Windows Vista - Re-Vistaed

[Steve40]

I started this new thread because the one below is starting to look like a tree, with so many branches you don't know where to go.

First as one who has seen this new system, and has a son that keeps up with all the latest techno-babble. And built a new machine late last fall, just for the purpose of running Vista. Which goes far beyond the machine most would have or purchase, if you have any common sense.

First there are several versions of Vista from a starter, to a premium version. When you visit Micro Soft's site, and run the Vista ready program, you are only checking for bare minimum requirements. This means your machine can run the bare minimum Vista program.

Now the reality check, as you could run XP on a 266 machine, and yes you can, that is if your machine meets certain minimum requirements. But it will only just run, although very slowly. As for top performance from your 266, you would have been better off to stay with Win 98, so goes Vista.

I have seen the difference in the minimum version of Vista, and the Premium version, I really think most here would not be happy, with anything less than premium. There a whole new ball game starts. The minimum requirements get a whole lot bigger there.
My son has a new 48 bit dual layer processor plus a board that supports it, the latest sada drives raided (much diffrent than the DMA drives we have). A video card with 250 megs ram on board, 2 gigs of upper level ram, and a lot of other upgrades I won't bother with. That machine just meets Vista Premium requirements. Its what most of us would refer to as a super computer.

Now the bottom line, if your machine is doing the job you want it to, with XP. Why bother yourself to make, or go to the expense of changing to Vista. While it has a lot of attractive things to look at, I really doubt its advantages in doing what most of us do, that is process our images, and store them.

Now I'm going to get very blunt. If your criteria is to keep up with the Jonse's, or just bragging rites, - you are STUPID. One thing that has not been even mentioned, is will this new 48 bit system run all your current 32 bit software.
A lot of older programs fell by the way, when XP came out. There is no reason why that will not hold true for Vista. A lot of peripheral hardware makers did not up-date drivers for older printers, scanners, and other devices. The same is going to be true with Vista, but even more do, since Vista is not even based on the same platform previous windows versions were. So if you think you are ready for all of this - by all means go ahead.

But just as a 10 megapixel camera is not necessary for mom to take snap-shots of Junior, neither is Vista necessary for the average computer user. So myself I will stay just exactly where I am at, with XP. I really just can't afford all the possible expenses, that will/does go with the new Vista program. :)

[rogleale]

Hi Steve,
Don't get too uptight about the requirements for Vista. It is obvious that your son has a gaming machine equipped far above what is needed for Vista to run satisfactorily. By-the-way, I presume you mean a 64 bit processor, not a 48!
I am running Vista Premium RTC1 on two machines. One is an Athlon XP 3500+ 64 bit with 2 GB DDR memory, and an AGP 8x nVidia 7600GT with 256MB on board, so not a real racer, but adequate. Vista runs fast on this, full Aero, and CS3 runs fast too. The Vista performance rating for this machine is 4.2, limited by the processor.
My second machine is a lower spec: Sempron 2.2 GHz, 1 GB DDR, and a nVidia GeForce 6200, also with 256 MB on an AGP 8x. Vista and CS3 both run satisfactorily on this machine but slower. The Vista performance rating is 2.2 limited by the graphics card.
I am going to buy Vista as soon as I can, the Premium. The Ultimate is aimed more at the multi-media fans I think. Photoshop CS3 and Bridge 2.0 are fantastic, even in Beta.

Roger

[Steve40]

I am not getting up tight really. Take for instance your machine, quite expensive if I had to go out and buy it just to run Vista. I never ran XP on my old 600, although it would. I ran ME because the lower requirements of ME, gave me faster machine preformance. The bottom line is - do I want to do an expensive up-grade, or buy a new machine just to run Vista. Or would I rather buy a better camera.

The answer to this is pretty obvious to me, at least!. I consider my computer an evil necessity, for my digital camera. Not something I even give a squat about for anything else. I wouldn't even have a computer, if it weren't for my camera. So why am I going to put any more into it than necessary?.

Of course I do not speak for this modern generation of tecno-soled out suckers. If film prices came back down to something reasonable tomorrow, my digital cameras would go out the door the next day. And I would go back to my 35mm cameras, which I still have. :eek: :)

[Steve40]

Now I am going to take a few days off form message boards, while I screw my top back on. When it blows I know its that time. :)

[coupekid]

I started this new thread because the one below is starting to look like a tree, with so many branches you don't know where to go.

First as one who has seen this new system, and has a son that keeps up with all the latest techno-babble. And built a new machine late last fall, just for the purpose of running Vista. Which goes far beyond the machine most would have or purchase, if you have any common sense.

First there are several versions of Vista from a starter, to a premium version. When you visit Micro Soft's site, and run the Vista ready program, you are only checking for bare minimum requirements. This means your machine can run the bare minimum Vista program.

Now the reality check, as you could run XP on a 266 machine, and yes you can, that is if your machine meets certain minimum requirements. But it will only just run, although very slowly. As for top performance from your 266, you would have been better off to stay with Win 98, so goes Vista.

I have seen the difference in the minimum version of Vista, and the Premium version, I really think most here would not be happy, with anything less than premium. There a whole new ball game starts. The minimum requirements get a whole lot bigger there.
My son has a new 48 bit dual layer processor plus a board that supports it, the latest sada drives raided (much diffrent than the DMA drives we have). A video card with 250 megs ram on board, 2 gigs of upper level ram, and a lot of other upgrades I won't bother with. That machine just meets Vista Premium requirements. Its what most of us would refer to as a super computer.

Now the bottom line, if your machine is doing the job you want it to, with XP. Why bother yourself to make, or go to the expense of changing to Vista. While it has a lot of attractive things to look at, I really doubt its advantages in doing what most of us do, that is process our images, and store them.

Now I'm going to get very blunt. If your criteria is to keep up with the Jonse's, or just bragging rites, - you are STUPID. One thing that has not been even mentioned, is will this new 48 bit system run all your current 32 bit software.
A lot of older programs fell by the way, when XP came out. There is no reason why that will not hold true for Vista. A lot of peripheral hardware makers did not up-date drivers for older printers, scanners, and other devices. The same is going to be true with Vista, but even more do, since Vista is not even based on the same platform previous windows versions were. So if you think you are ready for all of this - by all means go ahead.

But just as a 10 megapixel camera is not necessary for mom to take snap-shots of Junior, neither is Vista necessary for the average computer user. So myself I will stay just exactly where I am at, with XP. I really just can't afford all the possible expenses, that will/does go with the new Vista program. :)



I understand what you are saying Steve, but, dont really understand your point. No one is forcing you to upgrade to Vista (its still a couple of weeks off before release date) by the time Microsoft finish supporting XP, I am sure what your son is running will be the at least the norm!

There are also more advantages to Vista that just looking pretty as well Steve not least of which is Security features. ;)

[JSR]

I understand what you are saying Steve, but, dont really understand your point. No one is forcing you to upgrade to Vista
I'd like to take a moment to dispute that. We *will* be forced to upgrade to Vista by Microsoft.

I bought my brand-new Dell PC a few years back and it came with Windows XP service pack 1. Everytime I turn on the computer, I get a pop-up message saying that "Windows XP SP1 is no longer supported, you MUST upgrade to SP2..." - or words to that effect.

My PC, for reasons that are beyond me right now, will not install SP2. Each time I tried, I've ended up without a system that will not boot and I've had to choice but to wipe it and start afresh - and sticking to SP1. Yet, despite the PC being "relatively new" - in that it's using Windows XP, the current version of Windows, I've been hung out to dry by Microsoft for not being able to upgrade to SP2.

How long before Microsoft hang SP2 users out to dry for not running Vista? If we want to use Windows, the most popular operating system - made popular by Microsoft's monopoly, we are *forced* to upgrade at their whim regardless of how stable or fast your current system is. Don't upgrade and you won't get security patches and updates. Already, if you don't have SP2 you can't have IE7 so you're left with an old browser.

Sorry to rant, but it annoys me totally that Microsoft are allowed to leave buggy versions of their products unsupported and you'll only get their buggy product supported if you upgrade to the latest version.

[coupekid]

I'd like to take a moment to dispute that. We *will* be forced to upgrade to Vista by Microsoft.

I bought my brand-new Dell PC a few years back and it came with Windows XP service pack 1. Everytime I turn on the computer, I get a pop-up message saying that "Windows XP SP1 is no longer supported, you MUST upgrade to SP2..." - or words to that effect.

My PC, for reasons that are beyond me right now, will not install SP2. Each time I tried, I've ended up without a system that will not boot and I've had to choice but to wipe it and start afresh - and sticking to SP1. Yet, despite the PC being "relatively new" - in that it's using Windows XP, the current version of Windows, I've been hung out to dry by Microsoft for not being able to upgrade to SP2.

How long before Microsoft hang SP2 users out to dry for not running Vista? If we want to use Windows, the most popular operating system - made popular by Microsoft's monopoly, we are *forced* to upgrade at their whim regardless of how stable or fast your current system is. Don't upgrade and you won't get security patches and updates. Already, if you don't have SP2 you can't have IE7 so you're left with an old browser.

Sorry to rant, but it annoys me totally that Microsoft are allowed to leave buggy versions of their products unsupported and you'll only get their buggy product supported if you upgrade to the latest version.

Hmmm...thats interesting, and what have MS said when you called them?

[JSR]

Hmmm...thats interesting, and what have MS said when you called them?
I don't understand your question - unless you're being sarcastic. If a whole continent of courts can'ts do anything to change Microsoft's practices, just what would a 'phone call from one disgruntled user do? Other than give them a good laugh, of course?

[coupekid]

I don't understand your question - unless you're being sarcastic. If a whole continent of courts can'ts do anything to change Microsoft's practices, just what would a 'phone call from one disgruntled user do? Other than give them a good laugh, of course?

No, of course I am not being sarcastic, I am asking if you contacted Microsoft for support, if their service pack is crashing your system, I am sure they would help you out. I just assumed you would have called them for support, apologies if it came out as sarcasm....... (I just aint like that! :D )

[JSR]

No, of course I am not being sarcastic, I am asking if you contacted Microsoft for support, if their service pack is crashing your system, I am sure they would help you out. I just assumed you would have called them for support, apologies if it came out as sarcasm....... (I just aint like that! :D )
And I'm sure Microsoft would not help me out. If SP2 works for millions of people and doesn't work for one, all they're likely to do is to blame the computer. And the computer manufacturer would blame the O/S. After all, I didn't buy Windows from Microsoft - it came with the computer; and the computer is out of warranty. I'm not into wasting time being sent around in circles by companies that just give the pretence of giving a monkeys.

I don't have an axe to grind against Microsoft, I'm not one of those anti-MS "you can't beat Linux" people. Like most software that comes from big organisations that can't see the individual user, when it works it works great. When it doesn't, tough cheese.

I recall all the headline banners when XP first came out. The way it was "far more stable than anything that came before". And that it "puts security first". All of those headline-grabbing statements are the very reason I waited until XP was established before buying the new PC. But now it turns out that it's not secure at all, for that you need SP2 and without SP2, you won't get anything else.

It's also the very reason why I am not considering buying a new computer to replace my second PC that failed over Christmas (in days of old, I would by a replacement machine and retire to light-duties the one that can't be upgraded). There are all the headline-grabbing statements about Vista that we heard when XP was first released. There's every company and their dog selling "Vista-ready" PCs with free upgrades when it's finally released. But I'm not convinced because of the old adage "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me". If XPSP2 can't be installed on an XPSP1 machine, I'm not at all confident that Vista will install on an XPSP2 machine.

No, of course I am not being sarcastic, <...> apologies if it came out as sarcasm....... (I just aint like that! :D )
I apologise for jumping the gun. One day, when time isn't so tight, I will doubtless try to reinstall XP2 again - I have half an idea what the problem is, but it's only an idea. Trouble is, I use my computer for work-related activities and I can't afford it to be in a non-working state for several days. For now, it works, even if MS don't want to support SP1 (I'm working on the principle - if it ain't broke, don't try and fix it).

[rogleale]

JSR have you tried getting advice on your SP 2 problem? There is an excellent member to member site, www.windowsbbs.com, where there are plenty of experts on XP problems. This one used to be quite common but seems to have dropped out of sight now.
Roger

[JSR]

JSR have you tried getting advice on your SP 2 problem? There is an excellent member to member site, www.windowsbbs.com, where there are plenty of experts on XP problems. This one used to be quite common but seems to have dropped out of sight now.
Roger

Thanks for the link, Roger. I'll have a good ol' browse around over the weekend and see if someone's already found a fix.

*chr

[Steve40]

The most common problem with non sp2 compliant machines, is not having up-dated to the latest direct-X. SP2 will not run on a system with less than direct-X 9 on it. And of course crashes the machines that don't.

[Steve40]

Pardon my extreme rant on the demerits of Vista. I just am not a technology orientated person, I subscribe to Henry Ford's mind set. Rather than come out with something new that does not work any better than the previous product, fix the bugs in the old product, and make it work like it should.

I have this same opinion about Digital Cameras, especially in the consumer grade models. Instead of coming out with product no. 1-b to replace no. 1-a, why not just fix the problem in the first one.

This is what P's me off so bad, we have been made suckers to an ever growing communistic money grubbing merchandising market, with promises, promises, that never delivers what they promised in the first place - its more than a little annoying. :mad:

[JSR]

The most common problem with non sp2 compliant machines, is not having up-dated to the latest direct-X. SP2 will not run on a system with less than direct-X 9 on it. And of course crashes the machines that don't.
As far as I'm aware, my directX is up-to-date. Funny you mention it, though, because that little idea I had about what could be the cause of the problem is the nVidia GeForce graphics card. When I get a mo., I'm going to pick up a £30 ATI one and then try out the upgrade after that.

Maybe there is some issue with the video card that I'm not aware of.

[JSR]

Pardon my extreme rant on the demerits of Vista. I just am not a technology orientated person, I subscribe to Henry Ford's mind set. Rather than come out with something new that does not work any better than the previous product, fix the bugs in the old product, and make it work like it should.

I have this same opinion about Digital Cameras, especially in the consumer grade models. Instead of coming out with product no. 1-b to replace no. 1-a, why not just fix the problem in the first one.

This is what P's me off so bad, we have been made suckers to an ever growing communistic money grubbing merchandising market, with promises, promises, that never delivers what they promised in the first place - its more than a little annoying. :mad:
With all of these restrictions, required activations, and all manner of viruses attacking Windows, it's a pity they don't put some effort into creating a "portable" version. With all of these portable USB keys, CDs, DVDs, etc, surely it would be feasible for each person to have their own individual copy of Windows that they can carry with them and then use on any computer they come across. Anything ever goes wrong, you know that your portable Windows hasn't been corrupted so a reset would fix everything.

I was watching the BBC News' "Click Online" today and they were talking a bit about Vista - all the flashy bits, animated desktops, and all of that. Then they said "but to enjoy the new enhancements you need to get the Ultimate Supreme Universe-busting version" - or something like that. The standard version that most of us can barely afford won't be anything near as radical as we're being promised.

It's like those car adverts on TV with a picture of a posh-looking car, a voice-over talking about all the wonderful features and gadgets, the on-screen text banner saying "From £8,995" and it's not unless you read the tiny illegible smallprint that you'll see "Ultimate Supreme Version shown, price £19,995" or something. For the £8,995 shown you won't get anything that the advert is actually advertising. The same with Vista. We hear about all the wonderful new features and enhancements, but none of them will be in the "standard" version. If they weren't doing so many different versions of Windows and, instead, stuck to one, just maybe they could get it right before moving onto something else.

[Stephen]

It's like those car adverts on TV with a picture of a posh-looking car, a voice-over talking about all the wonderful features and gadgets, the on-screen text banner saying "From £8,995" and it's not unless you read the tiny illegible smallprint that you'll see "Ultimate Supreme Version shown, price £19,995" or something. For the £8,995 shown you won't get anything that the advert is actually advertising. The same with Vista. We hear about all the wonderful new features and enhancements, but none of them will be in the "standard" version. If they weren't doing so many different versions of Windows and, instead, stuck to one, just maybe they could get it right before moving onto something else.

OMG, what tosh!! and I think you know it as well as I do. This somewhat cynical downer on the likes of Microsoft is rather unfair. The analogy with the car adds implies that something underhand is going on. It has always been the case, and always will be that when any manufacturer produces a product there is always a range to choose from, going from the lowly base model to the all singing all dancing model.

MS are no different here, whilst you can go for the car with the performance engine and fancy trim etc, with XP and other incarnations of windows the same applies. XP Pro is a different product to XP Home, designed for a different purpose and therefore at a different price break.

Top of the range gear costs more to produce and is aimed at different markets and therefore costs more to buy. Its a fact of life, the way of all things. Just deal with it, then go take some photos

[JSR]

OMG, what tosh!!
As you wish.

[ash]

:)
Can ya just run that by me again I didn't catch it


only jokin, I only heard of vista the other day from a friend, and to be honest im not really bothered, when my pc cant cope with a particuler situation or program, and all other options have been spent, then i will consider upgrading, untill then its just a waste of money!

cheers
Ash.:D

[Steve40]

You would be suprised at the problems a graphics card can introduce into the mix, I was, and I would have never believed it, until my son insisted a problem I had was my graphics card.

So an upgrade can't hurt you, and it may possibly be just the ticket you need. :)

[Stephen]

You would be suprised at the problems a graphics card can introduce into the mix, I was, and I would have never believed it, until my son insisted a problem I had was my graphics card.

So an upgrade can't hurt you, and it may possibly be just the ticket you need. :)

So are you saying that the problems with installing SP2 may not be a MS issue but rather sub standard hardware, which should have been addressed by the manufacturers. Heck the MS conspiracy theorists will be disappointed :D Oh but of course, they have a get out, if MS didn't upgrade their software there would be no need for new hardware ;) In yer dreams :D

[JSR]

So are you saying that the problems with installing SP2 may not be a MS issue but rather sub standard hardware, which should have been addressed by the manufacturers. Heck the MS conspiracy theorists will be disappointed :D Oh but of course, they have a get out, if MS didn't upgrade their software there would be no need for new hardware ;) In yer dreams :D
:rolleyes:

[JSR]

You would be suprised at the problems a graphics card can introduce into the mix, I was, and I would have never believed it, until my son insisted a problem I had was my graphics card.

So an upgrade can't hurt you, and it may possibly be just the ticket you need. :)
Thanks, Steve. I wonder if there's a list of graphics cards/chipsets that were supported in SP1 but that SP2 has trouble with? I wouldn't want to buy a new card only to find SP2 doesn't like that either. And if my current card appears on the list of troublesome ones, I'd know for certain that it is this that causes SP2 the troubles.

[coupekid]

Thanks, Steve. I wonder if there's a list of graphics cards/chipsets that were supported in SP1 but that SP2 has trouble with? I wouldn't want to buy a new card only to find SP2 doesn't like that either. And if my current card appears on the list of troublesome ones, I'd know for certain that it is this that causes SP2 the troubles.

if you have any questions like this, you may find the Microsoft Newsgroups useful:

http://www.microsoft.com/communities/newsgroups/default.mspx

try searching, if not, try posting your own question on there. :D

Hope that helps! :D

[coupekid]

As you wish.

Well, with respect Stephen is absolutely correct IMHO

The problem Microsoft have, is if they didnt offer lower (or introductory) versions of the product, then people would moan that they cant afford it. If they only offer offer the lower versions, then what is the point of all the software research in the first place.

Its a case of you can please some of the people some of the time! :D

Of course, dont forget you can always go for the Linux route! that way you wont have to worry about the cost at all! (until something goes the way of the pear!)

[Steve40]

JSR.

If such a list exists I an not aware of it. I am using an G-Force card also. A previous card that SP2 did not like was also a G-Force but older. So I think it probably has a lot to do with the age of the card, and its compatibility.

[John Houghton]

I haven't seen any Vista prices until today. PC World are now taking pre-orders for the Home Premium edition at £184.99 (£149.99 upgrade). The Ultimate edition is a modest £325.00 (£249.99 upgrade).

John

[rogleale]

You may find THIS (http://www.tekheads.co.uk/s/product?product=606823) interesting John!
I can't see why an OEM wouldn't suit lots of folk!

Roger

[John Houghton]

The OEM prices do seem more inviting, and I think you are right - most people would be happy enough with the OEM version. A large proportion buy PCs with preinstalled OS and no CD anyway, though there's usually some sort of recovery disc image supplied. The problem is that hardware upgrade options are limited.

John

[rogleale]

Actually John, talking to some of the Microsoft guys that turn up on various forums, the rules for component changes are relaxed compared to XP but we shall see!

Roger

[rogleale]

Hi John,
Rather interesting thing on the Amazon site. They are saying that Microsoft have asked them to stop taking pre-release orders for Vista so they have stopped. No other reason given, but I wonder if it could be related to the possibility that Microsoft will be selling downloads of Vista on their Microsoft Marketplace? This has been posted as a fact on a couple of American chat sites, and it could maybe influence prices.

Roger