Unknown Windows OS?

[nihil]

Nihil can we not come to the conclusion that Vista was just a broken OS?

Actually I don't think that is true. I know quite a few people who are using it quite happily, even though they had XP before it. Those who got it with their first system generally don't know the difference.

It was launched late, which is never a good sign with MS as some of us remember from Win 95

Presumably because of this, MS let OEMs badge the products they sold for Christmas 2005 (?) as either:

1. Vista Ready
2. Vista Capable

The first meant that the hardware should run Vista Home Premium or Ultimate with all features activated. The second meant that you should stick to XP

You got a voucher or whatever to "upgrade" () to Vista when it was finally released.

With Vista, MS introduced the "Windows Experience Index", and the implication was that if your hardware scored 3.0 or better out of 5.9, it "should" run all the Vista eye candy features without problems.

This was not always the case where people:

1. Upgraded existing rigs, particularly with legacy components and peripherals.

2. The "upgrade" was to Home Premium, when the kit they were sold wasn't up to the job (Intel 915 chipset anybody???).

3. They used "anytime upgrade" on a Home Basic machine to go to Home Premium or Ultimate.

And, as an Acer EVP pointed out back in 2006................. Home Basic was nothing to shout about (although it did actually work ):

Microsoft is effectively smuggling through a price hike for Windows Vista - by making the entry-level version so poor that no-one will want to use it. So says Jim Wong, senior veep at Acer, the world's number four PC maker, who told UK hack Jon Honeyball: "The new [Vista] experience you hear of, if you get Basic, you won't feel it at all. There's no [Aero] graphics, no Media Center, no remote control."

Well, my experience was as follows:

Processor.................... 3.6
RAM........................... 4.0
Windows Graphics......... 5.3
Gaming Graphics........... 3.9
HDD........................... 5.6

That gave a score of 3.6 based on the lowest element, which should be more than adequate. It wasn't, not even when I turned off all the fancy stuff.

I also did the usual with BIOS and driver updates, but that didn't help either.

The machine that I am currently running Vista (HP) on scores: 5.9, 5.9, 5.9, 5.7, 5.9, and it runs just fine

Weird thing is that the same box that I was previously running Vista on is now running Windows 8 with everything turned on, and doesn't seem to be having any of the same problems .

I must say I cannot recall anyone who bought Vista Home Basic; or an HP/Ultimate box in late 2006 complaining about it. It seems like the early adopters bore the brunt of it as usual.

[ua549]

I had no problems with Vista. I went directly from Windows 2003 configured as a workstation to Vista Business that I used until Win7 pre-beta came my way in late 2008. I've never did run Win XP so I can't compare. I do like Win 7 better because of the added functionality and speed.

[gore]

You used 2003 as a Workstation? I remember years ago someone here posted a thread on here as a tutorial on how to make Windows Server 2003 into a Workstation, and one person I know replied asking why anyone would take something that costs that much, and use it as a Workstation or Desktop, and to me, I agreed; It seemed a little silly I guess to pay that much to turn off all the Server crap and use it as a cheaper Desktop OS. Specially for someone like YOU who can over from BSD! I'll get to you one day.

[ua549]

I've never spent a dime on specific Microsoft software. I have had highly discounted MSDN and Tech Net subscriptions where 5 or 10 licenses for whatever one wished to download was included. In addition I was one of the original NT 3.1 testers so I got a lot of free perks from MS through having a well stocked Rolodex. Alas, most everyone I knew has since retired or otherwise moved on.

I've been away from BSD for so long that I'll never use it again. I'm simplifying my life. Last week I weaned my wife away from her desktop machine. She has a sparkling new Dell Vostro 3550 (i5 2.4 GHz w/8 GB mem) with Windows 7 x64 Ultimate and Office 2010 Pro Plus. The software is through the courtesy of Microsoft Tech Net.

[Cider]

Actually I don't think that is true. I know quite a few people who are using it quite happily, even though they had XP before it. Those who got it with their first system generally don't know the difference.

It was launched late, which is never a good sign with MS as some of us remember from Win 95

Presumably because of this, MS let OEMs badge the products they sold for Christmas 2005 (?) as either:

1. Vista Ready
2. Vista Capable

The first meant that the hardware should run Vista Home Premium or Ultimate with all features activated. The second meant that you should stick to XP

You got a voucher or whatever to "upgrade" () to Vista when it was finally released.

With Vista, MS introduced the "Windows Experience Index", and the implication was that if your hardware scored 3.0 or better out of 5.9, it "should" run all the Vista eye candy features without problems.

This was not always the case where people:

1. Upgraded existing rigs, particularly with legacy components and peripherals.

2. The "upgrade" was to Home Premium, when the kit they were sold wasn't up to the job (Intel 915 chipset anybody???).

3. They used "anytime upgrade" on a Home Basic machine to go to Home Premium or Ultimate.

And, as an Acer EVP pointed out back in 2006................. Home Basic was nothing to shout about (although it did actually work ):

Well, my experience was as follows:

Processor.................... 3.6
RAM........................... 4.0
Windows Graphics......... 5.3
Gaming Graphics........... 3.9
HDD........................... 5.6

That gave a score of 3.6 based on the lowest element, which should be more than adequate. It wasn't, not even when I turned off all the fancy stuff.

I also did the usual with BIOS and driver updates, but that didn't help either.

The machine that I am currently running Vista (HP) on scores: 5.9, 5.9, 5.9, 5.7, 5.9, and it runs just fine

Weird thing is that the same box that I was previously running Vista on is now running Windows 8 with everything turned on, and doesn't seem to be having any of the same problems .

I must say I cannot recall anyone who bought Vista Home Basic; or an HP/Ultimate box in late 2006 complaining about it. It seems like the early adopters bore the brunt of it as usual.

I like the descriptions mate, very informative but I wouldnt even want to test it Seems they are getting everything right with windows 8 , im fairly excited but im still unsure if im going over as my primary box before SP1 for a month or testing it offline ... time will tell

I had no problems with Vista. I went directly from Windows 2003 configured as a workstation to Vista Business that I used until Win7 pre-beta came my way in late 2008. I've never did run Win XP so I can't compare. I do like Win 7 better because of the added functionality and speed.

I somewhat agree with gore here, ua549, could you comment on your specs that the machine had?

[Cider]

You have included 8 images in your message. You are limited to using 6 images so please go back and correct the problem and then continue again.

Images include use of smilies, the BB code [img] tag and HTML <img> tags. The use of these is all subject to them being enabled by the administrator.

I mean really ... with Nihil posting can we really limit this ? :P

[ua549]

I somewhat agree with gore here, ua549, could you comment on your specs that the machine had?

I had several personal machines excluding servers over that period of time. To the best of my recollection here are the hardware specs that went with each OS over the past 10 years.

Win2k & Win2k3
Tyan ??? Dual Xeon Foster 2.4 (2 cores)
4 GB RDram
2 RAID 5 arrays w/15 74 GB U160 Seagate Cheetah drives
3dLabs Wildcat video
ViewSonic VP2290b 3840 x 2400 22.2" LCD display
System used mostly for working with satellite imagery
(donated to charity)

Vista & Win7
Dell Latitude D620 notebook Core Duo T-7200 (2 Cores)
4 GB memory
Seagate Momentus 250 GB drive (replaced)
OCZ Vertex 3 240 GB ssd drive
nVidia Quadro NVS 110 video
Inbuilt 14.1" 1440 x 900 LCD display
In use for travel, network control & everyday workhorse

Win2k3 & Win7
Supermicro X7DWA-N Dual Xeon E5450 (8 cores)
16 GB memory
1 RAID 5 array w/5 1 TB Seagate Baracuda drives
1 RAID 1 array w/2 2 TB Seagate Baracuda drives
nVidia Quadro NVS290
ViewSonic VP191b 1280 x 1024
ViewSonic VA2026w 1680 x 1050
In use as a general purpose workstation

I also had an IBM Thinkpad and 2 HP business class notebooks all running Win2k.
I don't remember the models or specs.

[gore]

I've never spent a dime on specific Microsoft software. I have had highly discounted MSDN and Tech Net subscriptions where 5 or 10 licenses for whatever one wished to download was included. In addition I was one of the original NT 3.1 testers so I got a lot of free perks from MS through having a well stocked Rolodex. Alas, most everyone I knew has since retired or otherwise moved on.

You were a tester on Windows NT 3.x ?Don't take this the wrong way, and I DO respect your experience level, and I don't have any problems with you at all, as I do like you as a member here, but wasn't that particular version of Windows NT (The 3.x Line) originally made as a Workstation and THEN a Server OS?

From what I can remember reading about the original NT line, they hired some ******* from VMS to come work on it. Being a Unix guy, I'm required to hate VMS. Being an Operating Systems guy who has quite the understanding of most OSs, I can say that I not once ever used Windows NT 3.x, or Windows NT 4, as, well, I wasn't around then.

I got my very first Computer in September of 1999. The reason I know that particular date, is that the first Computer I ever had, was one my Mom bought from my Uncle to make it so I could do homework at home.

It was an XT something or other.... I Honestly don't remember even what kind of Processor it had, or the speed, or how much RAM had it. And mind you, this POS came with Windows 95 installed on it, and I knew nothing about Computers at the time.

Basically, I would sit up all night, every night, sitting there screwing with it until I had figured out how it worked. I can still remember back then, me sitting there with a Glass of Chocolate Milk, drinking it, and basically, I clicked on the Start Menu, and would go to Programs, and open each one, one at a time, each night, and messing around until I had figured each one out.

This worked well until I got to one called "MS-DOS Prompt" which I could NOT figure out. With no real manuals around, it wasn't exactly quick.

6 Months later, I was at Best Buy, buying my first paid for myself PC; an HP Pavilion Computer, with 128 MBs of RAM, a 17 inch Flat Screem, a 16 MB Nvidia card, and a 43 GB HD (Which was 42.9 with Fat32) and then, a built in DVD-ROM and CD-RW drive.

The Computer there came with Windows 98 SE, and I remember how much fun I had with it. That was about 6 months after I had accidentally destroyed the Computer my Mom bought.

That happened because of bomber.exe. A simple Application that you would double Click, and it was causing REAL damage. I mean, back then, I was a Virus Collector. And one day a good friend of mine said "Dude, gore, I got a REAL good one for you! DO NOT OPEN IT! It's not Zipped, and if you do it causes physical damage....

Well, one night, I accidentally opened it while trying to move some new virii to the Floppy disc. I remember the DOS Prompt opening up and me hitting the power button as fast as I could. It had destroyed the Computer though...

Heh, I still remember after formatting the HD AND the MBR, it wouldn't install much...... I remember booting from a Mandrake Linux 7.1 Floppy, and formatting the entire drive, and of course, making sure the MBR was formatted with a Windows 98 SE boot Floppy, and even then, it said that there wasn't a big enough HD for Windows 3.1, 95,. or Linux. Only PC-DOS would install, and even then, the HD wasn't nearly as big as it should have been.... I installed DOS, as it said there wasn't enough room for Windows 3.1, and I couldn't understand why as I'd formatted the MBR, Partition Table, everything.

Ah well. I've since found that very Floppy Disc that destroyed my Computer; I made the .exe into an Archive so double clicking doesn't **** up everything it's on, but it IS interesting. lol.

I've been away from BSD for so long that I'll never use it again. I'm simplifying my life. Last week I weaned my wife away from her desktop machine. She has a sparkling new Dell Vostro 3550 (i5 2.4 GHz w/8 GB mem) with Windows 7 x64 Ultimate and Office 2010 Pro Plus. The software is through the courtesy of Microsoft Tech Net.

Don't say that! BSD is wonderful! Look, I know that you said you were basically down sizing your operation because of space constraints, and not only do I understand, I can respect that.

I'm not one of those people who goes around telling everyone "Just because your **** works doesn't mean you should switch platforms!" I'm not like that quite simply.

However, YOU did tell me that you were using BSD way back in the 70s or something, and, to me, it seems stupid to throw away so much experience and not use it at all!

I Believe you told me that you currently had a couple machines, and you didn't want to expand any more than that, as you and your Wife had all the machines you needed, but, some time, some how, some way, I WILL annoy you enough that eventually, you'll install FreeBSD or PC-BSD, even as a dual boot or VM, and then, you'll thank me.

Come on man; Think back to the good ol' days of BSD! Now, think back to that, and add in the thought of how easy it is to use now!

Just do me THIS favor:

http://www.pcbsd.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PC-BSD

http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=pcbsd

http://www.pbidir.com/

I personally used FreeBSD as my only BSD OS, but then, I decided one day I wanted to give the rest a try. I don't like OpenBSD, and I don't like NetBSD except for pkgsrc, and then, I saw DesktopBSD, and PC-BSD, and I decided to get both.

Currently, I have my Laptop, which is running PC-BSD only. Nothing else. And not only is it awesome, but there's a LOT of tools. PC-BSD is FreeBSD, but it has a VERY good paint job, and some VERY good custom tools. It even have the drivers for Nvidia and ATI.

[nihil]

@Cider: you are supposed to delete the smilies from quotes

Yes, I did suspect that Vista would favour multiple processors and multiple cores, in fact, it seemed to be a bit "picky" regarding hardware in general. Like in my case it was perfectly OK on paper, it just didn't cut it IRL.

That would explain why people with later purpose built machines don't seem to have any problems in that area. My original kit was just put together from what I had lying around.

The specs for my current Vista rig (which now scores 5.9/5.9 in all departments) are:

AMD Phenom II x4 Black Edition @ 3.3GHz
4GB Kingston XTREME DDR2/1066MHz RAM
Sapphire Radeon HD5670 512MB DDR5
1TB 7200rpm Sata 2 HDD

It certainly doesn't run as smooth as Windows 7 and 8 from what I have seen so far, but it is quite acceptable.

I haven't been able to test the Sempron machine yet as the DVD drive developed the click of death and wouldn't read the installation disc. Hmmm....... Ultima Electronics Corp.........................Manufactured March 2002..........

So far I don't see any great need for caution in adopting Win 8 as it stands, as there does not seem to be any dramatic changes from 7. However it is still early days.

Given that your customers will be getting Win8 with new PCs, I would have thought that you would be obliged to be an early adopter, at least at work?

[ua549]

I remember BSD and other Unix operating systems as user hostile. They were difficult to configure with a jillion text files scattered throughout the file system. No, I'll never return to the chaos of yesteryear.

My first personal machine was a Burroughs (now Unisys) Medium System running MCP. I next moved to a Unix System III rel 7 and BSD <something> running on Motorola hardware (IIRC Moto 69010, a Convergent Technologies Mini Frames). Finally I moved to Microsoft Windows running on both Intel and DEC hardware.

My current 10.0.0.0/8 network includes 3 notebooks, a workstation, a server, a desktop, a firewall, a router, two switches, three wireless access points with 8 SSID's including the guest partitions and an AT&T 3G micro cell. That doesn't count consumer devices on the network such as TV's, receivers, Blueray players, printers, cell phones, home automation devices and vehicles. I really do need to down size and simplify my life again. A few years ago I had twice as much equipment mostly due to low capacity disk drives and all of the imaging stuff I was doing.

My wife is very understanding when it comes to toys. I still get a bit of income on the side and that is what I use for technology expenses.