| 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 |
 |
Top 10 Things You Should Know When Deploying Windows Vista | |
|
||
| Time: 00:00 EST/05:00 GMT | News Source: Softpedia | Posted By: Kenneth van Surksum | ||
|
With the business launch of Windows Vista on November 30, 2006, and the general release of the operating system on January 30, 2007, Microsoft introduced a variety of changes compared to Windows XP. The fact of the matter is that Vista brings to the table an evolved infrastructure over Windows XP. And this detail has a direct impact on the deployment process of the platform. End users are less affected by the architectural evolution of Vista, the corporate environment being impacted the most. The first thing that users should be aware of when migrating to Windows Vista is the size of the operating system's images. While XP images could be limited to a maximum of 700 MB, the same is not the case with Vista. Once installed, the latest Microsoft operating system will have a footprint of over 5 GB, but just a compressed image of Vista can be in excess of 2 GB. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 342 Last | Next |
The time now is
7:21:34 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 1401 (65.255.137.29) at 7/5/2007 9:18:06 AM |
| #1 - Don't do it! |
| #2 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 7/5/2007 10:05:48 AM |
| #1: Amen. |
| #3 By 32132 (142.32.208.232) at 7/5/2007 10:46:48 AM |
| #2 coffee girl, you haven't used Vista. |
| #4 By 32132 (142.32.208.232) at 7/5/2007 10:49:27 AM |
|
"Once installed, the latest Microsoft operating system will have a footprint of over 5 GB"
6% of an 80GB drive? Which has been minimum size for the lst 2 years. Of course now that 320GB drives are 79.99 , 5GB isn't that important. |
| #5 By 23275 (24.179.4.158) at 7/5/2007 11:26:24 AM |
|
and it had better run not just as well on six, or seven year old hardware, but better than XP does.... or we'll say it is worthless bloatware!
Fine - that is exactly what I'll do and I'll live in it [on that old hardware] and like it. #4, You touch on the one point so often made about Windows Vista [most often made by the self-appointed tech experts that couldn't program their VCR's in the 80's - much less install and configure Vista], which asserts myths like, "you're going to need an ultra fast computer or expensive upgrades just to run the new OS" Rubbish. Hauling back to our days of testing and onto the present day, I set out to test such assertions and force myself to live in a PC world that is now more than six (count em, "6") years old, and see for myself if there was a shred of truth to any of the assertions being made about Windows Vista requiring fancy new hardware. With but a single GB of RAM, and aging [and I mean old as dirt] AGP 4x Vid card and PATA drives [HDD and Optical], I set out to see what working and playing while using Vista would be like on old hardware. For good measure, I tossed in the oldest gen 1 Creative Audigy sound card I could find and a PCI based USB 2.0/1394 FW card as well as a RAID controller manufactured in 2000 and the most obscure Gbit networking card I could find. Software wise it was to be as ugly as I could make it - Serious Magic Ultra, Ovation, Office 2007 Pro, Camtasia Studio, CS2, CuCuSoft File Converter, Virtual PC, images for four other Windows Versions, and add-in hardware I knew was going to be a bugger... LifeCams, VOIP switchers, and older than ore printers. Ready, Go! Installing the 32 bit version of Ultimate took about 40 minutes - using a Server 2003 version of the RAID controller driver and a similar one for the network card. Using only drivers available on the 30th of January, 2007, I had all hardware and software installed and running in about four hours - full software installs for Serious Magic taking serious time to complete. About forty minutes after that, the new build completed its first index of the drive and I had completed my customizations.... little things, like adjusting the power options so that the workstation could see and use the batteries in the APC UPS unit I have between the test system and the wall outlet. The system has run flawlessly for more than six months now and it feels as smooth as any Vista PC I use. Yes, newer PC's open apps a bit faster, but by a few seconds only and yes, the video can me made to look better on systems using newer video cards and DVI vice Analog and Sub-D connection [well, duh?!?], but the reality is, and despit the system's relatively ancient hardware, it runs extremely well and far better than XP Pro ever did on the same gear. I use and push the machine each day and as always, I use many adjacent systems - keeping three systems close by and busy most of the day and well into the night. Despite direct and moment by moment comarisons, the old system is still great. I've tested, upgraded, and built many systems and I have to share that I just don't get what some people are saying about Vista. I love the WDS and BDD for wider deployments and I have not found a situation yet that did not allow me to bend the new OS as I needed to. |
| #6 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 7/5/2007 12:25:09 PM |
|
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,1000000121,39287855,00.htm
|
| #7 By 2960 (24.254.95.224) at 7/5/2007 12:33:37 PM |
|
If you use high-end hardware and expect full performance from it, then #1 is right unfortunately.
If you are an average user, with a new PC, why not. It's a nice OS. TL |
| #8 By 3746 (216.16.225.210) at 7/5/2007 1:20:34 PM |
|
#7
I am using high end hardware (just about as high end as you can get today) and get full performance with Vista. When I upgraded for testing purposes I still had XP to fall back on. I have to say I never did. Sure there are some quirks and problems (and still are) but that is to be expected with any new operating system. On the other hand I tried to load the latest version of Ubuntu on my system a couple of weeks ago and could not even get it to install. After 3 attempts I gave up. It sucks that people are having problems but they haven't affected me or made me want to go back to XP. I know quite a few people who have new systems and are completely happy with Vista. I have also upgraded or configured Vista on 20-30 systems (ranging from older units to new ones) and have not seen any major show stoppers. |
| #9 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 7/5/2007 1:25:48 PM |
| It's definitely strange. The world reports that it's having general problems with Vista, but MS Partners and other MS idealogues claim it's nothing but sunshine & roses for them. Hmm, who to believe? Masses of generic, objective users who report a wide range of problems, or those who stand to gain by promoting Microsoft? Hmm. |
| #10 By 23275 (24.179.4.158) at 7/5/2007 1:52:49 PM |
|
#9, You like that sport of assertion, don't you?
You are dead wrong. Why? Our work, reputations and businesses depend upon objectivity - if we had not tested Vista and all around it, do you think for a second that we'd risk our businesses on it? As I have said before, my business model is different and we don't depend upon MS for a red cent. I tell the truth and report what I see for myself, our teams and my customers. The truth, based upon what I see, is that Vista is a good OS and it runs better and with fewer problems than XP Pro did. I published images of the reliability monitor that records each and every bleep on a system - it reflects a perfect 10. I spelled out in an posting about it and processes we encountered that did produce errors and what we did to solve them. Why do you persist and insist we are liars, shills and less than objective? Where is your posting of a reliability monitor that reflects gross failures? Wouldn't that be more objective and fair? |
| #11 By 8556 (12.207.97.148) at 7/5/2007 2:19:06 PM |
| Latch; History repeats itself. XP sucked for a while. No one wanted it as drivers were lacking, etc. That was not MS's fault. Vista is ahead of where XP was seven months after release. But again, some pricey older hardware is not being supported by the hardware manufacturers. They would rather sell you new peripherals then code a driver for Vista for a 5+ year old machine. This is not MS's fault. I blame MS for as much as I can. Lack of driver support is the hardware company's fault. ATI, for example, has poor driver support for mobile Radeon products. This is AMD/ATI's fault, not Microsoft's. In fact, whenever an ATI mobile driver crashes Vista recovers gracefully with only a blip on the screen. Seems to me that Vista is damn good at what it does. |
| #12 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 7/5/2007 2:22:46 PM |
|
#10: The truth, based upon what I see, is that Vista is a good OS and it runs better and with fewer problems than XP Pro did.
Generally, "The truth, based on what I see..." is regarded as opinion or "what I believe" by the rest of us. Everyone has their own truths. Calling your opinion "The Truth" does not lend it any more weight. Or is it just a press conspiracy and, in reality, nobody is having any problems with Vista? Why do you persist and insist we are liars, shills and less than objective? Where is your posting of a reliability monitor that reflects gross failures? Wouldn't that be more objective and fair? That's outright hilarious. I'm the first to admit that I'm not objective. I've crapped on MS when they've done bad, but I have given them some small praise when they do good. But for an MS Partner, who has never said anything critical of Microsoft ever, but continually craps on open source, to call himself objective is just the living end. You continue to toot the MS horn, despite all the bad press for Vista, despite all of MS' bad deeds and complete lack of business ethics, illegal monopolistic practices, standards subverting, etc etc etc and then have the gall to call yourself objective? Incredible and shameless. |
| #13 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 7/5/2007 2:29:09 PM |
| #11: I'm with you on the driver angle, for those drivers that aren't shipped with Vista. MS is responsible for drivers shipped with Vista. Hardware vendors that lack decent drivers, after Vista being cooked up for 5+ years, deserve their own special place in IT Hell. But I'm not just talking the driver issue. I'm talking all the little niggling things like slow file copies, dropping off the network, computer browser issues between Vista and non-Vista Windows, etc etc. Yes, I remember the outcry over XP when it first came out, but I don't remember it being as loud as with Vista. MS really should have held off for another 6 months for fit & finish. |
| #14 By 23275 (24.179.4.158) at 7/5/2007 2:30:45 PM |
|
#12, I've never, ever been critical of Microsoft? Are you kidding - have you read all my posts here?
And I run *nix for customers in my centers. How could one be any more objective? This post was edited by lketchum on Thursday, July 05, 2007 at 14:31. |
| #15 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 7/5/2007 2:39:06 PM |
|
#14: Yes, I do read your posts here on which I based my opinion of you since I have nothing else to go on. I believe the closest you've actually come was in the "Vista Leaks All Your Data To Redmond" story, where you came out vocally against privacy issues, but you cleverly managed to not knock MS in the process -- even though the article was about MS violating privacy with Vista.
Edit: And as for running UNIX, do you do it because you believe UNIX is superior for certain roles, or do you do it because your customers ask for it but you really try to steer them onto Windows? Is it that kind of objectivity? This post was edited by Latch on Thursday, July 05, 2007 at 14:40. |
| #16 By 23275 (24.179.4.158) at 7/5/2007 2:52:19 PM |
|
#15, You have not read much at all, then. I went about ape when Vista BETA 2 shipped and predicted that it would not do well at all. That is but one example of when I opined that MS needed to do better.
As to *nix - and I have said it here very often - we run/support what works best for our customers - where customers have dev teams that have a *nix/java/oracle centric approach, we've run Linux for them. We don't tell them what they should run - any more than we tell them what their devs should use to develop in. Many customers ask us what we use, or what they should consider and we tell them what and why. That is Microsoft software, but we always ask, what do your devs use and what do they prefer - knowing how important that is. |
| #17 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 7/5/2007 3:06:40 PM |
| #16: You dumped on Vista Beta 2?? Wow, you're a tough critic at 2 knocks per year. It's good to see that you run UNIX when your customers ask for it, but then you really can't consider that as evidence of your objectivity on the matter. You do what your customers pay you to do. That is inherently subjective. You don't run UNIX yourself; you run it for others. Given the choice, you wouldn't run UNIX at all. Where's the objectivity again? Not that there's anything wrong in having an opinion one way or the other, but don't say you're objective. That's like MS saying they're innovative, and all for choice & interoperability. |
| #18 By 32132 (142.32.208.232) at 7/5/2007 3:33:24 PM |
|
Vista works ways better than XP for me. Latch, of course, has never used it.
I admit, I splurged on a 750$ PC to run it. (Which is now about 90$ cheaper for the same machine except with a bigger drive and better video card). 660$. Ouch! (Just kidding). |
| #19 By 23275 (24.179.4.158) at 7/5/2007 3:55:34 PM |
|
#17, Now you're just being wrong on purpose.
Any case... much of what I don't like about MS SW doesn't have a forum here - for example, the new HTML based OAB, or off-line address book in E2K7. It has some hard-coded URL's that can be adjusted and one of them can be turned off - so it burns the user experience somewhat and it's just goofey. Like, domainname.com/autodiscover/autodiscover vice autodiscover.domainname.com/autodiscover ***a wild card SSL CERT would likely solve this The first one will fail and the second will succeed, BUT.... one can't remove it, because, as I said, it's hard coded. MS did this [I assume] to push out updates to the OAB/GAL faster. Any case, like I said, there is too much that one does that has a level of detail that this isn't the forum for that. |
| #20 By 1896 (68.153.171.248) at 7/6/2007 11:32:15 AM |
|
#18: as you correctly stated the magic sentence is "for me".
Vista is a mixed bag: some people have an excellent experience, some have a horrible one. Why? Honestly I do not have an answer to this question but it is the reality. Surely it is not just and only how powerful your hardware is. I use Vista 32 on a Dell XPS 700 with 2GB of memory, two NVidia GTX 8800 (not SLI) because I use three monitors and performances are not brilliant; the system is way less responsive than XP. Said that I am not switching back to XP because I can live with Vista as it is until a new OS will be available and I think, and hope, that it will not take too long to see Vienna or whatever it will be called: my bet is that it will be in beta stage in 2009 or even sooner. |
| #21 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 7/6/2007 12:53:56 PM |
|
#20: Heresy!! How dare you blaspheme the sacred Vista!! Now be off, and swear undying allegiance to Bill Gates before you return!
|
| #22 By 32132 (66.183.203.110) at 7/7/2007 12:24:16 PM |
|
#20 I suspect your problem is the Nvidia drivers.
I have a cheap X1300 ATI card. And I only have 1GB of ram. Vista is way quicker than when I ran XP on it. |
| #23 By 1896 (68.153.171.248) at 7/7/2007 1:12:23 PM |
|
#22 It could be although my prime suspect is "Aero" ; do you use it on your system?
Besides this story of the drivers is becoming a huge scandal: CreativeLabs is charging people for drivers!?!?! Nvidia does not have "real, complete" drivers and in spite of this they put "Vista ready" on the cards. HP is the worst of all: we bought a HP2840 (Laser printer, fax, copier and scan) labeled "Vista ready" and as far as last week the only available drivers (32bit) did not work with the scanner and the fax; 64 bit drivers are not planned at all!! This is what I call a fraud, might be a "legal one but still a fraud. |
| #24 By 32132 (66.183.203.110) at 7/7/2007 4:20:39 PM |
|
#23 No problems with Aero.
When I bought my PC it came with XP Home. I ran it for weeks then put Vista RC2 on it. Ran great. Then when Vista RTM'd, I put the XP harddrive back in, ran XP for a while. Seemed slow and less polished. Then I installed Vista Ultimate. Back to better performance. |
| #25 By 32132 (66.183.203.110) at 7/7/2007 4:21:48 PM |
|
#23 Try turning off the Nvidia Desktop Manager ... I ran that on my work PC with a 6600GT on Windows 2003 and it sucked.
|
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 342 Last | Next |
The time now is
7:21:34 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
