[ErnieLane]

I got a new laptop with Vista last fall. I sure am happy it doesn't use XP. I really like the Vista features, and have had very few compatibility problems. Upgrading might be an issue, because an older XP computer might not have the memory and speed of the newer ones, but if you have the power, there's no question in my mind Vista is superior.

[bertsaxby]

If you buy the right machine NOW as opposed to when Vista hit the streets, yes you

can have a pretty good experience, but does that make it a suitable OS for a company

of 75,000 employees...answer: No,, especially if said company is not at a hardware refresh

state. Consumers not ready for a hardware refresh have ZERO reason to buy it.

That makes for some low numbers from the start.

I do think the next release of Windows will succeed, not because it is wildly different than Vista, but

because the hardware will have caught up to the requirements and software companies will have started

to finally deal with the new Windows security models. Maybe it was all just a bad timing issue?

[amagine]

"...here's no question in my mind Vista is superior."


Your mileage will vary. I agree that if you are a home user, have all new hardware, Vista (for the most part) will be a fine choice, infact I encourage it! (The more people using Vista hopefully will smooth out the wrinkles)....


However I would doubt that anyone would consider a 3Ghz Core2Dou with 4Gb of RAM, Gigabit Ethernet, a slouch of a machine...
Networking is still slow, UI workflow is not as "refined" as what XP is (although Vista is alot more pretty). And most production apps besides Microsoft Office 2007, are much more reliable on XP.


As per my early post, I would not consider Vista "Bad", it simply is not a step above XP (besides prettiness, although there are very nice theming apps that can fool most people in believing they are seeing Vista Ultimate with all the eye candy).


So, should anyone say 'Superior', I would like them to come and prove it in a high production business environment as our own. Our testing says otherwise. I live in an OS agnostic state where the best OS for the job is used. (XP Pro SP3, Vista SP1, Linux Hardy Haron, BSD, Mac OSX) At this point for our uses, BSD, XP and Mac OSX are used for Production with Various Linux flavours, and Vista relegated to a handful of machines for testing of production quality.

[vetscott]

".......Vista is the most complete OS yet."
Starting out on Win3.1 and thru all the upgrades and incompatibility issues in the past. Lets not forget Win ME !!!
Have been watching the blog's and all the negative comments for over a year now. Even I took a step back after my first upgrade to Vista and went back to XP- "Fear Factor".
Now I'm running Ultimate on a PC and Premium on a Laptop. The compatibility issues mostly have been resolved and restarts, blue screens and lock ups are a thing of the past. After SP1 the seamless performance of Vista and the security improvements are well worth the compromise on the application boot & speed issues. Whats a few Nanoseconds among friends ?

[pjskeleton]

I don't see what the big deal is about everyone hating on Vista. I have used it since March on my main computer (my other computer is a decked out Power Mac G4). I haven't had any problems except for one blue screen of death, way down from one a day on my old XP laptop. I ripped out the hard drive and gave it to my sister. She is running a newly installed version of XP, and I have to fix it every day. Another thing is the User Accounts Control that pops up before I do just about any settings changes. But I am the admin, so it doesn't really matter, I just hit continue. I just have this because I share this computer with my dad, and when he uses it, every 5 minutes I have to either type in the password or hit cancel. It keeps him from doing just about anything. :) I think Vista is a big step forward and up from XP, and I encourage anyone to upgrade.

[amagine]

As per my earlier posts,

Great for some, Good for some, Fair for some, poor for some, bad for some, really bad for others...



It is an OS. Big step forward? Hmm if anything I would give it a tentative step forward, and a Good step forward for average users, who need an OS which can save them from their own... OS.... curious loop.

I believe most people who use Windows Want Vista to be a big step forward. I think most people were simply disappointed.

[vetscott]

Amen...........Glad to see a few out there agree.

I hope that over the next year or so we will see a lot more folks on the bandwagon. I too would recommend people to upgrade and see what all the fuss is about. I do agree that initial releases should be better managed by a company with so many assets and power over the consumers.

As stated earlier the initial roll out did have many issues, I hope that many will see the advantages and ease of use that showcase Vista after SP1.

[gothicle]

I've noticed that a lot of people that complained about Vista either tried to install it on hardware that didn't meet the requirements, tried to connect hardware without looking for driver updates, and/or tried to use software without using compatibility modes.

I'm going to step up and defend Vista, here. I've been using it almost since it was released, and haven't had any problems that couldn't be fixed. Notice what I emphasized. I did plug in hardware that didn't work. Once I went looking for new drivers, the problem was solved. And I did install software that didn't initially work. Once I set the compatibility mode to a version of Windows that the software did run on, the problem was solved.

I also didn't have a problem running Vista. The computer started out with a single core CPU, 1.5 GHz, and 1 gig of RAM, and a pathetic on board graphics card. It ran Vista, albeit slowly. So, I upgraded to 3 gigs of RAM, a nice ATI graphics card, and a dual core 3.0 GHz CPU, and it ran like a dream. Then, SP1 was released and I upgraded, and everything runs even better.

Now, as for networking, I don't see the complaints about that being valid. I run a Vista machine, an XP one, and a laptop using XP wirelessly. They're all networked, as well as with my XBox 360 and my Zune (Zune's also wireless). Everything runs fast and smooth, without a hitch, I can access media files of any of the devices, using any of the devices, anywhere in my house. My XP rig never allowed me to do that.

All that said, however... I'm a technogeek. I enjoy setting up that new stuff to do these new things. The average user that can't figure out a CD tray from a cup holder... I can see why they wouldn't like Vista. But just because people don't know how to use Vista, that doesn't make it a bad operating system.

[amagine]

Hmmm sounds like you should come to our GIS Lab and teach us what we are doing wrong. Perhaps explain to our IT crew why Vista is much better to use in a production environment than our XP architecture that is running smoothly. Perhaps you can bring some of your media files with you, and explain how to use your XBox for an ArcSDE Server framework.



The only people I see "defending" Vista are home users, and propagandists.



I agree, if you are just a home user who likes to look at media files, surf the web and tinker, Vista is a fine choice. The idea though that the Business world is full of a bunch of idiots is starting to get my ... goat ... though.



When Vista shows it is SOLID step forward for our business, we are not going to switch, and leave Vista running on a single client for testing purposes. It has infact been good for our lab though. We have spent some research and developement into testing the usage of MacOSX. We have been surprisingly impressed. Impressed enough to role out a Mac section of 5 stations, with plans to convert our servers over. We can thank Vista for "Taking another Look" at our OS.

[gothicle]

"Hmmm sounds like you should come to our GIS Lab and teach us what we are doing wrong. Perhaps explain to our IT crew why Vista is much better to use in a production environment than our XP architecture that is running smoothly. Perhaps you can bring some of your media files with you, and explain how to use your XBox for an ArcSDE Server framework."

Hey, I never said that Vista should be adopted in a 'production environment', or even in a large business at all.

I just said, it works great for me, and gave a couple examples.

I'll recommend it to home users and small businesses, sure. But large ones like you're talking about would have a hell of a time with Vista, at least without some serious reworking of the company's setup.

[amagine]

... But this is just my point, We are not a large business. And I do agree with you, Vista can be great for home users in certain conditions. There may have been a time when a business (regardless of its size) could afford the large amount of downtime due to OS administration and repair, however, especially in todays current economic climate, this is becoming a very large issue. And to say that Vista is so much more secure... perhaps if you are actually trying to install virus's on your machine, if you have an IT staff that does not know their arse from a hole in the ground. Give business a good OS that increases productivity.

Tinkering is quite fine for use at home, but running a business, regardless of size, needs more than anything, a straight solution out of the box that can talk freely with other machines regardless of OS, while being a nice little OS and running smoothly underneath without getting into a users face.

I actually like Vista, but the more I talk about it, the more I hear about how it needs another chance, how it is the best OS going, the more I rail in disbelief. Truth be told, after all this nonsense over Vista, I think I'll start recommending OSX to small businesses and home users, if they require a proprietary OS.

I can't believe it. I used to defend Windows to no end.



Yes I use Vista at home along with other fancy flavours of 'Nix.

[VHMP01]

I have used Vista and implemented it on 50 computers, the more use the better:

1.- In Vista MS cared about Security, frequent popups can be redused simply activating the "Run as Administrator" feature. Makes sense, popups would show with applications I did not install.

2.- It has complete Indexed Files and Search, but at "One" click you get complex functionalities. Click the "Start" icon and type "regedit", then "Enter".

3.- Not only indexed, but at any window (Documents, Images, Music, etc.) you have "Filters".

4.- Vista has a Compatibility Option to run old applications from Win 98, 2000, XP, etc. Even Intel Macs do not run OS 9.

5.- I did Expose and Cube effects under Windows a while ago; "Shock 4 Way 3D" from www.docs.kr/ is a program to get your Cubes.

6.- A Mac OSX simulator under PC without licenses'': http://osx.portraito...com/index2.htm.

Therefore, related to Vista I would only say that it does require top of the line hardware, but it is great!

[BAMT]

Maybe there should be a "Give Linux Another Chance" article...

[amagine]

BAMT said:

>

Quote

Maybe there should be a "Give Linux Another Chance" article...

>
>


Hmm actually never been a better time. I have been impressed with the new 'Hardy Heron', and have even stumbled upon "Mint" which is a very slick and clean "stay out of your face" Linux OS. I'm prepping another workstation to test out OpenSolaris now after hearing some great reviews from an IT Guru friend of mine 'down under'.


I'll always be surprised how people become so attached to a "Brand" or in this case a specific companies OS. I suppose there will always be those who see only gold when using their Windows, Mac OS X, Various Linux Flavours, 'Nix's etc...


Of course the only people I suppose I am really communicating to, are those like myself who see computers themselves as a tool, where the software is the means to accomplishing a task.


I think there needs to be a community where Agnostic OS users can discuss implementation, uses, pro's/con's of OS use for certain tasks. The OS fanboys are quite simply a waste of time reading.


So on the Note, Go Windows, Go Mac, Go Linux, Go 'Nix, Go Go Go! Let's get some processing done!


mars

[rgreen4]

Yes, and contrary to some statements, many large corporations are converting. The company I just retired from is now in the process of converting all their desktops from Win2K to Vista. It has cleared all the testing done by the Corporate IT department and in the 4 paper mills. There is a mix of custom applications, MS Office (being upgraded from Office2000 to Office2007) and major in-house developed applications and some IBM terminal emulation programs circa 2004. Every application currently used anywhere in the Corporation currently on W2K, operates perfectly well on Vista. That was a critera before the conversion began.
The evaluated XP and Vista both, and had more problems with XP than Vista, and the fact that XP is at the end of it's development cycle and Vista is just past the beginning. Those that have made up their mind are more than welcome to stay with XP or as one said convert to OS/X, but then of course they can't get their hardware supplies from any provider and some specialty devices for scanning and data gathering may not be as readily supported.
Just because Vista doe not fit some in some environments, does not mean it does not fit in all. As for the arguments against Vista, they are erily reminiscent of the arguments against XP 7 years ago in the same publications.
As for opening files across a network, while my small home network does not have nearly the same complexity, but I had not noticed a difference in opening files between XP and Vista, so I did a little test with two PDF files. I chose a couple of larger files. Opening the first file - a projector manual using XP with Adobe Reader 7.0 it opened the file in 3 seconds. The same file opened in Vista with Adobe Reader 8.1 was opened in 3 sec. Both machines have Gigabyte speed on board NIC's and are connected to a Linksys router with ethernet cables. The Vista machine directly, the XP machine through a gigabyte switch. However, the ports on the routher are only 100Mb rated. The second file, a motherboard manual opened on both machines between 1 and 2 seconds. The files were about 5 MB in size.

Perhaps those who claim that Vista opens files across a network significantly slower than XP could give us some actual timed examples. Two ethernet connected desktops in the same workgroup opening the same files would suffice. In a corporate enviornment file access time can vary a great deal from time to time for a number of factors. There were times that I could open Excell files in a few seconds, and later the same file would take noticeably longer, yet it was the same machine and the same OS, but there were more people accessing the system at the same time, usually at month end processing.

[amagine]

rgreen4 said:

>

Quote

Perhaps those who claim that Vista opens files across a network
significantly slower than XP could give us some actual timed examples.

>
>




Okay.


Fresh Installs - Default settings


XP Enterprise SP3


Vista Enterprise SP1


Test Machines 10 - Intel core 2 dou 3.0ghz, 6mb L2 cache, 1.07Ghz BUS, 4gb 800Mhz DDR2 SDRAM, Nvidia 8800GT 512 Video Card





How about simply accessing our local GIS ArcSDE Server network drives.


XP - Simple Windows Explorer access takes less than a few seconds to refresh, connect and list directories.


Vista - Simple Windows Explorer access takes 30seconds or more to reconnect, refresh and list directories


Using ArcCatalog GIS file explorer ArcCatalog 9.2 SP6 (Vista Ready ESRI endorsed)


XP - Near as fast as windows explorer


Vista - A connected network folder can cause 5min re-connection issue, possibly loss of network drive connection to Vista in some instances where a full Vista reboot is needed to actually locate the network drive again even though Networking Wizard shows everything "OK" wthout network drives seen.


some more tests we have run...


XP - File sharing between LAN clients 100mb FileGeodatabase on average of 10 test cases ~14.3s


Vista - File sharing between LAN clients (same 100mb FileGeodatabase) on average of 10 test cases ~ 28.9s


XP - File Write to NetWork Server Drives 100mb FileGeodatabase on average of 10 test cases ~13s


Vista - File Write to NetWork Server Drives 100mb FileGeodatabase on average of 10 test cases ~ 36s


XP - Read from NetWork Server Drives 100mb FileGeodatabase on average of 10 test cases ~ 15s


Vista - Read from NetWork Server Drives 100mb FileGeodatabase on average of 10 test cases ~ 25s





When you start getting into UI 2D GIS/CAD drawing, there are some very big deal breakers. 2D performance is terrible on the Vista Platform, and we are told it is due to the lack of OpenGL support.


Our Linux box's fair much better on the Networking, being slightly more snappy and quicker on file transfer reads/writes.





Our OpenSource GIS Systems run well on XP SP3 while being quite buggy on Vista


Linux box's fair pretty well here also.


The real big surprise was when one of our GIS Tech's brought in his new iMac from home he had bought for his wife, he wanted to show us how well it could run our Java GIS and OpenSource C GIS systems. Naturally we rolled our eyes, and teased him for bringing in a "pretty" designer computer meant for artist freaks. We were blown away. Networking performance was the best of all cases to and from the server, GIS integration was fast and simple, pretty much like on our Linux box's and UI GIS/CAD 2D performance was the best of the bunch.


This is not to say that we are going to quickly flip to Mac. There are issues with the fact that ESRI only develops for Windows and limited on Linux. It does mean that we will be replacing 5 of our old XP boxs with new iMacs instead of a combination of Linux and Vista box's. The Price to Performance is quite impressive too.


So we will be pretty much a completely OS agnostic GIS lab, with Vista on the machine I run for testing purposes, 5 XP SP3 boxs, 10 Linux box's, 5 Mac OSX .. screens, and a coffee maker that brews pure poison.


It's interesting how some people can get it in their head that one system is just plainly better, no-matter the circumstances.


In our small business, Vista is not ready. Maybe at SP2 (like XP was) Vista will be, and we well be constantly monitoring this, while at the same time keeping an even more open mind about all the other OS's on the block.


mars

[VHMP01]

I am running DOS6.22, Win3.11, 95, 98, 2000, XP, 2003, Ubuntu 7.04 and an OSX "Simulator" (needs no license being free to download and runs under XP) in Vista via Virtual PC, even 2 or 3 at the same time. At pretty high speeds too, having 4Gb RAM I can assign up to 1,5Gb to the newest of OS's, down to 64Mb to 3.11 and DOS.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yewoYsOX4

OSX "Simulator" was free to download from:

http://osx.portraito....com/index2.htm

[nerdboy550]

I help average people with there PC problems also and I agree with you The problem is operating systems were not made for avererage users in the first place . But then again I know people who are still having problem operating their Satellite TV tuner . I do not recomend upgrade an old pc either Unless you are absolutley know your old PC has what it takes to run Vista. I build computers so for a really good Vista experience I recomend At least an Intel core 2 duo dual core or quadcore some say AMD dualcores and Quadcores are good enough but from my experience they just don't come close to the Intels performance .

[LawrenceAlbert]

I think Vista is really great. Its the evolution of security. learning how to read messages (UAC) and be vigilant.

the truth is, you don't need a great anti-virus. The protected mode is a one huge STEP forward (there's only micro possibilities that you will be HACKED unless becaus of the THIRD party tools like adobe flash, reader and others)

and in the long term it will Save you a lot of Money...

After digging about it's feature. I created a software called WinBubble and tons of articles, here:http://unlockforus.blogspot.com

and thankfully, PCWORLD included and reviewed my software. now, more than 100,000+ downloads!!! :D

My Heartfelt Thanks PCWORLD (Mr. Preston Gralla)! It was a Dream come true...

[rgreen4]

I applaud your ability to retireve that data on a Sunday, but it does not agree with some other real world tests done by a local company both across their local network and remote users, not does it agree with the results of the company I just retired from after 32 years as an Accountant. They are in the first steps of rolling Vista out company wide on some 3,000 desktops replacing both a few XP and the rest running W2K.
So, perhaps in your situation you would just best be served by sticking to XP and let others enjoy Vista.