Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > Re: OK so vista is annoying....

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: OK so vista is annoying....

 
 
Stephen Worthington
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-04-2008
On Sat, 4 Oct 2008 14:56:18 +1200, "Jekyll and Hyde"
<jekyll&(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>"Stephen Worthington" <(E-Mail Removed)34.nz56.remove_numbers> wrote in
>message news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> On Fri, 3 Oct 2008 19:48:17 +1200, "Jekyll and Hyde"
>> <jekyll&(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>"Stephen Worthington" <(E-Mail Removed)34.nz56.remove_numbers> wrote in
>>>message news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>> On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 20:59:44 +1200, "Jekyll and Hyde"
>>>> <jekyll&(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>><dons flame-proof suit> I think it might. I know a guy who bought a
>>>>>>>laptop
>>>>>>>supplied with Vista who compared the performance (read:
>>>>>>>responsiveness)
>>>>>>>unfavourably to an old PII 366 / 64MB RAM running 98SE. He couldn't
>>>>>>>get
>>>>>>>XP
>>>>>>>on it quick enough.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, it is *not* swapping. I have two Vista PCs with 2 Gibytes of RAM
>>>>>> each. Both of them typically only have about 1.0-1.3 Gibytes of RAM
>>>>>> in use, despite all the software I have loaded. The rest of the RAM
>>>>>> is used for disk cache, and Vista is *much* better at using its cache
>>>>>> than XP is. I should qualify that statement - I am using Vista SP1,
>>>>>> and I think there were some fixes in SP1 to do with caching. I
>>>>>> frequently see disk operations running at speeds so impossible that
>>>>>> they must be running mostly out of the cache.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When Vista is first installed, it indexes all the files. This takes
>>>>>> quite a while - just leave the box on for a couple of days if
>>>>>> necessary and it should finally stop. Also, Vista has a builtin
>>>>>> background defrag program that runs automatically once a week. I
>>>>>> believe it senses other PC use and stops until the PC is idle again,
>>>>>> but if it was also running at the same time as the indexing, they
>>>>>> would make the disk rather busy, probably thrashing. Search the Help
>>>>>> for "defragment" to find it and the scheduler that runs it.
>>>>>
>>>>>I have NEVER seen a Vista computer with it's hdd led out or more than a
>>>>>couple of seconds, they are ALWAYS lit. This even includes up to 8 core
>>>>>64
>>>>>bit machines with 16Gb ram and raid.Vista has so much overhead I don't
>>>>>believe simple caching could come close to negating the performance
>>>>>penalties Vista introduced. Today a Vista user at work finished copying
>>>>>100Gb to a USB2 HDD, it took 20 hours!
>>>>
>>>> I have not tried much with a USB2 hard disk, but they are simply slow.
>>>> I know this because I have a 1 Tbyte external drive that has both USB2
>>>> and eSATA interfaces. Its performance on a USB2 port is so bad I have
>>>> only ever used it that way once. Its eSATA performance is the same as
>>>> internal drives. So I would not blame Vista for poor USB2 disk
>>>> performance.
>>>>
>>>> I have modern Seagate 500 Gbyte and 1 Tbyte SATA drives in my PCs, and
>>>> performance is anything but slow. As an example, I just copied a
>>>> 732,712,960 byte file from my 500 Gbyte drive to my 1 Tbyte drive in
>>>> 18.53 seconds. I made sure that the file was one I had not accessed
>>>> for ages so it would not be cached already. That is 39,541,984 bytes
>>>> per second, or 2.2 Gibytes per minute. At that rate, your 100 Gbyte
>>>> copy would have taken less than 45 minutes.
>>>
>>>It wasn't mine, and it took 20 hours. The problem has been around long
>>>enough, this is not news. USB2 is usually sufficient for everyday use,
>>>even
>>>when using USMT tools to migrate a user.
>>>
>>>>>> So I think that many people are getting the wrong impression about
>>>>>> Vista because it is slow for the first day or two due to the indexing,
>>>>>> and also due to the file copying speed problems that were fixed in
>>>>>> SP1. It is not at all slow, unless you try to run it with 1 Gibyte of
>>>>>> RAM or less.
>>>>>
>>>>>No, it's slower and will be forever, by 40% (
>>>>>http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...ista,1531.html ), and before
>>>>>you
>>>>>mention it I know the review was pre SP1. SP1 did next to nothing to fix
>>>>>performance and reliability issues. And in fact SP1 trashed many a Vista
>>>>>installation (see SP1 boot looping).
>>>>
>>>> I did not see a 40% overall figure anywhere in that article. That is
>>>> just bullshit. You could say truthfully say "up to 40%" if you like
>>>> bullshit statistics. Yes, quite a number of benchmarks show slightly
>>>> lower performance, and a few much lower. I am a big skeptic when it
>>>> comes to benchmarks though. They rarely reflect real life
>>>> performance.
>>>
>>>Beg your pardon, but I don't bullshit. I linked the wrong article sorry
>>>about that, but the 40% was about right from memory. Here's the correct
>>>link... http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,1...9291081,00.htm
>>>Like yourself I too am sceptical of benchmarks, and those at Toms in the
>>>link I find to be particularly kind to Vista, and certainly are a lot
>>>better
>>>for Vista than I would ever have guessed.
>>>But the ZDNet benchmarks certainly match my subjective experiences more
>>>closely.
>>>Also interesting, a rebuttal of Microsofts rebuttal of the bad news...
>>>http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquir...mmed-attacking
>>>Unlike MSofts claim, Devil Mountains benchmarking methods actually more
>>>closely represent an actual user than Toms one specific test at a time
>>>methods. This would explain to me why Toms figures surprised me, but Devil
>>>Mountains seems spot on to me.
>>>
>>>>>> Another really great thing is the way its TCP connections adapt their
>>>>>> window size to the conditions they find. With XP, due to NZ's
>>>>>> distance from the rest of the Internet and the resulting high ping
>>>>>> times, ACK packets are too slow to get back to allow the next packet
>>>>>> to be sent in time, which makes any one TCP connection run slower than
>>>>>> a high speed Internet connection can handle. This can be fixed by
>>>>>> changing registry settings in XP to increase the window size, but that
>>>>>> can cause other problems. Most people just use multiple http
>>>>>> connections to get the download speed their Internet connection is
>>>>>> capable of. Vista does not need that - it adapts the window size
>>>>>> dynamically to the traffic and the ping times. This helps a lot with
>>>>>> download sites like rapidshare that only allow one connection.
>>>>>
>>>>>The improvements are not sufficient to replace WAN optimisation
>>>>>technologies, and in many cases performance is deteriorated by Vistas
>>>>>technologies...
>>>>>http://searchnetworking.techtarget.c...250148,00.html
>>>>
>>>> Not my experience. All my Internet and LAN speeds are superior or
>>>> dramatically superior on my Vista boxes. Some of that may simply be
>>>> faster hardware, with the LAN speeds. But Internet speeds are much
>>>> better, and the hardware can not affect that.
>>>
>>>Transfer rates are just one thing. Reliability etc is another. Try
>>>installing Office 2007 from a mapped network drive, what happens? Error
>>>"Invalid Drive X:" is what happens, but not on XP, nooo. Try installing
>>>something else from the network share, and you guessed it, same error, at
>>>which point I remorsefully resign myself to the fact I now have to copy a
>>>3Gb Adobe installer onto the desktop to install it, which with Vista means
>>>coming back in an hour or so. Copying installers across our network takes
>>>about twice as long with Vista than it does with XP. Maybe our network is
>>>quite different to yours? Internet seems slower with Vista, but that's
>>>subjective only.
>>>
>>>>>> In my opinion, on modern hardware with at least 2 Gibytes of RAM,
>>>>>> Vista is considerably superior to XP.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course, I have long since turned off UAC.
>>>>>
>>>>>Turning off UAC can lead to silent failures of software operations from
>>>>>installers and the like. Vista is pretty but it is absoultely terrible
>>>>>to
>>>>>use. At work just about everyone who got Vista and insisted they be
>>>>>allowed
>>>>>to try it (our policy is to replace it with XP) has asked to have it
>>>>>removed. There are two installs left, one on a Dell Quad Core, which
>>>>>takes
>>>>>20 minutes to boot, and another on a "server" box (8 cores) which nobody
>>>>>uses.
>>>>>
>>>>>J&H.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Actually, my experience is just the opposite. Having UAC on leads to
>>>> silent failures of installers, usually ones that do not understand
>>>> Vista. I have not had any such failures since I turned UAC off.
>>>
>>>You may be right there, I don't have a lot of experience with UAC (except
>>>for playing along with it's constant nagging), mostly second hand info.
>>>
>>>> I have used XP a lot prior to getting Vista, and I now prefer Vista. I
>>>> have never used XP on a modern PC though - maybe it does run a little
>>>> faster than Vista on the same hardware. But the dramatic performance
>>>> boost I got from changing hardware to the latest far outweighs that.
>>>> And the disk caching performance of Vista is so dramatically better,
>>>> and that matters in real life where benchmarks often do not. I do not
>>>> have to wait around all the time for Vista to reload things it should
>>>> never have flushed from its cache. With XP, I was always waiting for
>>>> things I should not have had to, just because I had copied a file from
>>>> A to B.
>>>>
>>>> At your work, were you putting Vista on old PCs with too little RAM?
>>>> Or an ancient video card? That would be the most likely reason for it
>>>> to be slow. And did you leave it running for a day or two to get all
>>>> the indexing done, or turn off the indexing service? What Windows
>>>> Experience Index values were the PCs reporting? Mine is currently
>>>> 4.8, with the limiting factor being Aero performance.
>>>
>>>I've never put Vista on anything at work. No they weren't old, they arrive
>>>new with Vista. Turning off indexing didn't help, either did disabling a
>>>number of other background processes. They are Quad core Dell Precision
>>>workstations with 4Gb ram, upgraded 3D cards. Can't remember what the EI
>>>values were but these are the very best of what's available.

>>
>> There should not be performance problems on such machines. So I have
>> to suspect that they came with Vista without SP1. SP1 is important -
>> it really does fix a number of problems.
>>
>>>I'm a Windows user, and I'd love it if Vista was as fast as XP, I'd change
>>>tonight. I would love to be using Vista instead, I love the aero look, and
>>>the widgets, and the general coolness of it all. But I refuse to install
>>>an
>>>OS that will handicap my performance and reliabilty so much.
>>>
>>>J&H.
>>>

>>
>> Uh, you do realise that each version of Windows is bigger, more
>> complicated, and slower than the previous version? So if speed is
>> what you want, why are you not still running Windows 2000? Or
>> (shudder) Win 98, 95 or 3.11? I ran Windows 2000 at work for ages
>> after XP came out because we decided not to upgrade (too expensive).
>> It was a fine operating system, compared to Win 98. When I eventually
>> got XP (and installed it on the same hardware), it was better than
>> 2000, but slightly slower. But the benefits outweighed the slight
>> loss of speed. Vista is the same. On insufficient hardware (< 1.5
>> Gibytes RAM), it will thrash. But with the right hardware, it is
>> better than XP, but slightly slower. But the gains in hardware speed
>> so far outweigh the loss of speed from XP to Vista that there is no
>> problem with that. Hardware from the last 12 months is so
>> dramatically faster than old stuff that it seems an order of magnitude
>> better to me. Of course, my old motherboard was from 2001!

>
>We condiser 2Gb to be the minumum we will give both OSX and XP users, with
>4Gb (3.25Gb) still providing an unsatisfactory user experience on Vista.
>Over the years I have used (and in some cases still use) Msoft DOS through
>to Vista, Commodore GEOS, Commodore Basic V2, Apple OS System 1 through
>Classic 9.2, Mac OSX (All), various Linux and other Unix based OS. In most
>cases the features of the OS were limited or even defined by the hardware of
>their day. Some of these OS I didn't like because they had too many bugs or
>were missing obvious features that the hardware was capable of supporting.
>
>I have never known any other OS that, 18 months after release, will
>frustrate the user so much that they just get up and walk away from the
>computer. If this ever happens on XP it's because the hardware is faulty,
>and / or the faulty hardware has caused the OS to become corrupted. In my
>view Vista has been uniquely bad in the history of operating systems to the
>extent that our average Vista users currently require about 40X the IT
>support time of our average XP and OSX users, and these are clever and
>skilled people. Vista is so unreliable that the benefits cannot outweigh the
>loss of speed, because too often these computers are rendered completely
>unuseable. For example auto updates caused icons and shortcuts on one users
>computer to stop functioning, clicking anything resulted in nothing. Another
>recent example auto updates caused Vista to hang with the green loading bar
>onscreen. Rebooting initiated the system restore function, which worked,
>once, then back to hang on loading screen after a reboot. Even though it was
>explained we could make Vista ignore this update and fix Vista (albeit
>probably temporarily), the user still requested that Vista be replaced with
>XP (he'd "had enough"), and due to his overuse of helpdesk resources the
>request was fulfilled asap.
>
>Vista is easily the most troublesome OS I've ever seen, used, or supported.
>Probably also the slowest, when factoring in the wickedly fast hardware we
>have these days.
>
>J&H.
>


I just have to say that my experience is different. I have not worked
with Vista in a corporate environment, just at home on my main PC and
my laptop (both new hardware). And I have found it to be good. Yes,
there have been the occasional problems, but no more than I had with
XP. So, maybe the difference with me is that I turned UAC off very
shortly after I installed Vista and applied SP1. Could it be that
simple?
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
impossible
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-04-2008
"Jekyll and Hyde" <jekyll&(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>> Another thing "next to nothing" is not equal to "no effect", a lame
>>>>> attempt to twist the meaning of what I said.
>>>

>>
>> I have no idea what you're on about here.
>>
>>> Oh, I see you have no comeback to your dirty tactics here.
>>>

>>
>> Ridicule, when deserved, is not a "dirty tactic". You should consider
>> this a good lesson for the future and get on with things. But next time,
>> read the articles before citing them -- sensational heradlines alone do
>> not make an argument.

>
> I said Vista SP1 did "next to nothing" to fix reliability and performance.


Oh, well you were just dead wrong about that. I was going to let it pass,
but you seem to be intent on making a spectacle of yourself here. So be it.

> Then you claim that when you lied by saying I'd said it had "no effect"
> that you are ridiculing me. **** off, you were simply lying. And you're
> doing it again and claiming it's an attempt at ridcule. You're pathetic.
>


Oh dear. You sound a bit stressed. Try again when you've calmed down.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Jekyll and Hyde
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-04-2008
>>>> Another thing "next to nothing" is not equal to "no effect", a lame
>>>> attempt to twist the meaning of what I said.

>>

>
> I have no idea what you're on about here.
>
>> Oh, I see you have no comeback to your dirty tactics here.
>>

>
> Ridicule, when deserved, is not a "dirty tactic". You should consider this
> a good lesson for the future and get on with things. But next time, read
> the articles before citing them -- sensational heradlines alone do not
> make an argument.


I said Vista SP1 did "next to nothing" to fix reliability and performance.
Then you claim that when you lied by saying I'd said it had "no effect" that
you are ridiculing me. **** off, you were simply lying. And you're doing it
again and claiming it's an attempt at ridcule. You're pathetic.

J&H.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Jekyll and Hyde
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-04-2008
"impossible" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:qoCFk.371555$yE1.214213@attbi_s21...
> "Jekyll and Hyde" <jekyll&(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>>> Another thing "next to nothing" is not equal to "no effect", a lame
>>>>>> attempt to twist the meaning of what I said.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I have no idea what you're on about here.
>>>
>>>> Oh, I see you have no comeback to your dirty tactics here.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ridicule, when deserved, is not a "dirty tactic". You should consider
>>> this a good lesson for the future and get on with things. But next time,
>>> read the articles before citing them -- sensational heradlines alone do
>>> not make an argument.

>>
>> I said Vista SP1 did "next to nothing" to fix reliability and
>> performance.

>
> Oh, well you were just dead wrong about that. I was going to let it pass,
> but you seem to be intent on making a spectacle of yourself here. So be
> it.


Err, no I'm not. How can a service pack that can't install increase
reliability? Secondly when benchmarks show Vista SP1 as still being 40%
slower on automated tests you take that as some sort of vindication. And
thirdly, I won't bother going on. You're a whacko with no facts, only
emotive ranting.

>> Then you claim that when you lied by saying I'd said it had "no effect"
>> that you are ridiculing me. **** off, you were simply lying. And you're
>> doing it again and claiming it's an attempt at ridcule. You're pathetic.
>>

>
> Oh dear. You sound a bit stressed. Try again when you've calmed down.


Lol, I'm calm, dead calm in fact. Like they say arguing on the internet is
like the Special Olympics, even if you win you're still retarded. I really
don't give a **** what you might think, no really. You don't have anything
to counter me with but your own anecdotal crap, and you've attempted
berating me for anecdotal "evidence". You're just a time wasting hypocrit.

J&H.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Jekyll and Hyde
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-04-2008
"Stephen Worthington" <(E-Mail Removed)34.nz56.remove_numbers> wrote in
message news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Sat, 4 Oct 2008 14:56:18 +1200, "Jekyll and Hyde"
> <jekyll&(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>"Stephen Worthington" <(E-Mail Removed)34.nz56.remove_numbers> wrote in
>>message news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> On Fri, 3 Oct 2008 19:48:17 +1200, "Jekyll and Hyde"
>>> <jekyll&(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Stephen Worthington" <(E-Mail Removed)34.nz56.remove_numbers> wrote in
>>>>message news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>> On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 20:59:44 +1200, "Jekyll and Hyde"
>>>>> <jekyll&(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>><dons flame-proof suit> I think it might. I know a guy who bought a
>>>>>>>>laptop
>>>>>>>>supplied with Vista who compared the performance (read:
>>>>>>>>responsiveness)
>>>>>>>>unfavourably to an old PII 366 / 64MB RAM running 98SE. He couldn't
>>>>>>>>get
>>>>>>>>XP
>>>>>>>>on it quick enough.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, it is *not* swapping. I have two Vista PCs with 2 Gibytes of
>>>>>>> RAM
>>>>>>> each. Both of them typically only have about 1.0-1.3 Gibytes of RAM
>>>>>>> in use, despite all the software I have loaded. The rest of the RAM
>>>>>>> is used for disk cache, and Vista is *much* better at using its
>>>>>>> cache
>>>>>>> than XP is. I should qualify that statement - I am using Vista SP1,
>>>>>>> and I think there were some fixes in SP1 to do with caching. I
>>>>>>> frequently see disk operations running at speeds so impossible that
>>>>>>> they must be running mostly out of the cache.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When Vista is first installed, it indexes all the files. This takes
>>>>>>> quite a while - just leave the box on for a couple of days if
>>>>>>> necessary and it should finally stop. Also, Vista has a builtin
>>>>>>> background defrag program that runs automatically once a week. I
>>>>>>> believe it senses other PC use and stops until the PC is idle again,
>>>>>>> but if it was also running at the same time as the indexing, they
>>>>>>> would make the disk rather busy, probably thrashing. Search the
>>>>>>> Help
>>>>>>> for "defragment" to find it and the scheduler that runs it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I have NEVER seen a Vista computer with it's hdd led out or more than
>>>>>>a
>>>>>>couple of seconds, they are ALWAYS lit. This even includes up to 8
>>>>>>core
>>>>>>64
>>>>>>bit machines with 16Gb ram and raid.Vista has so much overhead I don't
>>>>>>believe simple caching could come close to negating the performance
>>>>>>penalties Vista introduced. Today a Vista user at work finished
>>>>>>copying
>>>>>>100Gb to a USB2 HDD, it took 20 hours!
>>>>>
>>>>> I have not tried much with a USB2 hard disk, but they are simply slow.
>>>>> I know this because I have a 1 Tbyte external drive that has both USB2
>>>>> and eSATA interfaces. Its performance on a USB2 port is so bad I have
>>>>> only ever used it that way once. Its eSATA performance is the same as
>>>>> internal drives. So I would not blame Vista for poor USB2 disk
>>>>> performance.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have modern Seagate 500 Gbyte and 1 Tbyte SATA drives in my PCs, and
>>>>> performance is anything but slow. As an example, I just copied a
>>>>> 732,712,960 byte file from my 500 Gbyte drive to my 1 Tbyte drive in
>>>>> 18.53 seconds. I made sure that the file was one I had not accessed
>>>>> for ages so it would not be cached already. That is 39,541,984 bytes
>>>>> per second, or 2.2 Gibytes per minute. At that rate, your 100 Gbyte
>>>>> copy would have taken less than 45 minutes.
>>>>
>>>>It wasn't mine, and it took 20 hours. The problem has been around long
>>>>enough, this is not news. USB2 is usually sufficient for everyday use,
>>>>even
>>>>when using USMT tools to migrate a user.
>>>>
>>>>>>> So I think that many people are getting the wrong impression about
>>>>>>> Vista because it is slow for the first day or two due to the
>>>>>>> indexing,
>>>>>>> and also due to the file copying speed problems that were fixed in
>>>>>>> SP1. It is not at all slow, unless you try to run it with 1 Gibyte
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> RAM or less.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No, it's slower and will be forever, by 40% (
>>>>>>http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...ista,1531.html ), and
>>>>>>before
>>>>>>you
>>>>>>mention it I know the review was pre SP1. SP1 did next to nothing to
>>>>>>fix
>>>>>>performance and reliability issues. And in fact SP1 trashed many a
>>>>>>Vista
>>>>>>installation (see SP1 boot looping).
>>>>>
>>>>> I did not see a 40% overall figure anywhere in that article. That is
>>>>> just bullshit. You could say truthfully say "up to 40%" if you like
>>>>> bullshit statistics. Yes, quite a number of benchmarks show slightly
>>>>> lower performance, and a few much lower. I am a big skeptic when it
>>>>> comes to benchmarks though. They rarely reflect real life
>>>>> performance.
>>>>
>>>>Beg your pardon, but I don't bullshit. I linked the wrong article sorry
>>>>about that, but the 40% was about right from memory. Here's the correct
>>>>link... http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,1...9291081,00.htm
>>>>Like yourself I too am sceptical of benchmarks, and those at Toms in the
>>>>link I find to be particularly kind to Vista, and certainly are a lot
>>>>better
>>>>for Vista than I would ever have guessed.
>>>>But the ZDNet benchmarks certainly match my subjective experiences more
>>>>closely.
>>>>Also interesting, a rebuttal of Microsofts rebuttal of the bad news...
>>>>http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquir...mmed-attacking
>>>>Unlike MSofts claim, Devil Mountains benchmarking methods actually more
>>>>closely represent an actual user than Toms one specific test at a time
>>>>methods. This would explain to me why Toms figures surprised me, but
>>>>Devil
>>>>Mountains seems spot on to me.
>>>>
>>>>>>> Another really great thing is the way its TCP connections adapt
>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>> window size to the conditions they find. With XP, due to NZ's
>>>>>>> distance from the rest of the Internet and the resulting high ping
>>>>>>> times, ACK packets are too slow to get back to allow the next packet
>>>>>>> to be sent in time, which makes any one TCP connection run slower
>>>>>>> than
>>>>>>> a high speed Internet connection can handle. This can be fixed by
>>>>>>> changing registry settings in XP to increase the window size, but
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> can cause other problems. Most people just use multiple http
>>>>>>> connections to get the download speed their Internet connection is
>>>>>>> capable of. Vista does not need that - it adapts the window size
>>>>>>> dynamically to the traffic and the ping times. This helps a lot
>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>> download sites like rapidshare that only allow one connection.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The improvements are not sufficient to replace WAN optimisation
>>>>>>technologies, and in many cases performance is deteriorated by Vistas
>>>>>>technologies...
>>>>>>http://searchnetworking.techtarget.c...250148,00.html
>>>>>
>>>>> Not my experience. All my Internet and LAN speeds are superior or
>>>>> dramatically superior on my Vista boxes. Some of that may simply be
>>>>> faster hardware, with the LAN speeds. But Internet speeds are much
>>>>> better, and the hardware can not affect that.
>>>>
>>>>Transfer rates are just one thing. Reliability etc is another. Try
>>>>installing Office 2007 from a mapped network drive, what happens? Error
>>>>"Invalid Drive X:" is what happens, but not on XP, nooo. Try installing
>>>>something else from the network share, and you guessed it, same error,
>>>>at
>>>>which point I remorsefully resign myself to the fact I now have to copy
>>>>a
>>>>3Gb Adobe installer onto the desktop to install it, which with Vista
>>>>means
>>>>coming back in an hour or so. Copying installers across our network
>>>>takes
>>>>about twice as long with Vista than it does with XP. Maybe our network
>>>>is
>>>>quite different to yours? Internet seems slower with Vista, but that's
>>>>subjective only.
>>>>
>>>>>>> In my opinion, on modern hardware with at least 2 Gibytes of RAM,
>>>>>>> Vista is considerably superior to XP.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of course, I have long since turned off UAC.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Turning off UAC can lead to silent failures of software operations
>>>>>>from
>>>>>>installers and the like. Vista is pretty but it is absoultely terrible
>>>>>>to
>>>>>>use. At work just about everyone who got Vista and insisted they be
>>>>>>allowed
>>>>>>to try it (our policy is to replace it with XP) has asked to have it
>>>>>>removed. There are two installs left, one on a Dell Quad Core, which
>>>>>>takes
>>>>>>20 minutes to boot, and another on a "server" box (8 cores) which
>>>>>>nobody
>>>>>>uses.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>J&H.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, my experience is just the opposite. Having UAC on leads to
>>>>> silent failures of installers, usually ones that do not understand
>>>>> Vista. I have not had any such failures since I turned UAC off.
>>>>
>>>>You may be right there, I don't have a lot of experience with UAC
>>>>(except
>>>>for playing along with it's constant nagging), mostly second hand info.
>>>>
>>>>> I have used XP a lot prior to getting Vista, and I now prefer Vista. I
>>>>> have never used XP on a modern PC though - maybe it does run a little
>>>>> faster than Vista on the same hardware. But the dramatic performance
>>>>> boost I got from changing hardware to the latest far outweighs that.
>>>>> And the disk caching performance of Vista is so dramatically better,
>>>>> and that matters in real life where benchmarks often do not. I do not
>>>>> have to wait around all the time for Vista to reload things it should
>>>>> never have flushed from its cache. With XP, I was always waiting for
>>>>> things I should not have had to, just because I had copied a file from
>>>>> A to B.
>>>>>
>>>>> At your work, were you putting Vista on old PCs with too little RAM?
>>>>> Or an ancient video card? That would be the most likely reason for it
>>>>> to be slow. And did you leave it running for a day or two to get all
>>>>> the indexing done, or turn off the indexing service? What Windows
>>>>> Experience Index values were the PCs reporting? Mine is currently
>>>>> 4.8, with the limiting factor being Aero performance.
>>>>
>>>>I've never put Vista on anything at work. No they weren't old, they
>>>>arrive
>>>>new with Vista. Turning off indexing didn't help, either did disabling a
>>>>number of other background processes. They are Quad core Dell Precision
>>>>workstations with 4Gb ram, upgraded 3D cards. Can't remember what the EI
>>>>values were but these are the very best of what's available.
>>>
>>> There should not be performance problems on such machines. So I have
>>> to suspect that they came with Vista without SP1. SP1 is important -
>>> it really does fix a number of problems.
>>>
>>>>I'm a Windows user, and I'd love it if Vista was as fast as XP, I'd
>>>>change
>>>>tonight. I would love to be using Vista instead, I love the aero look,
>>>>and
>>>>the widgets, and the general coolness of it all. But I refuse to install
>>>>an
>>>>OS that will handicap my performance and reliabilty so much.
>>>>
>>>>J&H.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Uh, you do realise that each version of Windows is bigger, more
>>> complicated, and slower than the previous version? So if speed is
>>> what you want, why are you not still running Windows 2000? Or
>>> (shudder) Win 98, 95 or 3.11? I ran Windows 2000 at work for ages
>>> after XP came out because we decided not to upgrade (too expensive).
>>> It was a fine operating system, compared to Win 98. When I eventually
>>> got XP (and installed it on the same hardware), it was better than
>>> 2000, but slightly slower. But the benefits outweighed the slight
>>> loss of speed. Vista is the same. On insufficient hardware (< 1.5
>>> Gibytes RAM), it will thrash. But with the right hardware, it is
>>> better than XP, but slightly slower. But the gains in hardware speed
>>> so far outweigh the loss of speed from XP to Vista that there is no
>>> problem with that. Hardware from the last 12 months is so
>>> dramatically faster than old stuff that it seems an order of magnitude
>>> better to me. Of course, my old motherboard was from 2001!

>>
>>We condiser 2Gb to be the minumum we will give both OSX and XP users, with
>>4Gb (3.25Gb) still providing an unsatisfactory user experience on Vista.
>>Over the years I have used (and in some cases still use) Msoft DOS through
>>to Vista, Commodore GEOS, Commodore Basic V2, Apple OS System 1 through
>>Classic 9.2, Mac OSX (All), various Linux and other Unix based OS. In most
>>cases the features of the OS were limited or even defined by the hardware
>>of
>>their day. Some of these OS I didn't like because they had too many bugs
>>or
>>were missing obvious features that the hardware was capable of supporting.
>>
>>I have never known any other OS that, 18 months after release, will
>>frustrate the user so much that they just get up and walk away from the
>>computer. If this ever happens on XP it's because the hardware is faulty,
>>and / or the faulty hardware has caused the OS to become corrupted. In my
>>view Vista has been uniquely bad in the history of operating systems to
>>the
>>extent that our average Vista users currently require about 40X the IT
>>support time of our average XP and OSX users, and these are clever and
>>skilled people. Vista is so unreliable that the benefits cannot outweigh
>>the
>>loss of speed, because too often these computers are rendered completely
>>unuseable. For example auto updates caused icons and shortcuts on one
>>users
>>computer to stop functioning, clicking anything resulted in nothing.
>>Another
>>recent example auto updates caused Vista to hang with the green loading
>>bar
>>onscreen. Rebooting initiated the system restore function, which worked,
>>once, then back to hang on loading screen after a reboot. Even though it
>>was
>>explained we could make Vista ignore this update and fix Vista (albeit
>>probably temporarily), the user still requested that Vista be replaced
>>with
>>XP (he'd "had enough"), and due to his overuse of helpdesk resources the
>>request was fulfilled asap.
>>
>>Vista is easily the most troublesome OS I've ever seen, used, or
>>supported.
>>Probably also the slowest, when factoring in the wickedly fast hardware we
>>have these days.
>>
>>J&H.
>>

>
> I just have to say that my experience is different. I have not worked
> with Vista in a corporate environment, just at home on my main PC and
> my laptop (both new hardware). And I have found it to be good. Yes,
> there have been the occasional problems, but no more than I had with
> XP. So, maybe the difference with me is that I turned UAC off very
> shortly after I installed Vista and applied SP1. Could it be that
> simple?


You may be lucky, but in my opinion the jury isn't out, it found Vista
guilty ages ago...

PC World rated it as the biggest tech disappointment of 2007.

It was rated by InfoWorld as #2 of Tech's all-time 25 flops.

Within the first year of its release, the percentage of Windows XP users
visiting PC World's website reached 36%; in the same time frame, however,
Windows Vista adoption reached only 14%, with 71% of users still running XP.

A study conducted by ChangeWave in March 2008 shows that the percentage of
corporate users who are "very satisfied" with Vista is dramatically lower
than other operating systems, with Vista at 8%, compared to the 40% who say
they are "very satisfied" with Windows XP.

There have been a number of organizations who have denounced Vista due to
its problems. For example, in October 2007, The Dutch Consumers' Association
called for a boycott of Windows Vista.

According to a marketing manager working for HP Australia, Windows XP is
still being chosen over Windows Vista for the majority of business computer
sales.

According to industry sources, as of late July 2008 Windows XP is still
outselling Windows Vista, especially in business sales. According to HP,
Microsoft is unethically manipulating and inflating Windows Vista sales
figures.

Gamers however are happy with Vistas DX10, but gamers would have been happy
with XP's DX10 if they'd made such a thing (an attempt to lure users?).

J&H.


 
Reply With Quote
 
impossible
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-04-2008
"Jekyll and Hyde" <jekyll&(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> "Stephen Worthington" <(E-Mail Removed)34.nz56.remove_numbers> wrote in
> message news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> On Sat, 4 Oct 2008 14:56:18 +1200, "Jekyll and Hyde"
>> <jekyll&(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>"Stephen Worthington" <(E-Mail Removed)34.nz56.remove_numbers> wrote in
>>>message news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>> On Fri, 3 Oct 2008 19:48:17 +1200, "Jekyll and Hyde"
>>>> <jekyll&(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"Stephen Worthington" <(E-Mail Removed)34.nz56.remove_numbers> wrote
>>>>>in
>>>>>message news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>>> On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 20:59:44 +1200, "Jekyll and Hyde"
>>>>>> <jekyll&(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>><dons flame-proof suit> I think it might. I know a guy who bought a
>>>>>>>>>laptop
>>>>>>>>>supplied with Vista who compared the performance (read:
>>>>>>>>>responsiveness)
>>>>>>>>>unfavourably to an old PII 366 / 64MB RAM running 98SE. He couldn't
>>>>>>>>>get
>>>>>>>>>XP
>>>>>>>>>on it quick enough.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, it is *not* swapping. I have two Vista PCs with 2 Gibytes of
>>>>>>>> RAM
>>>>>>>> each. Both of them typically only have about 1.0-1.3 Gibytes of
>>>>>>>> RAM
>>>>>>>> in use, despite all the software I have loaded. The rest of the
>>>>>>>> RAM
>>>>>>>> is used for disk cache, and Vista is *much* better at using its
>>>>>>>> cache
>>>>>>>> than XP is. I should qualify that statement - I am using Vista
>>>>>>>> SP1,
>>>>>>>> and I think there were some fixes in SP1 to do with caching. I
>>>>>>>> frequently see disk operations running at speeds so impossible that
>>>>>>>> they must be running mostly out of the cache.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When Vista is first installed, it indexes all the files. This
>>>>>>>> takes
>>>>>>>> quite a while - just leave the box on for a couple of days if
>>>>>>>> necessary and it should finally stop. Also, Vista has a builtin
>>>>>>>> background defrag program that runs automatically once a week. I
>>>>>>>> believe it senses other PC use and stops until the PC is idle
>>>>>>>> again,
>>>>>>>> but if it was also running at the same time as the indexing, they
>>>>>>>> would make the disk rather busy, probably thrashing. Search the
>>>>>>>> Help
>>>>>>>> for "defragment" to find it and the scheduler that runs it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I have NEVER seen a Vista computer with it's hdd led out or more than
>>>>>>>a
>>>>>>>couple of seconds, they are ALWAYS lit. This even includes up to 8
>>>>>>>core
>>>>>>>64
>>>>>>>bit machines with 16Gb ram and raid.Vista has so much overhead I
>>>>>>>don't
>>>>>>>believe simple caching could come close to negating the performance
>>>>>>>penalties Vista introduced. Today a Vista user at work finished
>>>>>>>copying
>>>>>>>100Gb to a USB2 HDD, it took 20 hours!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have not tried much with a USB2 hard disk, but they are simply
>>>>>> slow.
>>>>>> I know this because I have a 1 Tbyte external drive that has both
>>>>>> USB2
>>>>>> and eSATA interfaces. Its performance on a USB2 port is so bad I
>>>>>> have
>>>>>> only ever used it that way once. Its eSATA performance is the same
>>>>>> as
>>>>>> internal drives. So I would not blame Vista for poor USB2 disk
>>>>>> performance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have modern Seagate 500 Gbyte and 1 Tbyte SATA drives in my PCs,
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> performance is anything but slow. As an example, I just copied a
>>>>>> 732,712,960 byte file from my 500 Gbyte drive to my 1 Tbyte drive in
>>>>>> 18.53 seconds. I made sure that the file was one I had not accessed
>>>>>> for ages so it would not be cached already. That is 39,541,984 bytes
>>>>>> per second, or 2.2 Gibytes per minute. At that rate, your 100 Gbyte
>>>>>> copy would have taken less than 45 minutes.
>>>>>
>>>>>It wasn't mine, and it took 20 hours. The problem has been around long
>>>>>enough, this is not news. USB2 is usually sufficient for everyday use,
>>>>>even
>>>>>when using USMT tools to migrate a user.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So I think that many people are getting the wrong impression about
>>>>>>>> Vista because it is slow for the first day or two due to the
>>>>>>>> indexing,
>>>>>>>> and also due to the file copying speed problems that were fixed in
>>>>>>>> SP1. It is not at all slow, unless you try to run it with 1 Gibyte
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> RAM or less.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No, it's slower and will be forever, by 40% (
>>>>>>>http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...ista,1531.html ), and
>>>>>>>before
>>>>>>>you
>>>>>>>mention it I know the review was pre SP1. SP1 did next to nothing to
>>>>>>>fix
>>>>>>>performance and reliability issues. And in fact SP1 trashed many a
>>>>>>>Vista
>>>>>>>installation (see SP1 boot looping).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I did not see a 40% overall figure anywhere in that article. That is
>>>>>> just bullshit. You could say truthfully say "up to 40%" if you like
>>>>>> bullshit statistics. Yes, quite a number of benchmarks show slightly
>>>>>> lower performance, and a few much lower. I am a big skeptic when it
>>>>>> comes to benchmarks though. They rarely reflect real life
>>>>>> performance.
>>>>>
>>>>>Beg your pardon, but I don't bullshit. I linked the wrong article sorry
>>>>>about that, but the 40% was about right from memory. Here's the correct
>>>>>link... http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,1...9291081,00.htm
>>>>>Like yourself I too am sceptical of benchmarks, and those at Toms in
>>>>>the
>>>>>link I find to be particularly kind to Vista, and certainly are a lot
>>>>>better
>>>>>for Vista than I would ever have guessed.
>>>>>But the ZDNet benchmarks certainly match my subjective experiences more
>>>>>closely.
>>>>>Also interesting, a rebuttal of Microsofts rebuttal of the bad news...
>>>>>http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquir...mmed-attacking
>>>>>Unlike MSofts claim, Devil Mountains benchmarking methods actually more
>>>>>closely represent an actual user than Toms one specific test at a time
>>>>>methods. This would explain to me why Toms figures surprised me, but
>>>>>Devil
>>>>>Mountains seems spot on to me.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Another really great thing is the way its TCP connections adapt
>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>> window size to the conditions they find. With XP, due to NZ's
>>>>>>>> distance from the rest of the Internet and the resulting high ping
>>>>>>>> times, ACK packets are too slow to get back to allow the next
>>>>>>>> packet
>>>>>>>> to be sent in time, which makes any one TCP connection run slower
>>>>>>>> than
>>>>>>>> a high speed Internet connection can handle. This can be fixed by
>>>>>>>> changing registry settings in XP to increase the window size, but
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> can cause other problems. Most people just use multiple http
>>>>>>>> connections to get the download speed their Internet connection is
>>>>>>>> capable of. Vista does not need that - it adapts the window size
>>>>>>>> dynamically to the traffic and the ping times. This helps a lot
>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>> download sites like rapidshare that only allow one connection.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The improvements are not sufficient to replace WAN optimisation
>>>>>>>technologies, and in many cases performance is deteriorated by Vistas
>>>>>>>technologies...
>>>>>>>http://searchnetworking.techtarget.c...250148,00.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not my experience. All my Internet and LAN speeds are superior or
>>>>>> dramatically superior on my Vista boxes. Some of that may simply be
>>>>>> faster hardware, with the LAN speeds. But Internet speeds are much
>>>>>> better, and the hardware can not affect that.
>>>>>
>>>>>Transfer rates are just one thing. Reliability etc is another. Try
>>>>>installing Office 2007 from a mapped network drive, what happens? Error
>>>>>"Invalid Drive X:" is what happens, but not on XP, nooo. Try installing
>>>>>something else from the network share, and you guessed it, same error,
>>>>>at
>>>>>which point I remorsefully resign myself to the fact I now have to copy
>>>>>a
>>>>>3Gb Adobe installer onto the desktop to install it, which with Vista
>>>>>means
>>>>>coming back in an hour or so. Copying installers across our network
>>>>>takes
>>>>>about twice as long with Vista than it does with XP. Maybe our network
>>>>>is
>>>>>quite different to yours? Internet seems slower with Vista, but that's
>>>>>subjective only.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In my opinion, on modern hardware with at least 2 Gibytes of RAM,
>>>>>>>> Vista is considerably superior to XP.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Of course, I have long since turned off UAC.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Turning off UAC can lead to silent failures of software operations
>>>>>>>from
>>>>>>>installers and the like. Vista is pretty but it is absoultely
>>>>>>>terrible
>>>>>>>to
>>>>>>>use. At work just about everyone who got Vista and insisted they be
>>>>>>>allowed
>>>>>>>to try it (our policy is to replace it with XP) has asked to have it
>>>>>>>removed. There are two installs left, one on a Dell Quad Core, which
>>>>>>>takes
>>>>>>>20 minutes to boot, and another on a "server" box (8 cores) which
>>>>>>>nobody
>>>>>>>uses.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>J&H.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually, my experience is just the opposite. Having UAC on leads to
>>>>>> silent failures of installers, usually ones that do not understand
>>>>>> Vista. I have not had any such failures since I turned UAC off.
>>>>>
>>>>>You may be right there, I don't have a lot of experience with UAC
>>>>>(except
>>>>>for playing along with it's constant nagging), mostly second hand info.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I have used XP a lot prior to getting Vista, and I now prefer Vista.
>>>>>> I
>>>>>> have never used XP on a modern PC though - maybe it does run a little
>>>>>> faster than Vista on the same hardware. But the dramatic performance
>>>>>> boost I got from changing hardware to the latest far outweighs that.
>>>>>> And the disk caching performance of Vista is so dramatically better,
>>>>>> and that matters in real life where benchmarks often do not. I do
>>>>>> not
>>>>>> have to wait around all the time for Vista to reload things it should
>>>>>> never have flushed from its cache. With XP, I was always waiting for
>>>>>> things I should not have had to, just because I had copied a file
>>>>>> from
>>>>>> A to B.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> At your work, were you putting Vista on old PCs with too little RAM?
>>>>>> Or an ancient video card? That would be the most likely reason for
>>>>>> it
>>>>>> to be slow. And did you leave it running for a day or two to get all
>>>>>> the indexing done, or turn off the indexing service? What Windows
>>>>>> Experience Index values were the PCs reporting? Mine is currently
>>>>>> 4.8, with the limiting factor being Aero performance.
>>>>>
>>>>>I've never put Vista on anything at work. No they weren't old, they
>>>>>arrive
>>>>>new with Vista. Turning off indexing didn't help, either did disabling
>>>>>a
>>>>>number of other background processes. They are Quad core Dell Precision
>>>>>workstations with 4Gb ram, upgraded 3D cards. Can't remember what the
>>>>>EI
>>>>>values were but these are the very best of what's available.
>>>>
>>>> There should not be performance problems on such machines. So I have
>>>> to suspect that they came with Vista without SP1. SP1 is important -
>>>> it really does fix a number of problems.
>>>>
>>>>>I'm a Windows user, and I'd love it if Vista was as fast as XP, I'd
>>>>>change
>>>>>tonight. I would love to be using Vista instead, I love the aero look,
>>>>>and
>>>>>the widgets, and the general coolness of it all. But I refuse to
>>>>>install
>>>>>an
>>>>>OS that will handicap my performance and reliabilty so much.
>>>>>
>>>>>J&H.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Uh, you do realise that each version of Windows is bigger, more
>>>> complicated, and slower than the previous version? So if speed is
>>>> what you want, why are you not still running Windows 2000? Or
>>>> (shudder) Win 98, 95 or 3.11? I ran Windows 2000 at work for ages
>>>> after XP came out because we decided not to upgrade (too expensive).
>>>> It was a fine operating system, compared to Win 98. When I eventually
>>>> got XP (and installed it on the same hardware), it was better than
>>>> 2000, but slightly slower. But the benefits outweighed the slight
>>>> loss of speed. Vista is the same. On insufficient hardware (< 1.5
>>>> Gibytes RAM), it will thrash. But with the right hardware, it is
>>>> better than XP, but slightly slower. But the gains in hardware speed
>>>> so far outweigh the loss of speed from XP to Vista that there is no
>>>> problem with that. Hardware from the last 12 months is so
>>>> dramatically faster than old stuff that it seems an order of magnitude
>>>> better to me. Of course, my old motherboard was from 2001!
>>>
>>>We condiser 2Gb to be the minumum we will give both OSX and XP users,
>>>with
>>>4Gb (3.25Gb) still providing an unsatisfactory user experience on Vista.
>>>Over the years I have used (and in some cases still use) Msoft DOS
>>>through
>>>to Vista, Commodore GEOS, Commodore Basic V2, Apple OS System 1 through
>>>Classic 9.2, Mac OSX (All), various Linux and other Unix based OS. In
>>>most
>>>cases the features of the OS were limited or even defined by the hardware
>>>of
>>>their day. Some of these OS I didn't like because they had too many bugs
>>>or
>>>were missing obvious features that the hardware was capable of
>>>supporting.
>>>
>>>I have never known any other OS that, 18 months after release, will
>>>frustrate the user so much that they just get up and walk away from the
>>>computer. If this ever happens on XP it's because the hardware is faulty,
>>>and / or the faulty hardware has caused the OS to become corrupted. In my
>>>view Vista has been uniquely bad in the history of operating systems to
>>>the
>>>extent that our average Vista users currently require about 40X the IT
>>>support time of our average XP and OSX users, and these are clever and
>>>skilled people. Vista is so unreliable that the benefits cannot outweigh
>>>the
>>>loss of speed, because too often these computers are rendered completely
>>>unuseable. For example auto updates caused icons and shortcuts on one
>>>users
>>>computer to stop functioning, clicking anything resulted in nothing.
>>>Another
>>>recent example auto updates caused Vista to hang with the green loading
>>>bar
>>>onscreen. Rebooting initiated the system restore function, which worked,
>>>once, then back to hang on loading screen after a reboot. Even though it
>>>was
>>>explained we could make Vista ignore this update and fix Vista (albeit
>>>probably temporarily), the user still requested that Vista be replaced
>>>with
>>>XP (he'd "had enough"), and due to his overuse of helpdesk resources the
>>>request was fulfilled asap.
>>>
>>>Vista is easily the most troublesome OS I've ever seen, used, or
>>>supported.
>>>Probably also the slowest, when factoring in the wickedly fast hardware
>>>we
>>>have these days.
>>>
>>>J&H.
>>>

>>
>> I just have to say that my experience is different. I have not worked
>> with Vista in a corporate environment, just at home on my main PC and
>> my laptop (both new hardware). And I have found it to be good. Yes,
>> there have been the occasional problems, but no more than I had with
>> XP. So, maybe the difference with me is that I turned UAC off very
>> shortly after I installed Vista and applied SP1. Could it be that
>> simple?

>
> You may be lucky, but in my opinion the jury isn't out, it found Vista
> guilty ages ago...
>
> PC World rated it as the biggest tech disappointment of 2007.
>


PC World is in IBM's pocket. Also on that ridiculous list of every
technology that IBM doesn't own: Apple's Iphone, Microsoft Zune, Apple OsX,
VoIP, "the broadband industry","the wireless industry", Office 2007, social
networks -- you get the idea.

> It was rated by InfoWorld as #2 of Tech's all-time 25 flops.
>


Linkbait sponsored by "IBM Express Advantage".

Do I detect a pattern here?


> Within the first year of its release, the percentage of Windows XP users
> visiting PC World's website reached 36%; in the same time frame, however,
> Windows Vista adoption reached only 14%, with 71% of users still running
> XP.
>


With PC World constantly dissing Vista, how many Vista users would you
expect to go there?

> A study conducted by ChangeWave in March 2008 shows that the percentage of
> corporate users who are "very satisfied" with Vista is dramatically lower
> than other operating systems, with Vista at 8%, compared to the 40% who
> say they are "very satisfied" with Windows XP.
>


Pre-SP1. Hardly any corporate adoption to that point. What did ChangeWave
have to say about corporate reactions to XP before SP1, or even SP2?

> There have been a number of organizations who have denounced Vista due to
> its problems. For example, in October 2007, The Dutch Consumers'
> Association called for a boycott of Windows Vista.
>


The Dutch Consumers' Association!?!? That's 3 people.

> According to a marketing manager working for HP Australia, Windows XP is
> still being chosen over Windows Vista for the majority of business
> computer sales.


Could I trouble you for a date on that statement?
>
> According to industry sources, as of late July 2008 Windows XP is still
> outselling Windows Vista, especially in business sales. According to HP,
> Microsoft is unethically manipulating and inflating Windows Vista sales
> figures.
>


Oooo -- anonymous "industry sources". Well, count me convinced then!!

> Gamers however are happy with Vistas DX10, but gamers would have been
> happy with XP's DX10 if they'd made such a thing (an attempt to lure
> users?).
>


Yeah, newver trust gamers' opinions.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Jekyll and Hyde
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-04-2008
>> You may be lucky, but in my opinion the jury isn't out, it found Vista
>> guilty ages ago...
>>
>> PC World rated it as the biggest tech disappointment of 2007.
>>

>
> PC World is in IBM's pocket. Also on that ridiculous list of every
> technology that IBM doesn't own: Apple's Iphone, Microsoft Zune, Apple
> OsX, VoIP, "the broadband industry","the wireless industry", Office 2007,
> social networks -- you get the idea.
>
>> It was rated by InfoWorld as #2 of Tech's all-time 25 flops.
>>

>
> Linkbait sponsored by "IBM Express Advantage".
>
> Do I detect a pattern here?


Dunno, are conspiracy theories habitual behavior for you?

>> Within the first year of its release, the percentage of Windows XP users
>> visiting PC World's website reached 36%; in the same time frame, however,
>> Windows Vista adoption reached only 14%, with 71% of users still running
>> XP.
>>

>
> With PC World constantly dissing Vista, how many Vista users would you
> expect to go there?
>
>> A study conducted by ChangeWave in March 2008 shows that the percentage
>> of corporate users who are "very satisfied" with Vista is dramatically
>> lower than other operating systems, with Vista at 8%, compared to the 40%
>> who say they are "very satisfied" with Windows XP.
>>

>
> Pre-SP1. Hardly any corporate adoption to that point. What did ChangeWave
> have to say about corporate reactions to XP before SP1, or even SP2?
>
>> There have been a number of organizations who have denounced Vista due to
>> its problems. For example, in October 2007, The Dutch Consumers'
>> Association called for a boycott of Windows Vista.
>>

>
> The Dutch Consumers' Association!?!? That's 3 people.


Who recieved over 5,000 complaints as at Oct 07.

>> According to a marketing manager working for HP Australia, Windows XP is
>> still being chosen over Windows Vista for the majority of business
>> computer sales.

>
> Could I trouble you for a date on that statement?


July 2008. Which is way after your blessed SP1 was handed down from the
gods. SP1 is not going to sway anyone anyway, especially now we know the SP
is as much of a dog as the original release. Sure there were some
improvements, if you could get it to install, and if you could boot
afterwards. But from a performance and reliabilty pack you would expect the
overall lethargy of the system as a whole to improve, it didn't. And as for
reliability, well, negligible changes there overall.

>> According to industry sources, as of late July 2008 Windows XP is still
>> outselling Windows Vista, especially in business sales. According to HP,
>> Microsoft is unethically manipulating and inflating Windows Vista sales
>> figures.
>>

>
> Oooo -- anonymous "industry sources". Well, count me convinced then!!


Err, no HP is given as an example of those industry sources. Want more find
them yourself.

>> Gamers however are happy with Vistas DX10, but gamers would have been
>> happy with XP's DX10 if they'd made such a thing (an attempt to lure
>> users?).
>>

>
> Yeah, newver trust gamers' opinions.


You missed the point, that DX10 games on Vista outperform DX9 on XP, because
DX10 isn't available for XP, not because Vista is "better".

Seems you have quite an emotional investment in Vista, and still not a
single cite. Is everything you say anecdotal? May I suggest a long holiday
somewhere relaxing.

J&H.


 
Reply With Quote
 
impossible
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-05-2008
"Jekyll and Hyde" <jekyll&(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:48e80c9c$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> You may be lucky, but in my opinion the jury isn't out, it found Vista
>>> guilty ages ago...
>>>
>>> PC World rated it as the biggest tech disappointment of 2007.
>>>

>>
>> PC World is in IBM's pocket. Also on that ridiculous list of every
>> technology that IBM doesn't own: Apple's Iphone, Microsoft Zune, Apple
>> OsX, VoIP, "the broadband industry","the wireless industry", Office 2007,
>> social networks -- you get the idea.
>>
>>> It was rated by InfoWorld as #2 of Tech's all-time 25 flops.
>>>

>>
>> Linkbait sponsored by "IBM Express Advantage".
>>
>> Do I detect a pattern here?

>
> Dunno, are conspiracy theories habitual behavior for you?
>


No, that's why all your citations from sites sponsored by IBM concern me.
Either this is deliberate on your part, because you adore IBM, or elkse
you're just too ignorant to realize that you're being taken for a ride.

>>> Within the first year of its release, the percentage of Windows XP users
>>> visiting PC World's website reached 36%; in the same time frame,
>>> however, Windows Vista adoption reached only 14%, with 71% of users
>>> still running XP.
>>>

>>
>> With PC World constantly dissing Vista, how many Vista users would you
>> expect to go there?
>>
>>> A study conducted by ChangeWave in March 2008 shows that the percentage
>>> of corporate users who are "very satisfied" with Vista is dramatically
>>> lower than other operating systems, with Vista at 8%, compared to the
>>> 40% who say they are "very satisfied" with Windows XP.
>>>

>>
>> Pre-SP1. Hardly any corporate adoption to that point. What did ChangeWave
>> have to say about corporate reactions to XP before SP1, or even SP2?
>>
>>> There have been a number of organizations who have denounced Vista due
>>> to its problems. For example, in October 2007, The Dutch Consumers'
>>> Association called for a boycott of Windows Vista.
>>>

>>
>> The Dutch Consumers' Association!?!? That's 3 people.

>
> Who recieved over 5,000 complaints as at Oct 07.
>


From people who were sold low-spec'd machines by scummy retailers trying to
pass off the "Vista capable" stamp as a license to rob people.

>>> According to a marketing manager working for HP Australia, Windows XP is
>>> still being chosen over Windows Vista for the majority of business
>>> computer sales.

>>
>> Could I trouble you for a date on that statement?

>
> July 2008.


Interesting, because XP sales to businesses ended in June 2008.

>
> Which is way after your blessed SP1 was handed down from the gods. SP1 is
> not going to sway anyone anyway, especially now we know the SP is as much
> of a dog as the original release. Sure there were some improvements, if
> you could get it to install, and if you could boot afterwards. But from a
> performance and reliabilty pack you would expect the overall lethargy of
> the system as a whole to improve, it didn't. And as for reliability, well,
> negligible changes there overall.
>


Citation?

>>> According to industry sources, as of late July 2008 Windows XP is still
>>> outselling Windows Vista, especially in business sales. According to HP,
>>> Microsoft is unethically manipulating and inflating Windows Vista sales
>>> figures.
>>>

>>
>> Oooo -- anonymous "industry sources". Well, count me convinced then!!

>
> Err, no HP is given as an example of those industry sources. Want more
> find them yourself.
>
>>> Gamers however are happy with Vistas DX10, but gamers would have been
>>> happy with XP's DX10 if they'd made such a thing (an attempt to lure
>>> users?).
>>>

>>
>> Yeah, newver trust gamers' opinions.

>
> You missed the point, that DX10 games on Vista outperform DX9 on XP,
> because DX10 isn't available for XP, not because Vista is "better".
>


Read that line over to yourself: DX10 isn't available for XP

> Seems you have quite an emotional investment in Vista...


Not at all. I just take satisfaction in exposing lies -- and liars.

> and still not a single cite. Is everything you say anecdotal?


You're the one making wild charges against Vista, starting with the wildest
of anecdotes. The burden is on you to demonstrate that there is some basis
for those stories besides the imagination of IBM marketing execs.
>
>May I suggest a long holiday somewhere relaxing.
>


Yes, take a rest. You sound like you need it.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Je|
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-13-2008
"impossible" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:y52Gk.373390$yE1.316564@attbi_s21...
> "Jekyll and Hyde" <jekyll&(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:48e80c9c$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>> You may be lucky, but in my opinion the jury isn't out, it found Vista
>>>> guilty ages ago...
>>>>
>>>> PC World rated it as the biggest tech disappointment of 2007.
>>>>
>>>
>>> PC World is in IBM's pocket. Also on that ridiculous list of every
>>> technology that IBM doesn't own: Apple's Iphone, Microsoft Zune, Apple
>>> OsX, VoIP, "the broadband industry","the wireless industry", Office
>>> 2007, social networks -- you get the idea.
>>>
>>>> It was rated by InfoWorld as #2 of Tech's all-time 25 flops.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Linkbait sponsored by "IBM Express Advantage".
>>>
>>> Do I detect a pattern here?

>>
>> Dunno, are conspiracy theories habitual behavior for you?
>>

>
> No, that's why all your citations from sites sponsored by IBM concern me.
> Either this is deliberate on your part, because you adore IBM, or elkse
> you're just too ignorant to realize that you're being taken for a ride.
>
>>>> Within the first year of its release, the percentage of Windows XP
>>>> users visiting PC World's website reached 36%; in the same time frame,
>>>> however, Windows Vista adoption reached only 14%, with 71% of users
>>>> still running XP.
>>>>
>>>
>>> With PC World constantly dissing Vista, how many Vista users would you
>>> expect to go there?
>>>
>>>> A study conducted by ChangeWave in March 2008 shows that the percentage
>>>> of corporate users who are "very satisfied" with Vista is dramatically
>>>> lower than other operating systems, with Vista at 8%, compared to the
>>>> 40% who say they are "very satisfied" with Windows XP.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Pre-SP1. Hardly any corporate adoption to that point. What did
>>> ChangeWave have to say about corporate reactions to XP before SP1, or
>>> even SP2?
>>>
>>>> There have been a number of organizations who have denounced Vista due
>>>> to its problems. For example, in October 2007, The Dutch Consumers'
>>>> Association called for a boycott of Windows Vista.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The Dutch Consumers' Association!?!? That's 3 people.

>>
>> Who recieved over 5,000 complaints as at Oct 07.
>>

>
> From people who were sold low-spec'd machines by scummy retailers trying
> to pass off the "Vista capable" stamp as a license to rob people.
>
>>>> According to a marketing manager working for HP Australia, Windows XP
>>>> is still being chosen over Windows Vista for the majority of business
>>>> computer sales.
>>>
>>> Could I trouble you for a date on that statement?

>>
>> July 2008.

>
> Interesting, because XP sales to businesses ended in June 2008.
>
>>
>> Which is way after your blessed SP1 was handed down from the gods. SP1 is
>> not going to sway anyone anyway, especially now we know the SP is as much
>> of a dog as the original release. Sure there were some improvements, if
>> you could get it to install, and if you could boot afterwards. But from a
>> performance and reliabilty pack you would expect the overall lethargy of
>> the system as a whole to improve, it didn't. And as for reliability,
>> well, negligible changes there overall.
>>

>
> Citation?
>
>>>> According to industry sources, as of late July 2008 Windows XP is still
>>>> outselling Windows Vista, especially in business sales. According to
>>>> HP, Microsoft is unethically manipulating and inflating Windows Vista
>>>> sales figures.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Oooo -- anonymous "industry sources". Well, count me convinced then!!

>>
>> Err, no HP is given as an example of those industry sources. Want more
>> find them yourself.
>>
>>>> Gamers however are happy with Vistas DX10, but gamers would have been
>>>> happy with XP's DX10 if they'd made such a thing (an attempt to lure
>>>> users?).
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yeah, newver trust gamers' opinions.

>>
>> You missed the point, that DX10 games on Vista outperform DX9 on XP,
>> because DX10 isn't available for XP, not because Vista is "better".
>>

>
> Read that line over to yourself: DX10 isn't available for XP
>
>> Seems you have quite an emotional investment in Vista...

>
> Not at all. I just take satisfaction in exposing lies -- and liars.
>
>> and still not a single cite. Is everything you say anecdotal?

>
> You're the one making wild charges against Vista, starting with the
> wildest of anecdotes. The burden is on you to demonstrate that there is
> some basis for those stories besides the imagination of IBM marketing
> execs.
>>
>>May I suggest a long holiday somewhere relaxing.
>>

>
> Yes, take a rest. You sound like you need it.


Aaaah, so you're actually Brett Roberts a Microsoft employee. Case closed
IMO. You pretend to argue from a neutral position and all the while you've
got a conflict of interest, you're a fraud.

And you accused me of working for IBM, that's ****ing rich now isn't it Mr
Brett (Microsoft) Roberts. What a shyster.

Vista sucks, everyone knows it.

J&H.


 
Reply With Quote
 
impossible
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-14-2008

"Je|<ݬ & e" <jekyll&(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:48f30ac2$(E-Mail Removed)...
> "impossible" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:y52Gk.373390$yE1.316564@attbi_s21...
>> "Jekyll and Hyde" <jekyll&(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:48e80c9c$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>> You may be lucky, but in my opinion the jury isn't out, it found Vista
>>>>> guilty ages ago...
>>>>>
>>>>> PC World rated it as the biggest tech disappointment of 2007.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> PC World is in IBM's pocket. Also on that ridiculous list of every
>>>> technology that IBM doesn't own: Apple's Iphone, Microsoft Zune, Apple
>>>> OsX, VoIP, "the broadband industry","the wireless industry", Office
>>>> 2007, social networks -- you get the idea.
>>>>
>>>>> It was rated by InfoWorld as #2 of Tech's all-time 25 flops.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Linkbait sponsored by "IBM Express Advantage".
>>>>
>>>> Do I detect a pattern here?
>>>
>>> Dunno, are conspiracy theories habitual behavior for you?
>>>

>>
>> No, that's why all your citations from sites sponsored by IBM concern me.
>> Either this is deliberate on your part, because you adore IBM, or elkse
>> you're just too ignorant to realize that you're being taken for a ride.
>>
>>>>> Within the first year of its release, the percentage of Windows XP
>>>>> users visiting PC World's website reached 36%; in the same time frame,
>>>>> however, Windows Vista adoption reached only 14%, with 71% of users
>>>>> still running XP.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> With PC World constantly dissing Vista, how many Vista users would you
>>>> expect to go there?
>>>>
>>>>> A study conducted by ChangeWave in March 2008 shows that the
>>>>> percentage of corporate users who are "very satisfied" with Vista is
>>>>> dramatically lower than other operating systems, with Vista at 8%,
>>>>> compared to the 40% who say they are "very satisfied" with Windows XP.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Pre-SP1. Hardly any corporate adoption to that point. What did
>>>> ChangeWave have to say about corporate reactions to XP before SP1, or
>>>> even SP2?
>>>>
>>>>> There have been a number of organizations who have denounced Vista due
>>>>> to its problems. For example, in October 2007, The Dutch Consumers'
>>>>> Association called for a boycott of Windows Vista.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The Dutch Consumers' Association!?!? That's 3 people.
>>>
>>> Who recieved over 5,000 complaints as at Oct 07.
>>>

>>
>> From people who were sold low-spec'd machines by scummy retailers trying
>> to pass off the "Vista capable" stamp as a license to rob people.
>>
>>>>> According to a marketing manager working for HP Australia, Windows XP
>>>>> is still being chosen over Windows Vista for the majority of business
>>>>> computer sales.
>>>>
>>>> Could I trouble you for a date on that statement?
>>>
>>> July 2008.

>>
>> Interesting, because XP sales to businesses ended in June 2008.
>>
>>>
>>> Which is way after your blessed SP1 was handed down from the gods. SP1
>>> is not going to sway anyone anyway, especially now we know the SP is as
>>> much of a dog as the original release. Sure there were some
>>> improvements, if you could get it to install, and if you could boot
>>> afterwards. But from a performance and reliabilty pack you would expect
>>> the overall lethargy of the system as a whole to improve, it didn't. And
>>> as for reliability, well, negligible changes there overall.
>>>

>>
>> Citation?
>>
>>>>> According to industry sources, as of late July 2008 Windows XP is
>>>>> still outselling Windows Vista, especially in business sales.
>>>>> According to HP, Microsoft is unethically manipulating and inflating
>>>>> Windows Vista sales figures.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Oooo -- anonymous "industry sources". Well, count me convinced then!!
>>>
>>> Err, no HP is given as an example of those industry sources. Want more
>>> find them yourself.
>>>
>>>>> Gamers however are happy with Vistas DX10, but gamers would have been
>>>>> happy with XP's DX10 if they'd made such a thing (an attempt to lure
>>>>> users?).
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, newver trust gamers' opinions.
>>>
>>> You missed the point, that DX10 games on Vista outperform DX9 on XP,
>>> because DX10 isn't available for XP, not because Vista is "better".
>>>

>>
>> Read that line over to yourself: DX10 isn't available for XP
>>
>>> Seems you have quite an emotional investment in Vista...

>>
>> Not at all. I just take satisfaction in exposing lies -- and liars.
>>
>>> and still not a single cite. Is everything you say anecdotal?

>>
>> You're the one making wild charges against Vista, starting with the
>> wildest of anecdotes. The burden is on you to demonstrate that there is
>> some basis for those stories besides the imagination of IBM marketing
>> execs.
>>>
>>>May I suggest a long holiday somewhere relaxing.
>>>

>>
>> Yes, take a rest. You sound like you need it.

>
> Aaaah, so you're actually Brett Roberts a Microsoft employee. Case closed
> IMO. You pretend to argue from a neutral position and all the while you've
> got a conflict of interest, you're a fraud.
>
> And you accused me of working for IBM, that's ****ing rich now isn't it Mr
> Brett (Microsoft) Roberts. What a shyster.
>
> Vista sucks, everyone knows it.
>


Completely out of arguments, aren't you? Oh, wait...you never had any. Never
mind, just carry on ranting as usual.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Vista codec packages for Vista 32 & vista 64 Kue2 Windows 64bit 0 03-05-2007 05:48 PM
Vista Home v Vista Ultimate John Computer Information 4 02-15-2007 10:02 PM
Non-Vista print drivers in Vista 64 RC1? Larry Hodges Windows 64bit 11 10-30-2006 01:36 AM
Please start Vista 32 bit and Vista 64 Newsgroups =?Utf-8?B?RGVhdGhOQUNhbg==?= Windows 64bit 6 10-11-2006 03:55 PM
x64-to-Vista: Will clean-install Vista "upgrade" invalidate x64 license? DP Windows 64bit 11 07-22-2006 11:00 PM



Advertisments