Vista RTM

[metalstorm]

Vista has been released to manufacturing(RTM).

[Shortie]

Any one have any views

I know JD has had a play but I have been running for about 9 months now and it is getting better and better with each release

EDIT : Also the first direct X 10 cards are hittig the market so should be fun

Shortie

[metalstorm]

Originally Posted by Shortie

Any one have any views

I know JD has had a play but I have been running for about 9 months now and it is getting better and better with each release

I like how it looks but I really haven't had enough exposure to it to give a good opinion. I've heard the Aero interface is very video intensive.

[Shortie]

correct

I have just edit the original shortie post

and yep direct x 10 will be a manufactures dream

[brian.austin]

It's still not going to be available to purchase until January 30th, however...unless you're running RC1 on some of your workstations at the office because you're getting the MSDN TechNet stuff.

This thing is a monster compared to XP. Our distribution image size went from 1.8Gb (including full Office 2003 installation and various other applications) to over 10Gb with Office 2007 on Vista. I'm going to need gig-Ethernet to the desktop to start delivering this thing. Sheesh.

[Sidebyte]

It'll be a cold day before gates gets me to buy his latest attempt at comquering the PC world.
I have XP Pro on this PC but don't use it, my wife does. I still rely on W2000 Pro, still the best O/S ever to come out of MS. W2k will do everything that the upgrades will do with 1/2 of the resources and it NEVER crashes. I owned and operated a computer store for 5 years here and 90% of the PC problems was related to software.

[metalstorm]

Originally Posted by brian.austin

This thing is a monster compared to XP.* Our distribution image size went from 1.8Gb (including full Office 2003 installation and various other applications) to over 10Gb with Office 2007 on Vista.* I'm going to need gig-Ethernet to the desktop to start delivering this thing.* Sheesh.

That's a pretty hefty image.

[Mr. Pickles]

Yeah, lets all get in line to jump on the bloat-express. A new interface and some needed things here and there is one thing. Extra, tighter security is another. Going from a 2gb distro to a 10gb distro is INEXCUSABLE to me.

With all that bloat, will our broadband become dial-up speeds again?

I will not buy it, and won't upgrade to it. My next computer may have it on there, but that is the only way. I may have to buy a Mac just to get off the 10x better hardware train that M$ wants us on.

[brian.austin]

Originally Posted by Mr. Pickles

Yeah, lets all get in line to jump on the bloat-express. A new interface and some needed things here and there is one thing. Extra, tighter security is another. Going from a 2gb distro to a 10gb distro is INEXCUSABLE to me.

With all that bloat, will our broadband become dial-up speeds again?

The size of the storage requirements has nothing to do with network performance.* We push out corporate disk images from a central server to workstations as part of our workstation management system.* That's the only reason I'd need to upgrade network speeds.

I will not buy it, and won't upgrade to it. My next computer may have it on there, but that is the only way. I may have to buy a Mac just to get off the 10x better hardware train that M$ wants us on.

It's got a lot of interesting features in it.* I'll probably try it out, at least on test system.* I've worked with the betas but never followed up with the RC1 distribution.

And if you've bought a computer in the last year or so, it will be fine with Vista.* You might need a little extra RAM but if you're doing PS work anyway, you'd either have it or benefit from the upgrade.

[Mr. Pickles]

On the broadband speed, I meant if this thing is hogging up more ram, and certainly it is, then certainly for those using IE7 and its ram hogging ability, and the way it is "hogging" even if you use FireFox, then we'll need more ram just to keep the streaming, streaming.

When programs come out with 10% improvement in value, and require a 50% improvement in your system (ram, hd, graphics, monitor, etc), then that isn't always a good thing.

[brian.austin]

Originally Posted by Mr. Pickles

On the broadband speed, I meant if this thing is hogging up more ram, and certainly it is, then certainly for those using IE7 and its ram hogging ability, and the way it is "hogging" even if you use FireFox, then we'll need more ram just to keep the streaming, streaming.

When programs come out with 10% improvement in value, and require a 50% improvement in your system (ram, hd, graphics, monitor, etc), then that isn't always a good thing.

I actually kinda think this type of stuff is funny.

Everyone said the same about the jump from Windows 3.1 to 95...from 95 to 98...from NT 3.51 to NT 4...from NT 4 to 2000 (especially there)...from 98 and 2000 to XP (Me doesn't count). In six months, it won't matter. You WILL be assimilated.

Oh...the term "value" is irrelevant since it's a subjective judgement. Some people get 50% more value while only needing a 10% increase in their own systems. Is it not of value to them, then?

[Mr. Pickles]

I don't think it is funny. I think it is a shame. I think todays programmers slap together a bunch of code, and have no desire to make it efficient and as small as possible.

And if you ask me, the OS itself is not much of an improvement over the older ones. They all still open and close programs. That is all they do. The new ones only allow the other programmers to make some flashy do dad happen, at the cost of more ram, hd space, graphics performance, etc.

[Jwilmot]

I have 10 years experience working with computers and networks. I currently use XP PRO but waited a year after its release to upgrade from 2000. It will be the same with Vista, I will give it a year or so to see how the bugs work out. Hopfully it will not be another ME. All acounts say MS has learned there lesson about ME but who can say with them. I shall wait and see how things turn out.

Johnathan

[brian.austin]

Originally Posted by Mr. Pickles

I don't think it is funny. I think it is a shame. I think todays programmers slap together a bunch of code, and have no desire to make it efficient and as small as possible.

And if you ask me, the OS itself is not much of an improvement over the older ones. They all still open and close programs. That is all they do. The new ones only allow the other programmers to make some flashy do dad happen, at the cost of more ram, hd space, graphics performance, etc.

So you've used Vista then?

While a lot of what you SEE is similar, there is a LOT more behind the scenes that change the way developers and adminstrators can provide services to the computer or user. And that's been the case with every release since Windows 3.0.

You wouldn't be able to run anything like Photoshop CS2 on Windows 3.0 (or even 95), primarily due to the memory management. This is just another step forward in the evolution of the computer (from Microsoft's point of view, anyway).

I wonder if anyone had issues with the Apple jump from OS9 to OS X?

[TonyK]

For my needs I found XP to better than W2K. One of my boxes still runs W2K though. MS never gets to auto-update my systems. Too risky.

I seriously doubt my home systems will see Vista. It took me until ~2003 to upgrade from W2K to XP and that is only because of some driver issues for something (can't remember what now). Point is, I'm looking at my alternatives now because I am tired of the upgrade wars. I've been in the trenches since DOS 2.1. My money has better things to do than buy computer parts these days.

Peace,

Originally Posted by Sidebyte

It'll be a cold day before gates gets me to buy his latest attempt at comquering the PC world.
I have XP Pro on this PC but don't use it, my wife does. I still rely on W2000 Pro, still the best O/S ever to come out of MS. W2k will do everything that the upgrades will do with 1/2 of the resources and it NEVER crashes. I owned and operated a computer store for 5 years here and 90% of the PC problems was related to software.

[TonyK]

Originally Posted by brian.austin

Everyone said the same about the jump from Windows 3.1 to 95...from 95 to 98...from NT 3.51 to NT 4...from NT 4 to 2000 (especially there)...from 98 and 2000 to XP (Me doesn't count). In six months, it won't matter. You WILL be assimilated.

Regarding 3.1 to 95, that does not fit me. I had the BETA and then waited in line to buy 95 (and Plus). Before going to bed 95 was on my personal system and running.

Moving from 98SE (skipped 9 to W2K took years. It took more time to move from W2K to XP and this time I think I'll skip the upgrade.

Peace,

[brian.austin]

Originally Posted by TonyK

It took more time to move from W2K to XP and this time I think I'll skip the upgrade.

I don't think the average home user will see much of an impact for a while. Remember, though, that the development time between each of those OS's was less than three years (sometimes by a significant margin). Vista has been in development for FIVE years, a huge change in Microsoft's approach to product development. We are seeing the same things on the server side, with three to five years between product lines (Office, Sharepoint, Exchange, SQL Server and now Windows Server are/were all over three years in development time).

What does this mean?

Significant changes in how the operating system behaves and is designed compared to older operating systems.

As more and more programs are developed and upgraded to take advantage of the newer OS features, less and less will be backwards compatible with older operating systems (especially W2K and earlier). I suspect (and will go on record as "predicting") that the average home user will begin to see their support for third party applications dwindle in about three years. Upgrades will still be available but newer programs will start becoming scarcer. The difference in development techniques and kernel access between XP and Vista will make it difficult for developers to keep two separate product tracks in profitable operations.

Consider, too, that the average computer lasts three years in a corporate environment and five in the home. If you haven't purchased (or built) a new computer in the last two years, it's very likely you'll be purchasing a new one in less than three. (I don't have a source for this but read it in an article recently...just can't remember where). That means the new one will come with Vista if you purchase or you may not be able to get full support if you build (unlikely but possible). The options will dwindle with time.

[Sidebyte]

Originally Posted by brian.austin

I actually kinda think this type of stuff is funny.

Everyone said the same about the jump from Windows 3.1 to 95...from 95 to 98...from NT 3.51 to NT 4...from NT 4 to 2000 (especially there)...from 98 and 2000 to XP (Me doesn't count). In six months, it won't matter. You WILL be assimilated.

Oh...the term "value" is irrelevant since it's a subjective judgement. Some people get 50% more value while only needing a 10% increase in their own systems. Is it not of value to them, then?

Not necessarily. I have 4 O/S's on this one PC, Win98SE, W2K, XP Pro and Linux all on separate partitions. I owned and operated a computer store for 5 years so am fairly adept at troubleshooting PC problems. This I will offer: My system of choice is still W2k, and PS- CS2 never crashes and is infinitely faster doing graphics. The O/S is fast, dependable and isn't a resource hog. I'll just stay with this one for now.

[JDArt]

Win2K is definitely the OS I keep thinking I should go back to, but there is always new hardware and software that just works better on XP.

[Sidebyte]

My primary computer I use almost exclusively for Photoshop.* I have a couple others that I use, one is a gamer, one other for DVD movies and another for my wife.* OH, and 2 laptops.
I clean my primary PC daily to weed out all the garbage and service it by defrag etc. often.* With W2k, it runs PS-CS2 great with a 2 gig CPU and 1 gig of 2700 ram.