Information Technology Pros Debate Windows Vista 377
An anonymous reader writes "As a follow-on to John Welch's widely read review arguing that Mac OS X is superior to Vista, Information Week is running the first in a weeklong series of roundtables where a programmer, networking consultant, and 3 IT managers have a serious technical debate on the pros and cons of Vista. What's been your experience with Vista? More importantly, do you think it will ever gain traction among corporate users, or is its glitzy Aero interface destined to make it mainly a consumer OS?"
As an IT manager (Score:5, Interesting)
I see nothing that will make our employees more productive or save us money on IT. We'll be sticking with XP.
Re: (Score:2)
Me too. For as long as we can. Eventually, it's going to be a forced putt
Re:As an IT guy also (Score:5, Informative)
Real features like NTFS filesystem, properly done process separation, a more robust TCP/IP stack, better support for windows domain features etc made it worth upgrading 98 to XP.
I can't think of any such compelling features for business IT in moving to Vista from XP.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Yeh, I guess Wireless, VERY useful GPOs, Remote Assitance, IPSec, Remote Desktop, Firewall, improved event logs...etc means nothing to you.
I currently support networks with both XP and 2000, 2000 are by far much more difficult to manange them XP. By your statement I have to assume that you either don't manage multiple XP and 2000 workstations or you don't know about the added feature in Xp to make your life easier.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I don't see how people can settle for "it's totally s
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
For Niels Ferguson's take on these conspiracy theories (he is one of the lead developers of BitLocker), see http://blogs.msdn.com/si_team/archive/2006/03/02/
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
you actually believe him??? How do you know that he hasn't been forced to incorporate a back door and isn't allowed to tell anyone about it. Do you have the source code for filevault and can compile it to produce the same binary?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Also in some time you will see software or hardware(64 bit?) that is vista only or better supported on vista. (NOT YET), so a s a it manager you will have to migrate to it to be bette
Me (Score:4, Insightful)
Staying with XPSP2 strongly advised.
Roll on 2009 and the next version, however in the meantime if you are going to have the hassle of nothing working anyway, you may as well take a look at switching to OSX or Linux.
Re:Me (Score:4, Informative)
i'm the first staff member in my place of business (with between 700 and 900 employees) that's using it. there is 1 issue that i see so far... group policy in AD. we have policies that force the user to use automatic updates (because too few computers were being updated). it prevented me from getting around that to install the optional updates (which include drivers and office 2003 updates as the policy did not allow me to install microsoft update). i had them exclude me from the policy though, that way i got all the updates i needed, mostly for office and drivers.
frankly, i think while the UAC is quite annoying to the power user who installs a lot of stuff (especially since i had to for my clean install), it won't be that bad for the user who buys a computer with vista pre-installed since the average user does not install a whole lot. i think it has the potential to make it more secure by making them think before they say "accept".
unless my computer literally blows up, i will not be reverting back to XP. and for the record, your comparison of vista with ME is completely off the mark. ME was just plain terrible and a completely different operating system altogether. vista was built practically from the ground up and has a lot of nice features (some purely superficial) and is 100x more stable than ME, perhaps the worst operating system ever made (at least by MS). i strongly recommend anyone buying a new computer to get it with vista, at least home premier.
my laptop is an HP nc8430 with a core duo 2.16 MHz, 1 GB RAM and ATI raedon x1600 with 256 MB, happily running vista.
WTF? (Score:2, Insightful)
What the hell does Aero have to do with business use? You can disable it if you don't want to use it in a business environment, which I'm sure that many businesses will do for hardare reasons anyway (Intel's Extreme Graphics / GMA900 can't run it anyway).
Would you claim that Mac OS X's "glitzy" UI makes it inappropriate for business use? Or that Beryl mak
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why?:
1. Too slow
2. Distracting visuals
3. Limited screen limits (2 monitors limits me to 1024x768)
4. Less stable - I've seen creeping little things that just aren't right
Basically I like to poke around with it and eventually a 'plain' version of them may win me over, but as it stands today, I won't use any of them for when I code.
Re: (Score:2)
The problems I see are were your fixing complaints about tranparent wording in Icons (win98 alot). Or have certain Spyware or regular software install hooks into explorer making it's performance seriously hinder productivity in XP with all the UI effects. It is really one more layer to making a job more dificult. Usualy, I get rid of view
Been using it for 3 days now (Score:5, Interesting)
So far, my experience with Vista has been mostly positive. The intergrated search is quite useful and the re working of the explorer shell is a noticeable improvement.
On thing I have noticed is that Vista has re-done the menu layout and prompts and it now closely resembles KDE, imo. Not a complaint or a compliment though I do imagine the layout change is going to confuse a lot of people. I can see why it was re-done though and I imagine once I've gotten used to it I will find it an improvement over XP.
Really I can't say much else as I've only just scratched the surface of what Vista can do. Is it better then XP? So far yes. Is it worth years of delayed devlopment and several hundred dollars? That remains to be seen.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
OT . . . (Score:2)
Vista (Score:3, Insightful)
replacing it all is not easy, and many shops dont have the stomach for it, or the talent. and in some cases the shops have windows apps that can only run in windows. that all said:
when you really look at Vista objectiveily its a huge improvement over xp and 2k.
but sure it does have some things that are odd and different that annoy you, but in some and most cases that can be changed.
and some of the postive stuff like low rights framework that IE uses is exposed so other apps can use it. and
-Nex6
Re: (Score:2)
My current OS does not.
Therefore, my current OS is superior to Vista, because I can safely rely on it.
Nothing trumps that.
I wouldn't install it if it was free.
Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'll wait... (Score:2, Insightful)
Sounds like (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Showstopper (Score:4, Funny)
What is missing here? (Score:5, Funny)
I can't tell if that is the setup or the punchline.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The networking consultant explains that a switch to Vista will improve network performance and data security.
The IT Managers wonder if there is a Vista Conference they can attend - somewhere abroad with decent nightlife - and they start to debate who has the highest limit on their corporate credit cards.
Re: (Score:2)
Vista is just fine for the masses (Score:4, Interesting)
For the masses its just fine, my parents recently bought a new laptop which has Vista. Other than finding a few items moved or renamed they just use it. The key is, its just a damn operating system. It doesn't mean DIDDLY to them. they don't care. they saw a laptop with features they wanted at a price they wanted to pay. OS be damned, it didn't matter. All they wanted was to get mail while on the road, connect to wireless, and use WORD.
As for AERO, fwiw, if you have a video card with 32mb of memory you might just see a performance boost with it turned on, especially with low system ram installations.
Re: (Score:2)
With many (most?) Enterprise computing environments, they have a volume corporate license and a "standard image" that they load on every machine regardless of what it comes with preloaded. It's a support issue, really.
One good thing (Score:2)
Idiots (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a huge number of so-called "IT Professionals" that just don't have a clue. Lots of middle-aged guys who managed to get a job running the FAX machines at some corporation 20 years ago, and eventually ended up being the "IT guy". But they don't know ANYTHING. They buy whatever new hardware they think is neat, and that the salesmen from their vendors tell them they need. And then they pay for all-encompassing support contracts, so that they don't have to configure anything, or troubleshoot anything, because they don't actually know how to do that stuff.
I sometimes wonder if those guys are the majority of the IT employees in the United Stats. Guys that use the company's money to hire other people to do their jobs. The only reason they get away with it is because their boss is even MORE clueless about how IT should work.
Sorry, kind of off-topic, but I just can't stand the attitude of rags like "Information Week".
Re: (Score:2)
Where I work, those "IT Professionals" are in upper management. They don't know the tech, buy whatever some sales guy can get them to agree to, and insist on worthless support contracts that are never used for everything. Meanwhile, the real IT people are hindered in being able to do their jobs by al
Imagine... (Score:2)
...What the comments here would be like if the criticism from the "Windows camp" about the latest release of Ubuntu or OS X was as shrill, biased and ill-informed as the daily "zOMG ! Vista is t3h suxx0rs, LOL !!11!"-style blog/article/review/journal making the front page of Slashdot.
Just Bought XP Laptop (Score:2, Informative)
I wanted a hot laptop, AMD TL-56 64bit DP, 1GB memory, DVD+-, good screen, Nvidia graphic card, etc. Best Buy had one that was everything
Vista feels very familiar (Score:2, Insightful)
Sounds like a joke to me (Score:5, Funny)
The Aristocrats !
My Vista pros/cons (Score:5, Informative)
Pros:
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I keep seeing this complaint but the problem is not UAC itself, it's that by default they STILL make you the admin when you set up the computer. If you run as a regular user and have a seperate admin account that you don't log into -- it only prompts you when you try to change global settings or run software that needs to write to program files or some
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Obviously the built-in search is the biggest win. If you don't mention this in your pros, no wonder you don't like Vista
Vista search is an improvement to that in XP but it still sucks. Sorry to refer to OSX again, but Spotlight shows how to do search. I also find it inconsistent - for a while my procedure to find PuTTY was just to go Start --> type PuTTY into the search bar but now it doesn't find it and I haven't touched the settings.
Another thing that sucks about the search is it rearranges the li
My Experience with Vista has been great! (Score:5, Funny)
I'm sure if I actually bought and installed it, though, I'd have a different opinion...
OS X (Score:2)
Not so bad with a bit of tweaking (Score:2)
I found the new icons annoying, and the fact that the User folder has now taken the place of My Documents, leading to much confusion for my end users.
Hmm... User folder, with Documents, Pictures, etc., inside. Kind of like exactly what a User folder looks like on OS X.
What really pissed me off is Office 2007. It makes me want to scream. I now have to ret
Stupid questions (Score:4, Insightful)
You're joking, right?
I hope so. Otherwise, you're not real observant. Of *course* it'll gain traction among corporate users. Because they have not fucking choice! What part of "vendor lock-in" is hard to grasp?
See, too many companies have millions of dollars of infrastructure tied up in MS-Windows, and other Microsoftware. They are not going to replace it overnight. And, by the time they really start to feel the burn, the worst will be over (at least as far as up-front cost goes: the pain never truly ends, but that's true no matter what). New PCs will come with MS-Vista (the 'MS' is to distinguish it from the health-care package that's been around for 20 years). Corporations will soon not have a choice. It'll be MS-Vista or nothing.
How many times do we have to go through this? We had this same debate when MS-Windows XP came out. This isn't our year. Maybe next year, but not this year.
Microsoft might be dying (I believe it is), but it takes a long, long time for a giant to decompose.
Yeah sure but it will take time (Score:2)
My experience with Vista (Score:2)
Geez... (Score:2)
Yes. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, because in 6 months, you won't be able to buy a new computer without Vista on it. And in two years, you won't be able to get support for XP. And then in about 4 years, you won't be able to get software compatible with XP for love or money.
Corporate users never really saw a lot of value in XP either. Moreover, it took about that long for it to "gain traction", in both the consumer and corporate markets. I've been working in the ISP industry since 1994, and tech support has watched as every new OS Microsoft has produced in that time get snapped up by a small percentage of early adopters, followed by the rest of the computing population as they upgrade their computers over time.
Most people find installing an operating system too much work, too time consuming, too difficult, or they just don't think about it at all. It *came* with the computer after all. Isn't it just a part of the computer? IT departments in companies see it much the same way. You have to upgrade the computer to get the next version of windows, so why not just let Dell or IBM do the install when you do your next upgrade? To install a new OS across an existing network of any size is too disruptive to the users, and too time consuming. A user would have to do without a computer for the better part of a day at the very least if you upgrade an existing system.
History is NOT repeating itself. (Score:3, Interesting)
But here we are, months after the business introduction of Vista and people still debating it's merits with no sign of commitment. New machines are still being sold w/ XP by default, with the "option" to upgrade to Vista. It turns out that a Mac running Parallels w/ XP can run more Windows software that a PC running Vista. Developers are still writing for XP and are just not pumping out the Vista apps.
Microsoft used to be criticized for being backward compatible to the stone age. Vista is different. Vista breaks lots of Windows software. Lots. '
I see this rollout as being a complete failure. Much worse than Windows ME, more like OS/2.
Two Weeks w/ Vista, From a Mac User. (Score:5, Interesting)
I was excited to hear that our Windows Vista (Business) Licenses had arrived via our MSDNAA account at work. So, I grabbed a license for testing and went at it. I wanted to leave my Mac alone and not try to force a Vista boot with Boot Camp + hacking. My original test box was:
Dell Optiplex GX270 P4 2.4 GHz, hyper-threading enabled.
1.25 GB DDR 400 RAM
80 GB HD (7200RPM/8MB Cache)
GeForce 4 MX 400 64MB Video Card (AGP 8x)
17" Flat Screen display
Install went perfect. After installation was complete, there were three or four Windows security updates awaiting me. After installing those, I started to play around. Unfortunately, my computer scored a 1.0 on the performance scale, mostly because of the video card. I was also disappointed that Aero was not supported on my video card as well, so all I had was the "Windows Vista Basic" theme available to me, without any of the new eye candy I was looking to see.
I really wanted to see what Vista had to offer, so I didn't want to settle for the reduced package. This is significant though. Microsoft wonders why they haven't seen to many upgrades to Vista yet- well this is one of them. A large amount of users with existing computers will not see the biggest UI improvement that Aero has to offer. This is different in comparison to Mac OS X 10.4, where, except for not being able to run a few screen savers, and not getting a few fancy effects here and there, your experience is pretty much the same visually, from a G3 iBook, right on through to the newest Mac Pro. Sure, there are applications that need core image, but, for the basic OS X install set, your experience is pretty much the same right on down the line.
Getting back to Vista... I decided to upgrade the computer as much as I could to get the full Vista experience, so I bumped myself up to 3GB of RAM, a 250GB 7200/16MB Cache hard disk, and, a GeForce FX 5200 128MB video card (best I can get for a low profile card w/bracket for this Dell). This brought my performance rating up to a 2.5, again, with the video card being the weak point.
Now I was getting Aero in all of its glory. Despite my video card being the bottom of the barrel for Vista/Aero, I haven't had any performance issues with any of the special effects (all of them are turned on). The only thing I'm kind of peeved about is the lack of NVidia support for this class of video card. NVidia has newer drivers out, however, but I had to use beta drivers from November for this card, because it looks like NVidia is in the process of dropping support for it. Despite being beta drivers, I haven't had any BSOD's or issues with them, and they are still faster than the default Microsoft drivers.
As for applications on Vista, its a mixed bag. Most things installed and worked OK. All my typical Internet applications and plugins (Firefox, Adobe Reader, Flash Player, Sun Java JRE, etc) worked without a hitch- even Gaim/GTK worked. Divx and RealPlayer are giving me issues where Windows has to switch out of Aero mode when they are running. It's kind of weird... the screen goes black for two seconds, and then comes back in Windows Vista "basic" mode. When you close the application, the reverse occurs, and you are back to Aero, with transparencies etc. VLC won't show most movies, just a bunch of changing colors in its window. iTunes worked OK for me, but I don't have my library saved on this computer. Office 2003 worked as well.
Five things stop me from using Vista (Score:4, Interesting)
(2) The 'advanced' GUI. I've been using Compiz and Beryl on Linux long enough to have played with eye candy and you know what? I switched it off. It slows my UI down, not because of computing power (plenty available) but because all that fancy stuff needs time to show itself. Opening a window that zooms or rolls or whatever takes longer than one that just appears on the screen, for example, and there's plenty of it. It gets in the way, period. The only thing I use in Beryl is a slightly transparent cube so I can see where things are because I can have quite a windows and desktops on the go.
(3) The licensing problems. I've been fighting the misnamed 'Genuine Advantage' on other systems which were as genuine as they come and, frankly, I've had enough. From what I've read Vista has even more of that nonsense in, and that, coupled with my unwillingness for any system to be allowed to 'phone home' without me knowing what details it sends is enough for me not to use it. I have client information I need to keep confidential and I have nil trust in systems that do things without me knowing. Apart from that, I get very little for the money - I rather spend it sponsoring an Open Source project that creates value for me and others.
(4) The eternal upgrade cycle, but that's more based on my experience with XP. I installed a couple of new systems 3 weeks ago, and I set it up so I have to authorise patches and updates. Well, it happens on a daily basis. Worse, one of the patches bluescreened one of the box to the point of me having to restore it from backup. I've only ever had that with Linux, 6 years ago, when a kernel patch went wrong - and that is easy to recover from.
(5) As with any version of Windows, the absolute dependency on the GUI for it to work. If there's a modal window somewhere hidden under the stack of others on your desktop it will stop the machine and actively prevent you from getting to the window. And you can't cancel the task because you need the GUI for that too. That leads me to another HUGE and related annoyance: if I say 'shut down' I want a machine to SHUT DOWN, no if, buts and maybes. It needs a shutdown that simply does what it says, no further questions asked.
And I don't buy into the 'hope cycle' that the next version will at last fix all the problems. Realistically, MS will NEVER willingly make such a version.
Who would buy the update?
Re:sounds like a good discussion (Score:5, Funny)
>
> Anyone with a job title like that is sure to be a Master Debater.
Re:sounds like a good discussion (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It's hard posting to Slashdot from Vista... (Score:3, Funny)
[ Allow ] [ Cancel ]
Unfortunately (Score:5, Informative)
That's not the entire story though. You see, I used to do OS/2 tech support back in the days. I got pretty familiar with the guts of OS/2 and Windows and OS/2 share a lot of early design. And early design flaws. In my opinion the most frustrating one of these is the fact that the application itself handles window frame messages. That means if the application is poorly written and stops handling frame window commands at any point you can't even minimize the window until it gets done processing. Minimize, kill and move should pretty much never stop working for any given window, even if the application is displaying a goddamn modal dialog box (Another pet peeve of mine and Microsoft seems to encourage programming by modal dialog.)
Meanwhile OSX and E17 demonstrate that you can put a glitzy interface on an OS that's quite suitable for server purposes. I'm pretty sure the only way that Microsoft could design an OS that didn't suck would be to tear the whole thing down and start from scratch, though.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Unfortunately (Score:5, Informative)
The SQL client I use at work has a modal dialog box pop up while executing a query, unfortunately because of the size of the data sets I'm working on some of my queries go for hours, the program itself also frequently crashes.
bada bing, without too much effort on the developers part I have an application that takes over my screen all the time.
GP is right, having the client process deal with window messages is right up there with Microsoft's worst bad design decisions.
Re:Unfortunately (Score:5, Insightful)
You could have stopped there. Windows is just a bad implementation of VMS + Unix + DOS that, due to Microsoft's successful violation of anti-trust law, is pretty much the only operating system you can buy pre-installed on commodity hardware. Because of that successful illegal behaviour, all the corporate apps (and games) run on Windows, hence all the corporate users are on Windows, adn all the gamers are on Windows. Vista offers exactly nothing to those users. But if you buy a new computer, Vista is what you are going to get because Microsoft wants it that way. It isn't exactly a surprise that nobody is buying Vista 'upgrades'.
Re: (Score:2)
Great post. That's the most accurate and concise description of Windows I've ever seen.
You know it's bad when someone as cheap as me will willingly spend hundreds of dollars extra for designer hardware because it's the only hardware that will run the only alternative to Windows capable of running certain major applications.
I'm consistently surprised that Adobe, in particular, hasn't gone balls-to-the-wall to try to make CS work on some subset of Linux. At least some of its customers would love to have t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Adobe barely goes balls to the cubicle divider to bring flash for Linux and even then you only get a 32-bit version, tough shit if you run in a 64bit desktop environment.
They know us Linux users are cheap goofs who most are probably just going to pirate Photoshop anyway...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Fixed (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Unfortunately (Score:4, Informative)
You have no idea what you are talking about. I think you are confusing the 'single input queue of OS/2' with Windows, which since Win3.x has always had a multi-input queue.
Vista also has several changes that address this even futher. For example the composer can even redraw unresponsive applications without any I/O lock.
Anyone that has used Windows with an NT base like 2k/XP/Vista knows that 99% of the time you can still 'Close and sometimes Minimize/Move' a crashed application; and in Vista it is 100% of the time on all of the above.
Meanwhile OSX and E17 demonstrate that you can put a glitzy interface on an OS that's quite suitable for server purposes
You are kidding right? Have you ever even seen performance numbers comparing Windows 2003 server to OSX Server? Have you even seen deployments of remote RDP users on a Windows 2003 server with all the themes and UI glitz of XP active?
The scary thing is that Longhorn even takes this to the next level, letting remote users run the 3D Aero interface remotely, fully accelerated locally because the Vista/Longhorn composer is pusing Vector and 3D information over RDP. Lets see you run a 3D application on any other Server OS or even Desktop OS 4,000 miles away with hardware acceleration and with a 3D UI with all the glitz. And this is something Vista does today, and Longhorn Beta will do later this year. I have seen our techs easily using glass and accelerated 3D applications from a Vista or Longhorn server session on a 56K connection, which is past impressive to being a bit scary.
I'm pretty sure the only way that Microsoft could design an OS that didn't suck would be to tear the whole thing down and start from scratch, though
And maybe if you knew what you were talking about you would understand the NT kernel of Windows is considered to be one of the best OS foundations, even from critics in the OSS world, it is the Win32 subsystem that takes a beating and MS could very easily replace it at any point.
But then again, if you had any clue you wouldn't have made the irresponsible and inaccurate statements in your post.
Next time do a google or even ask the 10 year old computer nerd that lives next door before trying to add information on something you know nothing about.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If that is true, and it is as easy as you make it seem, then why DON'T THEY JUST DO IT?
"Gee, we can easily replace the part of our OS that makes everybody hate us... but nah."
Re: (Score:2)
If that is true, and it is as easy as you make it seem, then why DON'T THEY JUST DO IT?
Backwards compatibility.
Remove the Win32 subsystem and no applications run. Period.
However, thre is a replacement API:
It works quite nicely.
Re:Unfortunately (Score:5, Insightful)
This IS NOT the same. MS has also ported Win32 and the NT Kernel many times; however, replacing the fundamental OS API set is something different.
MS is actively moving developers to managed code, and with a long term reason, so they can drop Win32 as secondary subsystem on NT with a new main system API.
Apple did VERY LITTLE when it comes to transitions making life easier on users. Their idea of compatibility was basically using a System9 VM on OSX. This is not creative, nor easy on the end users. MS on the other hand back in 1992 implemented the Win16 subsytem for application compatibility with Win 3.x while developing Windows NT. This was NOT an emulation environment, but a seperate Win16 subsystem that runs on the desktop side by side Win32.
MS is already doing this to a certain extent with
NT's core is a client/server kernel technology and it is in the NT layers where what is kind of cool about Windows exists. NT's subsystem model allows for MS to move in or out any Subsystem that is equal to the main OS subsystem, this is also why a BSD *nix variant runs NATIVELY as another subsystem on NT, without EMULATION or VM.
Microsoft doesn't do any of the above because they don't have to.
Again, this is simply not true. First, XP64 and Vista 64bit do NOT USE the Win32 subsystem as the main OS subsystem. So they have done this, not only 1992 with the Win16 subsystem, but today on the 64bit versions.
I don't really care what you think of MS, as they both suck and do things well depending on what you look at. However to try to use Apple as a 'shining' example when it comes to OS architecture or API implementation it is VERY laughable.
Even Quartz2D continues to fall on its face with no default hardware accleration, pushing developers to use the very old QuickDraw API to maintain performance in applications.
Even 10.5 hasn't delivered an accelerated version of Quartz2D, yet Vista REPLACED their entire video subsystem while adding in WPF and other technologies. And Vista's new video subsystem is SO TRANSPARENT to users and even nerds, that people don't think Vista is any different than XP.
So with regard to the video, MS did too good of a job of creating a new video foundation/system, as most people don't even get all of it is NEW and think Vista is just like XP because all the applications look and run just fine.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
C|N->K! Vista can't even manage to bring up the *task manager* half the time when an application freaks out (so much so, I've rolled my one Windows system back to XP Pro). Even without the eye candy on, it not stable. If if ever accidentally click "Windows Media Center" it would just up and
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I understand your point here, but on Vista, THIS IS NO LONGER TRUE. The application system UI elements like the minimize/move/close are handled by the Vista UI composer, so even if Outlook or any application locks tight, it i
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ok, oddly you are making my point in your response. The UI of the application doesn't always lock even if the application does. However, it can happen on XP/2k/NT4/etc...
On Vista, it cannot happen, as the screen is owned
Re:Unfortunately (Score:5, Informative)
Meanwhile OSX[...]
Not quite (Score:5, Informative)
Compared to XP, Vista is a mixed bag. There are some user experience improvements, and way the menus work on the start menu is an improvement. Aside from the initial disorientation, the UI is closer to what XP's should have been.
However, there are many complaints I have about Vista. UAC is the biggest one, and this can result in corrupted installs of some software (including Apache), and it is simply way too tempting to turn off every security improvement that Vista offers. Whatever Vista does, it will *not* make Windows that much more secure-- it just allows Microsoft to blame the users.
I also find Vista to be surprisingly slow (granted I only have 512MB RAM in this system) and some settings like UAC are hard to find. I think that Vista is going to be a support headache for everyone, and I do not recommend that people upgrade.
Re:Im sorry.... (Score:5, Informative)
"cache"
Vista will pre-load stuff it thinks you might need next. It's using your RAM to speed up your computer, which shockingly, is the idea of RAM.
Genius idea if you ask me; and I believe UNIX has been doing it for a while too - or at least something similar?
Re:Im sorry.... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Using ram before Virtual disk is a prudent thing.
The question is "Why?"
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Until Uru
Re: (Score:2)
215mb "wired"
275mb "active"
365mb "inactive"
855mb "used"
But then I have 2gb so I'm only using a bit over 1/3 of my memory, the rest is just green. Heh, funny tho, the VM swap is 11gb right now. Glad I have a good size HD. But it runs nice and snappy. Though I have noticed it takes less time to launch an app that I have already opened once this session, so I assume some things are
Re: (Score:2)
Turn off StupidFetch (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
469MB of RAM in use and it's running fine. As others have mentioned, it's caching all your frequently used files and programs. Word loads up in 3 seconds, PowerPoint in under 2 and excel, calendar, filezilla and the rest are basically instant.
Now i'm using 575MB of ram with all that stuff loaded (Firefox, Thunderbird and Media player
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'm running my knoppix remaster, kernel 2.4, and "top" shows:
Cpu(s): 0.5% user, 2.0% system, 0.0% nice, 97.6% idle
Mem: 256268k total, 251592k used, 4676k free, 3856k buffers
Swap: 1405648k total, 2156k used, 1403492k free, 159616k cached
As you can see, this is only a 256 MB of RAM machine, and quite a bit is "used", also the Swap is being used. I'm running Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.2, and using IceWM for "X". (See screenshots, below
Re: (Score:2)
If (as the grandparent) you have to spend 75% of your ram to just start with OS without anything productive running, there's something seriously wrong with your setup. In this case, it'd be because the OS is way too wasteful.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep.
What's that quote about PC owners being far too accepting of errors (compared to, say, a car owner). If your car consumed tons of fuel just idling, you wouldn't settle for it, even if you had the money to afford it. It's inefficiency and it's unfortunate that buying another OS isn
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
OS's are like STDs's (Score:2)
Oh I don't know... suppose that more people had genital herpes than had HIV.
That would mean that HIV is an inferior virus to genital herpes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What complete bullshit. Vista will run just fine on just about every machine manufactured today. You could make a case that it won't run great on hardware manufactured 2-3 years ago, but stuff manufactured is frickin designed for Vista!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Each succeeding Windows generation always runs WORSE on the same hardware than the older one.
Untrue. On higher-end hardware, new versions of Windows (along with other OSes) are usually faster because they are updated and tuned to make better use of that higher end hardware (which probably didn't even exist when the previous version was released).
Vista on, say, an 8-core machine will be substantially faster - especially under load - than XP or 2k on that same machine.
With OSX this is just the opposite.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
95% of people buy computers, not operating systems.
Re:Media Center (Score:5, Informative)
I was over at my friends house, he's all excited "I just got this new Vista Ultimate! Check out the Media Center". He turns on his TV, grabs the remote and starts up media center... goes to his recorded TV shows, hits play on a show from a couple days ago... we watch it for a couple minutes, then he goes back hits play on another show and.... Crash "Do you want to send a message to Microsoft?", no, start media center back up, hit play again on a different show, plays for about 3 seconds, crash again.
Then he says "Yeah, I can't get it to play more than one show per reboot... I don't know why, once you hit play on a show you have to watch that show all the way through, if you stop it or try to play another show it crashes. Once that show is done, it crashes, and you have to reboot to get it to play again"
His is just set up on a whitebox that he built and I don't know the stats or hardware he's got in it... but seriously, after seeing that and my other friend had it on his laptop (uninstalled and went back to XP after 2 weeks, couldn't get his development environment working under vista, also HATED UAC) watched him work for about 30 minutes one day, he had to have 15-20 UAC warnings in those 30 minutes, all for very normal things to do (like joining a wifi network) I'm never installing Vista, I'm glad I've got a non-OEM copy of XP that I can install on new hardware.
Re: (Score:2)
XP because a success because it was the current version of windows. Kid yourself not, Vista will be a "hit" too. Just give enough time for XP to become useless [re: lack of new drive
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm glad you told me that. Means I can scrap this RAM because it doesn't provide me with any benefit. I'll chuck this ATI card because ATI obviously don't want me to have any benefit from using it so I don't need it, right? Honestly, that whole paragraph was total crap. If it didn't provide me with benefit I wouldn't have bought it. Just because it's only usable in one fashion,
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Hopefully (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, this is the reason that windows sells at all as a server.
At the top enterprise end, little can beat a highly tuned linux server in most areas. However, for the smaller business, the idea of doing this is too frightening whilst a M$ box just seems easier.
The thing to watch out for here... OS X Leopard Server. For a significant number of small businesses, this would mean a glitzy UI, ease of use, and a pretty good feature set as a server. Not to mention that apple doesn't hit you with much in the way of per-client licenses as they make their money selling hardware.
More expensive and slightly less good performance than a well tuned linux or BSD box, but with ease of use and stability that M$ struggles to deliver on.
Just my 2c worth
Michael