Vista still sucks

Discussion in 'MCSE' started by kpg, Jun 8, 2007.

  1. kpg

    kpg Guest

    Anyone got a fix for this?

    Vista Home Premium on a 2k3 server workgroup ran fine.

    Upgrade the 2k2 server to SP2, now vista machine is sloooooow on
    network to the point where programs can't be run.

    Network connection and speed are fine, browsing on other computers
    is fast, including a 2k3 server with sp1.

    Tried turning off vista auto-tuning to no avail.

    I'm about to roll back the sp2.

    ....or install 98 on the vista machine.

    0x22
    kpg, Jun 8, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. kpg

    CBIC Guest

    "kpg" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns99496E220192Bipostthereforeiam@207.46.248.16...
    > Anyone got a fix for this?
    >
    > Vista Home Premium on a 2k3 server workgroup ran fine.
    >
    > Upgrade the 2k2 server to SP2, now vista machine is sloooooow on
    > network to the point where programs can't be run.
    >
    > Network connection and speed are fine, browsing on other computers
    > is fast, including a 2k3 server with sp1.
    >
    > Tried turning off vista auto-tuning to no avail.
    >
    > I'm about to roll back the sp2.
    >
    > ...or install 98 on the vista machine.
    >
    > 0x22
    >


    Please tell me you aren't running Vista on a production network before SP1
    comes out.
    CBIC, Jun 8, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. kpg

    kpg Guest

    "CBIC" <> wrote in
    news::

    > Please tell me you aren't running Vista on a production network before
    > SP1 comes out.



    OK. I won't tell you.
    kpg, Jun 8, 2007
    #3
  4. kpg

    CBIC Guest

    "kpg" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns994970A032CD3ipostthereforeiam@207.46.248.16...
    > "CBIC" <> wrote in
    > news::
    >
    >> Please tell me you aren't running Vista on a production network before
    >> SP1 comes out.

    >
    >
    > OK. I won't tell you.


    Thanks for working those bugs out so my deployment will go smoother in 6 to
    12 months. Kindly make sure MS documents the fix they provide for you.
    Thanking you muchly.
    CBIC, Jun 8, 2007
    #4
  5. kpg

    kpg Guest

    "CBIC" <> wrote in
    news::

    >
    > "kpg" <> wrote in message
    > news:Xns994970A032CD3ipostthereforeiam@207.46.248.16...
    >> "CBIC" <> wrote in
    >> news::
    >>
    >>> Please tell me you aren't running Vista on a production network
    >>> before SP1 comes out.

    >>
    >>
    >> OK. I won't tell you.

    >
    > Thanks for working those bugs out so my deployment will go smoother in
    > 6 to 12 months. Kindly make sure MS documents the fix they provide for
    > you. Thanking you muchly.



    Well, I am a selfless bastid.


    Your welcome.
    kpg, Jun 8, 2007
    #5
  6. kpg

    Montreal MCT Guest

    Wow... I can't believe people still think like that! You do realize we are
    in 2007, and that Vista is NOT XP or 2000?

    The truth is that Vista was ready to deploy in a production environment on
    November 8th. I am not saying there haven't been patches and that there
    won't be more... but Vista released ready. It did not release in June as
    originally promised or before September as hoped BECAUSE they wanted to
    release a solid product. It worked.

    Unless you have worked extensively with Vista over the past six months you
    may not realize that, but it is the reality.

    M

    "kpg" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns994970A032CD3ipostthereforeiam@207.46.248.16...
    > "CBIC" <> wrote in
    > news::
    >
    >> Please tell me you aren't running Vista on a production network before
    >> SP1 comes out.

    >
    >
    > OK. I won't tell you.
    Montreal MCT, Jun 9, 2007
    #6
  7. kpg

    catwalker63 Guest

    Montreal MCT piffled away vaguely:

    > Wow... I can't believe people still think like that! You do realize we are
    > in 2007, and that Vista is NOT XP or 2000?
    >
    > The truth is that Vista was ready to deploy in a production environment on
    > November 8th. I am not saying there haven't been patches and that there
    > won't be more... but Vista released ready. It did not release in June as
    > originally promised or before September as hoped BECAUSE they wanted to
    > release a solid product. It worked.
    >
    > Unless you have worked extensively with Vista over the past six months you
    > may not realize that, but it is the reality.
    >

    I hope you're joking or getting kick-backs from MS. W2K released with
    fewer problems and bugs. Vista is NOT ready and it sucks in many ways
    that have nothing to do with whether it's ready. And no experienced
    admin deploys a new OS until the brave and foolish work out the kinks.
    Work extensively with Vista in a test environment until it's mature.
    Figure out which of your must-have legacy apps tank and how to work
    around them. Sort out issues like our OP has before you give it to
    the user. That's the reality. Anything else is marketing.

    --

    Catwalker
    MCNGP #43
    www.mcngp.com
    "I have a gun. It's loaded. Shut up."
    catwalker63, Jun 9, 2007
    #7
  8. "catwalker63" <> wrote in message
    news::

    > Montreal MCT piffled away vaguely:
    >
    >
    > > Wow... I can't believe people still think like that! You do realize

    > we are
    > > in 2007, and that Vista is NOT XP or 2000?
    > >
    > > The truth is that Vista was ready to deploy in a production

    > environment on
    > > November 8th. I am not saying there haven't been patches and that

    > there
    > > won't be more... but Vista released ready. It did not release in June

    > as
    > > originally promised or before September as hoped BECAUSE they wanted

    > to
    > > release a solid product. It worked.
    > >
    > > Unless you have worked extensively with Vista over the past six months

    > you
    > > may not realize that, but it is the reality.
    > >

    >
    > I hope you're joking or getting kick-backs from MS. W2K released with
    > fewer problems and bugs. Vista is NOT ready and it sucks in many ways
    > that have nothing to do with whether it's ready. And no experienced
    > admin deploys a new OS until the brave and foolish work out the kinks.
    > Work extensively with Vista in a test environment until it's mature.
    > Figure out which of your must-have legacy apps tank and how to work
    > around them. Sort out issues like our OP has before you give it to
    > the user. That's the reality. Anything else is marketing.
    >
    > --
    >
    > Catwalker
    > MCNGP #43
    > www.mcngp.com
    > "I have a gun. It's loaded. Shut up."


    This conversation is exhausting. Every time a new operating system is
    released, this conversation arises. "Windows X is not ready". "Windows X
    is still buggy and does not work with XYZ." It happened with Windows NT,
    Windows 2000, Windows XP, and now Windows Vista.
    --
    Michael D. Alligood, MCSA, MCDST
    The I.T. Classroom - http://www.theitclassroom.com/
    CertGuard - http://www.certguard.com
    Michael D. Alligood [CertGuard], Jun 9, 2007
    #8
  9. kpg <> wrote in news:Xns99496E220192Bipostthereforeiam@
    207.46.248.16:

    > Anyone got a fix for this?
    >
    > Vista Home Premium on a 2k3 server workgroup ran fine.
    >
    > Upgrade the 2k2 server to SP2, now vista machine is sloooooow on
    > network to the point where programs can't be run.
    >
    > Network connection and speed are fine, browsing on other computers
    > is fast, including a 2k3 server with sp1.
    >
    > Tried turning off vista auto-tuning to no avail.
    >
    > I'm about to roll back the sp2.
    >
    > ...or install 98 on the vista machine.
    >
    > 0x22
    >
    >


    KPG, weren't you the one who told me, "Welcome to the bleeding edge"?

    I rest my case.
    --
    Taylor S. Ripley [CertGuard]
    MCDST
    Join the fight against braindumps!
    http://www.certguard.com
    Taylor S. Ripley [CertGuard], Jun 10, 2007
    #9
  10. kpg

    CBIC Guest

    "Montreal MCT" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Wow... I can't believe people still think like that! You do realize we
    > are in 2007, and that Vista is NOT XP or 2000?


    What I can't believe is how condescending you're being to me. Is there a
    reason for that?


    but Vista released ready.

    Obviously your and MS's definition of ready is not the same as mine.

    It did not release in June as
    > originally promised or before September as hoped BECAUSE they wanted to
    > release a solid product. It worked.


    In your opinion.

    >
    > Unless you have worked extensively with Vista over the past six months you
    > may not realize that, but it is the reality.
    >


    I have worked extensively with Vista. Like any new OS it works fine in a
    vanilla plain environment. It's up to each company to make it work in their
    environment.
    CBIC, Jun 11, 2007
    #10
  11. kpg

    kpg Guest

    Re: Updates

    I did this on one of the 2k3 sp2 the servers:

    [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\Tcpip\Parameters]
    "Tcp1323Opts"=dword:00000000

    That disables timestamps and window scaling, and as a result
    forces the max tcp window size to 64k.

    On the Vista machine: (from the admin prompt)

    netsh interface tcp set global autotuning=disabled.

    This turns off Receive Window Auto-Tuning, and prevents vista
    from adjusting its tcp window size.

    Rebooted Vista but not the server, and the network was still
    slow (but only when communicating with the two 2k3 sp2 servers).

    Come in this AM and voila - every thing works fine. hmmmmmmm.

    OK. I can rule out the server setting (I think) because there
    are 2 servers, both exhibited the problem and now both work
    fine. I only disabled 1323 on one of them.

    I can rule out the Vista autotuning because a reboot Friday
    would work just a well as a reboot today...(unless the server
    keeps tcp connection info for a time...nah)

    If I were ambitious, I would undo my changes and see what
    that does, but alas...

    My initial assumption was that upgrading [sic] to svr 2k3 sp2
    caused the problem, and I further assumed that Vista was at
    fault. The sp2 introduced some new tcp capabilities, and Vista
    supports the new tcp capabilities, so a problem there could
    result in the behavior I saw, poor communication between Vista
    and the 2k3 sp2 machines. NIC hardware and driver incompati-
    bilities with the "new capabilities" are an equally likely
    culprit.

    So why the delayed auto-fix?

    kp "that's a rhetorical question" g
    kpg, Jun 11, 2007
    #11
  12. kpg

    kpg Guest

    "Taylor S. Ripley [CertGuard]" <> wrote in
    news:Xns994AD8D5075F8TSRIPLEY36526@207.46.248.16:

    > KPG, weren't you the one who told me, "Welcome to the bleeding edge"?


    I hold it true, whate'er befall;
    I feel it, when I sorrow most;
    'Tis better to have loved and lost
    Than never to have loved at all.

    kpg
    kpg, Jun 11, 2007
    #12
  13. kpg

    kpg Guest

    "Montreal MCT" <> wrote in
    news::

    > Wow... I can't believe people still think like that! You do realize
    > we are in 2007, and that Vista is NOT XP or 2000?
    >
    > The truth is that Vista was ready to deploy in a production
    > environment on November 8th. I am not saying there haven't been
    > patches and that there won't be more... but Vista released ready. It
    > did not release in June as originally promised or before September as
    > hoped BECAUSE they wanted to release a solid product. It worked.
    >
    > Unless you have worked extensively with Vista over the past six months
    > you may not realize that, but it is the reality.


    You are straining your otherwise reasonably fair creditability.

    One should avoid speaking in absolutes, for it will inevitably
    result in foot-in-mouth disease.
    kpg, Jun 11, 2007
    #13
  14. kpg

    Frisbee® Guest

    "kpg" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns994C5EE513D75ipostthereforeiam@207.46.248.16...
    > "Montreal MCT" <> wrote in
    > news::
    >
    >> Wow... I can't believe people still think like that! You do realize
    >> we are in 2007, and that Vista is NOT XP or 2000?
    >>
    >> The truth is that Vista was ready to deploy in a production
    >> environment on November 8th. I am not saying there haven't been
    >> patches and that there won't be more... but Vista released ready. It
    >> did not release in June as originally promised or before September as
    >> hoped BECAUSE they wanted to release a solid product. It worked.
    >>
    >> Unless you have worked extensively with Vista over the past six months
    >> you may not realize that, but it is the reality.

    >
    > You are straining your otherwise reasonably fair creditability.
    >
    > One should avoid speaking in absolutes, for it will inevitably
    > result in foot-in-mouth disease.


    Donut pee in his Cheerios®

    Personally, I find it charming (and amusing) that there are still people
    like HIM around.
    Frisbee®, Jun 11, 2007
    #14
  15. Re: Updates

    "kpg" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns994C5D612A977ipostthereforeiam@207.46.248.16:

    > I did this on one of the 2k3 sp2 the servers:
    >
    > [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\Tcpip\Parameters]
    > "Tcp1323Opts"=dword:00000000
    >
    > That disables timestamps and window scaling, and as a result
    > forces the max tcp window size to 64k.
    >
    > On the Vista machine: (from the admin prompt)
    >
    > netsh interface tcp set global autotuning=disabled.
    >
    > This turns off Receive Window Auto-Tuning, and prevents vista
    > from adjusting its tcp window size.
    >
    > Rebooted Vista but not the server, and the network was still
    > slow (but only when communicating with the two 2k3 sp2 servers).
    >
    > Come in this AM and voila - every thing works fine. hmmmmmmm.
    >
    > OK. I can rule out the server setting (I think) because there
    > are 2 servers, both exhibited the problem and now both work
    > fine. I only disabled 1323 on one of them.
    >
    > I can rule out the Vista autotuning because a reboot Friday
    > would work just a well as a reboot today...(unless the server
    > keeps tcp connection info for a time...nah)
    >
    > If I were ambitious, I would undo my changes and see what
    > that does, but alas...
    >
    > My initial assumption was that upgrading [sic] to svr 2k3 sp2
    > caused the problem, and I further assumed that Vista was at
    > fault. The sp2 introduced some new tcp capabilities, and Vista
    > supports the new tcp capabilities, so a problem there could
    > result in the behavior I saw, poor communication between Vista
    > and the 2k3 sp2 machines. NIC hardware and driver incompati-
    > bilities with the "new capabilities" are an equally likely
    > culprit.
    >
    > So why the delayed auto-fix?
    >
    > kp "that's a rhetorical question" g


    So does Vista still suck?
    --
    Michael D. Alligood, MCSA, MCDST
    The I.T. Classroom - http://www.theitclassroom.com/
    CertGuard - http://www.certguard.com
    Michael D. Alligood [CertGuard], Jun 11, 2007
    #15
  16. kpg

    JaR Guest

    "Michael D. Alligood [CertGuard]" <> wrote in
    news::

    >
    > This conversation is exhausting. Every time a new operating system is
    > released, this conversation arises. "Windows X is not ready". "Windows X
    > is still buggy and does not work with XYZ." It happened with Windows NT,
    > Windows 2000, Windows XP, and now Windows Vista.


    It may be exhausting, but it's nonetheless true again. I am running Vista
    on a couple of boxen, and trust me, it is not ready for deployment. I have
    a Dell here that has had driver issues right out of the box! Not to mention
    the infamous Vista file/copy problems. XNews crashes in Vista, and at least
    one of our shop apps locks it up solid when it tries to talk to its server.

    It keeps happening, because it, well, uh, it keeps happening.

    --
    JaR
    Never a Dell moment
    Remove hat to reply
    JaR, Jun 11, 2007
    #16
  17. kpg

    kpg Guest

    Re: Updates

    "Michael D. Alligood [CertGuard]" <> wrote in
    news:Om#:

    > So does Vista still suck?


    Guilty until proven innocent, I always say. ;=)
    kpg, Jun 11, 2007
    #17
  18. kpg

    Neil Guest

    did you hear "Montreal MCT" <> say in
    news::

    > Wow... I can't believe people still think like that! You do realize
    > we are in 2007, and that Vista is NOT XP or 2000?
    >
    > The truth is that Vista was ready to deploy in a production
    > environment on November 8th. I am not saying there haven't been
    > patches and that there won't be more... but Vista released ready. It
    > did not release in June as originally promised or before September as
    > hoped BECAUSE they wanted to release a solid product. It worked.
    >
    > Unless you have worked extensively with Vista over the past six months
    > you may not realize that, but it is the reality.
    >


    how's the blue koolaid taste?

    --
    The InterNeil "V2 w/tabbed browsing & decreased verbosity" MCNGP Triple X

    - IneedsignificantlymoreroominthislineforwhatIwanttosay.
    Neil, Jun 12, 2007
    #18
  19. "Neil" <guess!!!@gmail.com> wrote in message
    news:Xns994CDBCA42567neilmcsegmailcom@207.46.248.16:

    > did you hear "Montreal MCT" <> say in
    > news::
    >
    >
    > > Wow... I can't believe people still think like that! You do realize
    > > we are in 2007, and that Vista is NOT XP or 2000?
    > >
    > > The truth is that Vista was ready to deploy in a production
    > > environment on November 8th. I am not saying there haven't been
    > > patches and that there won't be more... but Vista released ready. It
    > > did not release in June as originally promised or before September as
    > > hoped BECAUSE they wanted to release a solid product. It worked.
    > >
    > > Unless you have worked extensively with Vista over the past six months
    > > you may not realize that, but it is the reality.
    > >

    >
    >
    > how's the blue koolaid taste?
    >
    > --
    > The InterNeil "V2 w/tabbed browsing & decreased verbosity" MCNGP Triple
    > X
    >
    > - IneedsignificantlymoreroominthislineforwhatIwanttosay.


    Tastes pretty good from my glass!
    --
    Michael D. Alligood, MCSA, MCDST
    The I.T. Classroom - http://www.theitclassroom.com/
    CertGuard - http://www.certguard.com
    Michael D. Alligood [CertGuard], Jun 12, 2007
    #19
  20. kpg

    Thor Guest

    I disagree.

    A while ago I was on the NT5 beta (to become Windows 2000).
    On beta 2 it was ready.
    It was much better in every way than Windows 95 and NT4, even before the
    release candidate.
    Vista was a different story if you ask me.
    Too optimistic.

    RTM does not mean ready for production, RTM states that they want to start
    selling it.
    Vista is great in many ways, but I don't think you should change your
    working system just yet.

    53

    > Wow... I can't believe people still think like that! You do realize we
    > are in 2007, and that Vista is NOT XP or 2000?
    >
    > The truth is that Vista was ready to deploy in a production environment on
    > November 8th. I am not saying there haven't been patches and that there
    > won't be more... but Vista released ready. It did not release in June as
    > originally promised or before September as hoped BECAUSE they wanted to
    > release a solid product. It worked.
    >
    > Unless you have worked extensively with Vista over the past six months you
    > may not realize that, but it is the reality.
    >
    > M
    >
    > "kpg" <> wrote in message
    > news:Xns994970A032CD3ipostthereforeiam@207.46.248.16...
    >> "CBIC" <> wrote in
    >> news::
    >>
    >>> Please tell me you aren't running Vista on a production network before
    >>> SP1 comes out.

    >>
    >>
    >> OK. I won't tell you.

    >
    Thor, Jun 12, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. =?Utf-8?B?VE9NIEhBVEVTVklTVEE=?=

    Vista 64 sucks

    =?Utf-8?B?VE9NIEhBVEVTVklTVEE=?=, Jun 22, 2007, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    428
    S.SubZero
    Jun 24, 2007
  2. Au79

    Vista Sucks Sooo Much...

    Au79, Jul 12, 2007, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    43
    Views:
    1,520
    Mr. Arnold
    Jul 16, 2007
  3. Au79

    20 Reasons why Vista Sucks!

    Au79, Oct 8, 2007, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    760
    Mellowed
    Oct 10, 2007
  4. Dan

    sss = Sony Still Sucks

    Dan, Dec 22, 2004, in forum: A+ Certification
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    456
    News Will
    Jan 4, 2005
  5. Fritz Wuehler

    Re: Centurytel changes name, still sucks.

    Fritz Wuehler, Nov 14, 2009, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    605
    §ñühw¤£f
    Nov 14, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page