Is it good to use Vista ?
-
I am running Vista perfectly happily with just 2Gb of RAM.
Recent blog posts: *SQL Server / Visual Studio install order *Installing SQL Server 2005 on Vista *Tip of the Day - SysInternals * Meme My Blog
I have a P4 1.8GHz with 1GB RAM and mine works just fine.
Beauty is only a light switch away.
-
I have a P4 1.8GHz with 1GB RAM and mine works just fine.
Beauty is only a light switch away.
Just a lot slower than XP with the same hardware.
John
-
oooff. He scared me :|
4GB of memory (2 x 2GB PC6400 DDR2) can be had in the US for less than $85 so I did not think this was too bad but I guess it is more expensive in other parts of the world.
John
-
Yes. Because everyone else is and you'll be stuck with it eventually. But, do a LOT of reading first, Vista does a lot of stuff that was never properly explained by Microsoft, especially to developers, which is the other reason you need it. Your app probably doesn't work on Vista, and you need to come to grips with why, if you have users who use Vista.
Christian Graus No longer a Microsoft MVP, but still happy to answer your questions.
OK. Thank you
-
Yes. Because everyone else is and you'll be stuck with it eventually. But, do a LOT of reading first, Vista does a lot of stuff that was never properly explained by Microsoft, especially to developers, which is the other reason you need it. Your app probably doesn't work on Vista, and you need to come to grips with why, if you have users who use Vista.
Christian Graus No longer a Microsoft MVP, but still happy to answer your questions.
Christian Graus wrote:
Your app probably doesn't work on Vista
After it's done? I'm working on an app and what I have done so far works fine. It's still in production but I debug often and all is well so far. Of course I'm using VB.net so that's probably why. :)
Beauty is only a light switch away.
-
Just a lot slower than XP with the same hardware.
John
I wouldn't know. The last time I used XP I had a 2.9GHZ Celeron D with 512MB RAM and it was slower than this box I'm on now.
Beauty is only a light switch away.
-
I wouldn't know. The last time I used XP I had a 2.9GHZ Celeron D with 512MB RAM and it was slower than this box I'm on now.
Beauty is only a light switch away.
The 512 MB of RAM probably was the problem.
John
-
The 512 MB of RAM probably was the problem.
John
And the Celeron D. It's a horrible processor and slower than my P4. I swapped it out when I got Vista.
Beauty is only a light switch away.
-
And the Celeron D. It's a horrible processor and slower than my P4. I swapped it out when I got Vista.
Beauty is only a light switch away.
I did not think it was slower than the 1.8GHz P4 but it was designed to be significantly slower than the Pentium D processors so as to not draw away from the top chip.
John
-
Hi there. I'm using WinXp SP2. I'd like to know , it's good to use Windows Vista now ? Why? What are your reasons ?
It's been fine for me except was a real pain to set up - had to try 5 network cards to find one that was compatible, and remove all of my PCI cards during the install.. But that was a year ago so things mught have changed now :) Regards, --Perspx
"The Blue Screen of Death, also known as The Blue Screen of Doom, the "Blue Screen of Fun", "Phatul Exception: The WRECKening" and "Windows Vista", is a multi award-winning game first developed in 1995 by Microsoft" - Uncyclopedia
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Your app probably doesn't work on Vista
After it's done? I'm working on an app and what I have done so far works fine. It's still in production but I debug often and all is well so far. Of course I'm using VB.net so that's probably why. :)
Beauty is only a light switch away.
Anyting that is written on Vista, will work, of course. But I'm saying that a lot of older apps probably would need changing.
Christian Graus No longer a Microsoft MVP, but still happy to answer your questions.
-
oooff. He scared me :|
I'm running Vista on a dual core 2G laptop. It's fine. I still prefer XP though. Simpler, faster, more stable, my older PCIMCIA cards work correctly. Marc
-
Mohammad Dayyan wrote:
it's good to use Windows Vista now ?
Yes. It was always good if you had a powerful enough PC
Mohammad Dayyan wrote:
Why?
Because it is better than XP. It is faster than XP (it shifts a lot of the graphics processing onto the video card, which XP never did, freeing up the process to do other things). It has better memory management (it caches things more effectivly so that your programs respond quicker). If a hardware driver fails it just keeps on going by restarting the driver, or failing over into a default driver. Wireless networking is much easier. Power management is easier. There are, however, caveats. Read two of my recent blog entries about Visual Studio and SQL Server on Vista. Visual Studio / SQL Server install order[^] and Installing SQL Server 2005 on Windows Vista[^]. Also, from some time ago, Visual Studio 2005 on Vista[^]. Also, I don't know if this was fixed in SP1, but the original Vista installer didn't like multiple monitors being plugged in at installation time.[^].
Recent blog posts: *SQL Server / Visual Studio install order *Installing SQL Server 2005 on Vista *Tip of the Day - SysInternals * Meme My Blog
Off topic, have you got any suggestions for installing SQL Server 2005 onto a Vista x64 machine with VS2008? I've installed it and runs quite happily via Management Studio but if I try and add a database inside Visual Studio 2008 (e.g. working with ASP.NET websites) then it says it's not installed :confused:. I also have access (through DreamSpark) to the developer edition but still the x86 version I think. Keeping in mind this machine was "built" a year ago and thus can't remember which editions I installed (got a vague recollection it was the x64 edition of SQL Server), but any ideas on how to solve this issue? Thannks if you can, and thanks if you can't
-
Hi there. I'm using WinXp SP2. I'd like to know , it's good to use Windows Vista now ? Why? What are your reasons ?
My work laptop is XP2 so I switched my personal laptop to Vista so I can be prepared in case the eventual switch ever occurs. I think some of the WPF things are neat, however, when I look at how much juice is draws from the laptop I wonder if companies have looked at the overhead cost of even developing in Vista. If your PC is drawing 200W/hrs to run a simple business app * 200 users that is a lot of power compared to the low draw that can be achieved with SP2 and an LCD. Heck, most of my apps business apps run near idle. But yet, I run Vista, no real reason.
Need a C# Consultant? I'm available.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know. -- Ernest Hemingway -
Yes. I've been using it as my main development OS for well over a year, it's faster, more stable, more secure, better looking. Be sure to read up on all the new features and how they work lest you try it, get confused and or frustrated and then start posting here about how much is sucks as other less than dilligent or professional people have in the past.
"It's so simple to be wise. Just think of something stupid to say and then don't say it." -Sam Levenson
It's not faster though, unless you have say 8GB ram? It definitely isn't faster than XP with 4GB ram Unless of course you compare vista on a new comp with xp and an old comp - as is done all too often.. What really bugs me about it is that it pretends it's not my computer anymore unless you ho waaayyy out of your way to fix it
-
I am running Vista perfectly happily with just 2Gb of RAM.
Recent blog posts: *SQL Server / Visual Studio install order *Installing SQL Server 2005 on Vista *Tip of the Day - SysInternals * Meme My Blog
In fact, I run Vista with 1GB. (not pulling your leg)
Chuck Norris has the greatest Poker-Face of all time. He won the 1983 World Series of Poker, despite holding only a Joker, a Get out of Jail Free Monopoloy card, a 2 of clubs, 7 of spades and a green #4 card from the game UNO.
-
Off topic, have you got any suggestions for installing SQL Server 2005 onto a Vista x64 machine with VS2008? I've installed it and runs quite happily via Management Studio but if I try and add a database inside Visual Studio 2008 (e.g. working with ASP.NET websites) then it says it's not installed :confused:. I also have access (through DreamSpark) to the developer edition but still the x86 version I think. Keeping in mind this machine was "built" a year ago and thus can't remember which editions I installed (got a vague recollection it was the x64 edition of SQL Server), but any ideas on how to solve this issue? Thannks if you can, and thanks if you can't
Ed.Poore wrote:
any suggestions for installing SQL Server 2005 onto a Vista x64 machine with VS2008?
Sorry, I don't yet have any experience with x64 versions.
Recent blog posts: *SQL Server / Visual Studio install order *Installing SQL Server 2005 on Vista *Tip of the Day - SysInternals * Meme My Blog
-
Ed.Poore wrote:
any suggestions for installing SQL Server 2005 onto a Vista x64 machine with VS2008?
Sorry, I don't yet have any experience with x64 versions.
Recent blog posts: *SQL Server / Visual Studio install order *Installing SQL Server 2005 on Vista *Tip of the Day - SysInternals * Meme My Blog
-
It's not faster though, unless you have say 8GB ram? It definitely isn't faster than XP with 4GB ram Unless of course you compare vista on a new comp with xp and an old comp - as is done all too often.. What really bugs me about it is that it pretends it's not my computer anymore unless you ho waaayyy out of your way to fix it
Unless you're using 64 Bit it doesn't use more then 3Gb Ram - so anything over 3Gb is just a waste of cash (as far as Vista goes) "the maximum memory available in 32-bit versions of Windows Vista is typically 3.12 GB." from http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929605[^]
Take a chill pill, Daddy-o .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
-
It's not faster though, unless you have say 8GB ram? It definitely isn't faster than XP with 4GB ram Unless of course you compare vista on a new comp with xp and an old comp - as is done all too often.. What really bugs me about it is that it pretends it's not my computer anymore unless you ho waaayyy out of your way to fix it
harold aptroot wrote:
It definitely isn't faster than XP with 4GB ram
:sigh: Of course it's faster, try profiling it. I profiled all my most commonly used apps before I switched to Vista from XP on an identical computer, Vista can't help but be faster in many critical areas most noticeably running applications.
"It's so simple to be wise. Just think of something stupid to say and then don't say it." -Sam Levenson