Foo - Windows Vista

Who has it, whats it like, and (most importantly) should I buy it?
What are the highlights of the program and what are the bugs.
I would like to buy this to put on a seperate hard drive on my computer, so I could swich back and forth from XP to Vista.

Please tell me.

Who has it, whats it like, and (most importantly) should I buy it?
What are the highlights of the program and what are the bugs.
I would like to buy this to put on a seperate hard drive on my computer, so I could swich back and forth from XP to Vista.

Please tell me.

I have Vista Ultimate x64 on my gaming rig.

Many of the games don't work, as they don't like being run in an entirely 64 bit environment, and the ones that do have a lot of bugs that need to be worked out.

The biggest problem right now is with the new API, DirectX 10.

For example, in Microsoft's Flight Simulator X, the game doesn't go in full 3D, which doesn't disable the screen saver, which means that when I try to land, I get pwned by the space travel thing, and the game shuts down.

Also, the new Office 2007 file formats aren't compatible with Office 2003 formats, because of the switch to XML.

Numerous other programs are inoperable or won't even start up.

Vista is crap until Service Pack 1 is released, which won't be for awhile.

gg

We've taken it off of two new machines for our customers. Wait till SP1 or longer.

Thanks guys

Is there any way to make Halo 2 for Vista playable on XP?

yeah wait a while until micro$oft have released the SP1.

The governement even orderred that all of the government computer upgrades to Vi$ta will be put on hold until the bugs have been ironed out.

Also I recommend that you keep XP and rather than wasting $$$$ on some crappy rip-off and try out Linux. Yes Linux needs some works when you first intsall it but it is defidently a lot less work than having to deal with all of the bugs in Window Vi$ta.

I had looked at the brochure of Vista and the only thing that the vista have improved on was security and graphical look despite these 2 are still lousy even then.

About the Aero display thingy that Vi$ta have, Linux had something called XGL and it is light year ahead of Aero when it first came out a few years ago. Also the security issue of Linux is alot less simply because soo much of the viruses and these malicious software only works on window.

P.S.
A link to a youtube XGL visual demo, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4LsRNuMoSE
this clip shows many of the extra features that you could add and use with the XGL.

P.S.S. I'm not really a linux fanboy but I don't like the micro$oft practice of ripping many things and making a 2nd rate example of it to pass of as the top of the line to unsuspecting customers

Thanks guys

Is there any way to make Halo 2 for Vista playable on XP?

If you get XP Pro x64 then maybe.

The biggest reason I will end up moving to Vista is because over time, XP will get less and less support. For example, Office 2003 sliced off support for any previous OS other than XP, and I'm pretty sure the next Office version will require Vista.

Even BitLocker functionality, though useful and I'm very glad MS put it in, isn't a need for me, because I use third-party disk encryption software on my machines that supports external tokens.

I don't fault MS for releasing it. I consider Vista less of an OS upgrade (Windows NT to Windows 2000 is an upgrade, Windows 9x/ME to Windows XP is an upgrade.) I consider Vista a very large service pack, more aimed at fixing XP's shortcomings than adding new features.

Part of it is me being stodgy. I have XP, but run it with a "classic" theme, and the old (Windows 2000) Start menu, which for me is easier to grab something out. With Vista (and because I use remote desktop, it will have to be ultimate edition), I will be using the "classic" interface still, not bothering with Aero.

Its been this way with X window managers too. I much prefer something lightweight that functions as a parser for window decoration and a program launcher than something like KDE or GNOME. On one ancient machine I have, its still running Motif 2.x (a window manager that is at least a decade old.)

Ultimately, I may just end up not upgrading to Vista at all, but moving to Longhorn Server (whatever MS names it) as my desktop OS of choice. MS as of Windows 2000 and 2003 gets server operating systems right [1], and their OS can do well in the SMB server segment. For the big stuff, I still swear by AIX or Solaris though... but I doubt I will be having an E25k or an IBM 9119 at home anytime soon, although scarily enough, both IBM and Sun offer great VM/OS partitioning solutions, so I can see a large machine like these pretty much solving every computer issue I would encounter at home, except for dedicated PCs for gaming, development, and testing.


[1]: For true server machines (machines that offer essential network functions like DNS, DHCP, firewalls, and so on) I still use UNIX variants (Solaris, BSD, Linux), but for my test ASP server, Windows 2003 has been very good -- no reliability complaints. In the end, choose the OS for the task at hand, not the other way around. If its a firewall or router, IMHO, it better be a BSD.

The biggest reason I will end up moving to Vista is because over time, XP will get less and less support. For example, Office 2003 sliced off support for any previous OS other than XP, and I'm pretty sure the next Office version will require Vista.

Part of it is me being stodgy. I have XP, but run it with a "classic" theme, and the old (Windows 2000) Start menu, which for me is easier to grab something out. With Vista (and because I use remote desktop, it will have to be ultimate edition), I will be using the "classic" interface still, not bothering with Aero.

Its been this way with X window managers too. I much prefer something lightweight that functions as a parser for window decoration and a program launcher than something like KDE or GNOME. On one ancient machine I have, its still running Motif 2.x (a window manager that is at least a decade old.)


I am running XP SP2 right now, up to date with all current updates, but I am wary of Vista. I am in a small business which provides custom programming to the steel industry. Last week a friend gave me a Kubuntu Linux DVD version 6.10 and it is sitting right here. Does anyone know about Kubuntu and is it easy to run as a dual boot?

I've run Ubuntu on my laptop, tho recently switched to Linspire. Both running as stand alone O/S so I have no input on the dual boot aspect. Do you have the live version which you can boot to directly to try without compromising your current O/S?

I am running XP SP2 right now, up to date with all current updates, but I am wary of Vista. I am in a small business which provides custom programming to the steel industry. Last week a friend gave me a Kubuntu Linux DVD version 6.10 and it is sitting right here. Does anyone know about Kubuntu and is it easy to run as a dual boot?
I usually tell people who ask that question - that "if you have to ask that question the answer is NO!". If your time is worthless and you think you can google for problem after problem and solution after solution and the idea of compiling and unzipping and rpming or apt getting gets you horny and if you don't do much on the pc at all then instead of asking the question just do it. I do recommend backing up any important data and please do not hold me liable for any damage, pain or anguish that ensues.

I read an article about Vista saying it disables media devices not supporting DRM or something like that. Anyone have any insight on this one?

I am running XP SP2 right now, up to date with all current updates, but I am wary of Vista. I am in a small business which provides custom programming to the steel industry. Last week a friend gave me a Kubuntu Linux DVD version 6.10 and it is sitting right here. Does anyone know about Kubuntu and is it easy to run as a dual boot?

Before jumping in feet-first with a new OS that you have no experience with, (exception is if you are bouncing between Linux distros, but even then be wary... yum isn't apt-get), run it on a daily basis on a TEST machine for at least six months until you are confident you can get problems ironed out.

In any UNIX, don't assume you can pull up smit, admintool, sam, or whatever and click your way out of issues. You really need to be able to do all your administration tasks via a command line, rather depend on any graphical utility. If things really go south, knowing this on a production server may mean averting disaster.

Life sucks big time when you decide to replace a production server with a new OS... and you find that one of the drivers has a nasty glitch which keeps a critical device from running.

If you want to learn Linux or a UNIX variant, I say go for it. Just don't use any OS you are unfamilar with for business critical data.

I read an article about Vista saying it disables media devices not supporting DRM or something like that. Anyone have any insight on this one?

Its pretty much FUD. I know people who are doing their usual music and video production on Vista, and have no issues (other than unrelated items like making sure as few programs are running as possible to miminize latency when processing stuff in Cubase.)

The DRM stuff is related to Vista playing HD-DVD movies, and requiring all stuff in the hardware chain to have HDCP compatibility.

Personally, if doing A/V production, I'd stick with XP because Vista has a bigger memory and disk footprint, and A/V is highly time sensitive, so the few CPU cycles taken up by OS tasks the better.

Other than a driver issue or two and a Java bug (damn you Sun!) it's all good on my work machine. The raving by the self-described Linux fanboi above is 90% FUD. The new graphics system is MUCH more than a pretty face. RTFM. Linux-boy.

Anyhow I won't upgrade at home any time soon because, well, XP works perfectly well.

Before jumping in feet-first with a new OS that you have no experience with, (exception is if you are bouncing between Linux distros, but even then be wary... yum isn't apt-get), run it on a daily basis on a TEST machine for at least six months until you are confident you can get problems ironed out.

In any UNIX, don't assume you can pull up smit, admintool, sam, or whatever and click your way out of issues. You really need to be able to do all your administration tasks via a command line, rather depend on any graphical utility. If things really go south, knowing this on a production server may mean averting disaster.

Life sucks big time when you decide to replace a production server with a new OS... and you find that one of the drivers has a nasty glitch which keeps a critical device from running.

If you want to learn Linux or a UNIX variant, I say go for it. Just don't use any OS you are unfamilar with for business critical data.

I hear you guys, I am going to be cautious. I have booted from the Kubuntu DVD to check it out and it looks pretty good, to tell you the truth. My friends have been running their main system on Linux for a few years--they recommend it highly. I have picked up a Kubuntu book which offers directions. I think I will install it on a spare laptop I have here and try it out first--my friends say Kubuntu is much more user friendly than earlier Linux versions. MY XP is running OK--in an ideal world I would like to have both systems available. Thanks for the input.

I hear you guys, I am going to be cautious. I have booted from the Kubuntu DVD to check it out and it looks pretty good, to tell you the truth. My friends have been running their main system on Linux for a few years--they recommend it highly. I have picked up a Kubuntu book which offers directions. I think I will install it on a spare laptop I have here and try it out first--my friends say Kubuntu is much more user friendly than earlier Linux versions. MY XP is running OK--in an ideal world I would like to have both systems available. Thanks for the input.


Good decision, Flangy. I've been running Ubuntu and XP Pro as a dual-boot on a Dell Latitude and no problems. When you decide to go this route, you'll be more experienced with Linux. BTW, do be sure to take mlts22's advice- get to be an expert in the CL as an admin, because an admin is what you have to be. Good luck!

BTW, I never jump to a new MS OS until SP2- even SP1s have been flaky (to wit, XP/SP1). Best to wait- that way you can afford all the neat hardware you need to really scream with Vista.

The biggest reason I will end up moving to Vista is because over time, XP will get less and less support. For example, Office 2003 sliced off support for any previous OS other than XP, and I'm pretty sure the next Office version will require Vista.


Office 2007 works dandy in xp.

[edit]
Oops, thanks for reminding me texas, office 2003 works just dandy on 2000 as well (I only have 3 2000 computers in house now so i tend to forget that they are dandy too...)

Support gets dropped after 7ish years depending on the product (os's can go as long as 10) and any IT guy worth his beans knows the microsoft page to go to when figuring out what generation to buy based on the companies needs. Microsoft is very open about when they discontinue support and usually let people know several years out.

[QUOTE=mlts22]The biggest reason I will end up moving to Vista is because over time, XP will get less and less support. For example, Office 2003 sliced off support for any previous OS other than XP, and I'm pretty sure the next Office version will require Vista.QUOTE]
Microsoft Office 2003 is supported on Windows 2000 and up
Microsoft Office 2007 is supported on probably XP and up. I've ran it on XP for almost 3/4 of a year.

Vista is the reason I bought a Linspire OS computer for my office. As soon as Quickbooks comes out with a linux version, it'll be bye bye Microsoft!