Windows Vista Rules.

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

BD2003

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
16,815
1
81
Originally posted by: JasonCoder
Originally posted by: BD2003

There is nothing in the world that can flush your cache faster than downloading a torrent measured in gigabytes. And there's no amount of memory that can prevent this. Back when I was using XP, I put together an old 500mhz server with one of the driving reasons to get those horrible performance drains off my main PC...and now, that's no longer an issue.

Have to agree. I used to offload as much as I could to servers for dev work but now I load down my vista box with multiple servers in VMs and don't have to fiddle with the extra hardware. The trick with the flash drives is very nice for this when you need that extra boost in main memory.

Why run the servers in VMs, rather than just running the server apps natively?
 

drag

Elite Member
Jul 4, 2002
8,708
0
0
Originally posted by: BD2003
Originally posted by: JasonCoder
Originally posted by: BD2003

There is nothing in the world that can flush your cache faster than downloading a torrent measured in gigabytes. And there's no amount of memory that can prevent this. Back when I was using XP, I put together an old 500mhz server with one of the driving reasons to get those horrible performance drains off my main PC...and now, that's no longer an issue.

Have to agree. I used to offload as much as I could to servers for dev work but now I load down my vista box with multiple servers in VMs and don't have to fiddle with the extra hardware. The trick with the flash drives is very nice for this when you need that extra boost in main memory.

Why run the servers in VMs, rather than just running the server apps natively?

He said it was for 'dev' (development) work. Which probably means he is running multiple services that are the same, but with different configurations. It's difficult to do that with just one server.
 

VirtualLarry

No Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
56,570
10,205
126
Originally posted by: BD2003
One thing about the new explorer I forget to mention, that makes you scratch your head about why it took them this long to figure something so simple out - if you copy a file with the same name, you now have three choices - don't copy, overwrite, and finally...automatic rename, so you can keep both.
I wish it had a fourth option - automatically do a binary diff/FC, and if the file is the "same", then just ignore the copy request. (Otherwise, the automatic rename would be nice.)

I haven't tried the "gold" build of Vista yet, but RC2 was incredibly sluggish on my Sempron 3000+ laptop with integrated video and 512MB of RAM. To the point of unusable.

I plan on skipping Vista, even though the Superboost/Readycache stuff sounds interesting. The idea of a flash drive as a pagefile/cache is a good one, as seek time is negligible although overall transfer speed isn't quite as fast as a HD, especially if the flash drive is on a USB1.1 port.

It's a shame that MS has shackled such interesting kernel-level improvements, to a DRM-driven boondoggle. Where is Vista Freedom Edition, without the crap?
 

VirtualLarry

No Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
56,570
10,205
126
Originally posted by: OSX
Fine, I can't wait to spend 300$ for a new UI and bonus DRM.

bogus DRM.

Considering that the "coolest" features of Vista, like WinFS, aren't even in the box... I can't see shelling out for it either. (*)


(*) Though I do qualify for a free upgrade, due to my recent XP Home purchase. (I'm snagging some extra XP licenses, while I still can.)
 

BD2003

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
16,815
1
81
Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
Originally posted by: BD2003
One thing about the new explorer I forget to mention, that makes you scratch your head about why it took them this long to figure something so simple out - if you copy a file with the same name, you now have three choices - don't copy, overwrite, and finally...automatic rename, so you can keep both.
I wish it had a fourth option - automatically do a binary diff/FC, and if the file is the "same", then just ignore the copy request. (Otherwise, the automatic rename would be nice.)

I haven't tried the "gold" build of Vista yet, but RC2 was incredibly sluggish on my Sempron 3000+ laptop with integrated video and 512MB of RAM. To the point of unusable.

I plan on skipping Vista, even though the Superboost/Readycache stuff sounds interesting. The idea of a flash drive as a pagefile/cache is a good one, as seek time is negligible although overall transfer speed isn't quite as fast as a HD, especially if the flash drive is on a USB1.1 port.

It's a shame that MS has shackled such interesting kernel-level improvements, to a DRM-driven boondoggle. Where is Vista Freedom Edition, without the crap?

I'd imagine aero might be sluggish on a laptop integrated video, so you'll prob want to do without the 3d windows. The ram is definitely pushing it without at least a readyboost cache as well.

And lets be completely honest here - it'll be a cold day in hell before hackers can't figure out a way to bypass that kind of BS. So it'd end up being a rejection based on a matter of principle, and something about not using an operating system based on a semi-noble principle seems kind of outrageous to me.

But seriously, if there's DRM in windows, I don't see it. What is all the fuss is about? There was some recent news I think that I havent read up on, but I can tell you that not a single thing has refused to play.
 

Markbnj

Elite Member <br>Moderator Emeritus
Moderator
Sep 16, 2005
15,682
14
81
www.markbetz.net
Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
Originally posted by: OSX
Fine, I can't wait to spend 300$ for a new UI and bonus DRM.

bogus DRM.

Considering that the "coolest" features of Vista, like WinFS, aren't even in the box... I can't see shelling out for it either. (*)


(*) Though I do qualify for a free upgrade, due to my recent XP Home purchase. (I'm snagging some extra XP licenses, while I still can.)

DRM is a non-issue. I haven't talked to anyone actually running the operating system that has said "Great operating system, but man that DRM pisses me off every day." I've been running it for a couple of months, and I couldn't even tell you whether DRM is doing anything or not. But then I own all my music, which was ripped from CDs I purchased, just as Mr. Gates suggests .

WinFS is cool, but did you even read BD's post? It is far from the "coolest" feature of Vista, and there is a boatload of stuff that is new, or tremendously improved. I pretty much agree with everything he said, and would add that for programmers Vista is the introduction platform for some of the coolest changes in Windows client development ever. Windows Presentation Foundation and Windows Communication Foundation are part of .Net 3.0, and work on XP and server 2003, but they ship with Vista, and Vista will be on a lot of new PCs as they roll over. You're going to see a whole new generation of Windows apps come out of Vista, simply because the development frameworks and tools have been leapfrogging ahead. On Vista Microsoft has what is indisputably the best and most accessible software development environment and toolset there is, with an entry cost of nothing for most of it. The next Visual Studio release is going to be another quantum improvement.

I really like using and working in Vista. I think MS has a winner here, and would bet that migration will be steady.
 

Quinton McLeod

Senior member
Jan 17, 2006
375
0
0
Are you people kidding me?
I can't be the only person reading this.

You guys are getting all excited and horny over OLD prefetch technology? This stuff has been around for YEARS! OS 10, Linux and Unix all had it. Vista is just now getting it and you guys are like, "WOW! OMG!"

The things you guys are drooling over isn't new. None of this is an innovation. This doesn't warrant a complete upgrade to Vista.

Vista still has problems that aren't being addressed:

DRM: It's still an issue, and yes it is! Many of you are running the 32 bit versions of Vista. Little do you all know, you cannot run HD content on the 32 bit versions of Vista. Whoops! Forgot about that, huh?
Not only that, but you cannot run programs that run media without the latter being "trusted" by the kernel. If the program isn't trusted, it's not ran. This BREAKS many many programs for Vista. It also prevents you from using /burning/listening/watching your digital content!

Viruses: Vista still runs that same old NT kernel! That means it's prone to the same vulnerabilities found in all the previous Windows systems based off the NT kernel. You'll be seeing vulnerabilities that effect Windows XP AND Vista, and not just Windows XP. That is bad! Basically, this means that Vista has the same problems as XP.

Resources: Aero requires a graphics card capable of Pixel Shader 2.0. How many new computers actually run Pixel Shader 2.0 decently? Wanna know how many? NONE! Most new PCs come with an ATI X600 or Nvidia 6600. That is CRAP. Not to mention, that Vista is EXPENSIVE!

Price: If you want a decent version of Vista, you're going to spend over 200 dollars. Ultimate being over 400!! Not only that, but with newer PCs, you cannot upgrade from Windows XP to Vista. You have to do a clean install. Some people cannot do that!

Games: Most games require 1 gig of RAM nowadays. No matter what anyone says -- while running that Aero GUI, your game WILL slow down. The OS itself needs 1 gig of ram. ALL BY ITSELF! 1 GIG! If you want to play a
game that requires 1 gig, you will need 2 gigs to run it decently. That's not even a guarantee.

Then you have Direct X 10. Completely incompatible to Direct X 9. Microsoft wants gamers to spend extra money just to spend more money to play games on a system that's going to need even MORE money to upgrade! Does that make sense?! Of course not!

The OS still has everything integrated with the kernel. What makes it even more dangerous is that Microsoft programmed DRM DIRECTLY into the kernel. If a program decided to use the kernel's lock-down features and suddenly makes a boo-boo... BOOM! Your computer crashes! When will Microsoft learn that you cannot have everything integrated with the kernel. IT'S A SECURITY RISK!!

Servers: You cannot run a server with Vista. Not with the heavy requirements it has! You'll need 4 gigs of ram just to run a simple task! A good chunk of that would be just for the GUI ALONE! Why?? Server admins don't need the fancy graphics! Vista != Server. Microsoft shot themselves in the foot as far as Servers go.

Look who we are dealing with. Microsoft's products have always had a long history of buginess, exploits and just outright bad programming. Do you honestly think they will change? I doubt they will considering that they've already found critical exploits before the OS was released!! One of them being the old WMF exploit! What?! An old XP exploit found in Vista!

You all can have your Vista.


New feature: There aren't any! Everything that Vista has is on another OS, and has been for YEARS.
 

BD2003

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
16,815
1
81
Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod
Are you people kidding me?
I can't be the only person reading this.

You guys are getting all excited and horny over OLD prefetch technology? This stuff has been around for YEARS! OS 10, Linux and Unix all had it. Vista is just now getting it and you guys are like, "WOW! OMG!"

The things you guys are drooling over isn't new. None of this is an innovation. This doesn't warrant a complete upgrade to Vista.

Vista still has problems that aren't being addressed:

I could care less about what other OSes have. Realistically, I need to run windows. If OSX had it for years, great for them, but its new to me.

DRM: It's still an issue, and yes it is! Many of you are running the 32 bit versions of Vista. Little do you all know, you cannot run HD content on the 32 bit versions of Vista. Whoops! Forgot about that, huh?
Not only that, but you cannot run programs that run media without the latter being "trusted" by the kernel. If the program isn't trusted, it's not ran. This BREAKS many many programs for Vista. It also prevents you from using /burning/listening/watching your digital content!

100% Complete and utter nonsense. I'm running 32bit vista, and I can run HD content just fine. I can run programs that run media without being "trusted" just fine (Media player classic, for example). I can play the most illicit xvid videos, even at HD resolution, without a hitch. Would I have problems running HD-DVD movies over a non-HDCP monitor? Perhaps - but thats no different than the proposed lockdown of requiring HDMI on HDTVs. This show is being run by the studios. If you think OSX will be spared, you're wrong. And linux being open source, will never, ever play HD-DVDs until the encryption is cracked. Got a problem with that? Don't buy HD-DVDs.

I can burn, listen and watch anything I want. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Viruses: Vista still runs that same old NT kernel! That means it's prone to the same vulnerabilities found in all the previous Windows systems based off the NT kernel. You'll be seeing vulnerabilities that effect Windows XP AND Vista, and not just Windows XP. That is bad! Basically, this means that Vista has the same problems as XP.

Again, no idea what you're talking about. Vista has quite a few new security features, both at the user level and the system level. The number one security feature will always be the user. I personally turn off most of that crap anyway, because I know what I'm doing. OSX and Linux are more secure by default - 90% of computers run windows, with most of them clueless, so why bother writing viruses for anything else?

Honestly, if you get a virus in this day and age, it's your fault - don't blame the OS.


Resources: Aero requires a graphics card capable of Pixel Shader 2.0. How many new computers actually run Pixel Shader 2.0 decently? Wanna know how many? NONE! Most new PCs come with an ATI X600 or Nvidia 6600. That is CRAP. Not to mention, that Vista is EXPENSIVE!

You still have no idea what you're talking about. The nvidia 6600 is well capable of PS2.0, as is the x600. The geforce 5 had it, many, many years ago. And vista does not *require* this - it's completely optional. You can run it Windows 2000 style if you so desire. Stupid to penalize them for something very cool and entirely optional.

Price: If you want a decent version of Vista, you're going to spend over 200 dollars. Ultimate being over 400!! Not only that, but with newer PCs, you cannot upgrade from Windows XP to Vista. You have to do a clean install. Some people cannot do that!

Again, more nonsense. You can upgrade from XP to Vista, the only thing you can't do is upgrade from xp pro to vista home. Win2k upgrades also require a clean install. And if your PC can handle vista, it certainly didnt come preloaded with Win 98, so just about everyone can get the discounted upgrade.

It isn't any more expensive than XP was when it came out, aside from the ultimate version, which I think is fairly useless.

Games: Most games require 1 gig of RAM nowadays. No matter what anyone says -- while running that Aero GUI, your game WILL slow down. The OS itself needs 1 gig of ram. ALL BY ITSELF! 1 GIG! If you want to play a game that requires 1 gig, you will need 2 gigs to run it decently. That's not even a guarantee.

BS. Of course, when you run *anything* other than the game itself, even a tiny utility, it will slow down the game. I haven't noticed a large hit with the 3d aero while running a game, but I didn't bother for very long - why would I waste VRAM on windows when I need it for a game. It is *ridiculously* easy to automatically turn it off when running a game. Want that VRAM back for your game? Click a checkbox in the shortcut properties. It'll also snap right back into 3d aero as soon as you quit the game.

BTW, on my system, running a 7600gt, with dual 19inch LCDs, wanna know how much main memory the 3d gui takes up? 16mb. What a crisis. The 3d aero gui offloads much onto your VRAM.

And no matter how hard you want to believe it, vista does not take up 1gb of ram more than xp. I can absolutely guarantee you this.

Then you have Direct X 10. Completely incompatible to Direct X 9. Microsoft wants gamers to spend extra money just to spend more money to play games on a system that's going to need even MORE money to upgrade! Does that make sense?! Of course not!

More BS. DX9 is also included in Vista. Games won't *require* DX10 for 5 years or so - I doubt you can find a game today that *requires* DX9.

The OS still has everything integrated with the kernel. What makes it even more dangerous is that Microsoft programmed DRM DIRECTLY into the kernel. If a program decided to use the kernel's lock-down features and suddenly makes a boo-boo... BOOM! Your computer crashes! When will Microsoft learn that you cannot have everything integrated with the kernel. IT'S A SECURITY RISK!!

Is there any valid documentation for this, or do you believe everything you read on the internet?

Servers: You cannot run a server with Vista. Not with the heavy requirements it has! You'll need 4 gigs of ram just to run a simple task! A good chunk of that would be just for the GUI ALONE! Why?? Server admins don't need the fancy graphics! Vista != Server. Microsoft shot themselves in the foot as far as Servers go.

So, turn off the new GUI then, run it Win2k style. Problem solved.

Look who we are dealing with. Microsoft's products have always had a long history of buginess, exploits and just outright bad programming. Do you honestly think they will change? I doubt they will considering that they've already found critical exploits before the OS was released!! One of them being the old WMF exploit! What?! An old XP exploit found in Vista!

You all can have your Vista.

I doubt even god himself could write an OS with 50 million lines of code, meant to support nearly all the hardware on the planet, and not have a few bugs here or there. XP was a solid product, and Vista was long overdue. And it's good.

And for all those supposed security risks on XP, I never once had a successful attack.


New feature: There aren't any! Everything that Vista has is on another OS, and has been for YEARS.

Was there ANYTHING of worth in your post? Spoken like someone who sounds like they've never used it, and have just compiled and regurgitated all the negative things they've heard to sound cool to their l33t hacker linux friends. You have absolutely NO IDEA what you're talking about, and I've got no idea why I'm even responding. Honestly, in nearly 10 years of being at AT, I don't think I've ever seen a post so long that didnt have at least one single shred of validity in it. I could point out plenty of flaws in vista, but your list is entirely garbage. You need to upgrade your brain before you upgrade your computer, seriously.
 

drag

Elite Member
Jul 4, 2002
8,708
0
0
WinFS is cool

Sorry to nitpick, but WinFS doesn't exist and will never exist. It's dead.

What they were talking about were the cache'ing stuff to reduce seek times and things like that. To help performance a bit and to try to stop having to wake up harddrives in mobile devices (saves battery power).

Are you people kidding me?
I can't be the only person reading this.

You guys are getting all excited and horny over OLD prefetch technology? This stuff has been around for YEARS! OS 10, Linux and Unix all had it. Vista is just now getting it and you guys are like, "WOW! OMG!"

Give em a thread so they can enjoy talking about what they like about Vista. There are probably good points and this stuff is a bit different then the prefetch stuff. Windows XP had that sort of thing.

all the other threads about vista are about DRM sucks this and DRM sucks that and it's a XP SP3 etc etc. No need to get all up in their stuff about it.

 

Tegeril

Platinum Member
Apr 2, 2003
2,906
5
81
I just want to thank BD2003 for taking the time to totally disprove much of the idiocy that has been going on regarding Vista.

Thank you, especially in response to Quinton.
 

jlbenedict

Banned
Jul 10, 2005
3,724
0
0
Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod

Servers: You cannot run a server with Vista. Not with the heavy requirements it has! You'll need 4 gigs of ram just to run a simple task! A good chunk of that would be just for the GUI ALONE! Why?? Server admins don't need the fancy graphics! Vista != Server. Microsoft shot themselves in the foot as far as Servers go.

Hello! McFly! Anybody home?

All versions of Vista are for the desktop. Microsoft hasn't even offered a beta of the server equivalent to Vista as of yet. You don't run servers on desktop operating systems, idiot.

 

greylica

Senior member
Aug 11, 2006
276
0
0
Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod

Servers: You cannot run a server with Vista. Not with the heavy requirements it has! You'll

Hello! McFly! Anybody home?

All versions of Vista are for the desktop. Microsoft hasn't even offered a beta of the server equivalent to Vista as of yet. You don't run servers on desktop operating systems, idiot.

Rethink what you told, because is a BS. Small enterprises with less than 10 machines uses XP to make small servers for workgroups. With Vista , it is Dead.
 

MrChad

Lifer
Aug 22, 2001
13,507
3
81
Originally posted by: greylica
Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod

Servers: You cannot run a server with Vista. Not with the heavy requirements it has! You'll

Hello! McFly! Anybody home?

All versions of Vista are for the desktop. Microsoft hasn't even offered a beta of the server equivalent to Vista as of yet. You don't run servers on desktop operating systems, idiot.

Rethink what you told, because is a BS. Small enterprises with less than 10 machines uses XP to make small servers for workgroups. With Vista , it is Dead.

Vista still allows up to 10 connections for basic file sharing. What specifically are you referring to that makes Vista "dead" as a small workgroup server?
 

Nothinman

Elite Member
Sep 14, 2001
30,672
0
0
There is nothing in the world that can flush your cache faster than downloading a torrent measured in gigabytes. And there's no amount of memory that can prevent this. Back when I was using XP, I put together an old 500mhz server with one of the driving reasons to get those horrible performance drains off my main PC...and now, that's no longer an issue.

You know, I don't want to turn this into a flamewar but the caching problems seem to be XP-only. No matter what I did XP seemed to hit the hard disk a lot more than Win2K or Linux. For example I have a handful of cache-thrashing cronjobs on this Linux machine and when I got here this morning it was perfectly fine, nothing had to be paged back in when I unlocked it. It's good that MS has re-tuned their VM for Vista but it would be nice if they'd noticed that it's a big problem on XP and fixed it there too, even without things like SuperFetch and ReadyBoot just tuning their VM properly could make a huge difference.

Why run the servers in VMs, rather than just running the server apps natively?

I can't speak for him but it's best to mimic the server setup as closely as possible and that's not possible if the OS is completely different. That and if you have a lot of extra stuff installed things may work on your machine that don't on the server and you won't know what's missing until you deploy.

And lets be completely honest here - it'll be a cold day in hell before hackers can't figure out a way to bypass that kind of BS. So it'd end up being a rejection based on a matter of principle, and something about not using an operating system based on a semi-noble principle seems kind of outrageous to me.

Standing up for what you believe in is outrageous?

And linux being open source, will never, ever play HD-DVDs until the encryption is cracked. Got a problem with that? Don't buy HD-DVDs.

Being open source has absolutely nothing to do with it, I just doubt that anyone will be willing to pay for all of the licenses required to support playing them legally.

I doubt even god himself could write an OS with 50 million lines of code, meant to support nearly all the hardware on the planet,

Just a nitpick but I own a decent amount of hardware that Windows will never support but Linux supports just fine. Windows supports more of that off the shelf crap so it probably does win out on pure numbers, but it's nowhere near "nearly all the hardware on the planet".
 

greylica

Senior member
Aug 11, 2006
276
0
0
Originally posted by: MrChad
Originally posted by: greylica
Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod

Servers: You cannot run a server with Vista. Not with the heavy requirements it has! You'll

Hello! McFly! Anybody home?

All versions of Vista are for the desktop. Microsoft hasn't even offered a beta of the server equivalent to Vista as of yet. You don't run servers on desktop operating systems, idiot.

Rethink what you told, because is a BS. Small enterprises with less than 10 machines uses XP to make small servers for workgroups. With Vista , it is Dead.

Vista still allows up to 10 connections for basic file sharing. What specifically are you referring to that makes Vista "dead" as a small workgroup server?

Two things,
SMB 2.0 wich is not an standard with 1.0 and is not intended for interoperability, to make interoperability we will have to do an upgrade for Xp or 2000, but 2000 does not have maintenance. The crap is then done .
Hog for memory, most of the file sharing servers using XP uses 256 MB of RAM, no eye candy at all,and Vista may run fine with 512 with no eye candy at all for this task, but they will have to buy 1 Gig to be really good and faster like XP. Their small enterprises server will be dead if they choose for Vista now.
 

InlineFive

Diamond Member
Sep 20, 2003
9,599
2
0
Originally posted by: greylica
Originally posted by: MrChad
Originally posted by: greylica
Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod

Servers: You cannot run a server with Vista. Not with the heavy requirements it has! You'll

Hello! McFly! Anybody home?

All versions of Vista are for the desktop. Microsoft hasn't even offered a beta of the server equivalent to Vista as of yet. You don't run servers on desktop operating systems, idiot.

Rethink what you told, because is a BS. Small enterprises with less than 10 machines uses XP to make small servers for workgroups. With Vista , it is Dead.

Vista still allows up to 10 connections for basic file sharing. What specifically are you referring to that makes Vista "dead" as a small workgroup server?

Two things,
SMB 2.0 wich is not an standard with 1.0 and is not intended for interoperability, to make interoperability we will have to do an upgrade for Xp or 2000, but 2000 does not have maintenance. The crap is then done .
Hog for memory, most of the file sharing servers using XP uses 256 MB of RAM, no eye candy at all,and Vista may run fine with 512 with no eye candy at all for this task, but they will have to buy 1 Gig to be really good and faster like XP. Their small enterprises server will be dead if they choose for Vista now.

First you are saying that if we want compatibility with we need to upgrade? According to the information on Wikipedia Vista only uses SMBv2 for communication with other Vista and Longhorn OSes. It still supports SMBv1 for older OSes.

Second, I believe that for a lot of organizations the memory is less and less of an issue. I know that myself and a lot of other places order all of our machines with at least 1GB of memory now.
 

loup garou

Lifer
Feb 17, 2000
35,132
1
81
Originally posted by: greylica
Two things,
SMB 2.0 wich is not an standard with 1.0 and is not intended for interoperability, to make interoperability we will have to do an upgrade for Xp or 2000, but 2000 does not have maintenance. The crap is then done .
Hog for memory, most of the file sharing servers using XP uses 256 MB of RAM, no eye candy at all,and Vista may run fine with 512 with no eye candy at all for this task, but they will have to buy 1 Gig to be really good and faster like XP. Their small enterprises server will be dead if they choose for Vista now.

1) Vista will fall back to SMB 1.0 when communicating with older servers/clients.
Text

2) That's just a load of crap. Vista runs fine on low memory systems. I have it running on machines with 384-512MB for testing. In the case of a new fileserver, just about any new machine that would be purchased with Vista will come with at least 1GB standard.

 

Nothinman

Elite Member
Sep 14, 2001
30,672
0
0
Two things,
SMB 2.0 wich is not an standard with 1.0 and is not intended for interoperability, to make interoperability we will have to do an upgrade for Xp or 2000, but 2000 does not have maintenance. The crap is then done .
Hog for memory, most of the file sharing servers using XP uses 256 MB of RAM, no eye candy at all,and Vista may run fine with 512 with no eye candy at all for this task, but they will have to buy 1 Gig to be really good and faster like XP. Their small enterprises server will be dead if they choose for Vista now.

1) Vista is compatible with older clients, if MS does anything consistently it's maintain backwards compatibility
2) No one is going to run out and buy Vista to replace their XP server without good reason so they'll either know that they need more hardware or by the time they get a Vista workstation to replace it they'll most likely be getting it by buying a new box anyway.

Second, I believe that for a lot of organizations the memory is less and less of an issue. I know that myself and a lot of other places order all of our machines with at least 1GB of memory now.

No doubt, but at $240 - $300 for a Vista license it's going to be 1/4 - 1/2 the price of the machine for just the OS.
 

stash

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2000
5,468
0
0
Microsoft hasn't even offered a beta of the server equivalent to Vista as of yet
Not a public beta, but there has been beta testing going on for a long while. Remember that Longhorn Server and Vista were/are developed side by side. They are the exact same code base, so saying that Vista can't be a server is pretty much the dumbest thing you can say. Vista itself is based off of 2003 SP1, and Vista and Longhorn Server are identical under the covers.
 

jlbenedict

Banned
Jul 10, 2005
3,724
0
0
Originally posted by: stash
Microsoft hasn't even offered a beta of the server equivalent to Vista as of yet
Not a public beta, but there has been beta testing going on for a long while. Remember that Longhorn Server and Vista were/are developed side by side. They are the exact same code base, so saying that Vista can't be a server is pretty much the dumbest thing you can say. Vista itself is based off of 2003 SP1, and Vista and Longhorn Server are identical under the covers.


I should have probably wrote my response above a little more clear. I didn't mean that Vista is exclusively for the desktop; mainly that if it is a true server (enterprise level), then I'm sure Vista will be overlooked, and Longhorn Server will be the real option.

Of course any desktop operating system can "serve". I guess the meaning of the word "server" can be misconstrued at times

 

Sunner

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
11,641
0
76
I don't mean to be rude and interrupt this very enlightening flame war, but two ever so small questions from someone who has used Vista for all of ~1-2 hours.
Is there an easy(as is a few clicks, not editing xyz reg entries) way to change all the Explorer views and such back to the old Win2K style?
And is there an easy way to turn off all those security warnings(UAE is it? Some 3-letter acronym anyway)?

When I ran it last time(RC2) I was kinda short on time, so I didn't really explore it much.
Oh and turning off all the gunk, what sort of memory usage do you get? I remember checking that on my fresh install, and a fresh boot landing near the 500 MB mark, which seemed retarded to me.
 

bsobel

Moderator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
Dec 9, 2001
13,346
0
0
And is there an easy way to turn off all those security warnings(UAE is it? Some 3-letter acronym anyway)?

Yea, turn it off (I believe in the security center). Not recommended (its a good feature once you get used to it), but you can.
 

Sunner

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
11,641
0
76
Originally posted by: bsobel
And is there an easy way to turn off all those security warnings(UAE is it? Some 3-letter acronym anyway)?

Yea, turn it off (I believe in the security center). Not recommended (its a good feature once you get used to it), but you can.

Hmm, must've just missed it, which doesn't sound too unlikely considering I was feeling a bit lost

And yeah, I'm a terribly inpatient person and I get annoyed VERY easily, let's just say a recording of me driving to work would be EXTREMELY NSFW.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |