Is it good to use Vista ?
-
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
-
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 ?
Define "good to use?" SP1, plus other updates since, plus hardware manufactures getting their act together, have fixed many of the initial complaints with Vista. It's up to you whether you like the new UI and whether you have hardware that will support Aero, or if you are happy with Vista basic. It's an OS. At a fundamental level it's more advanced and secure than XP. But whether or not it's right for you is something only you can answer.
cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
-
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
I run x64 and don't have any problems with either. I believe I installed SQL Server first.
only two letters away from being an asset
-
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.
Haven't come across any app that run in XP but gives problems in Vista, with the exception of driver related issues.
only two letters away from being an asset
-
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 ?
-
Define "good to use?" SP1, plus other updates since, plus hardware manufactures getting their act together, have fixed many of the initial complaints with Vista. It's up to you whether you like the new UI and whether you have hardware that will support Aero, or if you are happy with Vista basic. It's an OS. At a fundamental level it's more advanced and secure than XP. But whether or not it's right for you is something only you can answer.
cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
Chris Maunder wrote:
At a fundamental level it's more advanced and secure than XP
In which way is it more secured? Is it the continues popup you get - what is even the name of that feature? Vista is a new OS and not yet really field tested, so the least we want to hear is that more secure stuff. Last year I upgraded my internet to broadband, my provider was advertising "more secure" on the TV. I ordered the upgrade just to be sent Mcfee anti-virus CD as the "more secure". To me buying a new PC with Vista might make sense, but to pop it on a current PC, there seems to be no reason. Best regards, Paul.
Jesus Christ is LOVE! Please tell somebody.
-
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 ?
Mohammad Dayyan wrote:
it's good to use Windows Vista now ?
It's okay once you get it to settle down a bit.
"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer "Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon
-
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')
maxxx# wrote:
so anything over 3Gb is just a waste of cash (as far as Vista goes)
You mean you can't tweak around with it like XP to get the full 4GB? :suss:
"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer "Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon
-
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
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
It was always good if you had a powerful enough PC
True, but my laptop I am running it on isn't the most powerful machine around, but gutting out the junk services I don't use, it works well.
"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer "Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon
-
maxxx# wrote:
so anything over 3Gb is just a waste of cash (as far as Vista goes)
You mean you can't tweak around with it like XP to get the full 4GB? :suss:
"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer "Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon
AFAIK you can only get it to DISPLAY the amount of memory correctly - but it still won't be using that extra above 3Gb. Can you actually do that on XP? I didn't think Xp could see more than 3Gb either? Always made me wonder why they sell machines with a 32 bit OS and 4Gb or more of Ram
Take a chill pill, Daddy-o .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
-
AFAIK you can only get it to DISPLAY the amount of memory correctly - but it still won't be using that extra above 3Gb. Can you actually do that on XP? I didn't think Xp could see more than 3Gb either? Always made me wonder why they sell machines with a 32 bit OS and 4Gb or more of Ram
Take a chill pill, Daddy-o .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
Haven't tried it myself, but I've read before that you have to use the /PAE switch when starting up Windows. And a few other things to get it to work with all 4GB... This for example, http://www.ocmodshop.com/ocmodshop.aspx?a=989[^]...
"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer "Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon
-
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
My dual core 1.6ghz laptop with 1.5gb ram is running Vista Ultimate smoothly. VS2008 seems to run no faster or slower than it does on my XP machine.
"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer "Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon
-
Haven't tried it myself, but I've read before that you have to use the /PAE switch when starting up Windows. And a few other things to get it to work with all 4GB... This for example, http://www.ocmodshop.com/ocmodshop.aspx?a=989[^]...
"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer "Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon
AFAIK these 'hacks' can give you access to about an extra 512Mb of the 'mising' 1Gb - not to be sneezed at, I guess, but I also understand that the access to this extra memory is slower, and possibly only works with certain motherboard chipsets. Maybe I'll try it on my office PC and see what happens. If I don't reply, you'll know all didn't go well ;)
Take a chill pill, Daddy-o .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
-
AFAIK these 'hacks' can give you access to about an extra 512Mb of the 'mising' 1Gb - not to be sneezed at, I guess, but I also understand that the access to this extra memory is slower, and possibly only works with certain motherboard chipsets. Maybe I'll try it on my office PC and see what happens. If I don't reply, you'll know all didn't go well ;)
Take a chill pill, Daddy-o .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
I've always wondered and may be upgrading to 64 bits anyways.
"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer "Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon
-
I've always wondered and may be upgrading to 64 bits anyways.
"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer "Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon
If you go 64 bit, just make sure you're not developing with people rnning 32 bit! We have one developer in our team runnng 64 bit (long story) and the amount of angst it causes (3rd party tools not available, specific code in project builds to decide which machine it's being built on etc.) outweights its usefulness (in fact, I haven't seen and good side to 64 bit vista at all, frankly, in what we laughingly call the real world)
Take a chill pill, Daddy-o .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
-
If you go 64 bit, just make sure you're not developing with people rnning 32 bit! We have one developer in our team runnng 64 bit (long story) and the amount of angst it causes (3rd party tools not available, specific code in project builds to decide which machine it's being built on etc.) outweights its usefulness (in fact, I haven't seen and good side to 64 bit vista at all, frankly, in what we laughingly call the real world)
Take a chill pill, Daddy-o .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
maxxx# wrote:
If you go 64 bit, just make sure you're not developing with people rnning 32 bit!
That's true. Not really conceptually any different than when I started doing software development, I got to see the transition from 16 bits to 32 bits, and it is pretty much the same idea all over again. While most folks were running 16 bits with 80286's and 80386-SX, I had a 32 bit 80386-DX and had to be careful about porting down to 16 bits from 32 bit development.
"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer "Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon
-
Chris Maunder wrote:
At a fundamental level it's more advanced and secure than XP
In which way is it more secured? Is it the continues popup you get - what is even the name of that feature? Vista is a new OS and not yet really field tested, so the least we want to hear is that more secure stuff. Last year I upgraded my internet to broadband, my provider was advertising "more secure" on the TV. I ordered the upgrade just to be sent Mcfee anti-virus CD as the "more secure". To me buying a new PC with Vista might make sense, but to pop it on a current PC, there seems to be no reason. Best regards, Paul.
Jesus Christ is LOVE! Please tell somebody.
-
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 ?
I Installed Vista on a 15GB partition and in two months it grew so much so that now there are only 500MB free on that drive. All other software I am using is on a different partition so those 14.5 gigs are just for OS! For one thing it constantly updates and requires restart. But the big problem right now is that I can't install SP1 because it requires 2GB of free space! I tried freeing up some space but didn't manage to get enough. Turns out that the Winsxs folder takes nearly 8GB, and there is nothing one can do about that. Unfortunately repartitioning is not an option at this point. So the only thing I can do is create a new Vista CD with SP1 integrated and reinstall. :wtf: This is my first experience with Vista, draw your own conclusions. If I were you I would definitely stick to XP.