Time for another debate

[Trainshed Terry]

I am interested to hear from any one that is using Windows Vista as I heard various storeys that it is not as good as Windows Xp and that it is based on the Apple OS system and that there could be compatibility problems with other software.

:confused: As a friend has purchased a lap top with and he is not impressed with the OS system :confused:

:rolleyes: Question is which is the favorite OS system in use today :rolleyes:

Windows Vista.
Windows XP
Apple Mac

[Matridom]

I use XP at work, it's the current image, I have Vista 64 ultimate at home, it dual-boots to XP.

Other then current appilcation compatibility problems (hence the dual-boot to XP) I have to say that i like vista.

Vista has borrowed several pages out of other OS's. (yes, mac included). There are several *big* differences. Vista is driven by images, not file structure, this makes it easier to repair, and do restores. Vista has also borrowed programming technics from linux, not allowing applications/drivers to run in the krenel is one big difference (*nix), and modular applications (again *nix).

My final choice for OS factors these in with compatibility and usability. I'm sure Ubuntu would do just fine for all the desktop applications i use, however it won't work for many of the games i like to play, so in the end, it's Vista for me.

Now i'm not taking into account pricing for the products, it's not a factor to me. (MSDN account curtesy of work).

[NooNoo]

I am interested to hear from any one that is using Windows Vista ..... it is based on the Apple OS system

Huh?? where did you get that story from?

[Trainshed Terry]

Huh?? where did you get that story from?

:thumbs2: To many sources to mention and a local PC tech. word of mouth to name but a few. :thumbs2:

[NooNoo]

Well then they don't know what they are talking about.

[Trainshed Terry]

I use XP at work, it's the current image, I have Vista 64 ultimate at home, it dual-boots to XP.

Other then current application compatibility problems (hence the dual-boot to XP) I have to say that i like vista.

Vista has borrowed several pages out of other OS's. (yes, mac included). There are several *big* differences. Vista is driven by images, not file structure, this makes it easier to repair, and do restores. Vista has also borrowed programming technics from linux, not allowing applications/drivers to run in the krenel is one big difference (*nix), and modular applications (again *nix).

My final choice for OS factors these in with compatibility and usability. I'm sure Ubuntu would do just fine for all the desktop applications i use, however it won't work for many of the games i like to play, so in the end, it's Vista for me.

Now i'm not taking into account pricing for the products, it's not a factor to me. (MSDN account curtesy of work).

:confused: Please could you enlighten me on this "duel boot that you mention as I have .. sorry as it is the first time that I have heard of it.:confused:

[NooNoo]

:confused: Please could you enlighten me on this "duel boot that you mention as I have .. sorry as it is the first time that I have heard of it.:confused:
That would be dual not duel... although some people have problems with versions fighting :devil: :devil:

[Trainshed Terry]

I suffer from dyslexia and some times the spelling goes a out off kilter !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am a human not a machine

[NooNoo]

dual booting is where you put more than one OS on a single machine. I have had my laptop running the following: Windows 3.11, Win 98se, Windows NT4, Windows 2000 Pro, Windows 2000 server, XP and finished it off with mandrake... ok, so there wasn't any room for data, but I did have them all running happily, just rebooting and selecting the operating system I wanted to use.

here is a tutorial (http://www.windowstalk.org/dual_boot_vista.htm) for dual booting xp and vista.

[Matridom]

dual booting windows OS's is fairly simple. The rule to follow is "Oldest first"

It's when you get into booting Linux/windows and such that things get complicated.

[slgrieb]

Vista is nice, kinda. Well, pretty much. However, it isn't compelling as an upgrade from XP on an existing machine. On a new machine, I would do Vista if your existing software and peripherals are compatible. And that's the rub.

I see lots of folks who buy new machines and then find their old hardware isn't supported. In the past, the tendency was that each new version of Windows included an ever larger database of drivers, so older devices were likely to work. With XP for instance, an ancient printer like a HP Laserjet 4 or II would have a native driver in the operating system.

This changed with Vista. There is no support for lots of older printers. MS didn't write drivers, and the mfgs. don't want to spend money to support older hardware. I think this is perfectly reasonable, but it comes as a real shock to a lot of folks. See also; "I just bought this brand new Wazmo Ultimate, and I can't even find a plug for my printer!"

Lots of consumers and businesses still run REALLY OLD software. "Heck, it worked 10 years ago on my computer, so it should just run better now with all this memory and my Pentium Core Whatever, right?" Have a friend who actually installed a game designed for Windows 3.1 on his shiny new Vista machine only to find that after he rebooted, Vista was totally trashed. Complete system restore required. So, he now has a brand new computer that can't run much of his software, and he had to replace his printer and scanner with a new multifunction device which he hates because of all the crapware that HP ships with it.

UAC pisses off many people, and they end up ignoring its messages and approving everything or running all the time as Administrator so they can just click on the approval button without typing an administrative password. So much for enhanced security. In many ways, I think Vista is a throwback to the days when computer users were expected to fairly savvy on tech issues. Unfortunately, most people expect a computer to work like a refrigerator, and that's unrealistic.

Some of Vista's problems are definitely MS's fault. Vista wasn't ready to ship for starters. Microsoft also pitched Vista as a consumer product for the technically ignorant when the opposite is true. MS failed to attempt explaining Vista's benefits in language most people could understand, and just concentrated on the "WOW Factor". They didn't make a realistic case that having Vista was worth chucking out that old hardware because it could do amazing things with new hardware, because it mostly can't.

Finally, too many software publishers (such as Intuit) didn't care enough about their customers during Vista's 7 YEAR development cycle to insure that their software would be Vista compatible. Instead, they just saw a chance to gouge users for yet another upgrade.

The bottom line is that I think Vista is a good (but seriously flawed) product which is likely to be undermined by hardware and software vendors who are offering lousy support and trying to blame it on MS. Unfortunately, Microsoft's attempts to make a truly user-friendly environment seem to have begun and ended with "Bob". Microsoft has never made a serious effort to address today's security issues in a way that most users can understand.

[HMIBarryLSalter]

I have a customer that purchased WinXP MCE, Tried 5 TV cards to which the cheapest non MCE worked but the 4x MCS's didn't. She bought the month before Vista's release and is waiting her free upgrade. The computer is suppose to be compatible with Vista but she isn't receiving the MCE edition (first point of curiosity, why not?)

At fry's I learned that 512 was not enough for Vista just like 256 is short for XP.. I've seen someone's computer and was able to help them fix it with Vista but things have moved to strange places just like it did from Win95 to Win98.

Maybe it's better, but I'm not running out to get it for myself, I would get a laptop with it though, just for the sake of being able to support yet another version of MS whatever.

Being old in this stuff, I still remember DOS4.0 and also what it did to TSRs for memory suspension. It's just more stuff to figure out as far as I'm concerned and a new gadget for the people with money to spend and no common sense to control that spending.

Barry.

(I want a personalized avatar like noonoo and matridom but I will behave myself until I have contributed enough useful posts to warrant bothering Sir Master Scott.. I'm glad this forum exists)

[Matridom]

I want a personalized avatar like noonoo and matridom but I will behave myself until I have contributed enough useful posts to warrant bothering Sir Master Scott.. I'm glad this forum exists

I'm not sure what the current process is for custom avatars, NooNoo will know, More then likely, it will be an e-mail to a moderator. Mine is a throw back to way back when everyone was allowed to upload their own avatar.

[Ferrit]

I am running Vista buisness and Vista Ultimate at the moment
It is not a dual boot more like a dual os i merely select F11 at boot and the motherboard allows me to select what drive I want booted and of course the os on it.
The reason for this is so that the systems do not interfere with each other
I like Vista alot and I wont go back.
Yes it has compatibility problems with some software but thats usually the fault of the software vendor.
They have written very poor programs that try to access certain parts of the registry microsoft doesnt want touched for security reasons.
Case in point would be quickbooks. Read here
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=413

[Trainshed Terry]

Sooo!!!!!!!!!!! If i wised to I could install another HDD and install Vista on that if I felt the need to do so.......... which is why I started this thread.:)

:rolleyes: Dual Booting sounds like a practical way to go about it and the way to test Vista before committing to using the system. :rolleyes:

:cool: Just one question what is the recommended size of HDD to install vista on to.:thumbs:

[Ferrit]

Well be carefull because if you dualboot its slightly complicated to remove the one system if its vista you want to remove
Check to see if your motherboard supports quick booting to other drives.
Vista I would say should need at least 30/40 gigs
I installed it on a 20 and there is only 8 left so thats not a lot of room for programs or anything

[HMIBarryLSalter]

Actually, there is a difference between dual boot and two hard drives.

If you install two operation systems, one on one hard drive and one on another hard drive, then this is not duel boot.. It is however, far far easier to do and easily to managed. With two hard drives, you can mount them both in the machine and use the bios to switch between them, OR you can even put in a removable hard drive bracket and simply turn off the machine and swap drive bays (one each with each drive in it).

The advantage of separate drives in separate bays is that nothing that should hurt one drive (like a virus) will have no chance of hurting the other drive.

The advantage of separate drives both mounted and using the bios to switch them is, you are able to access information on the other drive no mater which drive your booted to (if they are setup compatibly).

The advantage of duel boot however is, the use of one drive when a second drive is not available AND / OR the use of the boot menu as provided by the OS's menu you have setup to use to boot from.

I hope that helped clear that up... if it did, now consider one more thing..

Ferrit talks about hitting F11 (function key 11 before the OS even begins) and what he is talking about is, his mother board has the ability to show the OSs it recognizes to be installed... No Scratch that.. how can it? It reports the Hard drives installed in the machine and hence (you knowing which one is which) the OSs installed in the machine... (sorry, thought I'd answer the quest about the OS and DRIVES before it was asked lol ) There are a few mother boards like this, take some Compaqs or HPs (same thing lol ) that will automatically detect two drives and pop up a menu asking which drive you wish to boot from..

This then is not exactly considered by us as duel boot but a far easier, safer, quicker.. you get it. solution to duel booting a computer... Also, duel booting (meaning two) in actuality could mean three four or more partitions and OSs on a drive and not just two! And as someone else mentioned (and I didn't know but makes perfect sense) if setting up a duel boot, start with the OLDest OS first to avoid incompatibility issues. Such issues are like, win98 will not read a NTFS drive. Some issues don't matter like Win95a/b not reading larger than a FAT16 drive (can't say for c, I don't remember).

I myself.. have always taken the easy road (except once, I had a lilo boot) and choose to use separate drives where as my tech would almost certainly take the duel boot approach (although I'd admit, he is a lot smarter than me even with my old age at this stuff).

Barry,