| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Server 2008: The Windows Workstation we always wanted | |
|
||
| Time: 16:40 EST/21:40 GMT | News Source: ZDNet | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
"Over the last few weeks, I’ve had the opportunity to play with release candidate and the RTM versions of Windows 2008 Server, albeit primarily with the role of evaluating its Hyper-V virtualization capabilities. Over the course of that evaluation, I’ve become increasingly impressed with the polish, performance and manageability of the Server 2008 product, and now have come to the conclusion that this in fact, the best Windows that Microsoft has released since, well, ever." | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 425 Last | Next |
The time now is
11:50:16 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 28801 (71.58.231.46) at 2/26/2008 6:45:56 PM |
| The only performance problem I have noticed with Vista is start up and shutdown speeds. everything else seems to be very zippy. And what beefed up requirements? Yea, Vista requires more memory and a better video card. Big deal! I just bought 4 gig of laptop memory for $100. |
| #2 By 3746 (72.12.161.38) at 2/26/2008 8:43:50 PM |
| yeah people complain about this start up and shutdown thing but on my main system the speeds are close to XP. With my laptop I hardly ever shut down anymore anyways. I use the sleep function. I would be using it in my main system but I can't get it to work right for some reason but haven't spent time investigating. It will enter sleep but not come out of it. The system starts back up but just sits at black screen until you force reboot. |
| #3 By 8556 (12.210.39.82) at 2/26/2008 10:00:31 PM |
| I think a very big reason that Vista has a bad rep for speed are the cheap PCs with 512-MB or 1-GB of RAM at Best Buy and its clones. People going to Best Buy to try out an afforable PC don't know that for $60 they can add 2-GB of RAM. The sales reps don't explain that the $1200 notebook is much faster than the $499 notebook not because its processor is 25% faster but because it has 4 times the RAM. The reps I spoke with also had no idea that SD cards can be used for ReadyBoost and kept insisting that USB sticks were the only things that worked. Microsoft should kick Best Buy's management in the ass for such terrible presentation of PCs with Vista. |
| #4 By 82766 (202.154.80.82) at 2/26/2008 10:25:08 PM |
| Kaikara - are you running SP1 now? as there are a lot of fixes in SP1 for that very problem (not coming out of sleep). Of course, it depends upon the hardware you have. |
| #5 By 7754 (75.72.153.112) at 2/26/2008 11:35:13 PM |
|
I have to copy part of what I wrote there... this just seems ridiculous to me.
It's funny how the same mouths are cursing Vista and singing the praises of W2k8. Blood must be dripping from all the head-scratching at Microsoft as they observe this reaction. |
| #6 By 3746 (72.12.161.38) at 2/27/2008 6:52:24 AM |
|
#4
I have SP1 and sleep function was one of the first things I tried after i loaded it. Like I said on my laptop it works great. On my desktop it just doesn't. My main machine is a custom built one though so it could just be a funny combination of hardware. One day I am going to spend the time to try and figure out the problem. #3 And on top of the problems you describe there is the amount of junk that comes pre-loaded on those machines. And you are right about the RAM thing. I don't get why anyone is complaining about the amount of RAM. It is so cheap so just give it all it wants. No Vista system should be run with less then 2GB of RAM This post was edited by kaikara on Wednesday, February 27, 2008 at 06:57. |
| #7 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at 2/27/2008 7:13:52 AM |
| I'm toying with the idea of my next system being 64 bit. I really like the idea of breaking that 3 gig ram limit, but I need to find decent 64 bit applications. |
| #8 By 60455 (68.186.182.236) at 2/27/2008 9:53:46 AM |
|
@5, lol... I agree.
@7, If I may... I would consider not just applications, but what you are doing now and what, if any immediate benefits you'll see by going to 64 bit (where memory at 4 GB is the least good reason to switch). That said, security is perhaps the best reason to switch to 64 bit. The simple facts are that very few exploits are written that can address a system running x64. Obscurity and all that comes with it. Similarly, address space as you know, is randomized in x64 on Windows Vista. So if security above that found in 32 bit versions of Vista is the driver, then by all means, make the move if you have 4 GB of RAM. As to RAM and it being the primary driver behind a move, 4 GB of memory at 64 bit doesn't offer a whole lot more than 3 GB at 32 bit. Larger block sizes are used to store the same amount of information, so the trade up/off isn't all that great. I would consider using at least 8 GB of RAM and set that as an initial goal for RAM whem moving to 64 bit. 8 GB of RAM brings up another point about such a move and that centers on one's hardware in general. I'd not move unless I was also moving to an X38 based main board, or something similar and similarly, I'd get a multi-CPU MB so two quad core CPU's could be added vice one. The reason being is how memory is addressed in banks and if one is going to make such a move and invest on average, 2500 USD in parts, it makes sense to build around the architecture and do it in a way that allows you to move up easily and without re-hashing the HAL as one used to have to do. There is a sweet spot with newer XEON quads and with RAM being so cheap, one can make such a move for under 3K (USD). So unless security is the main reason, please consider providing the build with hardware designed for the architecture to begin with. You won't regret it. Finally, SP1 for Visat 32 bit does address the cosmetic anomally where the amount of memory installed is not reflected properly (vice the amount available to Windows). In SP1 in most cases (BIOS dependent) Vista will report 4 GB of RAM in most places in the OS. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 425 Last | Next |
The time now is
11:50:17 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
