Guest LilBambi Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 I think the issue of adoption still comes back to hardware.Reading your article, Scot, I admit I can see several new functions within Vista that would make it a welcome successor to XP. But the hardware required to get the most out the OS is too new for many users. We all know people who are still running 98/98SE/ME because it's all their hardware can handle, and they don't see an urgent need to upgrade. I don't see Vista bringing anything to the table that will change that behavior.Geeks, early adopters and those buying new computers will assure MS of millions of sales when Vista is released. But millions more will hesitate, some for years. It almost seems that with each iteration of Windows, the rate of prompt upgrading has lessened. I know very few people who didn't leap into 95 when it came out. It was considered such a revolutionary improvement over any other OS then available. Likewise, 98/98SE was seen as a massive improvement over 95, and it handled the 95-era hardware easily. Again, most people I've talked to about upgrades say that they were eager to install 98/98SE. W2K was well received though mostly only among business users, and even those folk were not easy to convince to roll out a new OS over the entire enterprise immediately upon its release. XP was probably the OS to be adopted the slowest. 98/98SE was a good enough OS for many people who didn't demand all that much from their computers. They didn't sense an overwhelming need to buy XP. Those that did install XP could at least do so using their 98-era hardware. Vista's lack of must-have improvements and hardware demands I suspect will make it the slowest adopted Microsoft OS yet.As much as I'm enjoying the beta, on my laptop even more than the desktop, I know for a fact that I won't be even considering changing over for at least as long as MS supports XP Pro. So it could easily be another 7 years or more before I really have to consider Vista, and by then it will be a vastly different OS than it will be at release.Excellent thoughts Jeber! And very true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeber Posted June 30, 2006 Share Posted June 30, 2006 Just to make things easier, Temmu, could you post your pin number, too, so we can deposit funds at an ATM? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Posted June 30, 2006 Share Posted June 30, 2006 Just to make things easier, Temmu, could you post your pin number, too, so we can deposit funds at an ATM? That should not be that hard to figure out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daihard Posted June 30, 2006 Share Posted June 30, 2006 (edited) What I tell everyone, if you don't like the policies... don't use the product.If there's anything I agree with you on, that's one of them. :w00t:I am not planning on buying Vista for myself. I will probably end up using it at work since we develop multi-platform software whose target platforms include Windows. Hey, that's not my money. Edited June 30, 2006 by daihard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peachy Posted June 30, 2006 Share Posted June 30, 2006 I've been saying this over and over again. If you buy a new computer by the time Vista ships it will be fine. If you plan on running Vista on existing equipment I think any CPU at 2.4GHz or faster will be sufficient. The visual quality will depend on your graphics card's Direct X capabilities. DX9 good. DX8 average. DX7, no Aero for you! The only other performance variable will be memory. 2GB will be the new sweet spot, but judging by the prices of PC2-3200, RAM is cheap. For what I paid 3 years ago to get 1GB I can now buy 4GB today.And right now, it looks like Intel's Core 2 Duo (Conroe and Merom) processors are faster than the current Pressler Duo Core Extreme Editions and they are definitely faster than AMD's FX62. I'm running an almost 4 year-old Northwood Pentium 4 as my main machine and Conroe or Merom is within my upgrade plans in the next 6 months. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeber Posted July 1, 2006 Share Posted July 1, 2006 Yeah, Peachy, keep telling yourself that it will just be a new processor. "Hey, wouldn't a new mobo be appropriate...and of course I'll need that new video card, and sound, gotta upgrade the sound card...4 gigs of memory, huh, might as well...whoa, a 48" plasma screen, absolutely."Geeks cannot resist. We lose all our self-control 15' inside the door at Fry's, Radio Shack and WorstPurchase. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scot Posted July 1, 2006 Author Share Posted July 1, 2006 Hate to interrupt the who's tech knowledge is bigger match here, but I have a question related to Marsden's earlier post about his Compaq x64 machine. Marsden, how did you partition that drive for the spare volume when you installed x64 Vista B2?-- Scot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scot Posted July 1, 2006 Author Share Posted July 1, 2006 Seriously, if Dell can sell a desktop media center PC with a 17" flat screen with free shipping for $499... Not to mention Intel and AMD whacking each other in a soon to be here price war... The extra horsepower Vista might require from currently shipping systems will not amount to very much cost wise (CPU being the most expensive component). There will be the usual low to high end Vista systems.Your tablet has some limitations... battery life which affects total CPU horsepower. If I crank my Presario up to 2.4 GHz it gets noisy and quite hot, not to mention very short battery life like 1.5-2 hrs. I doubt your tablet comes anywhere near it's maximum CPU speed. Will there be Vista tablets? Probably, but they will have even lower powered CPUs and better graphics. Then there are the new hybrid HDs coming... more flash equals less juice to run...Most laptops next year will sport dual cores and better graphics... the middle of next year they will be pushing out quad cores...Just because it happens once in a while, I'm posting here: I agree completely with Marsden on this point.I think the real pressure point for full Vista support is graphics hardware. Aero requires DirectX9 or better 3D GPUs that support PixelShader 2.0 and have 128MB video memory. Very few notebook PCs sold with that level of hardware last year. And you had to go to near the top of the line for the first half of this year. Most enthusiast desktop machines supported this even last year, even if your average PC did not. But desktop PCs can upgrade their video. Notebooks are what's been selling well the last 18 months. So I think some people will be caught with less than peak video support for Vista, even those who buy machines this year.Of course, Aero isn't required to run Vista, but there are reliability as well as visual advantages. Personally, I wouldn't upgrade or buy a machine that might someday run Vista unless it supported Aero.Any machine with an Intel or AMD comparable 1.8GHz CPU with 1GB of RAM will run Vista just fine. Microsoft's min. system reqs state 1GHz CPU, as a recall. And I'm sure that's true in a lab. But the reality is that the machines that came with 1GHz CPUs don't have the right swuff to support Vista.Julia, the 42% CPU usage you describe doesn't sound right to me. I might be able to help you figure that out. Marsden's right, this is a beta. But even so, I'd be willing to bet that some background software running on your machine is having an issue -- perhaps it only occurs under Vista.-- Scot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marsden11 Posted July 2, 2006 Share Posted July 2, 2006 (edited) Marsden, how did you partition that drive for the spare volume when you installed x64 Vista B2? X64 Vista beta 2 is installed on E:\ Edited July 2, 2006 by Marsden11 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scot Posted July 2, 2006 Author Share Posted July 2, 2006 Marsden,No, I'm asking a question ... not calling you out.What I want to know is, what 64-bit partitioning utility did you use? Or did you partition with 32-bit software before you installed the operating systems? I'm looking for a dynamic, non-destructive 64-bit partitioning utility, trying to get recommendations on them. Most of the bigger products in that space (like PartitionMagic) don't support 64-bit. Even the enterprise-oriented products don't. And the 64-bit Feb. CTP of Vista's installation routine also would not repartition. I haven't tried it with Beta 2 yet, so I guess it's possible that Microsoft added that in the 64-bit installation routine. But if not, what did you use?-- Scot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marsden11 Posted July 2, 2006 Share Posted July 2, 2006 No 3rd party tools were used.I used the built-in partitioning tools in XP x64 during the first install of XP x64. When I loaded Vista B2 x64 I just choose the smaller of the two partitions on the drive. When Vista loads it renames the E:\ drive C:\ and the C:\ drive D:\... From that point on it uses the Vista boot loader.I did use a 3rd party tool to edit the Vista boot loader. Renamed the orginal Windows to Legacy XP x64 and the default Windows for Vista to Vista x64. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetblast Posted July 3, 2006 Share Posted July 3, 2006 I've been reading this thread and find it quite interesting. Here are my two cents:I don't think that using a USB key to lockdown an OS is a going to be well received by the public. Users today are far more mainstream than back in the day when copy protection meant feeding a floppy disk into a drive. People have a hard enough time remembering passwords and such. No hub would be big enough if you had to plug in a USB encryption key for every program you wanted to run if the software community decided en masse to go that route.Secondly, I'm not too worried about the hardware requirements for Vista. The first machine I loaded Beta 2 on was a Celeron 1.7 Ghz with 512 RAM with 64 MB shared video. I didn't notice much of a performance hit over XP Pro. Carry on while I return to lurk mode. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scot Posted July 4, 2006 Author Share Posted July 4, 2006 Secondly, I'm not too worried about the hardware requirements for Vista. The first machine I loaded Beta 2 on was a Celeron 1.7 Ghz with 512 RAM with 64 MB shared video. I didn't notice much of a performance hit over XP Pro.jetblast, the point is that you almost certainly didn't get the uplevel Aero interface on the machine you describe. And there's a range of features and visual user-experience aspects (like transparency, blurring, and reflections) that you didn't get as a result, including "Live Thumbnails," "Flip," and "Flip 3D." While I vastly prefer Aero, I think many power users probably wouldn't be concerned by the loss of these things. But there is one significant reliability loss: You're more likely to see video-driver-based Blue Screens of Death with Vista Basic than you are with Vista Aero.In fact, since Beta 1, I've installed all major pre-releases and some minor ones on about half a dozen machines, and I haven't had a single BSoD (no crashes, in fact) on any of those machines -- except the ones that weren't able to run Aero. This is one of the surprising things about Vista, actually. It's a lot more stable than XP, even in Beta. And XP is pretty stable, in my experience. I do agree that your CPU and RAM are fine for testing Vista. I recommend at least 1GB of RAM, though, for production Vista installations. The CPU is really the least important thing; it's the graphics level that I believe a year from now people will be frustrated about. Even now, a couple of months after Microsoft has specified Vista's hardware requirements, many new notebooks and desktops are not being fully equipped in the video dept. to take full advantage of Vista Aero. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Posted July 4, 2006 Share Posted July 4, 2006 jetblast, the point is that you almost certainly didn't get the uplevel Aero interface on the machine you describe. And there's a range of features and visual user-experience aspects (like transparency, blurring, and reflections) that you didn't get as a result, including "Live Thumbnails," "Flip," and "Flip 3D." While I vastly prefer Aero, I think many power users probably wouldn't be concerned by the loss of these things. But there is one significant reliability loss: You're more likely to see video-driver-based Blue Screens of Death with Vista Basic than you are with Vista Aero.Without these features most people would not bother to upgrade to Vista. They would ignore the added security. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scot Posted July 4, 2006 Author Share Posted July 4, 2006 I used the built-in partitioning tools in XP x64 during the first install of XP x64. When I loaded Vista B2 x64 I just choose the smaller of the two partitions on the drive. When Vista loads it renames the E:\ drive C:\ and the C:\ drive D:\... From that point on it uses the Vista boot loader.I figured as much. If anyone knows of a non-destructive dynamic partitioning utility that runs on 64-bit Windows, I'd be much obliged if you passed the information along.I did use a 3rd party tool to edit the Vista boot loader. Renamed the orginal Windows to Legacy XP x64 and the default Windows for Vista to Vista x64.What utility?-- Scot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daihard Posted July 4, 2006 Share Posted July 4, 2006 I am just hoping that they will fix Vista before RC1 so it *will* be able to burn audio CD's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marsden11 Posted July 4, 2006 Share Posted July 4, 2006 What utility? VistaBootPRO http://www.pro-networks.org/vistabootpro/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetblast Posted July 6, 2006 Share Posted July 6, 2006 jetblast, the point is that you almost certainly didn't get the uplevel Aero interface on the machine you describe. And there's a range of features and visual user-experience aspects (like transparency, blurring, and reflections) that you didn't get as a result, including "Live Thumbnails," "Flip," and "Flip 3D." While I vastly prefer Aero, I think many power users probably wouldn't be concerned by the loss of these things. But there is one significant reliability loss: You're more likely to see video-driver-based Blue Screens of Death with Vista Basic than you are with Vista Aero.In fact, since Beta 1, I've installed all major pre-releases and some minor ones on about half a dozen machines, and I haven't had a single BSoD (no crashes, in fact) on any of those machines -- except the ones that weren't able to run Aero. This is one of the surprising things about Vista, actually. It's a lot more stable than XP, even in Beta. And XP is pretty stable, in my experience. I do agree that your CPU and RAM are fine for testing Vista. I recommend at least 1GB of RAM, though, for production Vista installations. The CPU is really the least important thing; it's the graphics level that I believe a year from now people will be frustrated about. Even now, a couple of months after Microsoft has specified Vista's hardware requirements, many new notebooks and desktops are not being fully equipped in the video dept. to take full advantage of Vista Aero.I can't recall the last time I saw BSOD even with Windows XP. I think the only time I had a BSOD was when I had a bad module of RAM and that was some four years ago. None of my clients seem to have BSOD errors either so I honestly have to ask if I've just been lucky or if this is really an issue. You are correct, Scott, about the lack of the Aero interface with the Celeron test machine. That would be nice to have and I am looking forward to it in the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scot Posted July 6, 2006 Author Share Posted July 6, 2006 Marsden, thanks for the VistaBootPro tip. I just downloaded it and love it. It's in the next issue of the newsletter. Great find.Earlier this year in the newsletter (January 2005), I wrote that the Boot Configuration Data and bcdedit.exe were ripe for utility authors to create for. Glad someone else was onto that too.-- Scot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crp Posted March 17, 2008 Share Posted March 17, 2008 I figured since Vista right now is my current OS and that SP1 is really, truly going to released to the general population real soon now, I'd post my pre-SP1 thoughts and experience.First off, here is the output from the msVista "Performance and Information" utility: Component Details Subscore Base score Processor AMD Sempron(tm) Processor 3200+ 3.8 2.8 Determined by lowest subscore Memory (RAM) 1.00 GB 4.5 Graphics NVIDIA GeForce 8400 GS 2.8 Gaming graphics 767 MB Total available graphics memory 4.2 Primary hard disk 3GB Free (12GB Total) 5.3 Windows Vista (TM) Home Basic System -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Manufacturer FRYS Model GQ6140 Total amount of system memory 1.00 GB RAM System type 32-bit operating system Number of processor cores 1 64-bit capable Yes Storage -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total size of hard disk(s) 373 GB Disk partition (C:) 3 GB Free (12 GB Total) Disk partition (D:) 9 GB Free (12 GB Total) Disk partition (E:) 25 GB Free (25 GB Total) Disk partition (F:) 25 GB Free (25 GB Total) Media drive (G:) CD/DVD Disk partition (H:) 191 GB Free (298 GB Total) Graphics -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Display adapter type NVIDIA GeForce 8400 GS Total available graphics memory 767 MB Dedicated graphics memory 512 MB Dedicated system memory 0 MB Shared system memory 255 MB Display adapter driver version 7.15.11.6925 Primary monitor resolution 1440x900 DirectX version DirectX 9.0 or better Network -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Network Adapter NVIDIA nForce Networking Controller Network Adapter Microsoft Tun Miniport Adapter the video on the motherboard is not in use, the video card is a PCI-E from EVGA.I am probably not a typical user. I have been using pc's since before IBM's pc. I have had experience with linux since version 2.The pc does not have any type of application suites installed, the msVista was preinstalled.AVG is the antivirus, browsers used are Firefox2 and SeaMonkey1.8In addition to WMP11, Media Player Classic , VLC Media Player , RealPlayer11 , Irfan and DiVX are installed.[a full list of the software according to Belarc is at the end of this post]1st the good: making network connections , both with a home "LAN" and doing Remote Connections and VLAN connections, are much easier with msVista than XP. I have had only one hard crash in the 9 months I've had this pc and I'm pretty sure it was due to a FireFox memory leak. No problems with any peripheral equipment attached to USB ports. The security prompts work well and are not more obtrusive than in the Linux world. Separate sound level settings for system events and programs the so-so: as long as I don't put on the fancy windows borders or translucence, the display seems snappier than in XP and is quite readable at the max resolution. installing for a user who is not an admin is tricky at best. no power toys and no way to use the xp version hibernation seems to work quite well.the bad: can not upload files to yahoo groups or ebay auctions with FireFox 2 my DVD creation program can not see any of the optical drives WMP11 is a downgrade in capabilities from WMP10 , and there is no way to install WMP10 (among other things, WMP10 had more options for fast playing a video so that one can still hear the audio) You may have heard about issues with copying large files - well, it's true. Copying and extracting files larger than 30Meg take longer than they should, especially in the LAN. and this item I have not seen addressed by columnist : the windows explorer interface is awful . Among other things, they took away the Tree-and-Branch from the left pane and there should be a special place in the msDungeon for whoever decided to take away the capability of drag-and-drop from the explorer gui to a command prompt. how is it that a PCI-E 8400GS with 512MB rates only 2.8 on the Performance ?!?!My user experience: I really don't think the bootup is any faster than XP would be on this pc, and bootdown still takes quite a while. I'm glad that I don't have any issues with mystery crashes. Also have not had any files go bad on me. The system seems to browse the internet and play multimedia well. I do hope that SP1 will solve the file copying problem and give back capabilities lost from XP.-----full list of software:AC3Filter *Address Book Palm Sync Install *Adobe Acrobat Version 8.0.0.0 *Adobe Reader Version 8.1.0.2007051100 *Agere Soft Modem Call Progress Service Version 1.0.0.4 *Apple Software Update Version 2.0.2.92 *Belarc, Inc. - Advisor Version 7.2v *Bitvise - Glclstgs Version 1.02 *Bitvise - Tunnelier Version 4.24 *Brother Address Book Version 2.03.01 *Brother Industories, Ltd. - Brolink0 Version 1, 0, 1, 0 *brother Industries Ltd brsvc01a Version 1, 0, 0, 3 *Brother Industries Ltd. - Scanner Utility Version 1, 10, 1, 0 *Brother Industries, Ltd. - ControlCenter Version 3, 0, 10, 0 *Brother Industries, Ltd. - Inst-Diagnostics Version 1, 6, 10, 1 *Brother Industries, Ltd. - Rms2Csv Application Version 1.19.3 *Brother PC-FAX Setup Application Version 1.05.02 *Brother Status Monitor Application Version 2, 0, 0, 29 *DivX Converter Version 6, 6, 0, 64 *DivX for Windows Installer, L:EN;ES;DE;FR;JA, DivX Codec 6.8.0, DivX Converter 6.6.0, DivX Player 6.7.0, DivX Web Player 1.4.0, DivX Content Uploader 1.2.1 Version 6.8.0.30 *DivX Inc. - DrDivXOSS Version 2.0.0 *DivX Player Version 6, 7, 0, 21 *DivXNetworks Inc. - Config App. Version 2, 0, 0, 1 *DivXNetworks, Inc. - DivX EKG Version 1.0.0.0 *EMC Dantz - Retrospect Express HD Version 1.1 *EMC Dantz Development Corporation - Retrospect Express HD Version 1.1.127.0 *filezilla Version 3, 0, 5, 2 *Gabest - Media Player Classic Version 6, 4, 9, 1 *GRISOFT, s.r.o. - AVG 7.5 Anti-Virus System Version 7.5.0.420 *GRISOFT, s.r.o. - AVG Anti-Virus system Version 7.5.0.504 *GSpot Codec Information Appliance Version 2, 7, 0, 1 *Haali Muxer *IrfanView Uninstaller Version 1, 0, 0, 1 *IrfanView Version 4.00 *IZSoftware - IZArc Version 3.81 * Maxtor OneTouch II Version 4, 0, 4, 0 *Maxtor OneTouchâ„¢ Manager Version 4, 0, 4, 0 *Microsoft ® Windows Script Host Version 5.7.0.6000 *Microsoft Corporation - digital locker assistant Version 1.6.5 *Microsoft Corporation - DirectShow DirectX 10.0 *Microsoft Corporation - Internet Explorer Version 7.00.6000.16386 *Microsoft Corporation - Windows Defender Version 1.1.1505.0 *Microsoft Corporation - Windows Installer - Unicode Version 4.0.6000.16386 *Microsoft Corporation - Windows Version 1.0.0.1 *Microsoft® .NET Framework Version 2.0.50727.312 *Microsoft® .NET Framework Version 3.0.4506.25 *Mozilla Corporation - Firefox Version 2.0.0.12 *mozilla.org - SeaMonkey Version 1.1.8 *Nullsoft - Winamp Version 5.3.5.1305 *ProxyWay Version 4.7 *QUALCOMM Incorporated - Eudora Version 8.0.0b2 *RealNetworks, Inc. - RealPlayer (32-bit) Version 0.1.0.4083 *RealNetworks, Inc. - RealPlayer (32-bit) Version 11.0.0.183 *RealNetworks, Inc. - RealPlayer (32-bit) Version 7.0.0.3421 *Setup/Uninstall Version 0.0.0.0 *sshdstgs.exe *StatsReader Version 2, 1, 0, 0 *SyncServices Version 1, 0, 0, 1 *The Privoxy team - www.privoxy.org - Privoxy Version 3.0.6 *Tiburon Technology, Inc. - ePrompter Version 2, 0, 0, 2 *TightVNC Win32 Server Version 1, 3, 9, 0 *TightVNC Win32 Viewer Version 1, 3, 9, 0 *Tor *Vidalia Version 0.0.13 *VideoLAN Team - VLC media player Version 0.8.6.0 *VobSubStrip *WinampAgent *Wizards to adjust .NET Framework security, assign trust to assemblies, and fix broken .NET applications. Version 1.0.5000.0 *Zultys Technologies - MXIE User Version 3.2.10 * Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goretsky Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 Hello,You have an MX250 at home???Regards,Aryeh Goretsky Zultys Technologies - MXIE User Version 3.2.10 * Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LilBambi Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 All of that is subjective (I disagree that they do ANY type of networking well) ... sure compared to the disaster that went before, it does well enough, but don't count on "it just works" cuz it doesn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crp Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 Hello,You have an MX250 at home???Regards,Aryeh GoretskyThe MX250 is at work, occassionally i use a VPN to connect to it.All of that is subjective (I disagree that they do ANY type of networking well) ... sure compared to the disaster that went before, it does well enough, but don't count on "it just works" cuz it doesn't.You are wrong, it did 'just work'. I had to do no fancy steps for the VPN connection and when i connected to the wireless hub it saw everything else on the LAN and picked up the internet profiles perfectly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LilBambi Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 As Dudley Moore said in Arthur, "you can't depend on that light' ... in other words, working for you isn't working for everyone. Just because it work well for you, or even a bunch of people, isn't conclusive. And as I say, it does work many times, but there are still oddities and you can't count on it working forever just because it's working today.There are some weird things that go on with networking in Vista regardless of which you are using.And please do not tell others they are "wrong." Your experience doesn't mean the other person is wrong. Just that your experience is different.I have been working with many Vista boxes and in many cases it does just work. But it's far from conclusive or reliable 100% of the time for wired or wireless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goretsky Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 Hello,I have to say, I have not experienced any major issues (or minor ones, within recent memory) with networking under Microsoft Windows Vista. I have noted that some problems with networking under Windows Vista stem from having older device drivers for network interface cards (which is not Microsoft's fault, per se) or from incompatibilities with other operating systems, but those types of things are hardly to be unexpected when switching to a major new revision of an operating system.Regards,Aryeh Goretsky Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LilBambi Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 ... or from incompatibilities with other operating systems, but those types of things are hardly to be unexpected when switching to a major new revision of an operating system.Regards,Aryeh GoretskyThat is one of the major problems I am referring to.And I respectfully disagree that you have to expect that type of thing when you move to a major new revision of an operating system. Networking is networking and it should not be a major pain in the keister to network previous versions of the SAME company's operating systems with it. IMHO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goretsky Posted March 22, 2008 Share Posted March 22, 2008 Hello,Networking is not always the same, though:As an example, one of the things Microsoft changed with Microsoft Windows Vista was the authentication model for network shares in workgroups. This was done for for security purposes, i.e., to make connections more secure. Do you think Microsoft should have defaulted to an older, less-secure authentication method for interoperability with older versions of Windows? Or, should they have used more secure settings as the defaults (which was what they did)?Another example: A former employer of mine made VoIP telephony gear (things like PBXes, phones, PoE switches, software clients for Linux, Mac and Windows, and so forth). Each time the company updated the software for the PBX, it was only qualified for use with certain versions of the phone and desktop computer software, which, in turn, necessitated that the client upgrade those as well, even if they only needed a new feature or bug fix for the software on their PBX. In the case of something like phones, though, ensuring reliability is usually even more critical than on the computer side of networking.Regards,Aryeh Goretsky Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LilBambi Posted March 22, 2008 Share Posted March 22, 2008 I think they should keep it secure, except when it breaks things in networks. There should be a way to revert (with the understanding that it would be less secure in the process).It is not their place to ENFORCE upgrades which break compatibility in networking with existing computers on the network -- I am referring to operating systems here, not VoIP which runs on top of any OS.IMHO.EDIT: Corrected my statement, I had combined two opposite sides of that thought on the wrong side of the equation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crp Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 I got the SP1 update done, it went smoothly with no hiccups.As for the results of the update: the ONLY improvement that I have been able to find is that ShutDown is now much quicker.Unfortunately, the file copying speed did not improve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 I think they should keep it secure, except when it breaks things in networks. There should be a way to revert (with the understanding that it would be less secure in the process).It is not their place to ENFORCE upgrades just to be able to network with existing computers -- I am referring to operating systems here, not VoIP which runs on top of any OS.IMHO. There should be a way to revert (with the understanding that it would be less secure in the process).No company would do this especially Microsoft. But there is one way. MS does really not force users to upgrade. It is a choice, that the user makes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.