Tekforums

http://www.blip.tv/file/340692/

That link is dead for me.

Works for me, interesting parody that seems to include far too much truth.

 
Whos using Vista and is not having any problems?  Many report an excellent experience with it.

Quote from: EagleWhos using Vista and is not having any problems?  Many report an excellent experience with it.

ON a brand new high end puter with 2 Gb RAM it should be fine but to put in
on a one year old XP puter could give problems I think.

Quote from: Eagle 
Whos using Vista and is not having any problems?  Many report an excellent experience with it.

im using home premium on the new lappy, and ive got business running on the desktop.  At the moment im forcing myself to put up with it, but ive got a few niggles.  The lappy isnt given much in the way of demanding tasks, and it copes fine.  However the desktop i game on, and im constantly cursing it for crashing out on me.  GA : San Andreas is crashing out of boredom (It has never crashed for me in XP or XP64).  The damn thing complained loudly when I upgraded to the 7.11 Catalyst drivers, and then bombed on me until i rolled back to the 7.10s.  My "HD Audio" isnt working properly, despite the fact it works perfectly in XP and XP64.  The network copying problem isnt a myth either.  Its slower than a salted slug, and ive taken to copying from the server to the desktop, or using the XP Laptop as thats quicker.  

Overall it works, just not the standard it _should_ work at.

Our support office is using Vista, and aside from niggles getting used to interface redesign, Ive not seen a single problem with it.

Seems fast enough too.

Im on a 1 year old XP machine, 2gb ram and no problems

Beta Service pack 1 for vista is slowing machines by as much as 15%
Beta Service pack 3 for xp is speeding them up by as much as 30%

Quote from: neXusBeta Service pack 1 for vista is slowing machines by as much as 15%
Beta Service pack 3 for xp is speeding them up by as much as 30%

Did you just pull those figures out of your arse?

Quote from: Rob

Quote from: neXusBeta Service pack 1 for vista is slowing machines by as much as 15%
Beta Service pack 3 for xp is speeding them up by as much as 30%

Did you just pull those figures out of your arse?

No
Google you get slightly different figures depending who testing but I did make sure I said "up to"
http://www.downloadsquad.com/2007/11/26/windows-xp-sp3-is-fast-vista-sp1-not-so-much/
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Windows-XP-SP3-Twice-as-Fast-as-Windows-Vista-Leaves-Vista-SP1-in-the-Dust-72059.shtml

Lots of results on google about it

Quote from: Rob

Quote from: neXusBeta Service pack 1 for vista is slowing machines by as much as 15%
Beta Service pack 3 for xp is speeding them up by as much as 30%

Did you just pull those figures out of your arse?

Rob ... I must have missed your 56 other posts.  Hello noob to Tek!  Have seen a few noobs signing up.  How did you hear about Tek?  :D

I for one am doing as I did with w98 I upgrade when I have to i.e. when I cannot run stuff on XP that I want to run.

Last night i decided enough was enough.  Im flattening the hard disk and installing only XP on my desktop.  Ive just had enough of the damned thing.  If you are doing general day-to-day tasks then its perfectly fine, but the moment you start gaming Vista goes to sh*t.  Ill leave Vista on the lappy though, itll be fine there.  I just want my games not to die for no reason!

Still think if MS want games for windows to kick off properly keep xp updates going till next os comes out and admit vista as a flop in this regard and port dx10 to xp and they would get loads more sales from games in the next year or so as more games use dx10

Quote from: EagleWhos using Vista and is not having any problems?  Many report an excellent experience with it.

Vista Buisness at work on a Pentium D and 512MB.

The occsaional niggles with shared printers and things, but other than that flawless.

Quote from: EagleWhos using Vista and is not having any problems?  Many report an excellent experience with it.

Ive been using Vista Ultimate for the last 4-5 months with no problems.

^ Gaming too?

I ask because Ive gone for Ultimate 64bit.  The opinion here is virtually the polar opposite of OcUKs...  :?:  :?

Its bloody hard work, copy ands paste from one disk to another gets blocked, you have to set permission, networking is difficult, you fart and Vistas allow window comes up, Vista is for IT experts, people like me really struggle, MS changed Vista to much.

I used to save my emails and every client was OK with it, Vista is different how stupid, I need my old emails, thats why XP will be my Number 1 client.
Even the shutting down on Vista is to small for me now, but thats my fault.

Quote from: mrt

Quote from: Rob

Quote from: neXusBeta Service pack 1 for vista is slowing machines by as much as 15%
Beta Service pack 3 for xp is speeding them up by as much as 30%

Did you just pull those figures out of your arse?

Rob ... I must have missed your 56 other posts.  Hello noob to Tek!  Have seen a few noobs signing up.  How did you hear about Tek?  :D

Well Ive been here a while actually - back when it was Big Forums and before that when it was the original Tekforums. Used to post as robinuk then RDoh and I was a bit more talkative in those days.

Why get Vista when Windows 7 is out the second half of 2009 ? :D

Quote from: Rob

Quote from: mrt

Quote from: Rob

Quote from: neXusBeta Service pack 1 for vista is slowing machines by as much as 15%
Beta Service pack 3 for xp is speeding them up by as much as 30%

Did you just pull those figures out of your arse?

Rob ... I must have missed your 56 other posts.  Hello noob to Tek!  Have seen a few noobs signing up.  How did you hear about Tek?  :D

Well Ive been here a while actually - back when it was Big Forums and before that when it was the original Tekforums. Used to post as robinuk then RDoh and I was a bit more talkative in those days.

When you did post it would be nice to see better then

QuoteDid you just pull those figures out of your arse?

 :mutley:  :mutley:

Quote from: neXus

Quote from: Rob

Quote from: neXusBeta Service pack 1 for vista is slowing machines by as much as 15%
Beta Service pack 3 for xp is speeding them up by as much as 30%

Did you just pull those figures out of your arse?

No
Google you get slightly different figures depending who testing but I did make sure I said "up to"
http://www.downloadsquad.com/2007/11/26/windows-xp-sp3-is-fast-vista-sp1-not-so-much/
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Windows-XP-SP3-Twice-as-Fast-as-Windows-Vista-Leaves-Vista-SP1-in-the-Dust-72059.shtml

Lots of results on google about it

Think Rob has had his head shoved up his arse for the last few months, that is now common knowledge :lol:

installing SP1 at the moment on my laptop.  Ive got my restore disks handy just in case.

Quote from: bearWhy get Vista when Windows 7 is out the second half of 2009 ? :D

Which is for ever seeming to be the case and if development goes on at pace even earlier
http://apcmag.com/7874/windows_7_to_be_released_next_year

Road map leaks for vista (longhorn) etc have all been correct in the past so defiantly hold this as water tbh
IF you google there are a lot of other leaks like the fact the other software development plans have been placed on hold as also other leaks have shown the windows team has been expanded

It does look like MS have gone "fine, vista is not what people wanted" but will never admit the cock up, like with ME I am sure later next year they will start calling it a platform for the future of the os etc.



The screenshot is 98% sure a fake but one rumour floating around is that the interface is much more of what games like WOW are with an interface system you can not only customise but have a coding system of your own, basically every aspect is a widgit/gadgit enclosed item to make your own interface.
Probably the case with it being full hog in development and scaled right back to have the old start bar as default etc by the time it comes to release.

At least we know the kernal will be cood and nippy

What people seem to know about 7 is..
http://apcmag.com/7668/beyond_vista_windows_7_what_we_know_so_far

Making the UI a separate affair would be a good thing, Be a gamer or not people who play or know of the game world of warcraft and for example know the interface is based on LUA and very much controlled by the user with addons and ways to adjust the interface to suit the user but still have boundaries and limitations put in by the game creators to prevent you doing things they do not want you to do

http://apcmag.com/6741/new_ui_for_windows_7
The people who changed the look of office in such a big way amid user input and what the user wanted things are now on the windows 7 team leading the way for a new interface and have been allowed to start from scratch so 7 could more then likely end up with what people like from windows and what they like of OSX with custom ui abilities

I have just bought a new Vostro 1700 laptop from Dell on a special deal and came with Vista home Premium.

Two main things so far have really annoyed me, the constant do you want to run this program alert for basically everything, Im sure that if you add the time up over a year it would be emmence, maybe someone should make a program that works out the ammount of your time wasted clicking the anoying popup!

Secondly was the needlessly complex and messy layout of the wireless configuration screens, basically in XP you had 2 windows, 1 for connecting and one for configuring, Vista just seems to have loads of different screens, there was on that sort of resembled the the old screen but I havent got a clue how I got there and cant find it again!

Everything seems to have been split in to individual windows, rather than one with tabs!!! I just dont see what idiot designed the interface and thought all this would be a good idea! it just seems more confusing, and Im an IT tech, so who knows what this is like for new users! Linux seems to be a better interface than Vista... cant wait for them to bring on Windows 7.

[/rant over]

XE

Just tell them to keep supporting XP and be done with. Still love XP SP2.

Quote from: XEntityTwo main things so far have really annoyed me, the constant do you want to run this program alert for basically everything, Im sure that if you add the time up over a year it would be emmence, maybe someone should make a program that works out the ammount of your time wasted clicking the anoying popup!

Start Menu>msconfig>Tools>Disable UAC.  Job done.

QuoteSecondly was the needlessly complex and messy layout of the wireless configuration screens, basically in XP you had 2 windows, 1 for connecting and one for configuring, Vista just seems to have loads of different screens, there was on that sort of resembled the the old screen but I havent got a clue how I got there and cant find it again!

Big complaint form everyone I know this.  The XP one was slightly overcomplicated, but it was perfectly suited to doing something you rarely had to play with afterwards.  The Vista one is a real pain in the arse, and just checking now, looks like they havent made it any simpler in SP1.

QuoteEverything seems to have been split in to individual windows, rather than one with tabs!!! I just dont see what idiot designed the interface and thought all this would be a good idea! it just seems more confusing, and Im an IT tech, so who knows what this is like for new users! Linux seems to be a better interface than Vista... cant wait for them to bring on Windows 7.

According to MS its simpler for the end user.  What actually happened was MS probably pay their coders a bonus depending on how many lines they write, and their Interface Engineers by how much time they can justify on a the job.  Doesnt help for complexity.  

The real big issue i have is that with each iteration Linux and Mac interfaces because quicker and more streamlined.  Windows seems to get more complicated and boggier each time.

Quote from: RivkidJust tell them to keep supporting XP and be done with. Still love XP SP2.

*hugs XP64 Install*  Let them stop supporting Windows 2k3 before Windows 7 comes out if they dare.  Until that happens my XP64 install will tick along nicely.

Quote from: XEntityTwo main things so far have really annoyed me, the constant do you want to run this program alert for basically everything, Im sure that if you add the time up over a year it would be emmence, maybe someone should make a program that works out the ammount of your time wasted clicking the anoying popup!

http://movies.apple.com/movies/us/apple/getamac/apple-getamac-security_480x376.mov

Quote from: BeakerAccording to MS its simpler for the end user.  What actually happened was MS probably pay their coders a bonus depending on how many lines they write, and their Interface Engineers by how much time they can justify on a the job.  Doesnt help for complexity.  

The real big issue i have is that with each iteration Linux and Mac interfaces because quicker and more streamlined.  Windows seems to get more complicated and boggier each time.

They used to pay on the quality of the code rather than the amount generated, the change seems to be the reason that M$ software has become bloated out of all comparison.

Programmers should work in a limited environment where memory and cycles are at a premium TBVH.

ok, i got the SP1 release client installed.  Its a little more stable, Winamp isnt crashing anymore, and the internal disk write between the partitions quicker, as it does with external drives.  The network copy speed is still utter sh*te though, on ethernet its the same speed it was before, on wireless its better to LMI to my desktop box and trigger files from that.  Oh, and media sharing over the network with anything but WMP is still gash.  Works perfectly on the XP boot though, so it has to be software not hardware.


edit : typos

Quote from: Cypher

Quote from: XEntityTwo main things so far have really annoyed me, the constant do you want to run this program alert for basically everything, Im sure that if you add the time up over a year it would be emmence, maybe someone should make a program that works out the ammount of your time wasted clicking the anoying popup!

http://movies.apple.com/movies/us/apple/getamac/apple-getamac-security_480x376.mov

Now normally those Mac adverts annoy me, becauses largely they are not accurate... But this one however... LMAO (Because its true!)!

Quote from: XEntityNow normally those Mac adverts annoy me, becauses largely they are not accurate... But this one however... LMAO (Because its true!)!

i just turn UAC off, it serves no purpose to me other than to GET IN MY WAY!!

Roll on windows 7, hopefully theyll actually decouple the UI and features from the kernel like they have promised since Win2k.

QuoteReports are suggesting that Microsoft is considering pushing forward the release date of Windows 7, its successor to Vista.

APC Magazine claims to have seen Microsofts roadmap for the operating system, and reports that the software giant is gunning for a 2009 release to manufacturing, a year earlier than initially planned.

The roadmap apparently contains three distinct milestone builds for Windows 7, with the first build, M1, apparently already shipped to partners for code validation.

M1 is reported to be English language only, but is shipping in both 32-bit and 64-bit versions. M2 is slated to ship in April or May, while M3 is expected some time in the third quarter of 2008.

The rumour would certainly fit with Steve Ballmers statement last year that he wants to speed up the turnaround between new operating systems, though Microsoft refused to be drawn on the rumours.

"Were continuing to work with our customers and partners on the development of Windows 7, the next version of the client operating system," the company says. "Were not sharing additional information at this time; instead, were focused on helping customers today get the most value from their PCs using Windows Vista, and were encouraged by the response and adoption so far."

Though details on the operating system are sketchy, Microsoft is apparently looking at creating a more streamlined kernel. A wishlist of features was also apparently leaked onto the internet last year.

The report comes just as Vistas fortunes appear to be turning, with strong sales of PCs beginning to drive demand for the operating system.

http://www.computershopper.co.uk/news/158973/windows-7-pushed-forward.html

So that might suck a bit for Vista buyers :mutley:

well, im using vista x64 on my laptop with 4GB ram and I have to say its fantastic.

Quote from: Markwell, im using vista x64 on my laptop with 4GB ram and I have to say its fantastic.

i would pretty much expect it to be at that spec.  Im using Vista Home Premium on this lappy, but all the effects are turned off, the security center is dead, the menuas are grey, and its pretty usable.  Turn all the crap on and it puts me in a towering rage within about an hour.  The menus and layouts are a pain in the arse.

yeah, I dumped all the fancy menues etc... (same as i do in xp), the "windows classic" ones are much better.

runs faster than xp for me ;)   (tho i was on xp32 and im on vista64)

played about with vista on my sisters laptop .. over 60 things running .. managed to disble about 5, well crippling it, i only have 20 on xp .. not going anywhere near vista for a long time

Why vista sucks, seems it was half baked and rushed out the door, just like QDOS (quick and dirty operating system) - the source for the original M$ dos operating system.

QuoteI love lawsuits. The smell of money has a way of dredging up all sorts of interesting and (previously) confidential information.

Take the case of the internal Microsoft email thread that surfaced recently in the wake of the pending "Vista Capable" class action suit. Here you have Steve Sinofsky, the newly appointed head of the Windows development team, confessing that Microsoft knew Vista wasnt ready to ship in late 2006. As he puts it:

    "No one really believed we would ever ship so they didnt start the work until very late in 2006."

It sounds to me like hes admitting that even Microsofts own developers had given up on ever getting Vista out the door. Of course, once they realized they were facing a real ship date (and not yet another moving target), the panic set in and they had to scramble to to meet the November RTM deadline. In other words, Vista RTM was the product of several weeks of Red Bull-infused "all nighters."

Sweet!

But the really juicy part comes later in the exchange. Here, Sinofsky points out that - even after the OS went RTM - a great many Windows XP drivers "didnt really work under Vista." He further explains that the fault lay with the "associated applets" - i.e the Control Panel icons, Task Bar widgets and Shell Extensions - which would not "run within the constraints of the security model or the new video/audio driver models."

How nice!

So, basically, they knew Vista would break a whole lot of stuff (Sinofsky admits that even his own home printer wouldnt work with the RTM drop), yet they kept their mouths shut and shipped the OS anyway. Not exactly what youd call "full disclosure," but then again forthrightness has never been one of Microsofts shortcomings.

Of course, those of us whove been using Vista since the early betas knew all of this, at least empirically. After dozens of bad driver experiences you begin to suspect that Microsofts vaunted backwards compatibility is not what it should be. Now, with the Sinofsky comments coming to light, we can finally confirm what we all believed to be the case: That UAC was more than just an annoyance. It actually broke things. Important things. Like the UI mechanisms for myriad device drivers.

The folks at Microsoft keep asking us to trust them: That they know what theyre doing; that the changes theyre making are for the best; and that theyll preserve our investments in each generation of Microsoft technology. But when the "dirty laundry" gets aired, and I come across exchanges like this one, I cant help but feel a bit betrayed.

Note to Microsoft: If youre trying to implement an important and worthwhile new technology - like UAC - and you know you need to break some stuff to get it done, please just own up the the problem and let the IT community make up its own mind. Because, chances are good that - if you deal with us honestly and present your case convincingly - well accept the "no pain, no gain" logic and go along with you. But playing "hush-hush" with a major compatibility issue when your own people are struggling with the problem, well thats just bad form all the way around.

http://weblog.infoworld.com/enterprisedesktop/archives/2008/03/microsoft_owns.html

sounds like the ramblings of someone whos unheard of 14.4k modem didnt work

And why all the whining about UAC - it turns off with a couple of clicks! His whole article was building up to a whine about a feature that is turned off with a few clicks

Everything I have worked, even my ECU software - that took 3 gos to get going in XP

Lots of peoples stuff doesnt though, thats what all the complaints have been about. There are bound to be some peeps who have no problems.

^^^

but theres a lot of noobs who dont know what theyre doing... and probably couldnt fresh install xp anyway....

(not talking about the people on here with this)

Ive found various bits of software that dont work at all, or dont work properly on Vista.  Amoung other things im a fan of Old Games, and to play pretty much any of them I have install a Virtual Machine.  With XP64 they invariably "Just Play".  Ive also got a rather nice Epson 1200 series A3 scanner thats about 3 years old, and it doesnt work properly in Vista.  Works flawlessly in XP and 2k though.  Ive also found that a lot of old games will start, but the input doesnt work right.

My one and only bugbear with Vista (all flavours) is the damn Creative soundcard bug.  When my CPU useage heads up over 80% the sound goes all static.

FIX IT FOR FS SAKE.  Vistas been out long enough to get a service pack and Creative cant get a driver out that works properly.

On the other hand, ive converted the WMP11 to the 64bit version and installed the 64bit FFDShow so it plays Divx.  Seems to handle it quite nicely.

Quote from: soopahflyMy one and only bugbear with Vista (all flavours) is the damn Creative soundcard bug.  When my CPU useage heads up over 80% the sound goes all static.

FIX IT FOR FS SAKE.  Vistas been out long enough to get a service pack and Creative cant get a driver out that works properly.

On the other hand, ive converted the WMP11 to the 64bit version and installed the 64bit FFDShow so it plays Divx.  Seems to handle it quite nicely.

Thats the only issue with Creative, they cant do drivers at all. Every card of theirs I have had over the years their drivers either pack in or drop the sound cards. I moved to Hercules for the Theatre XP external boxes, was the best card Ive ever had, shame they dont make them anymore :(

Quote from: SeriousLots of peoples stuff doesnt though, thats what all the complaints have been about. There are bound to be some peeps who have no problems.

And there were the exact same complaints when 2000 came out, and when XP came out

The only difference? More people have computers nowadays, there are far more inexperienced users - more complaints and issues.

I must admit I have had issues with vista and hardware on a few machines which seem to like displaying bsods at random intervals. However once such hardware issues were resolved I had no issues.

Found this which made me laugh though!

(http://i31.tinypic.com/1r2qlh.jpg)

Im replacing our work SBS server today from a Poweredge 4300 to a 840.

Main reason for the GB back bone and extra storage capacity.

Its not the first time Ive shifted mass files with Vista but I still cant believe how fn slow it is.  Its ludicrous.

The simple fact is, if your a IT buff of any kind, you really need to get to know vista now, as of june, we really dont have a choice in the matter and with the problems that SP1 is going solve and cause.  I dont think I have dealt with any client that has not given any negative feedback on vista, with at least 2 I can think of off the top of my head have demanded to be downgraded.

why do you need to shift any files to/from desktops if youre simply migrating a SBS

You should be able to do that with no downtime whatsoever, just use something like doubletake to copy your files with all perms or robocopy if you so desire

Because you cant just copy files from one SBS to the other since they are 10 servers in one including DHCP, which will clash with other DHCP server of the new SBS without messing around disabling DHCP or causing other problems.

If there is an easier way I wouldnt mind any suggestions on migrating from one 2003 sbs to another 2003 sbs?

Its just much easier to copy to a desktop or NAS and then onto the new SBS server.

I did actually end up using a program such as you described, more specifically VisaVersa.

Windows is more than capable of moving files within CMD if you use the right switches using the xcopy command and keeping file permissions.

no real problems with deactivating dhcp for a bit - shouldnt take more than 7 seconds

join new server to domain as a GCS member server, migrate exchange mailboxes, copy data, migrate your other services, move the FSMO roles and remove the old box from the domain

All going well you shouldnt need a minutes downtime and hopefully done in a few hrs depending on the size of the mailboxes and shares

Much quicker than copying everything twice surely?

The reason we do it that way is simply because we take out SBS servers completely configured.   The only thing we dont configure is e-mail retrieval and internet until onsite.  The quickest Ive migrated 8 desktops all profiles and files was about 3-4 hours.  

The time you save preparing the server works out about the same to doing a migration on site imo.

Another benefit is a fresh profile, although it annoys the end user seems to clear out a lot of old problems with the current profile.

Was Vista DOA? (http://weblog.infoworld.com/enterprisedesktop/archives/2008/03/was_vista_doa.html?source=NLC-DAILY&cgd=2008-03-18)

Seems the next Windoze is under 2 years away, and there has been insufficient movement in the user base to make Vista worthwhile. TBH there is very little that makes Vista a worthwhile upgrade from XP, unless you like the window dressing.