Linked by Adam S on Tue 26th Aug 2008 14:55 UTC
What makes this Vista article any different? The title provides a clue: it's as much about providing practical working solutions to resolve some of the commonly-quoted Vista annoyances as anything else. That in itself should give all Vista users a reason to read it. However it doesn't matter whether you use Vista or not, because this article does something that most of the others don't: it takes an objective and up-to-date look at the current state of Vista, with a range of facts, clear examples and informed opinions aimed squarely at debunking a lot of the myths and FUD we've been gagging on for the past year. So for those of you still considering whether to make the switch from XP, for those of you who want to abandon Vista and go back to XP, for those of you who used Vista a while ago and who are wondering whether it's worth using again now - this article puts things in perspective with the latest facts.
Thread beginning with comment 327960
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Win2k -> WinXP -> WinVista
by stestagg on Wed 27th Aug 2008 23:06
in reply to "Win2k -> WinXP -> WinVista"
Member since:2006-06-03
I do agree that Microsoft have ironed out some pretty big bugs such as the slow network and zip file operations.
Actually, No. They improved things slightly, but Zip and Network performance in Vista is still a major fail. I measured Vista zip extraction speed against 7-zip and Winzip. Vista SP0 was 3000% slower. SP1 only 900%. To put this into perspective, on SP0, you'd be waiting almost an hour for a zip file to extract, SP1 would take 15 minutes, while 7-zip only takes 2 minutes.
As for network performance, just try deleting a file on a windows share over a VPN connection. In fact, don't. It would be faster to implement the fabled IP over carrier pidgeon protocol and send your file delete instructions in an email via IPCP.
Member since:
2006-07-25
Overall a good article
The only point i will raise with it, is the history of XP. I was one of the IT Administrators who put off the upgrade to XP from Win2k for as long as possible. As indeed XP didn't offer anything new, i would need more powerful machines, plus countless man hours upgrading the OS to get the users to where they were before. Win2k required less memory, processing power and hdd space to run the same applications without now difference. I did finally succumb and upgrade networks to WinXP, however i still have a higher regard for Windows 2000 than any of the relases after it.
As per the article my argument is still the same. I have x number of machines all running Windows XP + Office XP. Now do i spent a lot of money in time and resources upgrading my network to Vista just so the users can do exactly the same thing.
When Microsoft and other companies release a product there has to be a reason to upgrade and not to just upgrade for upgrades sake. Windows 2000 gave us USB support and better driver and hardware support over NT4. Windows XP didn't really offer anything, as vista doesn't
I know it's horses for courses but with Mac OSX they offered Time Machine, a speed increase and some other features (although i know the speed increase is subjective however my machines did run about the same or a little faster after leopard). These i thought were good enough to upgrade.
I do agree that Microsoft have ironed out some pretty big bugs such as the slow network and zip file operations. The memory usage seems better with Vista returning memory more efficently. However again i can't see nothing new with Vista over XP over Win2k. DirectX 10 is the only thing i know XP can't do.
Suggestions for Microsoft and Vista, i think if were microsoft i would have spent some more time taking advantage of some good technology they have in Windows, .Net 3.0 a la WPF. Why they didn't rewrite most of the apps and UI to utilise this technology is a mystery, as i think this would have made the biggest impact. Im not talking about just making apps flashy for no reason, im thinking more of making some well designed OS apps which are easy to use and visually show the user whats going on and what to do next. Movie maker and DVD maker are a joke, there are projects on sourceforge that are more professional looking. This would have helped the perception of vista in the home. As for the perception of vista in the workplace. I don't know what to say to help Microsoft apart from Windows 2008 and Vista share the same kernel and a lot of other code, however the difference between them is night and day. Windows 2008 is a great product where i can see immediant reasons to upgrade because of a feature list that goes on forever (server core, improved AD and AD services DNS, DHCP, improved management and resource management and hyperV).