Vista Desert Version

[Call4ComputerHelp]

Ah yes, Mojave as in the desert. A dry barren land where basic functions take extreme effort. I would say that sounds like the "release" version of Vista some two and a half years ago. Now the Mojave project is 2 or so months into its "damage control" as they try to rebuilding its image Has anything changed with Vista? Has the image of Vista changed with you?

Do you think Vista is actually ready for enterprise deployment now? 

Have you tried it in a true 64 bit client/server environment?

It would be great to hear your professional feedback.

Thanks!

P.S. In July I put Vista Business on one of my machines. Personally I like it and professionally I think it is a great OS and is probably the best that MS ever created.

[kpac]

Do you thing Vista is actually ready for deployment now?

What do you mean by this?

I have Vista since Christmas, and have had no problem with it.

[Call4ComputerHelp]

Do you thing Vista is actually ready for deployment now?

What do you mean by this?

I have Vista since Christmas, and have had no problem with it.

Ooops, typo. Thank you for pointing it out.

A majority of IT Pros have not rolled out Vista (in the enterprise) due to its lack of driver support when it came out last year. I had a customer who had just purchased a laptop and had to call me in due to the errors he was getting. It came from the OEM with out some drivers. Microsoft can exert some force on the major pc makers and this pc was manufactured by a big OEM, so it should have had every driver.

Thanks

[kpac]

Virtual PC?

[drmsucks]

 I had a customer who had just purchased a laptop and had to call me in due to the errors he was getting. It came from the OEM with out drivers.

What do you mean no drivers?

[Call4ComputerHelp]

 I had a customer who had just purchased a laptop and had to call me in due to the errors he was getting. It came from the OEM with out drivers.

What do you mean no drivers?

I said it came without drivers, corrected to some drivers, thanks.

[!~*:.Pink Floyd.:*~!]

Virtual PC?

its a program like sandboxie its made by microsoft and is free.

[Zylstra]

Virtual PC?

its a program like sandboxie its made by microsoft and is free.

Not quite... its a virtual PC, the name really explains it all. Its not a virtualized program environment, thats what you are thinking of...

I use Vista, and have had no problems with it, and I have heard more problems with people finding drivers for XP on new computers than new computers finding drivers for Vista... Vista has all my generic drivers as well...

[patio]

The same backlash has occured with every release of Windows and each time only time has told the answers...

[evilfantasy]

It's not Microsoft's fault when third party vendors are slow to update their software.

MS works closely with many, many hardware and software companies when building a new OS. They have to or NOTHING would work with it. You either get on board (play by their rules) or get left behind. Some choose to get left behind...

[Broni]

I had a customer who had just purchased a laptop and had to call me in due to the errors he was getting. It came from the OEM with out some drivers.

Made in China? This is ridiculous. What drivers were missing? What computer maker?
...been using Vista for over a year, yet to have find a problem...

[Call4ComputerHelp]

I had a customer who had just purchased a laptop and had to call me in due to the errors he was getting. It came from the OEM with out some drivers.

Made in China? This is ridiculous. What drivers were missing? What computer maker?
...been using Vista for over a year, yet to have find a problem...

Yes it was made in China, Acer. It was ridiculous.  As for the specific drivers I would have to dig up the invoice from last year unfortunately I don't have the time. I believe they were for the card readers. Also it was Vista Home Basic I believe.

I tried Vista in July and I personally like it. I would assume it is mature enough to roll out enterprise wide by now.

[Dead_reckon]

I used Vista Home Premium that came with my dell in September of 2007, I hated it. DX10 was HORRIBLE for games, Vista ate 52% of my RAM. Call it pre-caching or whatever you want, it still SUCKS when it caches an entire freaking GAME into the RAM when I may only play that game once a day, leaving me with like, 80% RAM usage. Average idle for vista with everything turned off was about  5% CPU usage on both cores, 52% RAM usage, higher than normal temperatures (CPU idled at 110 Idle's at about 90F now with XP), and if I listed everything I couldn't run on it versus what I could run on it. You'd have a really long list of incompatibilities, and a REALLY short list of compatibilities.

Long story short, Vista is in my opinion, a virus. It eats system resources like it has a bottomless stomach, it slows the system beyond belief, and most of all, it causes more instability of the system than any Trojan I've ever seen alone. I couldn't even run Counter Strike Source on low settings worth a crap on my laptop with Vista and DX10. I can run it on high @ 1440x900 with XP and DX9, same goes with MANY other games. Oh, and in vista, I noticed that near any reflect maps never loaded properly in any source based game. Dunno if it was the source engine, the drivers, or DX10, it don't happen in Windows XP SP2.

Point being, Vista isn't a step backwards, its a f***** full blown LEAP backwards to Windows ME.  Oh, and not only does it BLUESCREEN like nothing I've ever seen, it also has red, and even green screens! The h**l is up with that? I mean honestly, I only need one SOD, I don't need three, or even two, just ONE! That's just one thing that annoys me about it, its caching is another, the UAC security is another, need I go on? I can't so much as overwrite a file without it blaring in my face like its a breech in pentagon security! I don't need that crap in an OS, I need something that while stably run my games, and other apps, and not eat my system resources like a thousand Trojans. 

So yes, when you install vista, unless you want to re-learn a bunch of new "Vista Compatible" Applications, it is like the Mojave desert, BARREN, AND EMPTY! Making a move is life threatening even! The stress could kill you in a matter of years, I'm sure of that.

[drmsucks]

@dead_reckon: Hmmm, my guess is that you didn't like your Vista "experience"

I don't game, have 2 GB RAM and have no (0) problems with Vista Home. At 1GB RAM, it was very slow, even for moderate tasks. You don't say how much RAM you had but my guess is that you had 1 GB - give it a try with 4 GB.

[Dead_reckon]

Read my specs man, I got two gigs of DDR2 667, was STILL eating half of that. An OS shouldn't NEED even 256MB of RAM to run, any more than 512 and its bloatware, more than a gig and its just gonna sink to the bottom.

And OS should be just that, an Operating system, it Operates your System so that you may run applications, I hate anything that demands to much to do more than that.

[drmsucks]

Read my specs man,

You've got so many fans listed that the popup box extends so far that I can't see the RAM on the first system.

An OS shouldn't NEED even 256MB of RAM to run, any more than 512 and its bloatware, more than a gig and its just gonna sink to the bottom.

Use Win 95 or Win 98. I think that you'll be pleased.

[Dead_reckon]

I've ran XP on systems with a 450MHz PII, 128MB of RAM, and a 8GB ATA66 hard drive without a hitch other than a two or three minute boot time. As for the specs, I trimmed them up for those running in 1024x768 for whatever unknown reason. As for your love for Vista, I'm starting a pole to see how much people like Vista.

Consider this: Each game caches about 600MB worth of crap, I have 2GB of RAM, and it won't purge the cache unless it gets to like, 80%, in which case, the game crashes because the crap it just put on the RAM is suddenly GONE. That's one of MANY problems I had, I admit, the 8600M GT isn't the greatest GPU. But with vista, its about as useful as a GeForce MX series. As for Steam, I run Counter Strike: Source with it, Team Fortress 2, Half Life 2, Half Life 2 EP1 & 2, and several other games. So, yeah, lets see YOU game on it worth a crap with the system I have. Vista is bloatware, plain and simple, it eats too much of the system and is too much like a *censored* macintosh!

Vista needs to be sent to mars with all those that support it to start a new race of people who like nice looking useless software that isn't even good for the web browsers because you have to go through fifty thousand menu's just to browse the web!

[Broni]

I don't game, have 2 GB RAM and have no (0) problems with Vista Home.

Same here.

I got two gigs of DDR2 667, was STILL eating half of that.

This is how operating system works. No matter, if you have 1gig, 2gig, or 3gig, the RAM usage will always stay at the similar level, and it's quiet logical.
More RAM, less VM usage.
More RAM = more speed. More speed comes from the usage of more RAM.

An OS shouldn't NEED even 256MB of RAM to run, any more than 512 and its bloatware, more than a gig and its just gonna sink to the bottom.

Just nonsense. All I can say.

[patio]

Read up on how Vista was designed to utilise RAM...your comparisons mean you are living in the past or it's not understood fully...
Percentage wise if you have Vista running with 2G of Ram and another machine running Vista with 4G of RAM under similar tasks both machines will read very close numbers no matter what....why  because it's a more efficient design.

In other words if it's there...Vista is going to use it.

[Broni]

I've ran XP on systems with a 450MHz PII, 128MB of RAM, and a 8GB ATA66 hard drive without a hitch

I pay for shipping. Send it to me. I WANT to see.

[Dead_reckon]

I would record it working with some screen capture software, but I don't think the CPU supports video encoding,. That might slow things down a bit.. It doesn't like youtube or other video sites to much, but it handles them. Its mostly the hardware not having the proper codecs, on a newer 667MHz celeron w/ 128MB RAM and the MX400 though, it might work, I dunno. Point is, if you turn off what you don't need/use in the OS, it runs better, you can't do this in vista. XP's true requirements:

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/sysreqs/pro.mspx

Trust me, you want slow? Try installing Win98 SE on a 90MHz Pentium MMX in a gateway laptop that has 8MB SIMM memory, and a 2GB hard drive. It doesn't have an optical drive that works, so its installing from the win98in directory in the root of the drive. That is the definition of a SLOW computer, you want slower? Try UPDATING it, or installing drivers. Slow to me is when a computer doesn't perform to its maximum capacity, vista prevents this in near any machine running less than eight gigs of RAM. As I said, Vista = Bloatware, its an unneeded leap t'wards the land of Linux/Mac GUI, if I wanted eye candy by Tupperware, I'd go to Linux.

[Broni]

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/sysreqs/pro.mspx
Please, don't get me going. The above is:
1. Ridiculous
2. False advertisement (some lesser companies got sued for this).
3. A wish for my worst enemy.

What are you trying to prove here?
An average human can survive without water for THREE days. Does it mean, we should drink water every three days?

As I said, Vista = Bloatware

You can repeat that until you turn blue, but it won't make it true.

[drmsucks]

"Why would anyone need more [memory] than 640KB?" - Supposedly said by Bill Gates in the 1980's

[patio]

At the risk of repeating myself....

Read up on how Vista was designed to utilise RAM...your comparisons mean you are living in the past or it's not understood fully...
Percentage wise if you have Vista running with 2G of Ram and another machine running Vista with 4G of RAM under similar tasks both machines will read very close numbers no matter what....why  because it's a more efficient design.

In other words if it's there...Vista is going to use it.

[evilfantasy]

Why try to understand it when it's so much easier to just rip it to shreds 

[patio]

Why try to understand it when it's so much easier to just rip it to shreds 

Good point.

[drmsucks]

At the risk of repeating myself....

Read up on how Vista was designed to utilise RAM...your comparisons mean you are living in the past or it's not understood fully...
Percentage wise if you have Vista running with 2G of Ram and another machine running Vista with 4G of RAM under similar tasks both machines will read very close numbers no matter what....why  because it's a more efficient design.

In other words if it's there...Vista is going to use it.

That was meant to be humorous

[drmsucks]

"Why would anyone need more [memory] than 640KB?" - Supposedly said by Bill Gates in the 1980's

WHOOPS - THIS was meant to be humorous

[GX1_Man]

I've ran XP on systems with a 450MHz PII, 128MB of RAM, and a 8GB ATA66 hard drive without a hitch other than a two or three minute boot time. As for the specs, I trimmed them up for those running in 1024x768 for whatever unknown reason. As for your love for Vista, I'm starting a pole to see how much people like Vista.

Consider this: Each game caches about 600MB worth of crap, I have 2GB of RAM, and it won't purge the cache unless it gets to like, 80%, in which case, the game crashes because the crap it just put on the RAM is suddenly GONE. That's one of MANY problems I had, I admit, the 8600M GT isn't the greatest GPU. But with vista, its about as useful as a GeForce MX series. As for Steam, I run Counter Strike: Source with it, Team Fortress 2, Half Life 2, Half Life 2 EP1 & 2, and several other games. So, yeah, lets see YOU game on it worth a crap with the system I have. Vista is bloatware, plain and simple, it eats too much of the system and is too much like a f*****g macintosh!

Vista needs to be sent to mars with all those that support it to start a new race of people who like nice looking useless software that isn't even good for the web browsers because you have to go through fifty thousand menu's just to browse the web!

You should obviously never use a computer and play all of your games on XBox.

[Call4ComputerHelp]

Thanks to all for your insights.