MS tricks die-hard XP users into liking Vista

[Splash]

Originally Posted by ShenBlade

Note my original comment was 2GB ram for vista home/business. Ultimate is more stable and XP Pro is more stable after having to support multimedia, financial companies as well as the obligatory friends and family.

I am quite surprised you would say there is no difference in performance Splash, do you happen to have any evidence supporting this?

As Hexxeh says... if anything, Ultimate is likely to have a slightly higher load than Home Premium or Business if only because out of the box it has more guff running. Got any evidence of your own?

Your comment about the "stability" of Ultimate and XP Pro... confuses me. Are you implying that the versions of Windows aimed at home users are in some way less stable by design? What kind of business model would that be?

[shaithis]

Sounds a lot like the placebo effect to me, especially when you consider that the differences between some of these versions of windows are ridiculously minuscule.

[dangel]

I'd consider memory requires for Vista something like this:

Min (usable) - 1gb
Ideal - 2gb
Best - 4gb (more than this law of diminishing returns for most users)


We have many development PCs which are quad core/2gb which run very slicky indeed. Our 64bit systems get 4gb of RAM as a: they use it and b: the overall load is slightly higher. At home my media center is 2gb/32bit/DDR1/dualcore AMD and is nice n' quick too.

Disabling the default services may be worth your while - generally i can't be bothered as i honestly believe the return isn't worth the effort. I reckon you need to fully understand what you're disabling though - else you'll cause more harm than good. Just a thought.

[ShenBlade]

Originally Posted by Splash

As Hexxeh says... if anything, Ultimate is likely to have a slightly higher load than Home Premium or Business if only because out of the box it has more guff running. Got any evidence of your own?

Your comment about the "stability" of Ultimate and XP Pro... confuses me. Are you implying that the versions of Windows aimed at home users are in some way less stable by design? What kind of business model would that be?

Are you familiar with the whole license pricing of microsoft for the various business'? Microsoft makes far more money from business than they do for home users and as such, focus will always remain more on business users.

I quote from my humble technical support experience of working with xp home/xp pro/vista home premium/vista ultimate/vista business and my 5 years of IT technical support in a financial and multimedia industry testing and supporting with suppliers/in-house programs/bloomberg/datastream/office 2007 and office 2003/data storage for a SME of 300 people.

I know it might be strange to you, but I have compared performance issues of various OS for stability. Unfortunately, I have found vista ultimate to be far more stable than vista business when doing comparisons as well as XP home and XP Pro. this is just my humble experience, so if you have had nothing but smooth sailing in your experience, then thats good but my recommendation will still stand based on my past experience

[Agent]

I was under the impression that Business and Ultimate were identical apart from a few different default services on startup, the MCE application being included and the 'ultimate extras' that turned out to be rather rubbish?

[directhex]

Originally Posted by ShenBlade

Are you familiar with the whole license pricing of microsoft for the various business'? Microsoft makes far more money from business than they do for home users and as such, focus will always remain more on business users.

I quote from my humble technical support experience of working with xp home/xp pro/vista home premium/vista ultimate/vista business and my 5 years of IT technical support in a financial and multimedia industry testing and supporting with suppliers/in-house programs/bloomberg/datastream/office 2007 and office 2003/data storage for a SME of 300 people.

I know it might be strange to you, but I have compared performance issues of various OS for stability. Unfortunately, I have found vista ultimate to be far more stable than vista business when doing comparisons as well as XP home and XP Pro. this is just my humble experience, so if you have had nothing but smooth sailing in your experience, then thats good but my recommendation will still stand based on my past experience

and it's anecdotal "experience" like this which fills the tech market with all kinds of utter bollocks, misinforming people into buying things that are completely inappropriate for them

you're just plain wrong, i'm afraid. there is NO difference between versions of vista for inherent stability. they use the same kernel and drivers, and have only minor userland differences (e.g. one comes with the media center app, one doesn't). anecdotes relating to who has what buggy driver and spyware on which base os are irrelevant

correlation does not imply causation

[Agent]

You know, sometimes I wish I didn't beat around the bush.....

[badass]

Originally Posted by directhex

and it's anecdotal "experience" like this which fills the tech market with all kinds of utter bollocks, misinforming people into buying things that are completely inappropriate for them

You get that in all industries. Its always caused by people that don't know enough about what they are happy to talk about and advise upon. Yet they advise anyway.

[ShenBlade]

Hey directhex, sorry if I offended you there everyone is entitled to their opinion but end of the day I quote from my experience from supporting the os and people's problems with both business users needs and home users needs. Heck, my contractor friends all recommend macs for people and thats their opinion.

However, I do not think either of us are willing to accept each other's statements without loads of statistical proof and testing as we both seem to have our own reasons for our stances (mine from experience ad knowledge, yours from your experience and knowledge).

and perhaps to lighten up this topic:

How many forum members does it takes to change a light bulb?

1 to change the light bulb and to post that the light bulb has been changed
14 to share similar experiences of changing light bulbs and how the light bulb could have been changed differently
7 to caution about the dangers of changing light bulbs
1 to move it to the Lighting section
2 to argue then move it to the Electricals section
7 to point out spelling/grammar errors in posts about changing light bulbs
5 to flame the spell checkers
3 to correct spelling/grammar flames
6 to argue over whether it's "lightbulb" or "light bulb" ... another 6 to condemn those 6 as stupid
2 industry professionals to inform the group that the proper term is "lamp"
15 know-it-alls who claim they were in the industry, and that "light bulb" is perfectly correct
19 to post that this forum is not about light bulbs and to please take this discussion to a lightbulb forum
11 to defend the posting to this forum saying that we all use light bulbs and therefore the posts are relevant to this forum
36 to debate which method of changing light bulbs is superior, where to buy the best light bulbs, what brand of light bulbs work best for this technique and what brands are faulty
7 to post URL's where one can see examples of different light bulbs
4 to post that the URL's were posted incorrectly and then post the corrected URL's
3 to post about links they found from the URL's that are relevant to this group which makes light bulbs relevant to this group
13 to link all posts to date, quote them in their entirety including all headers and signatures, and add "Me too"
5 to post to the group that they will no longer post because they cannot handle the light bulb controversy
4 to say "didn't we go through this already a short time ago?"
13 to say "do a Google search on light bulbs before posting questions about light bulbs"
1 forum lurker to respond to the original post 6 months from now and start it all over again.

[dangel]

Originally Posted by badass

You get that in all industries. Its always caused by people that don't know enough about what they are happy to talk about and advise upon. Yet they advise anyway.

...but enough about managers already!

[TheAnimus]

ShenBlade, the problem is you can apply logic and reason.

We know that its the same kernel (unlike the server editions, which are totaly tweaked).
We know that all the differences are a bunch of services and user mode apps. No extra drivers.

We know that the more apps running, the greater the chance that one of them will make the system screw up! (assuming probability of any given app crashing the system to be C then we find that a crash is enevitable as C gets higher).

So we can then assume that your experiances are bollocks. This is based on my experience of trolling forums, and knowledge.

[badass]

Originally Posted by dangel

...but enough about managers already!

Those that can, do. Those than can't, manage

That double entendre reflects my experience of any job

[Ypnos]

For me an operating system is just that. A piece of software that interfaces me with my applications. Vista is slow to boot, slow to load my software and runs slowly when the software is running. My games lose 10 to 15 FPS under Vista (some more!), it has poor driver support still and is tempermental. I’ve tried several releases on several machines both at home and at work and the results are the same. Vista is slow.

Would anyone even bother with Vista if it didn’t have DX10 exclusively? Does it really offer anything else? The day I move away from Windows XP will be the day I switch to Linux. Vista just doesn’t do it for me.

[NovaSphere]

I've always used XP Home 32-Bit, have also used XP Pro 32-bit on my Laptop, never felt like changing to Vista when it came out, neither is it worth for me to change on my pc now, simply won't handle it.

Though, when I buy my new PC the following week, I'll be getting Vista for sure, simply XP getting a bit 'old' for me now, if you know what I mean, when I get my new PC I want this 'all new feeling' =p
Besides that Vista looks nice when it comes to the graphic side of the OS, DirectX 10 is also a good point for me.

I'll be getting the Vista Ultimate 64-bit Retail version.

[ionicle]

i'm a bit 50/50
i like xp for its ease of use, and its compatability with almost everything, its also a lot quicker on slower hardware, you can do more etc...

but i dislike it for the spyware, adware, and viruses that are abundent...
and it runs perfectly, if you have a nice big powerful system

i like vista for its ease-of-networking
but i dislike it for its slugishness on slower hardware

[directhex]

can a vista expert tell me how to print multiple photos on one sheet, the way you could using the photo viewer in xp?