Vista SP1

[Ric]

Looks like we're going to get it Tuesday. I tried the RC a few weeks ago and all was good. It fixes the main issue of backwards compatibility for ppl still living in the PC stone ages.

What I don't understand is why people say Vista sucks. I've been running 64bit Ult for a while now, and it's more stable and quicker then any XP machine I've ever used.

 

[Kai]

I only just switched to Vista x64, after bing on XP x64 for two years now...the only reason why i've done it, is to be able to use DX10 - were it not for that functionality, i'd have stayed with x64....

Vista uses a shitload more memory - its eaten 400mb more then XP x64 used to, even just sat idle with no apps open.

I am using the release version of SP1 (from MSDN) and it works fine as far as i can tell, but still, i want my resources back - games are definitely slower, and benchmarks return much lower marks than previously. I may switch back again but i'm going to force myself to use it for one more month. If i haven't adjusted by then, i never will.

 

[csnow]

What I don't understand is why people say Vista sucks. I've been running 64bit Ult for a while now, and it's more stable and quicker then any XP machine I've ever used.

Apparently, you have little to no experience in Enterprise IT environments. Vista is horrible and won't be deployed in most Enterprise environments for a long time due to problems with commercial applications. Home use is fine but I am not a fan of Vista at all.

 

[Ric]

I'm head network administrator for a company thats been in business for 24 years. I doubt we will ever see Vista in the commerical end user enviroment for another 2-5 years. We've been testing it on and off with alot of different customer programs, and really the main issue is IE7 more then anything. On the other hand, server 2008 is pretty much a winner even when it was in beta. Funny how that worked out.

Vista does use alot of resources compared to XP. From what I've seen, if you're not using a Core2 and 2gb ram (really need 4 of DDR800), don't bother with Vista.

I run 4gb ddr800 on ult64 with no page file, and basically everything I click is instant. Boot time if it wasnt for password, would be around 10 seconds including post. My system is 5.9 everything except processor, which is 5.5 due in part I'm running an E4500 til the Q6600 comes down to $200.

 

[GrimJack]

Apparently, you have little to no experience in Enterprise IT environments. Vista is horrible and won't be deployed in most Enterprise environments for a long time due to problems with commercial applications. Home use is fine but I am not a fan of Vista at all.

This isn't entirely true, dude. Vista will be adopted by every company that deals with public customers as it is adopted by the public. Currently Vista has a 13% market share, so it's not really worth supporting in a big way - yet. Even so, all the companies I've worked with will start assigning support to anything that gets more than 5%, and it's well over that.

Any development company (well, any company that actually has real world customers) will need to start testing with Vista, and when bugs are found, get Vista boxes for their development teams too. When a version that supports Vista is shipped to the customers, now you need to provide technical support under Vista... it snowballs from there.

The IT support staff don't have any say in the matter.