Printable View
Errrmmmm, Mirado old friend, VISTA is the new name for LONGHORN in Microsoft speak;)
My Wife uses Windows 2000 Server (only 5 desktops) as it happens. Like that is on her main machine........she has Windows 2000 desktop on #2 and ME and 98SE on the others...........
:D
First time I've ever heard that on this particular board.Quote:
Originally Posted by mirado.kelly
I have a p4 1.8Ghz processor running 512mb of rambus RDRAM that was purchased almost 5 years ago... I've been running the vista beta on that machine and I've not noticed that it runs any slower on that machine than windows 2000 runs on that machine. And mind you I strip windows 2000 down to the bare essentials that I need. I also did some IO testing, video conversion, writing to dvd/cd and found that in most cases almost every operation I tested was faster with vista than it was with W2k. Not considerably faster, but enough to note an increase in speed. In fact I've timed the startup time of vista and it is almost half as quick to boot up. I've also noticed that Vista shuts down much quicker than 2000. But I think I have some weird driver issue occuring on w2k because some time this machine is real slow to shutdown or logout(still running the original load from 2002 without any restores or rebuilds). Even though MS may recommend more RAM it is not required. Especially if you are not using the aero functions, which for the most part *I* will never use.. I'm old school and still use the win nt4.0 user interface on just about every system that I work with. I'm also cheap when it comes to graphic cards so I will probably never purchase a powerful enough graphics card to run aero unless the get really really cheap. That probably has a lot to do with me being a CLI freak for the most part.Quote:
The masive demands on RAM also turn me away, I currently have 512MB Kingston Value ram and am happy with it.
I couldn't agree more. I go for functionality over "cute." And usually I can get things done much quicker with a few CLI commands than any GUI. Which is probably the thing that I look forward to the most with Vista. In order to get a really functional CLI in w2k server or w2k3 server you had to install a lot of toolsets. But Vista has some very powerful CLI tools installed by default. I also like the option of being able to configure a server to boot into CLI mode only.Quote:
When I had XP I disabled themes completely, at first it was kinda fun but then I wanted a cleaner interface.
I have a question and I think this is a good place to ask it.
I know that the win 2000 certs are valid and will be until next year.
I am just starting on 2003 MCSE cert and was wondering when the vista cert will be available? Is there a new server OS coming out soon to replace 2003?
I expect to finish 2003 cert within a year( all on my just micrisoft kits and old hardware for my network) and I ASS/U/ME that I can then upgrade to the new MCSE cert with a couple of tests.
Anyone have the scoop?
If you think it will take you a re year to complete your MSCE I would consider holding off until MS releases all of the details on how they are going to implement the Vista tests into the certification. There is a server version of Vista, several of them in fact.
The win2k3 certs will be valid for several years after Vista is released, just like they did when 2k3 came out for the 2k tests.
As far as just upgrading... What they did for the last several OS upgrades was offer an all in one comprehensive test when the tests were still in beta. You had to already have an MCSE to take the upgrade test. If you are not going to complete your Win2k3 certs for another year you will probably end up having to take the replacement tests for whatever certifications you have that are retired...
All of this can be found by reading the MCSE information on the MS website.
Funny but I didn't see a think about the Vista certs on microsoft's site.
I used the training link on the side and then went to MCSE certs.
However, I think I will go ahead and proceed as planned with the current path. When I finish I will continue on with the upgrade to vista. I mean if I wait for a year or and then proceed whose to say they will not release another server version? I have the hardware,software and four microsoft kits.
I hope to have XP done by next month.
Correct, nihil, the Vista iterations build on the basic; the two home versions (Standard or premium) are built upon by the two business versions (Standard and Enterprise). The basis of all versions are that they load the OS as image files rather than .cab files. There is a "test tool" for pre-load to test your peripherals for compatibility, and the smaller the "version" (home versions) the fewer resources are required. The OS is self-adjusting for the available resources and reallocates as priorities of the user change.Quote:
Originally Posted by nihil
The OS loads from a DVD, so of course the box you want to load it on will require a DVD reader and internet access for registration.
I watched an in-depth on-screen presentation of the Business-Enterprise version, presented from a rather moderate laptop with (approx) a 2.8gig processor and 1.5 gig RAM. The home versions will run adequately on a moderate laptop such as my present one with a 1.5gig processor and 1.25gig RAM.
The security features will appeal to corporate bosses and IT Pros who want more control over their corporate assets. Put simply, the control, security and footprints recorded by the security features have been a long time in coming (read that as maybe military, political, defense contractors, etc).
One thing that everyone should know is that it will be "pirate proof", as far as higrading a copy from work and taking it home; after installation it plays like "E.T." and dials home. If it has been registered before at another location it will give you a chance to "upgrade" or some-such. If you choose not to do so, it will lock down your box. Don't know what the time-frame for that process is though, haven't had the nerve to test it. ;-)
Gotta run, this is not all, but it's a start.
OK, back again. Had a server to attend to.
Anyway, there are logon levels with various permissions that are a lot more in depth than what we have with previous MS versions and other OS's, and the Admin login goes to a totally different operational level (including access to the Access Control List) than any of the user logins. The Admin login goes to the original registry whereas the user logins only go to a user profile mirror of the registry. (The warning was to never logon for normal daily work as the Admin, have another user login name for that). The Admin has the option of tracking back any per-user controls and activities on a *very* wide, detailed scope. Actually quite exciting for security at the government (any level, city, state, federal) systems, or a corporation with security concerns. Also quite useful for a family with curious teenagers or other visitors who may want to take the family box to nasty locations, while Mom and Dad want to keep them from those places. At any rate, whether you agree with, or would even utilize, access control and tracking of users or not, the capability is there, in spades.
I have been rather reluctant to "upgrade" any OS that is doing the job needed in an efficient manner. However, I will get Vista as soon as it comes out commercially, and have a small box (old Dell dual processor) ready to accept it.
But before I put it on any working boxes, I'll make sure I'm comfortable with the stability and that it won't go berserk and lock down the box for some unknown reason! I don't know if MS could unlock it from remote, like OnStar can unlock your car, or if you'd have to start from scratch with a format c: or reload command, or if the locked-down box would just be toast
(P.S.) One of the guys at Tiger-Direct told me that Vista would require 8 gig of RAM, but that is not true: It requires 8gig of HD (hard drive) in order to load. The processor and RAM of course are important for advanced features presentation on screen, but are basically like above.
Sorry, don't seem to think of everything at one time...
Vista doesn't need anywhere near 8 gig RAM !! And it needs more like 15 gig to install, not 8.
I so can't wait till it's officially released to home users. I'm sure everyone's exited at the opportunity to see so many versions, knowing that they can try them all again in 64 bit :D
There's quite a good article here , listing the features each edition will have, helping you to decide which is the Vista for you :)
Undoubtedly, Ultimate is the only way to go. I'm sure nobody on here is settling for less. Personally, I just couldn't live without
- Shadow copy client
- Offline folders with client-side caching
- Single Session Virtual PC
- and P2P Meeting Place (ad-hoc meetings, people discovery, presentation broadcast)
:D :D
I'm getting the Retailedge bundle from Intel, and Vista Ultimate is part of it.
I need to update as soon as possible. Being every possible customer that can will want to upgrade at bestbuy, i will need to know the OS when we have to start repairing it 1 week after public launch
I know, I was saying wait until they publish the details and it will be on their site.. They've not released the upgrade path information yet... I guess I should have said all of this information "WILL" be on their site.Quote:
Originally Posted by LarrySmith
I also think 500MB of ram is more than sufficient to run Vista. I've seen it run on a virtual server where the server had 4GB of physical ram. And multiple virtual servers were running with 500MB of ram given to each virtual instance..