Printable View
But the first car was very expensive and that was part of the drawback and kept many people from "upgrading" to get one. They just didnt see the improvement as beneficial over the cost as their horses could also plow the fields and go off roading across the country whereas the car could not (at least for many years).
The problem with this situation is that is was still wrong in XP. There are many security policies that make applications that choke in Vista choke in XP.Quote:
Originally Posted by SurfDemon
I haven't programmed for as long as many of the other people here but even from my limited experience, I've learned that developers will sometimes take shortcuts that are not the best way to do something. I think a lot of that happened more so in the 2000/XP development days when RAD was taking off where as now, we have to be more careful.
I understand from a consumer's standpoint that "It doesn't work on Vista so boo on Vista" or from an IT standpoint where it's sometimes "The app we need doesn't run on Vista so we have to stay with XP". Unfortunately, I almost always hear the former even from IT people.
While I don't think Vista is the best OS (Linux, OS X and Windows all have their flaws), I just can't stand it when people say "Vista sucks" or anything similar because an application was developed poorly. I understand you're not one of those people but my whole point in participating in this thread was to debunk and/or head off a lot of that type casting. I also understand if someone doesn't like Vista for a reason other than 3rd party software applications.I think the change from XP to Vista is almost as radical as a horse and cart to vehicles. The problem? Most of the great changes are under the hood so there is no way to show the user all of the improvements other than saying better security and showing them the pretty interface.Quote:
Originally Posted by SurfDemon
About XP... anyone remember all the bitching and complaining when service pack 2 came out and added the firewall? It broke sooo many programs. But now a days you dont hear a word about that transition or people saying "I'm staying on XP SP-1 because SP-2 just plainly sucks because my antivirus or other programs wont work on it!" :lol:
Remember, the firewall also makes it easy to allow exceptions. It was a matter of hitting one button when the firewall intercepted a communication, and the exception was set. Didn't have to bother with it again.
until the version number or digital signature changes ;)
And if you browse smartly, you can just disable the firewall. I haven't had that thing on in a long time.
Browsing "smart" is no reason to disable the firewall, I've seen what a lack of firewall and other security can do to a computer, at university :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by timeshifter
But the point is that the introduced firewall caused havoc until the software developers wrote better code and code that worked with it. Its all part of evolution to get to something better. If you dont change then you will be left behind using old legacy unsafe underperforming software and operating system.
If I need to visit a website or run a program and I am not sure if it will cause any problems to my system, I simply do it in a virtual machine. That means there is no way I can get a virus or something of that nature to infect my actual PC.
I use a VM that has internet access, but no access to anything on the network, so it has no where to spread if I do get one. Although I have yet to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobDog888
I thought Defender was just for Spyware, I didn't realise it did viruses (viri?) as well. Thanks.
Okay, I thought I was being very even handed and constructive in my critisisms of Vista, but apparently if you say anything negative (no matter how true) about Vista, then it's "Bashing" and "Vista Sucks" etc. :ehh:Quote:
Originally Posted by RobDog888
So, I'll try again. I believe I stated at one point that I would quite happily install Vista on my next home computer. Does that sound like the sort of thing I would do if I thought "Vista sucks"????
But the point I am trying to get across, is that in it's current incarnation it does not have enough improvements over XP for me to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in checking our systems and retraining our staff. I am obviously failing to make this point, so if you would be so kind as to imagine yourself in my shoes.
I'm sitting in a meeting with the board of directors.
Director 1: "We were 3 months late on the xyz project because our Allen-Bradley software kept crashing on that crappy new computer system we just spent quarter of million bucks on."
Me: "Yeah, but that's Allen-Bradley's fault. Not Microsoft's."
Director 1: "No it's your fault."
or maybe I could go with.
Me: "Yeah, but there's lot's of cool things happening under the hood that you can't see."
Director 1: "But it doesn't do what we need it to do."
or how about
Me: "It gives us lots of other advantages."
Director: "Like what? The XP system was super stable. Why did you spend all this money to break everything? Are you trying to screw us over? Do you work for our competitor? In fact why aren't you wearing any clothes?"
er, okay maybe not the last one. But do you see where I am going with this?
Please re-read my post. I'm was attempting to make some constructive suggestions as to what I think they could have added to make it worth my while spending hundreds of thousands of my company's dollars. I am not suggesting that you stop programs from writing to the disk, I am suggesting that for very novice users you restrict where they can save their files. And for power users you give them a bit more freedom.Quote:
Vista has more security and protection on the Program Files folders as well as trhe root drive. You need Administrator permissions to write to it. this is part of what you are asking but you fail to realize that this is what is breaking many programs from being Vista compliant. So which is it? You bash Vista for breaking programs that write to the areas that are protected or you are praising Vista for having part of what you are wanting?
I fail to see why a fresh install of XP boots in a fraction of the time that XP with all the service packs does. I think it is a reasonable request that the computer be accessible as fast as possible. Just because Vista doesn't boot up quickly at present, doesn't make it a bad idea. I think it would have been a major selling point for them.Quote:
"Much quicker boot up time" - Well you cant compare Windows 3.11 boot time to Vista or even a Server. Thats just well lets just say its a bad comparison logic. Its all relative as 3.11 had less things to initialize and run during boot up while Vista has exponentially increased what is run at boot up.
I've been keeping an eye on Home Server, and I'll probably get one for my home, but I doubt if it would play nice with our Domain servers. :)Quote:
"I would like to see more centraised settings for Domains etc" - There is a Server version called "Windows Home Server" - http://connect.microsoft.com/WindowsHomeServer .
Okay, please take the time to re-read my post. They are not points to debunk, nor do I say that I require EVERYTHING. Hell, I don't even call Vista bad. They are suggestions of things that I think they could have put in to persuade me that the upgrade is worth the substantial cost and the risk to my company.Quote:
Bottom line as Im not going to take an hour to debunk all the points being made but it really sounds to me like you are calling Vista bad because it doesnt have EVERYTHING you want it to have or do. Oh come on. :rolleyes: "I think Vista is bad because it doesnt have Virtual Telepathy Alternate Input" :lol:
Let's go over the points again quickly, as they seem to be being ignored in the rampant "Vista doesn't suck!" panic.
1) I never said Vista Sucks/was bad
2) I even said I would happily install it on my home computer
3) What I did say was that it does not provide enough of an improvement over XP for me to justify spending hundreds of thousands of dollars and to expose my company to the potential risk of finding a software problem that delays a project at this point in time.
4) It has driver problems - which whilst they will hopefully be sorted soon doesn't help me one bit.
Does that make sense? All of the software we have may work 100% with vista. But I can't just swap everyone over without doing extensive testing before I deploy that software into the field. So, we're left with, "what advantages does my company get from Vista that will encourage me to spend all that time and money NOW?"
I'm still waiting to hear of a good one? All I get is "Vista doesn't suck. Microsoft says that we should upgrade, we should all do what they say right NOW! and stop questioning their authority?" :(
I offered a number of suggestions as to what I thought would make the system attractive to corporations, but apparently they're just "complaints" and things that I want before I make the switch. Please re-read it. They are constructive comments as to what they could have done to make it more attractive to corporations.
The way I see it, we'll download SP1. We may even test some of the software with it. But unless it really blows us away, there is little incentive to upgrade to it, other than "Microsoft wants us to". That's not going to fly with the board.
I'm sure we will upgrade eventually, as support for XP wains, and bugs in Vista are ironed out. But there is no sound business reason to do it now.
As for the comments about XP firewall problems with SP2. Yes, and for that very reason we test all major updates before we put them out to the staff. We actually delayed the SP2 rollout by a couple of months (as did many many IT organisations) until we had workarounds for everything.
So any reasons to upgrade? ;)
I haven't seen any yet.
STOP POSTING LONG POSTS!
It makes me sad because I'm too lazy to comb through it and respond :(
Sorry :D I do find it a fascinating topic though.Quote:
Originally Posted by kasracer
you evidently don't have the network adapter i have. I've never had that site find a modem or network driver.Quote:
Originally Posted by timeshifter
i've been running xp64 for about 9 months with no issues, and it runs faster than vista 64.Quote:
Originally Posted by kasracer
that and they sometimes are shipped with 512meg of shared ram and vista needs more than that.Quote:
Originally Posted by penagate
you can set the xp start menu to scroll, as well as give it sub-categories. It this doesn't suit your purpose, there are 3rd party options.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atheist
Runs all of mine, thanks to an open-source program called dosbox. But then again, i run them all under mac osx as well thanks to the same program.Quote:
Originally Posted by RobDog888
1. I was not aware of this but it would be nice to have this as an xp upgrade. I have had a tuner card lock the system up.Quote:
Originally Posted by kasracer
2. That's not an improvement. It's a marketing ploy. And you can in fact buy it "oem" from the right people.
3. XP HAS PREFETCH
4. It actually goes back to nt4. It doesn't share code with windows 3.
5. High-end video cards do this anyway.
6. dx10 shouldn't have even been called directx. It's completely new code.
7. I like opengl as well.
common issue. I never have been able to get my mother-in-law's hewlett packard to work. And when i tried to download printer drivers, IE refused to let me make hewlett packard trusted enough to allow a file download.Quote:
Originally Posted by kasracer
no you wouldn't since it is implemented totally differently. For example it doesn't lock the computer up waiting for your answer. You have padlocks on all settings windows you need to enter the admin password to unlock, but you can turn that off.Quote:
P.S. If I used OS X, it sounds like I would be complaining about it too
this sounds like the argument when the EPA gave every gas station in the united states ten years to come into compliance with their new standards. Many stations could barely afford to keep the building painted, let alone shell out $20,000 a tank. If you have five tanks (standard) that's $100,000. So your mom-and-pop business suddenly needs to save $10,000 a year average over ten years. Is it any wonder so many of them went out of business?Quote:
why get mad at ford?
Also as for boot-up times, my xp64 system boots in about 20 seconds with all patches and updates. My wife's mac mini tops in about 30 but she's got the bootloader running first (mac's OpenFirmware) running xp32.
It depends whether the printer is also a server or not. A true network printer has built-in server capability that allows it to function as a network node without being attached to a computer. Printers that need to be attached to a computer are always local from the point of view of the computer that they are attached to, regardless of how they are attached.Quote:
Originally Posted by kasracer
My mistake. I can admit that. Defender is mainly for spyware, yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by SurfDemon
Well security improvements, DX 10 support, having at least some systems running Vista will allow you to gain experience in testing the apps you develop on in a real world environment. Bottom line is like what most companies think: "if there isnt anything that will make a benefit for our company then we will continue with what we are running." With that logic I can understand why some companies are sstill running Windows 98 but they are problematic and are insecure and also require more $ to maintain due to system issues like the BSOD and virus' due to low securty, etc.
Driver issues for the most part are no longer a major issue as the vast majority of manufacturers now have a Vista version.
But they can't, because the pre-Vista window manager doesn't use hardware acceleration.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Orwell
2. No because no regular person can just "upgrade" to XP media center edition. You have to purchase it OEM. It's a Pita. The Vista version is much nicer anyway, though I can't remember all of the specific changes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Orwell
3. No, it isn't anything like Vista's. XP's doesn't do the samething and works like crap.
4. No, the Windows project manage announced during one of the delays that is actually does contain code all the way back to Windows 3. Sure, it was based on NT more so than ME/98 but NT still contained some very old code.
5. No they do not. If they do, then they would have had to either intercept the Win32 API calls and render them themselves or applications would have to use a new GUI toolkit specific for the graphics card. See, Windows before Vista would render the desktop and all standard component via the Win32 API which used the CPU.
6. It's a logical upgrade path with many similarities to DirectX 9. I would think DirectX 10 would be most appropriate but this is a very minor detail and mostly a matter of opinion.
7. :)
my ati graphics card has a "accelerate desktop" option. I don't have any idea how it works, but it works. It also gives me transparency settings in xp. And yes the vista version of media center is nicer, but buying it "oem" isn't that hard for a standard consumer. It's on shelves at my local computer store. And prefetch works fine on my system. I have had issues with it in the past, but my install was corrupted. I can tell the difference in load times the 2nd time i run a program.
Well, I got Vista Ultimate Sp1 running on my Quad Core with a SATA300 drive, and I'm in heaven.
I love how people knocked previous versions of Windows and the lack of administrative access control, but when UAC hits the scene, the other group of people complain about it.
In all honestly, except for debugging a website in VS2008, I hardly ever need to elevate permissions.
As a slight hijacking, I hate the debugger for VB 2008 Express. Or something about the code compilation. it's just deciding it isn't going to go all the way through a loop. Doesn't even hit the Exit line. Just stops. and angers me very much.
Ok, how do I go about getting SP1? I have search and search and SP1 seems to a well guarded state security. I assume that it is still in beta testing?
Mark
I picked up Vista Ultimate Sp1 free at the Microsoft's "Heroes Happen Here" event last week in Chicago.
http://www.microsoft.com/heroeshappe...r/default.mspx
From what I see, it is supposed to be available to the general public through Windows Update in mid-March (althought it won't automatically be downloaded until mid-April - you'll have to manually check for updates to get it Mid-March).
http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/wi...vista-sp1.aspx
http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/wi...vista-sp1.aspx
Im confused now...Service Pack 1? Isnt it already released? I got it through windows update recently.
No, you're not confused.
Being released to manufacturing and being available for download mean two different things.
Either way I can tell you that, by itself, SP-1 is not available yet.
You do need to notice how its stated that hardware issues, probably like HPs built in webcam issue mentioned earlier in this thread, is the problem of HP as MS mentions that many hardware manufacturers are not installing their drivers correctly or do not have their drivers certified for vista.
simple benchmark searches will show you the 5 to 10% difference in speed in equal systems (depending on program running).
Server pack 1 is being released for 32-bit only in select areas until it's widely available this month. All of my 32-bit systems got it through automatic updates.
Thats weird as they stated it wont be available through automatic update until mid April. Whats out now that I see is Vista with SP-1 already applied.
They also had 64-bit on Windows Update for a brief period. There was a secondary update freezing some systems so they yanked it for a while (for both 32-bit and 64-bit) so I may have received it then but I remember reading their original plan was something about specific areas getting it first.Quote:
Originally Posted by RobDog888
Though, I think I'm using automatic updates and windows update interchangeably. Do'h
Okay, so assuming SP1 fixes all of the driver issues.
Assuming I can disable the UAC for my power users (how by the way?)
And assuming that I test all of my legacy software and it all works.
What does Vista give my users that will justify the cost/hassle of upgrade? (Again: This is a geniune question - I am interested).
Like I said before, with previous versions there where very good, very clear reasons for businesses to upgrade; with Vista, I'm struggling to see one.
vista has an improved task manager that has a services tab, and they are linked to the processes tab. Other than that, aero is eye candy and the rest of it can be done with add-ons in xp, including the 3d-window switcher. Even the graphical alt-tab although it doesn't work as well as the vista one.
I like how CTRL+ALT+Delete works in Vista, it brings up a full-screen window with some options on it, rather than just the taskmanager. The good thing about it is, if a fullscreen game (like most games are) freezes, pressing ctrl+alt+delete will immediately get you this neat window, whereas with windows XP....i cant remember how many times I've gone furious because pressing ctrl+alt+delete seemed to have no effect, as taskman started up behind the game window.
So the rest of Vista's features can be done via XP add-ins? Sweet! Where can I download the new Kernel, shadow copies, media center, IIS7, prefetch, tablet, instant search, updated components, etc add-ins?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Orwell
And how much of your memory would you actually like to use? If you have that stuff running, you probably don't have much free to do what you actually want to do.
Not? When i had 1 gig of memory I could run everything I wanted. Then I could take a break from what I was doing and play Call of Duty 4 without closing anything else. No problems at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by timeshifter
Ctrl+Alt+Del in Vista behaves exactly as it does in XP, 2000, and NT.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atheist
Edit: Unless you've got the friendly welcome screen on. I'm used to the domain workstation configuration which is the classic NT behaviour.
But then, Vista still suffers from the exact same problem as XP in that Ctrl+Alt+Del interrupts things nicely, but opening the task manager boots you straight back into user mode.
Still not seeing any deal clinchers here for taking the hit of upgrading 100 (work related) desktops. I realise the managers might be playing games on their p.c.'s, but they probably won't want to admit to that. :)
Where are the business related reasons? Like I say, previous upgrades had excellent reasons (instability/lack of drivers for the older OS's), but they did such a good job on XP that I'm finding it hard to justify moving away from it just yet?
Any reasons greatfully accepted!
Microsoft will stop supporting XP in 2014. That's one reason to upgrade at some point over the next six years.
Reason #2 is ... :confused:
Why Upgrade to Vista
I never knew XP had that feature. Must've been well-hidden.Quote:
Originally Posted by penagate
Kernel: I was unable to find any information saying it had a new kernel. where did you get this information?Quote:
Originally Posted by kasracer
Shadow copy is not a new feature. It was introduced in XP service pack one and Server 2003. See this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_Copy
Media Center comes in Vista Ultimate and Home Premium. The difference in cost between that and the standard install (up to nearly $300) can easily be spent on a 3rd party solution such as PowerCinema.
Tablet support comes in xp professional and is built into the language bar.
XP has prefetch. If you are going to argue, at least get the terms correct. Vista uses Superfetch, based directly on XP's code. The only difference is that Vista monitors how often a program is ran and gives the most-often ran ones precedence. See this link: http://members.rushmore.com/~jsky/id37.html
Instant Search: Here's the Microsoft download link for you for XP: http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...displaylang=en
Updated Components: Not sure what you meant by that, but Media player 11 works on windows 2000, let alone XP and so does Internet Explorer 7. The anti-virus and firewall are either in the latest xp service pack or a separate download. Here's a 3rd party 3d-task switcher that i've personally used:
http://www.otakusoftware.com/script/...t=topdesktrial
which also has the option of doing it the much-improved OSX way of shrinking all windows onto the screen at once.
IIS7 This is so far only available on Vista and Server 2008, but that is bound to change. And in any case that probably isn't even an issue for most users. I don't even have IIS installed on any of my systems. It's considered by microsoft to be an "optional" windows component.
It's not 100% new but quite a bit of it has been re-done. Here's the first link I found by typing in "Vista kernel" into Google: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/m.../cc162494.aspxQuote:
Originally Posted by Lord Orwell
Not sure why you even mention this... It was put into 2003 and works rather well but the one in XP is temporary storage. it's not persistant which makes it kind of worthless. Though I'm curious as to how I can access these shadow copies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Orwell
I've used several media center applications including FrontRow (if that can really be considered one), ATi's and MythTV. Sorry but, IMO at least, none of them can compare to a 1st party solution. I tried PowerCinema previously but it wasn't as user friendly as Media Center. Sorry, just couldn't get used to it but that may be more of my opinion than an actual flaw.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Orwell
Vista and XP Tablet Edition come with additional software applications specific for touch screens. I don't remember my copy of XP having such things. Where are they? I've looked through the language bar but never saw anything specific to tablets so I must have missed it but surely it can't have everything the tablet edition has, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Orwell
I'm not arguing. Meanly conversating :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Lord Orwell
Thanks for correctly my word usage but I thought that's what the project manager of Vista called it. Oh well. It's still better than XP's so ++Vista :p
Cool. Does this intergrate into the start menu so you can press the windows key, start typing and go? If so, that could be useful for my XP machines that I cannot upgrade yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Orwell
I'm referring to the newer low level components that have been re-written including the networking stack. Many of the re-written components make them much easier to maintain so I don't think there is any kind of XP "plug-in" for this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Orwell
What do you mean? Possibly shoe-horning it onto an older verison of Windows? I didn't think anyone was able to do so with IIS6 and XP.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Orwell
I never did ask about plug-ins for DirectX 10, user-level drivers (XP has them in the Kernel space, :yuck:), unified desktop compositing model, etc...
My point is, you can't shoe-horn XP to be like Vista. Believe it or not Vista has some great changes that put it above XP. Unfortuantely I feel most of them are too low level for most users to really notice.
Regarding the release date of Vista Sp1:
From what I understood, pre-existing Vista systems with drivers installed that are known to cause issues (or are not certified) are not going to be automatically updated until Mid-April. If Windows Update reports your system has compliant drivers, you will most likely get it or be able to get it right now.
This will give the manufacturers time to fix their drivers, have them available before SP1 is pushed down automatically via Windows Update.
There probably isn't a reason for you to upgrade. But, much like the decision to buy a car is usually a willful one, so is the upgrade to Vista at this point. You might not need a new car, but everyone will at some point be in the mind to purchase one. When you do, you might as well as get a new(er) one.Quote:
Originally Posted by SurfDemon
Vista may have some new technology in it that makes it better in some regards, but there is still plenty that needs work. The new OS is due out at the end of '09 and that may end up being my new purchase. That is, unless i fall in love with server '08 (i am currently running server 2003 x64 core).
Not familiar with the changes to the core, but if they have actually improved the driver model to stop BSODs then that is one improvement that was a long time coming. however, XP64/server 2003 already includes this driver model and i am personally glad it does because it was almost impossible for me to find drivers for anything until vista was released.
DX10: Don't get that started. I personally find it hard to believe that a set of files that access the hardware directly are required to be OS dependent in any way. Just the fact that DX7 runs on vista tells you something. So does 8. 9 does with minor changes. It couldn't be THAT hard to convert it backwards. There's even an open-source movement to do this. It is actually in microsoft's best interest to do this, because if the open-source version should prove successful, that opens the door to running directx software on other OSes.
As for purchasing a new car, fact is that it is never economical to do so. Just how much auto-repair CAN you do with a year's worth of payments, let alone 5 of them. Keep that used car like-new, and come out ahead. Nevermind the fact you're required to have full-coverage on a new car (while making payments)
So by that logic you are willing to spend thousands of dollars on rapairs during a signle year on a car that is 10, 20 or older years old? :rolleyes: It will only be worth a couple of dollars so why dump all that money back into it?
Vista came out in early 2007. The next OS wont be out for several years still, not in 1.5 years. Then by the logic and mentality mentioned in this thread you wont install or purchase it until it has a SP-1 so you will have to wait even longer. Then another OS will come out and you wil put it off again as the sysle continues on. Just be like Nike, Just Do It!
Thanks a bundle :thumb: I was actually looking for that info and couldn't find it. I'm guessing my laptops (being pre-installed Vista with known driver problems) are probably going to be mid-April. My users will be very happy.Quote:
Originally Posted by nemaroller
Unfortunately I don't want to get into the corporate nightmare of having two different computer systems to support..... trust me, it's a nightmare. I do think Microsoft missed the boat a bit on this one. So far most of the major improvements that have been metioned don't really apply to the business world. If I get some time over the summer I'll build myself a new system and it will have vista on because I want to play some stonking DirectX 10 games. But other than that it seems to be performance and stability. Well, neither has been a problem for business p.c.'s for the last 2 years. Even our CAD users aren't even beginning to push the performance limits on their dual core and quad core p.c.'s. I can't honestly remember the last time we had a driver related problem on XP (we go out of our way to only buy kit with solid driver support).Quote:
There probably isn't a reason for you to upgrade. But, much like the decision to buy a car is usually a willful one, so is the upgrade to Vista at this point. You might not need a new car, but everyone will at some point be in the mind to purchase one. When you do, you might as well as get a new(er) one.
The servers are a different kettle of fish. We have a mix of 2000 and 2003, and it would be nice to standardise them all, but from what I can see we will probably wait and see what the next O/S brings for the business desktop and jump through all the upgrade hoops then. (Because by then XP will be going out of support).
Strange but we did something similar with Windows 2000. We started getting prepped to upgrade from ME and NT (to Windows 2000), and pretty soon it became apparent that a newer version was coming down the pipe (XP). So we upgraded all our servers from NT to Server 2000, but left the desktops until XP came out.
that's assuming you actually WOULD spend thousands of dollars on repairs. I own a 1986 lincoln town car and have only had to replace the battery, the tires, one mirror, the thermostat, and rebuilt a window motor since i've owned it. I have had it four years. And it's pretty well worth now what it was when i bought it. Try saying that for a new car you buy after it leaves the lot, let alone four years later. After that time you would probably have replaced the tires and battery in a new car as well. Our truck is a lot newer and we have put more money in it than the car, including a battery.Quote:
Originally Posted by RobDog888
On a side note, i just off-loaded a 1983 Ford Thunderbird to a guy for $100. It ran fine. He's 17 years old and decided to not listen to my advice "license it and insure it". He took it out driving the next day and got it impounded. The impound fees are twice what he paid for the car.
How odd that a linux/mac vs vista thread was closed and referred to this one.
Vista being consumer driven, but Server 2008 will have a heavy uptake by the web marketplace.
Our Win2k3 servers are great, however the new integrated managed pipeline available in the new IIS7 on Win2k8 will be a performance enhancement to some situations we can simply not take a pass on with our high volume sites. And engineering is excited about the new features on MS's new server OS. I don't know specifically what their excited about but I'm not a network engineer.
As far as the car analogy, I was more thinking along the lines of while you can spend less money on a used 1980's car - at some point the improved technology of a new car will make you buy one: ABS, Traction Control, side-beam crash protection, side-curtain airbags, higher fuel efficiency, etc.
the fuel efficiency would be an issue if i drove more than 7 miles a day. As it is i get 20mpg. It may be 1986 but it is multi-port fuel injection.
I drive a 95 Corolla and pull 36 mpg on the highway, about 25 in town. Fuel efficiency is a thing of the past, it seems.
Note all cars are lemons. I have my Ford that I bought brand new and havent put any money into it for repairs of any kind. It runs great and still on the original battery (almost 7 years old now).Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Orwell
FYI, Action Pack Subscribers
Yes, as I mentioned SP-1 is available already with Vista together.
Just today I got SP-1 notification on my Windows Update. So I will be prep'ing to install soon. I dont want to install it until I am ready. Need to download the Management Console that gets removed with SP-1.
:( How come I don't see any SP1 in my updates?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobDog888
I got mine last night.
:cry: Vista hates me
See Nemarollers post below.Quote:
Originally Posted by MaximilianMayrhofer
Ours haven't appeared either, but I suspect that is because of the inbuilt web cam driver problems. Prob mid-April for us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nemaroller
Regarding the release date of Vista Sp1:
From what I understood, pre-existing Vista systems with drivers installed that are known to cause issues (or are not certified) are not going to be automatically updated until Mid-April. If Windows Update reports your system has compliant drivers, you will most likely get it or be able to get it right now.
This will give the manufacturers time to fix their drivers, have them available before SP1 is pushed down automatically via Windows Update.