Whoo Hooo!!! Vista Rocks!!!!

I sugest you defrag your drive immediately after Installing Vista,as Vista takes quite a substantial space to install at first, defragging will reduce the disk space used

That's understandable. Anything (Programs) coming from Microsoft are "FAT!" by any stretch. Never understood why they chose to "INFLATE" their core entries and additionals by such a huge number but that has been the trend since 98.

How are Vista graphics? That was my main beef all along and also why so many freelance and commercial customization developers went out of their way to accommadate what users expected of an otherwise drab, boring interface.

Thanks.

[DVD+R]

Well I Have ATI Radeon G-Cube X800XT 256MB PCI-Express VID Card on my machine,and the New Vista Drivers are Quite Amazing with Enhanced 3D Interlasing

[Franklin]

The fella in the clip below had a bit of strife installing Vista on one machine but finally managed to install it in another machine after a bit of trouble.

http://www.dumpalink.com/videos/Inst...ista-87b3.html

[Airking]

Originally Posted by Franklin

The fella in the clip below had a bit of strife installing Vista on one machine but finally managed to install it in another machine after a bit of trouble.

http://www.dumpalink.com/videos/Inst...ista-87b3.html

Funny as

[TOMxEU]

Damn, why I have not think about it, it would spare me a lot of troubles with Vista.

[strangequark]

Originally Posted by Franklin

The fella in the clip below had a bit of strife installing Vista on one machine but finally managed to install it in another machine after a bit of trouble.

no wonder it's not installing properly, isn't that a Mac he's trying to install it into

[Cochise]

Being a bit on the slow side, and having not read all the Posts in this Thread, may I please just ask.......Is VISTA security (of any description) the sole domain of M$??.....

I seem to recall, when Vista was only a Spectre looming on the horizon, that no third party Security software would be allowed to be downloaded!!??...and, once VISTA was D/Ld and fully installed they could control anything you actually wished to install.....Jus' wonderin'.....


Cochise...Taking in the Vista in Vienna...

[Ice_Czar]

Originally Posted by Cochise

Is VISTA security (of any description) the sole domain of M$??.....

http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=164426

[eyes-open]

Originally Posted by Someone

I understand what you're saying, it's an OS that enables better software achievements in the future. I've seen a video of Cranky Geeks (lol), where the guy from yahoo says it was much simpler to design for Vista. Comparing to XP note.
But this is subjective. Is it better than in Linux, ie the alternative? How do you infer this?

I've been looking at this for a bit. I'm not a Microsoft, Linux, Mac fanboy etc, to me - they're just systems with different entry points. As to the designing aspect - I guess the starting point should ideally be what is the challenge & what's appropriate from the list of options - so by rights, task for task, better is going to differ according to need.

Beyond that, with loads & loads of reading done, I've tried to answer which is best a couple of times, but it's always spiralled out ...... it kinda does when you get caught up in the Microsoft versus Adobe battle - which I think is more apt than the Microsoft versus Linux battle. Linux/open standards is in this respect I think, a battleground, not warrior.

In short then - after looking at everything in terms of the potential end product, not the politics etc - as much as Adobe offers - I'm still left with Flex 2 is impressive ..... but still constrained. To go beyond cool or impressive, to reach further and try to break into the realms of something more 'sexy' at the point of delivery, then even allowing for the 3D improvements that came I think, with Flash 9 ........ at the moment, I haven't seen anything that would illustrate that the whole wpf/.xbap combo has a true equal. There's still a level at which Flex fails to compete - ya know, a kinda tactile thing that isn't quite working yet.

To bring it back to the thread title, then traditionally - you've gotta be sexy if you're gonna rock.

[Ice_Czar]

I note you didn't mention Ajax in comparison to Flex and XAML
http://au.sys-con.com/read/326860.htm

thoughts?

I like anything I can block, when clicking on unknown links :p
read javascripts, with fall back basic HTML behind them so I can make a decision
and of course Im relative familiar with a few sites that heavily employ ajax like meebo

[redpower]

Since when was Vista Ultimate $750? My nearest computer store sells the OEM for just $250, and it's the full version. Home Premium sells for $150. Vista isn't necessary, but I'm starting to love the new features. It looks nice overall. All of my hardware works with it and it runs incredibly fast. No software issues to say about yet. If you're getting a new computer don't stay in the past and get XP. Get Vista.

[crash79`]

Depending on where you live.
I think it is $750 in Australia.
Here in the UK the top flight is nearly £300.

[aigle]

As I read, performance wise, Vista is slower than XP. Am I right?
So same no of security appliances on Vista will make it more slower than XP!

[Pedro]

I think there's a point where Vista is faster. Like above x MB ram, y Ghz and so on.
I won't stay in the past, i'll go for GNU.

[Genady Prishnikov]

I really trust Tom of Tom's Hardware. His conclusion on performance of Vista VS Windows XP can be found here:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/..._windows_vista

One part that was important to me is this:

We are disappointed that CPU-intensive applications such as video transcoding with XviD (DVD to XviD MPEG4) or the MainConcept H.264 Encoder performed 18% to nearly 24% slower in our standard benchmark scenarios. Both benchmarks finished much quicker under Windows XP. There aren't newer versions available, and we don't see immediate solutions to this issue.

[gkweb]

Hello,

All the benchmarks you find on the net are comparing Windows XP with mature drivers, against Vista with early unfinished/beta drivers (motherboard, graphic card). It will take time before Vista's drivers get stable, optimised and mature, I guess. I'm not sure the conclusion is that Vista is slow, actually it has many features to speed things up, and is really smooth. I would rather say that the current drivers (even the supposed "final" and stable ones) are unoptimised.

Just my opinion.

Regards,
gkweb.

[eyes-open]

Originally Posted by Ice_Czar

I note you didn't mention Ajax in comparison to Flex and XAML
http://au.sys-con.com/read/326860.htm
thoughts?

Hi Ice

The reason I didn't mention Ajax or the many other associated developments is just that I see them as being components of RIA's not the end-user product.

Thanks for the link - I looked at it and beyond concluding that it probably doesn't actually mean anything in isolation - I'm sadly lacking in inspiration. To flesh that out a little - if for example ASP.NET had scored identically or even higher - would that really have impacted negatively on the overall discussion about cross-platform and non-OS bounded applications and their development ?

Again, to keep it within the bounds of the thread - I think you have to be able to engage on this level in order to have any effect on Microsoft & it's positioning of Vista.

(eyes-open's big book of buzz words will be available at all good stores later on in the year (j/k) )

[Ice_Czar]

now you went and made me have to look up RIA's

most of my exposure has of course been from the end user perspective of what the various technologies have been able to offer (I became aware of Ajax doing news coverage for instance of Ajax driven sites).

But Ive started to investigate what lies beneath the surface of XAML and Flex. And I guess get inside the head of those that will ultimately decide on which direction adoption (or further inovation) will go, so I take your point to mean that little security study in isolation isnt that important. thanx

back to the general thread of the topic gkweb's point is valid
all new OS's released by Microsoft have never offered a "performance" boost
its actually a trend of more features (which you may or may not want) employing more resources. This time they sold certain technologies as performance enhancers which they are provided you have a certain usage pattern and the hardware to take advantage of them, but the "performance" spin was broadly targeted and they are suffereing a backlash. While aps and drivers will eventually leverage the potential in the OS, we have still increased the resources baseline (like all other OS releases) but the question really becomes to what added utility value? (and at what cost)

and that is a personal (or professional) judgment

[lucas1985]

Originally Posted by Genady Prishnikov

I really trust Tom of Tom's Hardware.

I don´t trust Tom´s Hardware anymore. I remember when he tried to hide the Pentium 4´s weaknesses talking about its "reliability".
As gkweb said, it is not a surprise that Vista is slower than XP. Early drivers against code tested for years and applications not fully developed with the new developing mode.
Vista will need at least 2 years to surpass XP in performance in all tasks.
The only performance feature at the moment is SuperFetch. It creates a "smoothness" by reducing the access to disk if you have more than 1 GB of RAM.

[Notok]

Vista does seem to run smoother for me, and "smoother" seems to be more of what they're going for these days than absolute speed. Some of that can even be seen in XP. Don't forget that Vista uses the fade effects when opening and closing windows, rather than just popping up. This can make it seem slower if you're expecting it to appear on the screen fully renedered all at once. As Eyes Open probably knows, the faster the computer the more smoothly that will happen, and Vista with those effects are a lot more smooth and fast than XP with WindowFX. Native Vista applications will likely go faster in the future, as well, since the developers won't have to work nearly as hard at making nice GUIs. The 64 bit version will also likely go a lot faster once more 64 bit apps are made and Vista doesn't have to run everything in an emulator.

I do agree with gkweb, though.. it's likely that we'll see better performance as new drivers are made. There's no way that the brand new Vista will be able to perform as well as it will once it's had a chance to mature.

[Genady Prishnikov]

Originally Posted by Notok

I do agree with gkweb, though.. it's likely that we'll see better performance as new drivers are made. There's no way that the brand new Vista will be able to perform as well as it will once it's had a chance to mature.

I do agree with you guys about drivers, etc. But it really, for me, says wait. I'm really interested in its performance now - not some distant point down the road. Some want it now and that's fine too.

[Longboard]

These guys do are not happy with MS:

http://radsoft.net/news/roundups/29/

[Rilla927]

Nvidia may sue Microsoft over lack of drivers for Vista.

http://www.infopackets.com/channels/...ity_issues.htm

[ErikAlbert]

I don't want winVISTA, I want something else.

I want a STABLE, SAFE and SECURED Windows without gadgetry and WITHOUT all these mediocre MS Applications.
What I don't want is everywhere and what I need is nowhere. Pffft. M$ frustrates me.

[nick s]

Originally Posted by Longboard

These guys do are not happy with MS:

http://radsoft.net/news/roundups/29/

"Reason #27: There are far better uses for $400"...sure, you can spend $179 for Radsoft's Extreme Power Tools for Windows: https://secure.reg.net/QuickBuy.asp?ProductID=6075 .

Nick