc

    "Somehow saying I told you so just doesn't cover it" Will Smith in I, Robot

  7. #47
    Senior Member nihil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    United Kingdom: Bridlington
    Posts
    17,190

    Talking Too late!

    Hey gore, now don't you go getting out of your PRAM (Phase-change RAndom Memory)

    Samsung have beaten you to it. They announced PRAM last month or the month before. Apparently it is a sort of flash card technology that is 30 times faster than flash and lasts 10 times as long.

    Like conventional Flash, it is non-volatile, which would be the major drawback of your idea of using RAM................if you lose the power you lose the lot?


  8. #48
    Senior Member gore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    7,177
    Yea, I'd have to design something like the RAM in the 60's where the machine would lose power and RAM still had the contents saved hehe.

    Then again it's after 4 AM and I haven't slept since.... Yesterday lol.

  9. #49
    Agony Aunty-Online Moira's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    1,063
    I agree that RAM is essential - but whether 2 gig would make your PC run significantly faster than 1 gig I would have thought was down to how much RAM was currently being used. For instance, I can usually see that I have loads left, ie it's not even using all the RAM I've got, never mind benefitting from any more.

    Obviously 64MB is not enough for anything these days and regarding processor speed, the first time I installed XP was on a machine that was only 500 mhz and I can tell you, processor speed does matter. We perceive speed as the way data is processed, ie even my broadband appeared slow, because the processor clearly couldn't cope with the demands on it.

    And gore yes, Vista is capable of utilising flash memory. I intend using a memory stick in this way (they need to be at least 512MB) to implement Microsoft's ReadyBoost, using Vista's new memory manager, SuperFetch. Similar to Intel's Robson technology, it caches information and in the event of miswrites, is suipposed to go straight back to the hard drive for data. To alleviate concerns over security, Microsoft has added 128 bit encryption to protect confidential information. Whether it lives up to expectations remains to be seen!

  10. #50
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    49
    I really don't want to sound negative, but I will be honest in this post...
    We have discussed Vista quite a few times at work. An upgrade to Vista just won't happen in the next 5 years for us. I just got all of the windows 98 machines off of our network. We have approximately 300 machines and 28 servers. The hardware requirements to use all the Vista features are just unreal. The licencing issues are definately not flying with my boss. It has been said before and I must say it again. I can do so much more with a less demanding OS.
    I doubt I will be using Vista at home either. I am running XP on all of my systems at home. And FreeBSD on my Proliant 800 server. This is the first time I've installed an open source OS outside of a virtual environment. I am impressed with it's performance.
    I really can't justify the cost of Vista. I don't like the way Vista is broken down into levels either. If you can't afford the full version, why buy a crippled version? My BSD, and XP Pro machines have all the features available. The cost of the current Windows OS (XP Pro) was enough to make me pause before purchasing.

    Hopefully they will adjust the pricing someday, and hardware will become INCREDIBLY cheap....I may then reconsider.
    Last edited by Clp727; November 4th, 2006 at 05:48 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •