Re: XP *and* Vista co-exist in the market?
"Canuck57" <dave-no_spam@unixhome.net> wrote in message
news:nwOXj.147771$Cj7.96965@pd7urf2no...
>
> "Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote in message
> news:ACCA7C71-EDF0-48E4-9F41-B8D4E17907FD@microsoft.com...
>> "Canuck57" <dave-no_spam@unixhome.net> wrote in message
>> news:UlGXj.146998$Cj7.110714@pd7urf2no...
>>>
>>> "Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote in message
>>> news:2E5A8BF6-8DA4-4129-B7D7-A88CF082CEB9@microsoft.com...
>>>> ":: Alias ::" <iamalias@TAKEOUTgmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:ulQE10CuIHA.4560@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>>>> Kerry Brown wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes you did. You knew that Vista would require high end hardware
>>>>>>> long before it was released.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't need to use *anything* to discredit Vista. It does a very
>>>>>>> good job all by itself and doesn't need my help.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I build systems for $600.00 (not including a monitor, but with Vista
>>>>>> Home Premium) that run Vista very well. That's hardly what I'd call
>>>>>> high end.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> A price does not tell us anything except that you buy cheap hardware
>>>>> to build computers. Six hundred US dollars wouldn't even cover the
>>>>> cost of buying retail Ultimate in Spain.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm actually very particular about the hardware I use. You are living
>>>> in the past. You mentioned earlier in the thread that 2GB of RAM is
>>>> high end. I don't know about Spain but here in Canada 2GB of name brand
>>>> DDR2 RAM is $60.00. Here's a typical configuration that will run Vista
>>>> very well and is easily under $500.00 for the hardware which is what I
>>>> consider to be decent quality.
>>>>
>>>> Gigabyte GA-G31M-S2L motherboard $85.00
>>>> Intel E2200 CPU $95.00
>>>> 2x1GB Kingston DDR2 800 MHz $60.00
>>>> Seagate 250GB SATA-II hard drive $65.00
>>>> LG GSA H55 DVDRW $40.00
>>>> Gigabyte X1BPD case with 400 watt PSU $85.00
>>>> Microsoft Value Pack keyboard and mouse $30.00
>>>>
>>>> Total cost of hardware $460.00. This is retail prices, all recognised
>>>> brand names. If you're not particular about where you shop you could
>>>> probably get it even cheaper. It's hardly high end. It will run any
>>>> edition of Vista 32 or 64 bit with no problems. The system will be
>>>> stable, all drivers are easily available. OEM Vista Home Premium is
>>>> $125.00, Ultimate $205.00. A decent 19" wide screen LCD would be
>>>> another $200.00. The complete system with Vista Ultimate is $865.00.
>>>> Maybe you should move to Canada. It sounds like your decision to live
>>>> in Spain has impacted your computing experience. In any case cost is
>>>> relative to where you live. The system specs would not be considered
>>>> high end anywhere yet Vista runs with no problems on it.
>>>
>>> You are quoting OEM versions. He is talking the full retail. You know,
>>> the better ones that are complete and recoverable. You also are without
>>> office tools. Add in business or ultimate office tools you are well
>>> over the $1000, more than twice the price of the total hardware package.
>>
>> Generic OEM disks are a full install just like a retail disk. You may be
>> thinking of the large OEMs like Dell and HP. I wouldn't wish that user
>> experience on anyone. They install so much crap even a Quad Core would
>> struggle. As for Office you are the first person to mention it. I don't
>> see it anywhere else in the thread. Open Office runs equally well on
>> Vista or Linux so there's no difference there. If you need Microsoft
>> Office then despite what people say about Wine you really need a
>> Microsoft OS to run it properly.
>
> Never have run MS-Office under wine, always use Open Office. It does run
> equally as well on multiple platforms, which is great in my profession.
>
>
>>> Me, got a Q6600, 4GB RAM, 22" wide LCD, 500GB drive, Vista (not so)
>>> Premium x64 OEM, keyboard, mouse, cables, $749 at Best Buy. No assembly
>>> required and a warranty. But I did a refit, to 8GB RAM, 2nd hard drive
>>> and a dedicated 8500GT 256M fanless video.
>>>
>>> Runs Vista like a pig (file/network copy specifically), but Ubuntu with
>>> Compiz, smoking hot and fast.
>>>
>>
>> Then something is wrong. I dual boot Ubuntu and Vista Business on this
>> laptop. They run about the same speed doing the same tasks. If anything
>> the Vista Atheros wireless driver is a little faster than the MadWifi
>> driver in Ubuntu so wireless is a bit faster in Vista on this machine.
>> Other than that I don't notice much difference other than the UI. Both
>> have been very stable with few problems.
>
> Where I hit problems that really gets me can be summed up as:
>
> - copy disk to disk, large files, painfully slow compared to XP or Linux.
> - copy to/from the network, again, painfully slow
> - CIFS shares, haven't got them working with Samba (yet).
> - they still haven't fixed 8 year old bugs in Express/Mail.
>
> Running Fedora or Ubuntu on the same hardware does not show the same
> issues. Seems very Vista specific. And with Linux, can use NFS native for
> the media storage and quick...
>
> My 3 year old XP, no problems, but it is different hardware but
> older/slower hardware. IDE versus SATA etc.
>
> On my laptop, the Atheros driver works like lighting using Ubuntu, Fedora
> or OpenBSD. But haven't tried it with Vista. Given my laptop has only
> 512M, that would be a time waster to bring Vista near it.
>
> For network though, I did pull up Vista performance monitor of sorts,
> square topped at 5mbs on a 100MBS network. Never could get it to do
> better. Tied dozens of things. I may be extra sensitive to this as I
> routinely copy around DVD sized ISO/zip images. And Vista, not liveable.
> XP was always slower than Linux, but comparable. Vista, slugware.
>
> Didn't have any Vista crashes though. This part of Vista, never
> experienced. Stable yes, slow, yes. Incompatible yes. Keeping my XP
> alive and running. And don't have to update VMWare. Treating Vista as a
> sunk unrecoverable cost on the last PC. MS tax if you will. Only real
> value was if a customer needs me to use it I will not be blank faced.
>
My laptop uses the Atheros 5007eg chipset which isn't supported in any of
the current distros I've tried. I was surprised it wasn't in Hardy Heron.
You have to download and compile the driver from madwifi.org. Acer had Vista
x86 and x64 drivers for download. It is definitely faster in Vista.
I initially had some problems with slow networking and file copies. I
routinely copy DVD iso's from my server to workstations. I do a lot of beta
testing and store a lot of iso's on the server. I copy them to a local drive
for use with vm's. This was painfully slow when I first started using Vista.
I found I had to RDP to the server from the Vista machine and start the copy
from the server. I replaced my router with a newer model and some of the
problems went away. With the old router I had to disable most of the
advanced networking features in Vista to get any speed at all. It did get
better as I installed updates. I'm guessing the switch in the old router
couldn't handle the advanced features properly. Currently with SP1 and the
new router network file transfers with Vista are on par with Linux. On some
computers Linux is slightly faster, on some Vista wins. I'm guessing this is
because of drivers, not the OS. I don't have XP anywhere but in vm's anymore
and that wouldn't be a fair comparison so I can't comment on Vista vs XP
file transfers. Transferring many small files from USB flash drives still
seems a little slow in Vista but other than that, for me, the file copy
problems have been sorted.
--
Kerry Brown
MS-MVP - Windows Desktop Experience: Systems Administration
http://www.vistahelp.ca/phpBB2/