Is it good to use Vista ?
-
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
Any app that uses the audio system will likely behave in strange ways. Been there, got the T-shirt. And something I use regularly (but which senility prevents me from remembering right now) just crashes on startup. Nero Burning ROM I think, old-ish version.
Paul Sanders http://www.alpinesoft.co.uk
-
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 don't use it in anger (I have it installed on a laptop and on one test machine), reason being that my tried and tested XP setup does everything I want and has all my favourite gadgets installed. Things I don't like are: - profligate resource usage - the fact that Microsoft are ramming it down our throats - from my perspective, it doesn't really do anything that XP doesn't do (or could be made to do), including (I gather) WPF XP is a much better alternative for older machines. We should be allowed to keep it. Also, Vista keeps crashing (in TCPIP.SYS) on my laptop. Have installed the relevant hotfix, no change.
Paul Sanders http://www.alpinesoft.co.uk
-
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
-
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')
-
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 ?
Hi I've been wondering where to post my opinion on Windows Vista. Here's my chance. I absolutely would not go back to XP. Yes it takes big gear to run it. But who still runs the 80286 at 20 Mhz? Don't bother replacing parts, get a Vista ready PC. The integrated search is in my opinion by far the coolest feature. Yes there are multiple earlier versions of this from multiple vendors but it's now OS integrated and it literally takes seconds to find "anything" in my 500 GB storage space. Search boxes are everywhere and they located where and when I need them. IIS 7 is truly awesome. I can't wait to try it on a high volume web site. Windows Aero: can't live without it. Windows Key + Tab is very handy to find those lost dialog windows that sometimes won't show up in our good old Alt-Tab interface. XP is now good for the recycling bins. If your interest is just e-mail, basic web, basic editing: any older OS can handle this just fine since the 1980s If you're interested is taking advantage of the latest gear, Vista can handle this just fine. Look ahead: who's gonna stick to XP in 2013 ? However you have to have decent reasons to upgrade. It makes me smile that the Best Buy point of sale software is completely character based. I respect that. If the newer software of any purpose is no good, just don't use it. That's how IT developers will more get the point that IT should much more easily be used by non IT people. Think about Surface Computing. Now that truly "rocks". Running Vista is not problem free. But look back: XP, 2K, Me, 98, 95, 3.1 were problem free? Not. Just skydive and do it. AlainBicycle!
-
I am happy with my Vista laptop, just 2Gb /160GB HD / dual core. I have never seen my memory full working with Visual Studio or Office. You will require a least a month to tame it, but the benefits are big, as many members have exposed here. I noticed the drivers problems, every gadget I buy must be carefully checked for Vista compatiblity, but I think this is not a big issue. Buying Vista-compatible hardware is an indicator for me to have the lastest products. Of course I would never recommend to upgrade a system to Vista. I think every system must ran with the OS it was designed for. If you want Vista, sell your XP machine at ebay or a garage sale, and buy a new computer.
Best regards, Jaime.
I mostly agree with you, however fairly new machines can be upgraded to Vista but make sure to download all the drivers you need first, that way you know your hardware is compatible before upgrading. Then off course do not upgrade XP, I have only bad experience with that, use a fresh install of Vista. Now an other question to consider is, how much time will it take to install a fresh copy on your system? If you have tons of custom settings and a multitude of installed programs you might want to stick with XP till you get a new machine, so yes basically I agree... Another tip, don't buy Ultimate unless you really need it, Ultimate uses quite a bit more resources than for example Business. Best regards Christian PS: I am guessing your using the 32 bit version of Vista cause 2 GB is a bit sparse on the 64 bit version especially if you want to run Visual Studio...
-
I mostly agree with you, however fairly new machines can be upgraded to Vista but make sure to download all the drivers you need first, that way you know your hardware is compatible before upgrading. Then off course do not upgrade XP, I have only bad experience with that, use a fresh install of Vista. Now an other question to consider is, how much time will it take to install a fresh copy on your system? If you have tons of custom settings and a multitude of installed programs you might want to stick with XP till you get a new machine, so yes basically I agree... Another tip, don't buy Ultimate unless you really need it, Ultimate uses quite a bit more resources than for example Business. Best regards Christian PS: I am guessing your using the 32 bit version of Vista cause 2 GB is a bit sparse on the 64 bit version especially if you want to run Visual Studio...
I am using 32-bit Vista Home Premium. It works well even for development tasks.
Best regards, Jaime.
-
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 ?
Same points as most of the people above. I have been using it at work, on desktop and laptop, at home on my desktop and my entertainment PC, and have a few friends working on it as well. If you have a 1Gb+ machine, and a relatively recent GFX card, Vista is way better than XP. It crashes far less, uses memory much more effectively, and in my experience, Disk I/O is also much faster than XP. For some of the comments regarding XP on a older machine. I had a dual-boot setup of XP and Vista on my home desktop for a long time, and ended up in Vista 95% of the time. Also has VS installed in both, and VS started up much faster and was much more responsive in Vista. On the down side, the interface takes some getting used to, and I really don't like the minimalist Explorer UI, or the fact that you always need to find a unused area to right-click and "New->Folder", but that's more habit problems rather than OS problems :doh: Overall, I wouldn't go back to XP for any reason, except if I got a very old machine
-
FWIW, I'm going with Windows Server 2008[^] instead of Vista for my new dev box.
It's the same thing. The Windows Server 2008 kernel is the same as the Windows Vista SP1 kernel - Windows Server 2008 RTM even identifies itself as SP1 in the system properties control panel. Microsoft have tried very hard to make them as compatible as possible to ensure that they only need to provide one set of updates, rather than two. For example, read the file information for the July 2008 Windows Explorer update[^]. Save yourself some money - get Windows Vista!
DoEvents: Generating unexpected recursion since 1991
-
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.
The minimum requirement for Windows Vista[^] (all editions other than Home Basic) is a 40GB hard disk with 15GB free space.
DoEvents: Generating unexpected recursion since 1991
-
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 have been using Vista(32 bit) for over a year now for everything. It is a good OS if you have the hardware to run it. I run at home on an HP with dual core AMD processor and 3 gig of Ram. At work its a 24 inch iMac with 4 gig running under VMWare Fusion so windows gets 2 gig. VS 2008 is a slow pig on both but my colleagues using xp and 2 gig say the same. Any way I recommend VISTA because its whats going to be the dominate OS (the next os is still Vista core). Until everything is hyper visor and clouds that is.
When prediction serves as polemic, it nearly always fails. Our prefrontal lobes can probe the future only when they aren’t leashed by dogma. The worst enemy of agile anticipation is our human propensity for comfy self-delusion. David Brin Buddha Dave
-
If you’re using too much juice remove Aero that will reduce power consumption and speed up slow machines quite dramatically. That’s the quick fix, a better way is of course to disable all the services you don’t need and if that’s not enough, remove Aero, because Aero is really the guilty part in using resources. I personally use Aero, but hey, I have a 45nm Quad core Xeon so…
I am referring to power consumption exclusively and not machine performance.
Need a C# Consultant? I'm available.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know. -- Ernest Hemingway -
SevenCPA wrote:
So, under the PAE model, you usually fall on the classic Win32 model: apps using franticly their 2GB (because they were not developed to take advantage of the extra giga), and OS kernel running in 1GB.
That doesn't really make sense. You said there's 2GB for "applications", so even if any SINGLE application isn't "designed to use more than 2GB" you should still be able to use the extra gig by launching more apps. Also, SQL Server *is* designed to basically allocate as much memory as it can, or more precisely to cache as aggressively as possible, and it does take advantage of the extra memory. (I'm sure you already knew - you mentioned servers and all - but it might be of interest to many readers.) I'm curious though how exactly "most applications" would be designed in any way to deal with the 2GB memory limit. It seems to me this should be "a hidden implementation detail" of the OS and not something applications should be concerned with. I'd claim that application developers try to write reasonably efficient code making reasonable tradeoffs between time and space, but without any regard to a 2GB limit and indeed in most cases without even knowing about it's existence.
dojohansen wrote:
I'm curious though how exactly "most applications" would be designed in any way to deal with the 2GB memory limit. It seems to me this should be "a hidden implementation detail" of the OS and not something applications should be concerned with. I'd claim that application developers try to write reasonably efficient code making reasonable tradeoffs between time and space, but without any regard to a 2GB limit and indeed in most cases without even knowing about it's existence.
It should be except that the historic 2/2gb split resulted in lots of applications (and drivers) that use 32 bit SIGNED ints for pointers and blow up messily if they get an address in the 2nd 2GB of ram. This is why the /3gb (splits ram 3gb app, 1gb os) switch only gives extra memory to apps that explicitly say they can handle it. In win64 these apps get almost 4gb (a few memory holes are still kept for legacy support reasons) of addressable ram. It shouldn't be a painful change on a well designed app, but since it requires an extra round of testing not many people bothered, and at this point if real fixes are needed going x64 is much more future proof. PAE needs built into apps because it's a fugly kludge. PAE is a return to the bank switching the 16bit CPU era needed to access more than 64k of ram. X|
Today's lesson is brought to you by the word "niggardly". Remember kids, don't attribute to racism what can be explained by Scandinavian language roots. -- Robert Royall
-
I am referring to power consumption exclusively and not machine performance.
Need a C# Consultant? I'm available.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know. -- Ernest HemingwayI would think that since Aero uses plenty of system resources that you will reduce power consumption by removing it, it might be worth a try anyways...
-
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.
I used to, but in my laptops case it was a bit less responsive than my XP machine when I upgraded to 4gb (3gb) of ram the relative performance difference vanished. I've been told 2gb is the magic number, but never tested with 1 stick of ram removed.
Today's lesson is brought to you by the word "niggardly". Remember kids, don't attribute to racism what can be explained by Scandinavian language roots. -- Robert Royall
-
Any app that uses the audio system will likely behave in strange ways. Been there, got the T-shirt. And something I use regularly (but which senility prevents me from remembering right now) just crashes on startup. Nero Burning ROM I think, old-ish version.
Paul Sanders http://www.alpinesoft.co.uk
Thank creative labs for that one. Audio was one of the two driver models to get heavily reworked (video the other one), thanks to Creative Labs inability to write a bugfree driver for the soundbastard the audio model was ripped out of the kernel and into usermode to keep it from being able to BSOD the OS. X|
Today's lesson is brought to you by the word "niggardly". Remember kids, don't attribute to racism what can be explained by Scandinavian language roots. -- Robert Royall
-
dojohansen wrote:
I'm curious though how exactly "most applications" would be designed in any way to deal with the 2GB memory limit. It seems to me this should be "a hidden implementation detail" of the OS and not something applications should be concerned with. I'd claim that application developers try to write reasonably efficient code making reasonable tradeoffs between time and space, but without any regard to a 2GB limit and indeed in most cases without even knowing about it's existence.
It should be except that the historic 2/2gb split resulted in lots of applications (and drivers) that use 32 bit SIGNED ints for pointers and blow up messily if they get an address in the 2nd 2GB of ram. This is why the /3gb (splits ram 3gb app, 1gb os) switch only gives extra memory to apps that explicitly say they can handle it. In win64 these apps get almost 4gb (a few memory holes are still kept for legacy support reasons) of addressable ram. It shouldn't be a painful change on a well designed app, but since it requires an extra round of testing not many people bothered, and at this point if real fixes are needed going x64 is much more future proof. PAE needs built into apps because it's a fugly kludge. PAE is a return to the bank switching the 16bit CPU era needed to access more than 64k of ram. X|
Today's lesson is brought to you by the word "niggardly". Remember kids, don't attribute to racism what can be explained by Scandinavian language roots. -- Robert Royall
I had no idea! Thanks! :-D
-
Thank creative labs for that one. Audio was one of the two driver models to get heavily reworked (video the other one), thanks to Creative Labs inability to write a bugfree driver for the soundbastard the audio model was ripped out of the kernel and into usermode to keep it from being able to BSOD the OS. X|
Today's lesson is brought to you by the word "niggardly". Remember kids, don't attribute to racism what can be explained by Scandinavian language roots. -- Robert Royall
Well, that post (or, rather, sig) certainly made me laugh. It also interested me as I have noticed how much higher the overheads are in the Vista audio stack than under XP. So now I know a little more than I did before Dan, thx.
Paul Sanders http://www.alpinesoft.co.uk
-
I would think that since Aero uses plenty of system resources that you will reduce power consumption by removing it, it might be worth a try anyways...
What is the first thing Vista does when you start a WPF app? Start DirectX 10 and run that video card. (I know because my laptop has this nice feature of a loud fan as well as flashing lights that come on whenever DirextX is used)
Need a C# Consultant? I'm available.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know. -- Ernest Hemingway -
What is the first thing Vista does when you start a WPF app? Start DirectX 10 and run that video card. (I know because my laptop has this nice feature of a loud fan as well as flashing lights that come on whenever DirextX is used)
Need a C# Consultant? I'm available.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know. -- Ernest HemingwaySounds to me you could save some juice by removing those flashing lights dude ;P