+ Post New Thread
Results 1 to 15 of 15
Windows Vista Thread, "Why should you upgrade to Vista?" in Technical; This week's Technet flash is a special with the above title. One of the sections concerns performance - "There is ...
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,156
    Thank Post
    116
    Thanked 529 Times in 452 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    124

    "Why should you upgrade to Vista?"

    This week's Technet flash is a special with the above title. One of the sections concerns performance - "There is another perception that Windows Vista underperforms in every area of the system when compared to Windows XP. "

    It's worth looking at it and watching the video. This is a classic of how you can prove anything you want with statistics. What it's supposed to show is that Vista copies big files much faster than XP. What it actually shows is that if you have Vista machines on your network, they will trash the performance of your XP machines!

  2. #2

    Michael's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Birmingham
    Posts
    9,262
    Thank Post
    242
    Thanked 1,568 Times in 1,250 Posts
    Rep Power
    340
    To be honest, I really couldn't care if Vista outperforms XP in network file transfer. Vista needs much more powerful hardware to run efficiently and under performs XP in most other tests, which is a backwards step.

    Microsoft are missing the point completely which is why although Vista sales are high, actual Vista machines in use is totally different.

    Time costs money which is why Vista adoption at enterprise level isn't happening. There are still too many application and driver compatibility issues I read everyday, which in practice means more testing and testing again.

    I mean for example, what benefit has it brought renaming Program Files and Documents and Settings directories? Will Vista make my workforce work faster because everything's animated? The answer to all these questions are either no or none. If Microsoft had concentrated on compatibility between XP and Vista then Vista would be used more often than it actually is.

  3. Thanks to Michael from:

    speckytecky (11th July 2008)

  4. #3

    sparkeh's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    6,753
    Thank Post
    1,279
    Thanked 1,651 Times in 1,106 Posts
    Blog Entries
    22
    Rep Power
    506
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael View Post
    Microsoft are missing the point completely which is why although Vista sales are high, actual Vista machines in use is totally different.
    QFT!

    Vista figures are vastly inflated and everyone knows it (well people in IT I guess).

    E.g. Sixty new machines at school, sixty Vista licences sold, sixty copies of XP installed under downgrade rights. Which figure gets counted in the stats?

  5. 2 Thanks to sparkeh:

    farmerste (6th June 2008), speckytecky (11th July 2008)

  6. #4

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,156
    Thank Post
    116
    Thanked 529 Times in 452 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    124
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael View Post
    I mean for example, what benefit has it brought renaming Program Files and Documents and Settings directories?
    I think that's about the only thing which is worth having :-)

    I've had so many programs which have problems with folder names that have spaces in them but this isn't going to make me change to Vista!

    MS could also have fixed that in XP - pretty sure you can choose where "D&S" goes with an unattended install so you could have something similar to say "program files" is actually called "programs" etc.

  7. Thanks to srochford from:

    speckytecky (11th July 2008)

  8. #5
    Diello's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Kent, England
    Posts
    1,064
    Thank Post
    112
    Thanked 228 Times in 128 Posts
    Rep Power
    74
    Umm... Vista totally b*ggers your file transfers!!! That's one of the biggest things against it for crying out loud!!

  9. #6

    Michael's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Birmingham
    Posts
    9,262
    Thank Post
    242
    Thanked 1,568 Times in 1,250 Posts
    Rep Power
    340
    I agree there are always workarounds, but that's why I wrote time costs money. You're having to fix things which should of been left well alone.

    And I actually remember reading that one of Microsoft's goals is to maintain compatibility with Vista. Too little, too late, but nevermind. Microsoft clearly didn't see it a problem it would break thousands of applications. A very poor decision.

    I'm all for innovation, but there are times they just change names of directories just for the hell of it. There is no benefit!

  10. Thanks to Michael from:

    speckytecky (11th July 2008)

  11. #7

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,156
    Thank Post
    116
    Thanked 529 Times in 452 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    124
    Think you missed my point - I'm saying that the name change *is* a good thing (and perhaps one of the few!)

    I've had many applications which fall over because you're trying to install them in c:\program files\xxx when they want c:\xxx or perhaps c:\apps\xxx

    Writing scripts is also that bit more difficult - you end up with things like:

    Code:
    sFolder ="""c:\program files" & sName & """"
    so that there are double quotes round the folder name.

    In this respect, Vista is a winner - but it's not a reason to change!

  12. #8


    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    3,411
    Thank Post
    184
    Thanked 356 Times in 285 Posts
    Rep Power
    149
    ^ the "program files" bit is such a pain. I try to use variables like %programfiles% as much as possible but like said sometimes software just throws a fanny fit.

    Vista still doesnt work with some of my hardware and alot of the software i use. And according to the manufacturers theres no plans for a fix/driver/update in the near future as the performance losses are just too high for it to be a forward step.

  13. Thanks to j17sparky from:

    speckytecky (11th July 2008)

  14. #9
    torledo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    2,928
    Thank Post
    168
    Thanked 155 Times in 126 Posts
    Rep Power
    48
    i agree with steve, dropping the ridiculous documents and settings in favour of users was a long overdue move....much more intutitve and having spaces in the main folders was pretty lame anyway. Didn't realise that Program Files was renamed also, again Programs or Applications is a much better way of naming.

    Whatever the merits of Vista, i think it's obvious M$ don't see it as their desktop OS going forward....no doubt we'll see the Windows 7 beta program kick off sometime next year, and by 2010 we may have an OS that can play nice with old and new hardware and do what IT departments want of it in terms of performance and deployment options.

    A couple of members have given some insights into their experiences with Vista rollout following hardware refresh cycle that seems to buck the overall negative consensus toward Vista. Ofcourse too many schools and indeed organisations are not in the position to take the risk of a mixed Vista/XP environment or are unable to move to Vista wholesale because they can't afford to buy new computers througout the org.

    I think it'll be harder to avoid getting to grips with Vista and the deployment options as a sysadmin....it would be very easy to concentrate on developing existing skills with Xp and forget about Vista, but how practical is it to not use it, becuase some companies will be using it and will continue to even after Windows 7 arrives.

  15. Thanks to torledo from:

    speckytecky (11th July 2008)

  16. #10

    sparkeh's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    6,753
    Thank Post
    1,279
    Thanked 1,651 Times in 1,106 Posts
    Blog Entries
    22
    Rep Power
    506
    Quote Originally Posted by j17sparky View Post
    Vista still doesnt work with some of my hardware and alot of the software i use.
    Its not so hot on hardware that is supported. I tested it out on my desktop at home which easily matched recommended specs and all devices have Vista drivers. The experience was less than encouraging.

    *10 minute boot time comprising of about 1 minute to load up and 9 mins of black screen before displaying login screen. This was related to gfx drivers continually falling over. Strangely the cylce always lasted about 10 mins.

    *Frequent BSOD, rarely see this anymore with XP.

    *Every boot something happened to the sound card. Initially it couldn't find it at all. Bizarrely this was solved by sticking in a second sound card. The new card was never detected but then the original one was?! However the drivers had to be reinstalled after every boot.

    *Network card drivers would suddenly disappear during a session. Checking device manager would show the card as an unknown device. Needed reboot to solve.

    *Shutting down would take anywhere from 5 mins to and remarkable 30 mins. Just had the blue thing spinning and telling me it was shutting down. Not installing updates or anything.

    XP is back on it now and everything is rosy.

  17. 2 Thanks to sparkeh:

    farmerste (6th June 2008), speckytecky (11th July 2008)

  18. #11
    farmerste's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    uk
    Posts
    339
    Thank Post
    100
    Thanked 23 Times in 20 Posts
    Rep Power
    22

    another point to add

    the thing that has really pi**ed me off about vista, from a school/library type environment, is that microshaft still have absolutely no idea what, or how computers are used in school, and what is required, thats why you have to buy loads of additional software from other manufacturers, and spend ages 'hacking' their software in order for it to be suitable for use with children, or anyone with learning disabilities.

    They have learnt nothing, but they are too arrogant to ask !

  19. Thanks to farmerste from:

    speckytecky (11th July 2008)

  20. #12

    Andrew_C's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Winchester
    Posts
    2,964
    Thank Post
    64
    Thanked 375 Times in 285 Posts
    Rep Power
    159
    Quote Originally Posted by torledo View Post
    and by 2010 we may have an OS that can play nice with old and new hardware and do what IT departments want of it in terms of performance and deployment options.
    Sorry, but what have you been smoking? The last thing WinTel want is for you to be able to use old hardware. If you could do that you wouldn't upgrade, and the share prices would fall. End of!

  21. #13
    torledo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    2,928
    Thank Post
    168
    Thanked 155 Times in 126 Posts
    Rep Power
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew_C View Post
    Sorry, but what have you been smoking? The last thing WinTel want is for you to be able to use old hardware. If you could do that you wouldn't upgrade, and the share prices would fall. End of!
    so all this we've been hearing about a modular OS is wide of the mark....

    also, microsoft could quite easily not have bothered with Vista, and instead continue to ship new pc's with xp as the OS tax....it would have made no difference to them, may even have saved a few billion in R&D and marketing. For that matter i don't think sticking with xp on new machines would have hurt intel or the OEM pc builders a great dea either....after all very few companies bought new pc's purely so that they could run vista. If xp was the preinstall of choice it wouln't have changed their purchasing decisions.

    Success in the enteprise has always been about retaining customers and offering value added i.e SA, professional services, selling a wide breafth of apps... M$ practically give the OS away for many large customers and education orgs.

    there's other value in upgrading new hardware irrespective of what OS is being used, reduced power consumption and new fangled lights out mgmt of new intel pc's are important enough features to contempate a hardware upgrade before even thinking about Vista.
    Last edited by torledo; 6th June 2008 at 06:06 PM.

  22. #14
    andyrodger50's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Kings Lynn, Norfolk
    Posts
    37
    Thank Post
    1
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Rep Power
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael View Post
    renaming Program Files
    I have a Vista test machine, and Program Files is still called Program Files. Not sure why it changed on your install of Vista!

  23. #15
    ifrit1066's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    5
    Thank Post
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Rep Power
    0
    History so far
    windows ME (More expence) best feature: recovery
    Windows XP (xtra profit) best feature: works
    Windows Vista (visually is sweet, technically awful) best feature: comes in a nice box

    Recently i turned the tap feature of my mouse pad( laptop) and after installing an update it resets the options and changed how to access the option. At the moment im abit antiVista. School is getting new comps in the summer and guess what, its a time of fear.

SHARE:
+ Post New Thread

Similar Threads

  1. "Print Limit Pro" or "Print Managent Plus"
    By burgemaster in forum Windows
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 10th June 2009, 09:32 AM
  2. "Error 403" & "Moved to here" message
    By tech_guy in forum Windows
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 24th January 2008, 01:07 PM
  3. Windoows Vista Client "Beta"
    By Confusion in forum Netware
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 12th December 2007, 12:02 PM
  4. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 19th June 2007, 08:34 AM
  5. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 28th September 2006, 07:06 PM

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •