Poll : Migrating to Vista ? What version and Why ?


allen_p
#1
Hi Guys,

I was curious as to how many of us here have migrated to vista or , are planning to move to vista ?
If they could tell what version they chose and why ? What their existing operating system could not do that vista does.


Poll Results :

allen_p nay
durkadurka
aye
hermanntrude (external - login to view) nay
snowles (external - login to view) nay
westmanguy (external - login to view)
aye
mikeydb aye
niflmir aye
eh1eh nay
Toro (external - login to view) nay
Last edited by allen_p; Mar 24th, 2007 at 08:21 AM..
 
hermanntrude
#2
there's already been a couple of threads on this. try searching for them because there's good advice in them. Generally I think the opinion is against it
 
allen_p
#3
I wanted discussion in given context . Could have sifted/searched threads - but that defeats pupose.

If people can check out what others did and what were prompting reasons - It gives them enough data to make a decision based on that.
 
hermanntrude
#4
I wouldnt usually object but there's a lot already written for you to read. i learned a lot from our local PC whizzes. seriously just look at the bottom of this page and you'll see 3 threads on vista
 
allen_p
#5
but none of them specifically deals with reasons for choosing/not choosing Vista.

You can delete the thread is you so choose ?
 
DurkaDurka
#6
I built a new PC about a month with Vista Home Preumium. Previousl y I was running Windows XP SP2.

I chose home premium because it has the features I want and it was cheap compared to Ultimate/Business versions. The main reason I bought Vista was because of the Directx10 support, which will not be available on older versions of windows.
 
hermanntrude
#7
all those threads talk about why people like or dislike vista. I remember reading them when they were written.

I can't delete anything, i'm not a mod, i'm just giving you advice, cos many people here won't want to re-write their opinions just for you
 
allen_p
#8
people who are interested might voice their opinion - others wont even care reading it.


@DurkaDurka (external - login to view)

So we have one vote for Vista

@ me

I did try Vista ultimate - I am impressed - But I still see no reason to shift to Vista - Reason : Vista is pricey.
 
DurkaDurka
#9
The pricing all depends on which version you buy. I picked up an OEM version of Home Premium for around $130.00, which I considered to be a fair deal compared to a retail version for $250.

I'm a sucker for new technologies, I remember downloading an installing Windows ME right when it came out... that was a mistake. That OS was pure turd. lol
 
hermanntrude
#10
ok well based on the stuff i read in the other threads, my vote goes for a no
 
allen_p
#11
@ durkadurka

indeed - With windows Me - there were a few glitches. But considering that Vista is completely rewritten - That ptobably means newer problems/Viruses of different kind.exploits of different kind. Most important of all - piracy and market impression - That too in Asia Pacific Markets where people buy pirated softwares - With Vista Piracy is issue - If you patch(Existing patches are infected - I did check out - not that I use Vista now) you get your information flowing. Considering a few other things - in my opinion Businesses may go in for Vista for Bitlocker - but thats the only feature I see as of now.

@hermanntrude (external - login to view)

Thank you for letting us know what you think
 
DurkaDurka
#12
Microsoft now attaches Windows Genuine Advantage to all their properties it seems, causing quite a bit of frustration for casual piraters. I have only seen one solution for activating a pirated Vista and it involved installing a local activation server via VMWare image and activating it that way. I don't have the time or patience for that crap, so I just buy legit Microsoft products now.

Bitlocker sounds like an interesting tool, I wonder what kind of performance hit you take from having your whole windows volume encrypted though? For a standard business user, it shouldn't really matter I guess.
Last edited by DurkaDurka; Mar 22nd, 2007 at 03:07 PM..Reason: grammer
 
snowles
#13
all of the DRM built into Vista gets a big fat thumbs down from me. So until the whiz kids on the Internet can crack it long-term, I'll be staying away from Vista.

I think that it's a disgrace that software that's necessary for the computer to operate costs so much, especially when it is included for free with a $500 CPU. The fact that XP, afer half a decade and numerous holes, has barely (if it all) dropped in price over its lifespan; it is pretty indicative on Microsoft's view of the customer.

My next computer will be a Mac that can dual-boot both Mac OS (for me) and Windows XP Pro (for my wife).
 
DurkaDurka
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by snowlesView Post

all of the DRM built into Vista gets a big fat thumbs down from me. So until the whiz kids on the Internet can crack it long-term, I'll be staying away from Vista.

There actually isn't a whole lot more DRM built into Windows other then support for Blu-Ray & HD-DVD. I am able to listen to mucic, watch movies, play games as I do in windows xp, regardless of the media being ripped, pirated, cracked etc.
 
snowles
#15
Perhaps I should clarify: I am against DRM completely, and I think it's a large invasion to have open access to my computer just to 'check around' and make sure everything is cool, and give me no choice to disable them. I also don't like how you are presumed guilty with things like Windows Genuine.

To me, the interface seems completely retread (external - login to view) from OSX, from the widgets to the cascading to the GUI, which is already a few years old. Considering how many problems and security holes are already being trotted out with Vista, it will be some time before it catches up to the older Mac technology; however, the new Mac OS should reset the superior gap that exists between the two this summer.

Vista also uses an absolutely monsterous amount of resources, processor and hard drive space. 15 Gigs of hard drive? From some of the lower-end computers we tested it on in the store, which were brand new and more than met the minimum requirements, the results were very, very poor; it was slower than molasses, and quite unstable. Despite their 'minimum' claims, you pretty much have to have a dual-core, 256mB video card, 2 gigs of RAM and a buttload of hard drive space for it to run even reasonably well.

There's also some additional criticism here (external - login to view), which I agree fully with.

I'm interested Durka, what specs are on the computer you're running it on? Just curious for comparison's sake.
 
hermanntrude
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by snowles

Despite their 'minimum' claims, you pretty much have to have a dual-core, 256mB video card, 2 gigs of RAM and a buttload of hard drive space for it to run even reasonably well.

that's shocking. microsoft was always bad but this seems worse than normal.
 
allen_p
#17
yup,

Bitlocker - It does slow down a few things - But improved disk caching and alorithms should not be a major issue - But I doubt what happens when you play Movie files / Photoshop Files which are simply too big. And considering that a Normal consultant - would loose entire data should he loose key - sounds scary though.


apart from that : Vista does still lacks a few things like support for wireless USB ( dont miskate it for wireless adapter , do wikipedia on that),

Apart from that seeing shiny new code its good that they already have fixed a date for Service pack


DRM - Its crap - and sure interface is cross between Apple OS X and Sun's Desktop looking glass.

In short its brand new code - done to lift off features from other OS'es. Had other OS'es done same - Microsoft would have sued em.
 
DurkaDurka
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by snowlesView Post

Perhaps I should clarify: I am against DRM completely, and I think it's a large invasion to have open access to my computer just to 'check around' and make sure everything is cool, and give me no choice to disable them. I also don't like how you are presumed guilty with things like Windows Genuine.
To me, the interface seems completely retread from OSX, from the widgets to the cascading to the GUI, which is already a few years old. Considering how many problems and security holes are already being trotted out with Vista, it will be some time before it catches up to the older Mac technology; however, the new Mac OS should reset the superior gap that exists between the two this summer.
Vista also uses an absolutely monsterous amount of resources, processor and hard drive space. 15 Gigs of hard drive? From some of the lower-end computers we tested it on in the store, which were brand new and more than met the minimum requirements, the results were very, very poor; it was slower than molasses, and quite unstable. Despite their 'minimum' claims, you pretty much have to have a dual-core, 256mB video card, 2 gigs of RAM and a buttload of hard drive space for it to run even reasonably well.
There's also some additional criticism

Quote has been trimmed, See full post: View Post
I am no fan of DRM either, I personally think DRM is a total insult to consumers.

The new Aero interface for windows doesn't do much for me, I usually just disable the eye candy crap.

The one thing I do like about Vista though is the improved search. It works a hell of a lot better then the one built into XP. The new search aslo doubles as a "run" box more or less. Instead of browsing through the programs list, I launch most programs from the search bar.

I am running Vista on my home built pc. Intell Core 2 6400@3.2ghz, 8800GTS 640mb, 2gb of DDR2 800, and a terabyte of hard drive space.
 
DurkaDurka
#19
This is kind of ammusing, Microsoft is listed at the most secure OS over the last 6 months, according to symantec.

www.internetnews.com/security...le.php/3667201 (external - login to view)

Surprise, Microsoft Listed as Most Secure OS
By Andy Patrizio (external - login to view)

UPDATED: Microsoft is frequently dinged for having insecure products, with security holes and vulnerabilities. But Symantec (Quote (external - login to view)), no friend (external - login to view) of Microsoft, said in its latest research report that when it comes to widely-used operating systems, Microsoft is doing better overall than its leading commercial competitors.
The information was a part of Symantec's 11th Internet Security Threat Report (external - login to view). The report, released this week, covered a huge range of security and vulnerability issues over the last six months of 2006, including operating systems.
The report found that Microsoft (Quote (external - login to view)) Windows had the fewest number of patches and the shortest average patch development time of the five operating systems it monitored in the last six months of 2006.
During this period, 39 vulnerabilities, 12 of which were ranked high priority or severe, were found in Microsoft Windows and the company took an average of 21 days to fix them. It's an increase of the 22 vulnerabilities and 13-day turnaround time for the first half of 2006 but still bested the competition handily.
Red Hat Linux was the next-best performer, requiring an average of 58 days to address a total of 208 vulnerabilities. However, this was a significant increase in both problems and fix time over the first half of 2006, when there were 42 vulnerabilities in Red Hat and the average turnaround was 13 days.
The one bright spot in all of this is that of the 208 Red Hat vulnerabilities, the most of the top five operating systems, only two were considered high severity, 130 were medium severity, and 76 were considered low.
Then there's Mac OS X. Despite the latest TV ads ridiculing the security in Vista with a Matrix-like Agent playing the UAC (external - login to view) in Vista, Apple (Quote (external - login to view)) has nothing to brag about. Symantec found 43 vulnerabilities in Mac OS X and a 66 day turnaround on fixes. Fortunately, only one was high priority.
Like the others, this is also an increase over the first half of the year. For the first half of 2006, 21 vulnerabilities were found in Mac OS X and Apple took on average 37 days to fix them.
Bringing up the rear were HP-UX from Hewlett Packard (Quote (external - login to view)) and Solaris from Sun (Quote (external - login to view)). HP-UX had 98 vulnerabilities in the second half of 06 and took 101 days to fix them. Sun, though, really dragged its feet, taking on average 122 days to fix 63 vulnerabilities. It wasn't doing much better in the first half of 06, either. It took 89 days to fix 16 vulnerabilities.
Alfred Huger, vice president of engineering for Symantec Security Center, said the real problem is with Web applications, where two-thirds of all vulnerabilities are found. Operating systems are fairly minor, and despite the long time periods, the vendors are doing "an ok job, just not stellar."
The response from vendor's mentioned in the report was mixed. A Microsoft spokesperson issued a statement to internetnews.com that said in part "As a part of this industry, Microsoft continues to adapt to address these threats and continues to work with others in the industry to protect customers as a whole."
Anuj Nayar, manager of Apple's Mac OS X and developer relations, would only say "Apple takes security very seriously and has a great track record of addressing vulnerabilities before they affect you."
Sun specifically disputed Symantec's data and conclusions in a statement emailed to internetnews.com:
"Symantec's data on security vulnerabilities simply does not match Sun's. We can't verify Symantec's sources and consider their report on Sun inaccurate. From 7/1/06-12/31/06 we published 54 Security Sun Alerts, of which 36 were for Solaris - substantially less the 63 Solaris vulnerabilities claimed in the Symantec report. Past analysis of our vulnerability response shows we responded within five days for the vast majority of vulnerabilities, but averages are skewed by a small minority of 3rd party applications (or code) that are included/bundled with Solaris. Sun responds to all reports of security vulnerabilities, and we stand by our reputation and established track record of responding to security vulnerabilities with Sun Alerts and a quick turnaround time for patches.
Analyst Charles King with Pund-IT said Microsoft has had to be aggressive about dealing with security issues because it's such a big target. In that regard, the company has met the challenge.
"I think in a way that a culture of having been under attack for a decade or more has led to the company taking a very proactive approach to fixing those problems," he told internetnews.com. "In the last 24 months, they've taken a very aggressive stance toward the security of their system. In review after review of Vista, despite its faults, the security of the system has been considerably better than XP."
By contrast, King said there have been complaints in the past about Apple's lack of response to security issues. But as the Mac and Linux gain marketshare, they will have to respond much quicker.
"Are the old models of response to security issues going to be able to fly or will those companies start to take some serious publicity hits from these increasing vulnerabilities and a relatively lackadaisical response to fixing those vulnerabilities?" he asked.
This article was Updated to include comments by Sun Microsystems that were received after the original story was filed.
 
MikeyDB
#20
It's not often a single thread provides the opportunity to respond to several others...

Inspiration of the Holy Spirit...

What happens after you die....

Migrate to Vista...

After you die you go to live in Ontario where you will have to use Vista...ultimate proof of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit....
 
DurkaDurka
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by MikeyDBView Post

It's not often a single thread provides the opportunity to respond to several others...

Inspiration of the Holy Spirit...

What happens after you die....

Migrate to Vista...

After you die you go to live in Ontario where you will have to use Vista...ultimate proof of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit....

Vista is the new testament Mikey.
 
MikeyDB
#22
Vista like the Holy Spirit is the 'ghost in the machine...'

Greetins Durk...
 
DurkaDurka
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by MikeyDBView Post

Vista like the Holy Spirit is the 'ghost in the machine...'

Greetins Durk...

I wonder if a format can double for an exorcism?
 
MikeyDB
#24
format for exorcism....I like it!

Say Mr. Resident Windows Guru...

Can I fdisk a second hard disk and reformat it while its installed in my machine as a slave?
 
DurkaDurka
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by MikeyDBView Post

format for exorcism....I like it!

Say Mr. Resident Windows Guru...

Can I fdisk a second hard disk and reformat it while its installed in my machine as a slave?

Depends on the operating system I think. If you are running 98/ME you can do that I believe. If you are running Win2K/XP, there is no fdisk.
 
MikeyDB
#26
Followup to the Guru...

I'm using WIN XP Pro....other than all the security holes...and the endless 'patches' it works OK...

I've used fdisk from a DOS 6.22 disk to fdisk my hard drives before I install a new OS and it seems to work OK...

The slave drive I have I rescued from the dumpster behind my place and it had Compaq's Windows on it ...

Not a fan of Compaq by any stretch of the imagination...

Can I do this fdisk trick from the floppy DOS 6.22 to prepare the slave as a "scratch-pad drive"...i.e. no operating system...just gigs of empty space...

Thanks Durk
 
DurkaDurka
#27
Mikey, if the drive you picked up only has one partition, I would just format it within windows. Go to my computer, right clock the drive and choose format. If it has multiple partitions on it, I would boot to dos and fdisk.

Do you plan on moving your swap file on to the drive?
 
MikeyDB
#28
Hey DurkGuru...

It has Compaq's "recovery" (system software) on a second partition....I've never liked the idea that HP and Compaq et al can get away with not providing a system CD and instead put this "recovery" software on the same drive as a person uses daily...what happens when daily use...picks up a sector virus or some other bad nasty and the drive goes for a dump....you're "recovery" partition is toast too...poor planning in my mind...

Yeah I'm gonna move all my dynamic stuff to that drive and hope that if something evil this way comes....it'll just eat this dumpster drive...
Last edited by MikeyDB; Mar 23rd, 2007 at 09:54 AM..Reason: dint answer the quesstion...
 
DurkaDurka
#29
I remember having a compaq about 10 years ago which encountered the exact problem you mentioned. Ended up having to kill all the partitions to get the virus off.

Dell, Compaq etc should provide their customers with real windows disks, none of this hidden partition BS.
 
MikeyDB
#30
AMEN Durka!

I just prepared a Lenovo laptop....for a buddy. No system CD's but it did have a utility for burning "recovery disks"....

Have you had any experience with this methodology? If you have...does one of the recovery disks actually boot the puter into WIN XP...?
 

Similar Threads

0
migrating to canada from manila
by prixie | Apr 6th, 2010
2
Migrating to Calgary
by spaceace | Jan 20th, 2009
1
Migrating to Canada : life cost.
by pasticcino | Oct 3rd, 2006
no new posts