How reliable is Vista?

Probably. But then Win 2000 would blow XP away on similar equipment. And Windows 95/98 would run faster still. And Windows 3.1 would run so fast you'd not even be able to keep up! In fact, I just booted to DOS 3.2 and the C prompt is flashing so quickly I can't even see it, not to mention that I can get like 7000 FPS in Doom 1.



I kid, obviously. But seriously, Vista is just as fast on current equipment as XP was on the equipment available at XP's original release. Probably faster actually.

 

yes but the fact is that on the same hardware xp will be faster. And since the advantages of switching to vista are minimal, and considering the price tag, from my experience it is not really worth it. The reason why this is so constantly xp vs vista, and not w2k vs xp vs vista, is because many programs and drivers used in professional environments today, do not maintain backwards compatibility. Manufacturers continue to produce drivers for xp when they release hardware because they are aware of its popularity, w2k is becoming less and less popular meaning users of new notebooks/computers will find it hard to source drivers for their machine after installing the os.
xp has everything someone needs, without of course the bloatware,
and yet here i am using vista lol ( will be switching back when cairo is released)

 

Don't do that. Wait for Windows 7. You won't miss anything.

Office 2007 is slow on my notebook and that's fact. OpenOffice v2.4.0 is much faster (I use localized version of OO). In the past situation was different.

 

genuine screenshots of windows 7 look much alike vista, although microsoft does say that there will be a whole gui remap by the time a commercial version becomes available. All office programs are slow albeit individual programs like abiword, gnumeric etc...

 

It is unlikely Windows 7 will be a huge change from Vista. It just going to be Vista 2.0.

[quote[ I won a free copy of Vista U 32/64 from Microsoft and I would never pay for it as there isn't enough there to justify the price. Basically Vista U adds Dream Scene, Texas Hold Em, Bit Locker, and recently sound themes. I might add language packs to VU, as they appear for download but not in my copy of Vista Premium.

As you can see not a whole lot there for the extra price. Too bad MS didn't have a Gamer's Edition that was stripped of the bloated code. [/quote]

Coincidentaly, much of the industries biggest gripes about Vista is TOO MANY changes. Since there isn't any huge bells and whistles for the consumer market, so much of the consumer market feels Vista wasn't a huge change from XP.

At the enterprise level, Vista brings a new driver model. New drivers means huge changes. Huge changes mean IT pros need to test new software. Testing new software means more money and more hassles. Vista also brings a new networking changes. New GPO and a new deployment kit. Too many changes for my liking.

Personally, I feel the changes Vista brings are gonna be hailed as innovative in a few years. But nobody will remember it was Vista that fist brought these changes on to the scene UAC, user mode drivers, registry virtualization, and my favorite: the start menu search box.

Reminds me of a Windows ME article. People bash on ME, but forget it rolled out alot of features we take for granted today.

http://www.edbott.com/weblog/?paged=7

 

Why do you think this? Do you have a source or are you just guessing.

 

It really depends. For instance, Vista's Media Center which comes with all favor besides Basic and Business, is alot better then XP's Media Center.

 

It doesn't come with Vista Business either. It's only in Premium and Ultimate.

 

Thanks, post edited.

 

Someone brought up an image of IE7 with a bunch of toolbars installed. This link will put some context into that.

http://www.windows-noob.com/review/ie7/part_4.html

 

And where do you get the 7 will be uber-nice and faster than XP and consumes less ressourcs than Vista?

 

I'm guessing As far as all the articles I've read, there is very little news coming out about Windows 7. At least far less news compared to when Vista was being developed. I am guessing based on the development time, Microsoft's past actions, and what is perceived as mistakes made during the deployment of Vista.

Sounds like the Windows 7 team is going with: Underpromise, Overdeliver. Which is fine with me.

 

Umm what? Did you even read my post? I donn't see where I said anything of the sorts that just came out of your mouth. Its really quite rude to put words into someones mouth.
I was just wondering if there was a site of something for me to read about windows 7 and what to expect.
Calm yourself bud.

 

You can always read the Shipping Seven Blog. Ed Bott has also written some good articles, but in general, everything about Windows 7 so far has been speculation at best. Very few features are "confirmed" or "set in stone." But pretty much you can expect that Microsoft isn't going to take the Vista code, throw it away, and start all over. I would put my bet that you can expect something similiar to SP1 or Server 2008.

 

i would choose vista business!

 

Think Vista SP2, but with a new name. I think it'll be more of an incremental improvement (ala XP SP2) but that it'll be re-named as a new version of Windows to combat the negative perception of Vista.

Speaking of Server 2008, has anyone else here besides me set up "Windows Workstation 2008?" Do a google search and you'll come up with a number of articles and blogs detailing how to take a trial copy of Windows Server 2008 and make a few alteration to turn it into the best (Windows) OS you've ever used. I'm running it on a very modest Dell XPS M140, and it's amazingly quick and stable.

Here's one link, and it has a handy downloadable PDF detailing all the steps. It's really just a matter of eliminating some server-specific services you don't need, and installing some desktop components that aren't installed by default.

http://www.win2008workstation.com/wordpress/

The downside is (unless you buy server) that the trial is limited to 60 days, but can be legally extended 3 times for 240 days total. So you'd have to rebuild in 8 months. But heck, I do that anyway.

As one site puts it, It's the Vista We Always Wanted.

 

Oh sorry, I thought you were one of the many Vista bashers that are setup on Windows 7 comsuming no memory because the command line HTTP server called MinWin only uses 40MB

 

I've GOT to try this sometime. But I hate to spend my memorial day weekend tweaking an OS.

 

geez many websites post tests on Windows Workstation 2008 showing that it has around a 15% better performance than vista sp1, making it nearly at xp's standard. I would however not consider installing it only to have to reinstall it again, and again (even if it is every 8months). and no way am I buying a server lol!

 

Well, yeah that's true. If you're like me and reinstall your OS every few months anyway, it'd be no big deal. But if you're a tinkerer, it's worth trying. I just use it on my notebook right now, not on my primary desktop.

 

what are the differences that you have experienced with ww 2008 compared with vista. any gui changes ?

 

Visually, there is very little difference assuming you install the Desktop Experience component. If you sat down with my laptop you'd probably just assume it was Vista, except for the places where it actually displays "Windows Server 2008" or when noticing the server-specific utilities. I just checked my reliability index..it's 10. LOL. I've only had it installed for a month though. Still, not a single crash or app failure.

 

boot time?
is wei still available, if so are the score diff. from vista?

 

I do not see wei, at least not via the interface. This laptop would score poorly though. It's only a Pentium M 1.73 ghz...not even a core duo. It does have 2 GB RAM though.

It actually dual boots WWS2008 and XP because I wanted to maintain XP in case I ran into something that wouldn't work under 2008. (I haven't). So I just timed the boot process from the point where I select the OS choice until the logon prompt appears. XP first...42 seconds before the prompt. Then 2008...yikes, 64 seconds until the prompt! But then I noticed (but didn't time) that the time from the prompt until the desktop appeared was much longer under XP. After the logon the 2008 desktop appeard almost immediately. I wonder if it's just that more services are pre-loaded under server before the prompt and XP loads more services after the prompt.

In any event, in practice I'd say that the OS feels nearly identical to XP so far as speed in normal use. Keep in mind this isn't a high performance game machine or anything, and I'm not trying to squuze every drop of performance out of it.

 

I don't expect boot times in Server 2008 to be anything to write home about.
It is a server OS. It isn't designed to be turned to save power or when not in use. Vista wasn't designed to be turned off regularly. Pretty much all computers now will support s3 sleep state, which draws just enough power to keep stuff in RAM.