Windows Vista

piersk

Ok, so I took the plunge last night and installed Vista Business edition on my laptop. I was due to get a copy as part of the free upgrade scheme that a lot of companies are running, but I ended up getting a copy through the microsoft academic scheme.

Installation was a breeze. It only stopped once to ask me what my location was. Other than that it took less than 45 minutes to install (possibly closer to 30 mins) and auto detected all my hardware, aside from one thing (I think my bluetooth adaptor - I haven't tried using it yet, but since I hardly use it anyway I'm not bothered). All in all, I'm pretty impressed. It looks nice. It handles quite nicely (I'm almost sure that it's running my laptop slightly faster than XP).

The only problem I have with it at the moment is that I can't move my documents. The way Vista handles user files (pictures, videos, documents etc) has changed and I want to move the location to a seperate partition. Does anyone know how to do this?

Anyone else got their hands on a copy? Any opinions on it?

Weedpacket

I did think of picking one up via the academic route to have a fiddle, but haven't been enthusiastic enough about the whole idea to actually bother.

How is it with HD video? :evilgrin:

piersk

I wouldn't know about the HD stuff as I don't have any hardware even remotely related to HD.

Weedpacket

Hey, something I forgot to check when I was looking it over - what does it report its version number as - (that of kernel32.dll itself if Vista's coy about that through normal channels - how big is that file now, I suddenly wonder?)

I've had a fiddle with it, but for me it isn't an improvement on XP; more prettiness and more resource demands. It's my machine - not Microsoft's. Just because I've got an nGhz processor, or nMb of memory doesn't mean I want to use it just to run Windows. So; if I was going to spend the money on upgrading my system, it won't involve a Vista license. If Microsoft want it to, they can pay for the machine it will need to run on.

Rant over. Now I can stop taking it out on people face to face 🙂

goldbug

10 Reasons You Don’t Need Vista Today

vaaaska

OSX 10.5, is rumored to require faster machines (meaning Intel Mac's). This would kind of piss me off...although it's said to degrade well. But, just like MS degrades well...hmmm...

Do people use that thing where it shows all 40,000,000,000 windows you have open so you can scroll through them? That seems dumb. Also, I don't use Expose or whatever it's called on the Mac...I use Desktop Manager which pretty much rules (and will be a built-in in feature on 10.5).

piersk

The "flip" thing you mean? Yeah, I use it, but I don't usually have that many things open. Generally just firefox, dreamweaver (and occasionally fireworks) and itunes so there aren't that many things to flip through, and since I mainly use keyboard shortcuts to access stuff it's nice to see what I'm flipping through.

vaaaska

I'll be buying a new machine shortly after 10.5 comes out...it will be interesting having an install of Vista to toy with.

I love how the 'international media blitz' has basically been a failure. Nearly everything I've seen has doubted the need for upgrades and/or mentions that Apple is the company that is innovating where OS' are concerned.

If I were Ballmer, I would have fired my ad staff a long time ago...that Zune launch was sickly at best.

Weedpacket

vaaaska wrote:
that Zune launch was sickly at best.

It's been launched? I must have missed that....

piersk wrote:
I don't usually have that many things open.

I might have that many things open (Inkscape and the Gimp have an entire window for each toolbox, and that can get messy), but they usually end up grouped by project and the virtual desktop thingy that came with my video card is entirely sufficient for reflecting that level of grouping (which suits me well - alt-escape and I'm doing my web browsing, alt-escape and I'm in OpenOffice, alt-escape and I'm flipping through my pr0n collection, alt-escape again quickly). I hardly ever need more than three desktops, and never more than five. I guess having a live display of each desktop would be nice (or of each application) but in its absence my short-term memory is sufficient to supply me with that context.

pohopo

I was playing with Vista at a buddies house and I want it. It is about time they finally come out with a new OS. A great as XP has been for me, I am itching for something new.

dougal85

The funny thing I find about windows is it always gets allot of abuse when it first comes along in a new version then everybody accepts it. Remember XP it used to get the same view.

However, now most people (that i know at least) seems to be running XP and all in all I've found it to be a good operating system to me. Fair enough, IT professionals like to think that they don't get enough freedom etc. etc. but windows is designed for the purpose that any idiot can use it.

Try them out on Linux and see how they get on. Windows in a dummies operating system. It's pretty great for that usually and I actually find XP very stable. I'm not talking like it should be used for professional servers or anything but in house I've got it running as a server downloading off uTorrent 24/7 and so on.

oh yeah and weedpacket... I tried multiple desktops but that really annoyed me. I couldn't get used to them. I have two 19" flat screens at the moment. two desktops that I can always see.

It Rocks.

Piranha

dougal85 wrote:
However, now most people (that i know at least) seems to be running XP and all in all I've found it to be a good operating system to me. Fair enough, IT professionals like to think that they don't get enough freedom etc. etc. but windows is designed for the purpose that any idiot can use it.

Well, most of the problems that is with Vista now (and XP when it was released) is that lots of programs and drivers does not work with it fully. After a few months those problems will be solved, and then it probably will be a pretty good operating system for noobs like me.

The big joke with Vista is the price, it is simply redicously expensive. No way that people will buy it for their current computers at the current prices.

dougal85

Thats true, the price is crazy.

coughbittorrentcough

But the moans about vista's hardware requirements where there with XP too. I remember people being appaled.

The biggest seller for vista will be it will come with computers everywhere, soon.

leatherback

bradgrafelman wrote:
Just thought I'd bring this thread up... along with this:
http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/1448/vistatryxh2.jpg

Good to see that nothing has changed :evilgrin: Still the good old windblows

Weedpacket

dougal85 wrote:
However, now most people (that i know at least) seems to be running XP

Only because I couldn't get drivers for my '95 box any more when I upgraded the hardware (and, e.g., PHP wouldn't run on it).

I don't wet myself over the operating system; that's for the computer. I want my apps. I don't want the OS getting in the way and I don't want it trying to run me.

dream_scape

vaaaska wrote:
OSX 10.5, is rumored to require faster machines (meaning Intel Mac's). This would kind of piss me off...although it's said to degrade well. But, just like MS degrades well...hmmm...

10.4 still supports the old G3's, although some of the eye candy is disabled, it still runs just fine on them. Eventually, Apple will drop PPC support entirely, but seeing as 10.4 still supports G3's and it has been quite some time since they stopped using G3's in their machines, and since they've made it super easy for developers to build universal binaries for their applications, I doubt they will drop all PPC support in 10.5. They may drop G3 from the supported systems, but I highly doubt they would drop G4 and G5 support so soon.

The system requirements for the Developer Preview support this, with it being able to run on any G4, G5, or Intel Mac. Looks like the G3 is out finally, but G4 and G5 are still supported.

Sxooter

pohopo wrote:
I was playing with Vista at a buddies house and I want it. It is about time they finally come out with a new OS. A great as XP has been for me, I am itching for something new.

So, how can someone release a new OS in the year 2007 and NOT include a package manager in it? It's foundational in nature. And not having it makes maintenance significantly harder.

MS is all flash and doo dads, but the underlying os is still a jumbled pile of miscellaneous parts hooked together with various bits of string and bailing wire.

P.s. if you want to take care of you desire for something new, there are hundreds of linux distros out there. Ubuntu is quite impressive. And you can download a live version to play about with that won't actually install to the hard drive.

piersk

See, I'd like to have linux as a primary distro, but then I can't run things like dreamweaver and more importantly, WoW

dougal85

bradgrafelman wrote:
Sure, maybe in the future all computers will have 2GB+ of RAM at very high speeds, as well as advanced graphics cards and can meet the specs needed for a good Vista experience.

I've read a few articles and people have noticed vista runs faster on there computers than XP did. These areticles where written on various specs of PC's. Some faster some older.

So maybe the specs are not as bad as you think.

I tried the beta a few months ago and it did run fine, but I do have those 2 gigs of ram. I cant remember how much it idled at. Having said that my computer now is idled at 600 meg used and ive not opened anything yet. I just turned it on and started firefox. (XP Pro)

Piranha

dougal85 wrote:
I've read a few articles and people have noticed vista runs faster on there computers than XP did. These areticles where written on various specs of PC's. Some faster some older.

It was the same thing when XP first came out. But it is not really faster, it is just that people tend to install lots of junk that take resources, and when they install a new operating system they start from scratch. To really be able to compare it should be done with fresh installs of both XP and Vista.