[dragon69]

my main problem was at Xmas time i bought vista home premium 64 bit

and not the cheaper 32 bit so i had many driver issues and software incompatiblities

win xp pro 32 bit is faster in normal file transfer then vista by about 20 percent ( yes

this is after service pack 1 for vista and before SP1 it was nore like 30 percent difference

it would of been nice if they offered a downgrade ( i mean upgrade option to win xp as

it is a better operating system )) option for vista as i would of switched in a second) at that time

still tempted to just through out the vista dvd as i have almost had it with this new " better" ( lol ) operating system

even would of been nice if they were not pushing this operating system on people and instead would give people a choice between OS ;

if vista is so great why are 30 per cent of the people that microsoft pushed this system on arte upgrading to win xp ?

i think that last statement speak for it self

[dragon69]

if they offered the win xp upgrade to all vista owners then that figure would be even higher

but the 30 percent that did it were the smart ones as now they put microsoft on the spot to

push out windoze 7 ( more wool being pulled over your eyes eh now you will have to by a

new os in 2010 or when microsoft tells you to ) so save up your bucks so youcan by a repackaged vista os in 2010!

if you fall for their shell game anticts lol



good luck and take care



chuck

[rgreen4]

Obviously you have not kept up. Windows 7 is Vista in the same way that Windows XP is Windows 2000. When it came time to update Windows NT4, MS decided not to use the NT and numbers, so NT5 became Windows 2000 Pro. The consumer side was the illfated Windows ME, and update of Windows 98SE. A major update to Windows 2000 (NT5) was labeled Windows XP Pro (NT5.1), the removed the domain modules and a few other minor corporate items and released Windows XP Home (also NT5.1). Vista (original) is NT 6.0 (actual 6.0.6000) and the SP1 is 6.0.6001, and Windows 7 it has been announced is Windows NT 6.1. It has been reported months previously that Windows 7 would be built on Vista code.
This means that Windows 7 will have improved, enhanced and added features, but all the Vista drivers will work, just as Windows 2000 drivers all work in XP. Oh, and the 30% number you quoted was for corporate users who were ordering new machines to install in with their current networks and run their current legacy applications. Many of these are now rolling out Vista, in fact the company I retired from was starting the process as I retired after 32 years in Accounting. They are rolling out Office 2007 at the same time, and I took my Vista laptop with Office 2007 in to show my boss and colleagues and they were looking forward to the change.
As a test on the supposed file transfer lag in Vista, I copied a 4.8MB file from my Network Attached Storage (Infrant Ready NAS+) to a Vista machine connected via ethernet cable and an XP Pro machine also connected via ethernet cable. In both cases the transfer to the desktop was extremely fast. The Vista machine out of 4 copy routines ran from 2 to 3 seconds as did the XP machine, also with 4 copy routines. Since 4.8 MB is too small to extract a meaningful time difference, I chose a 140MB file (Acronis True Image 11 download file) and did find a difference. Copying to the Vista desktop took 13 seconds, and copying to the XP desktop to 16 seconds.
So to quote Jamie on Mythbusters, that myth is busted as far as I am concerned. If you are having problems copying files quickly in Vista, maybe you should look at the setup not the OS.

[dragon69]

How much will windoze 7 cost ( each new os was priced

higher and higher so about 450 for windoze7 ? ! ! ! ) ? ? ?

try a small file size ( that is where it seems slower

for me . . 50 mb or less ) as big files for me transfer at a good

pace but small files seems to be slower. ( could be 64 vista maybe

but i though 64 bit should be faster or the same speed as 32 bit vista?)

i know i made a mistake buy 64 bit over 32 and the 32 bit was

cheaper by about 20 bucks ( but win xp pro was even more then the vista ')
h1. i am just getting sick of microsoft PR B.S. and will never believe them again

[raife1]

Sorry... but the "file transfer" problem is hardly a "myth" (and, thats, using regular MS-Windows networking, under the standard Windows-networking setups). Even Microsoft has, officially, fully-acknowledged this as one of the very real problems within "Vista".

There are some patches, and "work-arounds"... but, many people ARE, still, experiencing this as a very real problem.

Anyone who still claims that this is a "myth" really should Google "Vista slow file transfer". This is simply an, easily verifiable, commonly-discussed, technical-reality (sometimes traced to "Vistas" problems with common networking-hardware, storage-hardware, or "Vistas", new, "advanced networking" features). Nor, is there any indication that the elements within "Vista" (that have been found to be causing this issue) will be resolved within "Windows 7".

Frankly, I would be surprised by anyone actually, in the technical-side of the IT-field... (I.E. charged with, actually, understanding, and fixing, real-problems) who would deny such a basic, and well-established, fact/problem.

[rkinne01]

God that prblem was fixed with SP1 and other patches, update your computer once in awhile.

[dragon69]

sorry rkinne01


but after sp1 it only helped a bit still 20 percent slower then win xp but was 30 percent before sp1


but sp1 did help but only a little


gl and tc


chuck


vista home premium 64 bit


dual core x2 4200


2 gb of ddr2


250 gb hdd


logitech x-540

[dragon69]

A Windows Vista bug that is causing file transfer to slow down has
been causing much frustration for many users. A discussion about this
problem has been active on the Microsoft Support forums, which you can
find here.
Although this bug has been around for quite some time and is becoming a
bigger problem each day, Microsoft has yet to issue a public release
and will require you to contact them directly in order to receive the
fix. You can find this bug listed in their database as entry KB931770 with details on symptoms and how to contact them.

However, I have found many other ways that will allow you to quickly
fix this bug. I’ve ordered them from “most likely to work for you” to
“least likely.” Many who have encountered Windows Vista problems will
know that one try is usually not enough.

[PProsk]

Completely agree with you. New OS requires new hardware generation and unfortunately at the very beginning (January 2007) PCs were not ready for Vista. I have a Gateway FX desktop with AMD 4 core processor 3 GB RAM, dedicated 512MB graphic card and TV Tuner and everything is absolutely perfect! I really like it!

Vista is stable, reliable, with nice GUI and higher security level. There is only one I can't agree with: Hi performance PC 4-5 years ago was more expensive than now, almost twice!

Nowdays you can buy good laptop for $450 in-store. With features that were absolutely unavailable 2-3 years ago for 3 time higher price.

TRY TO CONCENTRATE ON POSITIVE!

[rgreen4]

First - re-read the post on my download times. First I timed the relative download times of a file just under 4MB, then when there was no appreciable difference, I timed the relative download times of a 140MB file. Since the 4MB file downloaded in 3 sec or less, even a 30 percent difference would be considered inconsequential.

Second the article you referred us to is was about the possibility of the download process halting and had the KB number of 931770. Vista SP1 has a KB number of 936330 so was issued after the KB931770. In the text the versions of Vista to which the article applied does not include SP1 or it would have been listed. I have been using the NAS fo store all my data files since June, 2007, and have never experienced the delays or halts referenced. This is on three Vista machines, including one that was upgraded with the HP provided upgrade in May, 2007.

[dragon69]

rgreen4 click on the blue here (in the first paragraph )not the bug fix line ( in the

second pargraph as it had useless info for me ( after all it was from microsoft lol) )

it has a lot of other people complaining about file transfers with 686 replies



"Oh, and the 30% number
you quoted was for corporate users who were ordering new

machines to
install in with their current networks and run their current legacy
applications"



30 percent of the people that were eligleble for an upgrade to win xp took it. . . just

image how many would have taken the offer if they offered it to all vista owners ! !

would of been a lot higher in my humble opinion

good luck and take care



btw i know it will cost more for windoze 7 then it did for vista just look at

microsoft's track record on that one lol . . . how much more

maybe 450 to 500 bucks for the top of the line product and how much was

vista ultimate . . well over 300 bucks eh i would not mind paying the higher

prices if their is not too many bugs to fix ( i hate doing the beta testing on a

high priced os for free imho microsoft should sell it cheaper if they can not

get most bugs out before they put software on the shelfs . . . but maybe

you like doing all their work for them with out getting paid

microsoft has a bad track record for releasing their products ( software and

hardware) to early and getting us normal people to help fix em up for free

:-)

chuck

[piyushsingh]

dragon69 said:

rgreen4 click on the blue here (in the first paragraph )not the bug fix line

The discussion that you have pointed to was started on 22nd Jan 07 , much before SP1 came out. All the file copy, wrong timings bugs were fixed in SP1.

dragon69 said:

>30 percent of the people that were eligleble for an upgrade to win xp took it. . . just image how many would have taken the offer if they offered it to all vista >owners ! ! would of been a lot higher in my humble opinion

Who cares what the endless crowds do or follow ? Msft made vista clear all myths with the mojave experiment and it was loved by many. Just imagine how many would have loved it if they offered mojave to all xp owners?? A lot lot higher in my humble opinion .

dragon69 said:

>btw i know it will cost more for windoze 7 then it did for vista just look at microsoft's track record on that one lol . . . how much more maybe 450 to 500 >bucks for the top of the line product and how much was vista ultimate . . well over 300 bucks eh i would not mind paying the higher prices if their is not t
>too many bugs to fix ( i hate doing the beta testing on a high priced os for free imho microsoft should sell it cheaper if they can not get most bugs out
>before they put software on the shelfs . . . but maybe you like doing all their work for them with out getting paid microsoft has a bad track record for >releasing their products ( software and hardware) to early and getting us normal people to help fix em up for free

I hope you are you are not neglecting the inflation factor when talking about the prices.
If you check the security reports during the first 6 months for both xp and vista , you will find that vista had less critical and other patches deployed by msft. I dont think , installing patches will be termed beta testing.

Moreover , no one is forcing anything on anybody. If using vista (a stable and reliable OS in eyes of many users) accounts to beta testing (in eyes of many others) , then its totally fine with the first lot. :)

[rgreen4]

In addition to what Piyush has pointed out, Corporations install their PC and OS's totally different than you and I. They buy their machines by the gross if not thousands, and have a standard image that they use. When the machine comes in, they partition the HD, install the image, test that the machine boots and install it at a workstation. The image will be the standard OS they are using, the programs they are using and it may not match the labels.

Before I retired, the machine on my desk had an XP lablel on it but was running Windows 2000 Pro as was every other machine at the plant. The company was in the process of beginning the Vista and Office 2007 roll out to replace Windows 2000 Pro and Office 2000 on 3,000 machines across amost 70 locations. They made the decision years ago to totally skip XP as it offered no benefit over 2000 and after testing made the decision to go to Vista as all the various custom, modified, and commercial programs ran well on Vista.

R.I.P. XP

[rtfire1]

Lots of good points there. Just for the heck of it I called down to my IT department And talked to on of the hardware/ms techs the only issue there having with vista is the can not get the new pcs in as fast as they can send them out and there are less issues with vista. Just to note there replacing old compacts that are well pace there prime

[dragon69]

my comp

amd dual core x2 4200

2gb of ddr 2 ram ( not matched sticks one is a buffalo and the

other kingston both @667 and at 1.8 volts . . msi mother board with non adjustable voltage)

seagate 250 gb hdd ( it is the .10 version and not the newer .11 drive)

in about the first 3 months i had about 189 crashes and the drivers

were finally stable in about june or july ( the last few drivers corrected the realtek on board

sound so it sounded as good in vista as it did in win xp pro or ubuntu right out of the box and the epson print driver)

almost crash free now ( i just used the almost word so i would not jinx myself lol )

does that sound like a beta program or what i ran all the mem test i could and other burn in test to but all hardware came up clean as they were all new at xmas time

[dragon69]

and yes most of the crashes were pre sp1 but that is still a too high

of number for non beta ( well supposed to be non beta ) software



and the biggest mistake i made was choosing vista home premium 64 bit

( i know if i went with 32 bit most of the drivers ( yes i searched everywhere

for drivers and even tried some experimental drivers from different manufactures) were there and i would of had a lot less crashes

and i did wait atleast 12 or more months after vista was released before my purchase ( but never again will microsoft get my money but if a new comp comes with a new os i will use it but i will never spend any of my money on a microsoft purchase

i only have a grade 9 education ( and a measley iq of 127 . . . know most of you are smarter then me but i work with what i got lol ) but i am the closet thing to a it person that my family and friends have and work on many computers ( some for free amd sometimes for money)

[dragon69]

DID I MENTION THIS



MICROSOFT SUCKS



:-)



:-)



:-)

gl and tc

chuck

[rtfire1]

there not being vista drivers is not ms its the company you bought from. There are just now drivers for my laptop so i can have sound on those very rare times that i boot in to xp on it.

[piyushsingh]

dragon69 said:

and yes most of the crashes were pre sp1 but that is still a too high of number for non beta ( well supposed to be non beta ) software

You missed the point slightly. That link wasn't about crashes but about file copy and wrong timings. That will be considered a small bug (not a flawed OS that only crashes) and was successfully fixed in SP1.

dragon69 said:

>and the biggest mistake i made was choosing vista home premium 64 bit ( i know if i went with 32 bit most of the drivers ( yes i searched everywhere
>for drivers and even tried some experimental drivers from different manufactures) were there and i would of had a lot less crashes

drivers drivers and more driver blames. huh ? I agree with rtfire on this. If you cant get proper drivers for your hardware, then blame either the hardware manufacturers for this OR yourself, not the OS makers (msft here).

dragon69 said:

>DID I MENTION THIS
>MICROSOFT SUCKS

errr.....No you didnt until now. But that wasnt required , since it was clear from you very first post. ;-)

[rtfire1]

my friend just picked up a p3 1000 mhz for his kids he went to put xp on it and found out there are no drivers of xp for the mother board. its a nice 98 me system but its no ms fault that the drivers where not made for xp under you logic its ms fault there are no xp drivers. On a side not after a mb swap and a few other changes it mow works fine but if i did not have the parts laying around it would not run xp.