Windows Vista Discussion Thread

[HappyWheels]

as said by HotChillyPepper, Vista was built from the ground up. it needs time to grow.

for those who say that Vista is difficult to handle / configure - i say you are not right. Vista does most of the default configuration for any machine it is installed on. In case of network, it scans (wired or wireless) and gives you the list.

it hides most of the complexity to the every day user. its just the new interface that needs getting used to. :-)

[abhibh]

Originally Posted by s0uljah

Thanks abhib & hotchillypepper!! for your responses

Now more questions. Im obviously getting a 'copy' loaded on the machine. So what version/release do I ask for, cos if its some half assed old unstable release of vista then I dont want it.

Well regarding releases there are

Windows Starter 2007 which is basic vista for beginner PC users with a very low end PC and no effects etc. runs on 256 MB ram.

Home Basic which has basic vista features which can be found in simple XP SP2

Home Premium. I would recommend this to you. It has all the stuff of Vista Home Basic as well as Media Center and Media Center Extender functionality and HD Media support, Windows Aero effects etc.

Business. For business users with some business apps fax support etc encryption. You can say its an alternative to Vista Home Basic but for office / business users.

Windows Vista Ultimate. As the name suggest it has everything . More stuff eat most of yer ram and resources.

There is one Vista Enterprise edition dunno what that is but what i read on net is that its upgrade for Vista Business users.

Confusing aint it . If still confused please visit http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase...a_editions.asp. It has features comparison chart there.
OR
Windows Vista: Choose an Edition

[vikram_d]

Originally Posted by s0uljah

Thanks abhib & hotchillypepper!! for your responses

Now more questions. Im obviously getting a 'copy' loaded on the machine. So what version/release do I ask for, cos if its some half assed old unstable release of vista then I dont want it.

Go for Vista Ultimate and you will be happy. It has eveything built in.

[chvvkumar]

Originally Posted by greenhorn

It might come as a rude shock to you, but there is *no* hardware acceleration for audio in vista . the whole thing has been moved to a software stack. Obvious possiblities of DRM aside, there is no EAX support. I had to end up choosing between good visuals (DX10) and good sound (EAX)

PS : i dont see how network management is easy either . The useful dialog boxes are hidden under layers of menus

Hasn't creative release a Vista driver some time ago? Also, i didn't say anything about sound acceleration. I was merely stating that i didn't expect the OS to have the drivers for a cheap chinese USB sound dongle.

[adya33]

Business. For business users with some business apps fax support etc encryption. You can say its an alternative to Vista Home Basic but for office / business users.

Vista Business alternative to Vista basic ? You gotta be kidding.

Business edition has domain support, fax service, encryption, previous version restore just to name few.

[Thad E Ginathom]

I don't really know about this from the ground up business.

That's just not Microsoft's way of doing things! Adding some new 'features' hacked and hooked into a tangle of code --- that's MS, and haven't they more or less admitted it? Didn't someone some MS bod recently say that even they have trouble understanding their own code?

98 (I think) was suppose to be all-new, because it didn't load dos and run on top of it --- but loading dos was part of the bootup process, you saw the C:\ > prompt.

NT was supposed to be a different branch of development, and then 2K was supposed to be based on that, leaving the horrible 95 and 98 rubbish (98SE wasn't horrible rubbish, just rubbish; it was an improvement) behind.

Now, having reached stability in 2K and XP, I'm hearing that Vista is new 'from the ground up'!

Frankly, if that is true, we have already seen that it takes MS years to achieve a stability and reliabilty, so I'd be even more put off it. I'll take a look around 2015!

By which time I'll have probably settled into using one of the Unix/Linux family OSs. Unix was stable nearly twenty years ago. Unix was designed to be stable and to provide easily used and compatible tools. It was designed to be understood by its users.

Oh dear, I'm ranting off topic.

It's only laziness and a couple of PC apps that keeps me with XP. No more upgrades on the MS path, though.

[HappyWheels]

Thas, Win98SE is still one of the best OS. unfortunately, it has been phased out adn newer programs are no longer compatible with it.

No doubt that Linux and it distros are more stable than any offering from MS - one reason why most of the critical systems are based on Linux. But ease of use is what MS gives.

But, as of now, there are various Linux distros that offer an interface similar to that of MS. Maybe over a time people will move to Linux.

But as of now, MS rules!

PS: I am not a MS lover - its a love-hate relation!

[abhibh]

Originally Posted by adya33

Vista Business alternative to Vista basic ? You gotta be kidding.

Business edition has domain support, fax service, encryption, previous version restore just to name few.

Hey! i mentioned there that is has more services and stuff like encryption but its bare basic as Vista Home Basic that is why they launched enterprise edition.

@merve that will not be gone with if u don't install KB931573

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

98 (I think) was suppose to be all-new, because it didn't load dos and run on top of it --- but loading dos was part of the bootup process, you saw the C:\ > prompt.

No, Win95 was the first one that didn't piggyback on DOS. It was also the first Windows to have networking.

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

Now, having reached stability in 2K and XP, I'm hearing that Vista is new 'from the ground up'!

Being from the products background, I have to tell you it is a good thing. An older design can only be stretched so long. After that one has to design a whole new framework based on the lessons learnt from the prior designs and future requirements.

Originally Posted by HappyWheels

No doubt that Linux and it distros are more stable than any offering from MS - one reason why most of the critical systems are based on Linux.

Actually, most critical systems won't be based on Linux at all. There are OSes that can blow Linux away when it comes stability, like Stratus VOS, Tandem (now NonStop), etc. Among the Unix flavours, HP-UX that runs on HP9000 and Itantic servers is considered the most reliable. This was according to an independent survey couple of years back, I can't find the link though.

But with all the hoopla of Windows vs Linux, people forget other less worshipped but more capable OSes.

[greenhorn]

Originally Posted by Samurai

But with all the hoopla of Windows vs Linux, people forget other less worshipped but more capable OSes.

well, the context being desktop OS'es , linux , mac , and XP come up top. heck, even 2k3 is nice. My biggest issue is the audio stack, which most people don't care about. But the way its done is horrible . I do agree that the reasons they did this ( ie buggy audio drivers screwing up the rest of windows) is fine , but they could have done it some other way....

[HappyWheels]

ok, i got the previous post mixed between unix and linux.

tandem is a lesser know system - had a short exposure to it when doing a study for Dell - Dell runs it world wide online ordering and delivery on this system!

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by greenhorn

well, the context being desktop OS'es , linux , mac , and XP come up top. heck, even 2k3 is nice.

Well, he said critical systems, and that can't be a desktop.

Originally Posted by greenhorn

My biggest issue is the audio stack, which most people don't care about. But the way its done is horrible .

That I agree, my vonage softphone hardly works right ever since I moved to Vista Ultimate at home. It can't figure out which audio device to use, there are 4 according to Vista. I have to screw up the whole audio setting every time to softphone.

[Thad E Ginathom]

Samurai, Windows For Workgroups had networking --- wasn't that 3.11? I forget.

But if you mean real networking, as in MS realised that whatever it did wasn't going to kick TCP/IP anywhere, then you could well be right.

But stretching the product? Their imperative is changing it so we buy the new version, that's all. It's not demand led. It's not as if we're queueing up at MS's door begging for a new OS because what we have already doesn't do what we want.

Doesn't it do what we want just fine?

And yes, the IBM RS-6000s I used to run almost never required a reboot: they would run for years.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

Samurai, Windows For Workgroups had networking --- wasn't that 3.11? I forget.

That's true, I didn't mention it because we are talking about consumer version. Even the first version of NT (3.1) came before Win95 I think. But I am not sure how many used WfW, I never saw it used, it couldn't break the monopoly of Netware, Banyan Wines or PC-NFS which were everywhere in corporate world.

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

But stretching the product? Their imperative is changing it so we buy the new version, that's all. It's not demand led. It's not as if we're queueing up at MS's door begging for a new OS because what we have already doesn't do what we want.

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

Doesn't it do what we want just fine?

Hmm, if we think like that, automobiles would have never progressed beyond Ford Model T. And only computers would be mainframes. No, companies have to constantly innovate or they will perish. Sure, often new ideas fail causing great inconvinience to users. But sometimes they change the world.

And yes, the IBM RS-6000s I used to run almost never required a reboot: they would run for years.

And how much did it cost?

[chvvkumar]

Originally Posted by Samurai

Well, he said critical systems, and that can't be a desktop.

Who says that? My desktop is more important to me than a life support system is to a patient

As such, i need my desktop to have an uptime of >99.99999% whichm barring a few reboots (due to bad drivers) vista has kept up in the past 1 year.

But in my openion, standardization is good in the long term even if it hurts in the short term to maintain the best possible compatibility and performance. Many would agree that OpenGL is better than D3D but MS' decision to standardize D3D on the windows OS is what caused the smooth gaming experiance that we enjoy now on different graphics hardware from defferent vendors. Remember the days of add-on cards requirinf manual IRQ tweaking and driver configuration?