RSSDell's new approach to the Vista migration problem
By Jacqueline Emigh | Published March 28, 2008, 7:21 PM
According to at least one Dell official, despite recent debacles with SP1, the business client migration to Windows Vista continues undaunted. A new Dell Client Migration Solution, unveiled this week, includes services and tools designed to ease businesses' migration burden.
Although Windows Vista still isn't exactly everyone's cup of tea, Dell this week rolled out a new set of services and tools "optimized" for organizations moving to the OS that customers who've already made the shift either really like...or really don't.
But who is stepping to Vista right now -- especially in light of recent missteps on the way to deploying Service Pack 1 -- and how will the new "Dell Client Migration Solution" help out customers?
In an interview with BetaNews, Kevin Haynes, Dell's senior manager for product management and marketing, gave three reasons why some of Dell's customers are adopting Vista.
"Some of them pride themselves on being at 'the cutting edge.' Some of them want to stay ahead of the [Microsoft operating system] support cycle," said Haynes. Others want to deploy specific "enhanced features" in Vista, according to Haynes, who cited to Vista enhanced security features, such as User Account Control.
But Michael Cherry, lead analyst with the independent firm Directions on Microsoft, chimed in with a fourth reason.
"There's a certain number of machines that customers are going to replace each year, just in the normal course of things," Cherry told BetaNews. "So here they are, looking at new hardware. The customers consider the compatibility of Vista with their software applications. If they don't see any compatibility issues, they will most likely upgrade to the new OS."
Dell still preloads PCs with Windows XP for customers who prefer XP, Haynes acknowledged. The manufacturer's newly launched Migration Solution could conceivably be used, too, for deploying XP to PC desktops, according to the senior manager.
Since the company's inception, Dell has provided services to customers around installing new operating systems and application on its hardware. Historically, though, Dell relied on its customer to have already done much of the planning in advance.
"Under our old model, customers would come to us after they'd already figured out [application] dependencies and done other [planning] processes. It was then too late [for Dell] to correct things," said Haynes. "In many cases, too, customers hadn't put together baselines of their current costs -- and without that, they couldn't build a business case for migration."
Haynes said Dell first started developing new migration tools for Vista for its own internal purposes. Certainly, Dell already had determined for itself why it needed to make the shift. But this time, during its own migration, Dell realized how much of the process it believed to have been self-explanatory, needed to be communicated to its customers.
So Dell's new migration services, aimed at organizations with 2,500 or more client PCs, differ in a number of ways from its earlier services, for reasons that directly relate to its own experiences with Vista. And because communication is key, Dell is now working with customers directly during migration planning.
One thing that Dell learned right away, especially with Vista, was that customers weren't always giving Dell a "good image" of the OS and applications to be installed during migration, Haynes said. Although Vista also supports traditional imaging tools such as Symantec Ghost, the new OS introduces new technology from Microsoft called ImageX -- part of its Automated Installation Kit, which works with WIM files. That technology can create a bit-by-bit snapshot of an entire, fully deployed Vista environment, complete with the customer's choice of applications.
This time, Haynes noted, the customer's choice has been pretty clear. Most customers who are migrating to Vista are also moving to Microsoft Office 2007, a heftier chunk of software code than previous iterations of the application suite.
The upshot is that, in its new migration services, Dell is using new tools, developed in-house, that are designed to speed and automate either approach to imaging the OS and applications onto PC hard drives.
"Our tools are very slick," he contended. The tools can also be used to customize Vista around "things like your power management preferences, the display you'll be using, what domain to join, and what region of the world you're in," and to encapsulate these customizations into the image before deployment.
Haynes stopped short of finding fault with new Microsoft migration tools such as User State Migration Tool (USMT), telling BetaNews that Microsoft devised its approach with somewhat different goals in mind. Dell's tools are less "script-based" and more "point-and-click" than Microsoft's.
"We've worked with Microsoft throughout the whole buildout," said Haynes. "Microsoft is trying to help automate deployment with some basic tools. An expert might then go in and modify the scripts."
In an assessment done with early customers, Dell found that its new Migration Solution cut migration costs by 62% and deskside time and labor by 88%. In addition, Dell also saw reductions of 70% around "network traffic normally associated with deployments," according to Haynes.
The Dell executive also told BetaNews that the new Migration Solution isn't really geared to upgrades such as SP1. "Ordinarily, customers handle upgrades like that through their usual patch management processes," he said.
But, he added, Dell is certainly willing to use its new service for helping any customers who run into problems with SP1.
Meanwhile, for its part, Microsoft is now offering free phone and chat support to anyone experiencing difficulties with SP1 installation -- a reversal of its usual policy of referring customers who bought systems with Windows preloaded on their PCs to their hardware manufacturers.
"Microsoft keeps saying that the sales of Vista are good. But even if the evidence is anecdotal, it's clear that some customers are continuing to have trouble with it," said Directions on Microsoft's Cherry. "A lot will depend on how Dell packages its hardware and services. If you're Dell, and you've specified some hardware, you should know how to image the operating system.
"It also helps that Dell is controlling the device drivers in the system," Cherry added. "Dell should be able to manage any driver issues, too."
Vista sucks.
Score: 0
|14,000 clients here.
No Vista migration planned.
PERIOD.
Score: 0
|MS is good
Vista is great
I can use, install, and understand Vista...I am capable. I won't try to lay blame when I can't use software like some others here.
Go Vista and the users who like it ;)
Score: 0
|I have no problem using, installing or understanding Vista. In fact, I understand it so well that I know it offers me nothing over XP... other than a slower PC with a few more incompatibilities.
The most recent example on my test box was Digg.com + Firefox + fresh Vista SP1 install with updates. The result? Reproducible hard-lock of the PC. No crash, not even an elegant BSOD. Hard-lock, reset-button-only type of fix.
Score: 0
|*laughs*
Funny how I can do that on my system with excellent results.
My guess would be that it's not Vista that's the problem here... :)
Score: 0
|Vista migration is not a problem. If it is, then it's only in the minds of the brainwashed.
Score: 0
|To Artem Tashkinov
Keep running that beast, imb***les.
----------------------------------------
Fortunately, progress cannot wait for acceptance by the common herd, Artem.
Signed: A Happy Vista User.
Score: 0
|You must be an endangered species since there are so few of you around... [smiles]
Score: 0
|ahh you have the river in egypt problem
sincerely, a happy vista user
Score: 0
|What, you want to sell me your plot there? No thanks.
Score: 0
|Vista users, do you wanna get shocked to a terror?
Run (enabling advanced output) and watch closely:
http://www.microsoft.com...nformation/filemon.mspx
You'll be pissed off. You will feel like Vista is eating your HDD.
Score: 0
|God forbid an OS should actually use the hardware...
Score: 0
|Yeah, one would think that that would be the point of the OS, but it seems that in many cases Vista doesn't want to use your hardware, but to force you to go out and buy newer stuff. Its not what Vista can do for you, but what you can buy for Vista. In other words, be a good little consumer and consume more and more whether you actually need it or not. Vista isn't progress, its consumption at its worse. Its like the idiots who buy a new car every year.
Score: 0
|well one other way to look at it is that most mainstream hardware is crap. It only passes as usable because it was fine to use with an os thats 8 years old. Vista is forcing that to change, but that can be a bit ugly in transition.
Score: 0
|What does Vista do that XP does not? Why do i need a new OS and hardware to browse the web, do email, listen to mp3s?
Vista is just M$ greed.
Score: 0
|Vista doesn't want to use your hardware
...if it's ancient.
Its not what Vista can do for you, but what you can buy for Vista.
...if your system is ancient.
In other words, be a good little consumer and consume more and more whether you actually need it or not.
Yeah, we all know how you feel about capitalism...
Vista isn't progress, its consumption at its worse.
A more stable kernel, better security...yeah, that's not progress.
Its like the idiots who buy a new car every year.
Because if you have excellent credit you pay ~$300 a month and *never* have to worry about mechanical issues, or reliability? Yeah..that must suck. Idiots...
Score: 0
|What does Vista do that XP does not?
Learn to read.
Many folks have been kind enough to post links detailing all of the changes under the hood.
Of course, like most "average" consumers, all you see is the interface. One would think, as a member of BetaNews, that you would know better than the average consumer though...
Score: 0
|So we have to pay for M$ to fix the problems of XP? XP is finally at a point where it is pretty stable and reasonably secure.
The only reason to have Vista, is to suck more money out of consumers.
Same goes for Office? Why pay for the new verison? What does it do that i can not do in an older version?
Score: 0
|So we have to pay for M$ to fix the problems of XP?
No. If you have an 8-year old system, XP is just dandy.
If you have a new, more powerful system, and want to utilize it, Vista is the way to go.
The only reason to have Vista, is to suck more money out of consumers.
*yawn* This is the purpose of *any* business.
Same goes for Office? Why pay for the new verison? What does it do that i can not do in an older version?
Google broken on your system? Plenty. Look it up. Oh, wait, you can't be bothered to look at the links provided by funkervogt in this very thread as to what's better about Vista vs. XP.
You see, you won't follow those links, and you won't use Google to answer your questions because you don't actually want to know. You couldn't care less. You just want to sit in these forums and bash MSFT at every opportunity. ...which you do.
How tiresome.
Score: 0
|sure, i have seen the M$ employees post on the stuff. Again, what does it do differently for me?
Does the web look and function the same?
Does it play my mp3 audio?
Does it run iTunes?
What does it do that i can not do today other than attempt to fix the poorly designed internals of XP? Why do i as a consumer need to pay for the same OS functions over and over again?
Score: 0
|Well said, I have several copies of Vista on newer computers, even running on my MacBook Pro which many find inferrer. But they all run great. Worst issue with Vista (these are the only two crashes I have had in over a year).
Sli-Ready Memory on a nvidia chipset motherboard will crash your video drivers (turn it off, or don't play your comp more then 5-8 hours at a time without 2-3 hours of the comp off).
And when you disconnect from the internet (aka change wireless connections, share wireless internet to a 2nd comp via ethernet) This causes Vista to crash a lot.
Other then that I am very impressed with Vista. But I do have one thing to say about those who prefer Windows (any version) of OS X users, Atleast when OS X is released the users flock to upgrade, where Vista launched and Microsoft looked at themself and they said where is everyone, why aren't we selling this.
Many people argue the fact that Vista is slower. Well yes technically it is. Each operating system version gets slower and slower forcing hardware migration. Back when I first bought XP I remember installing Warcraft I on it, I had a double partition incase stuff didnt work in XP as it wasn't to gamer friendly as launch (from what I read). I was amazed that I got way less FPS in the game then what I got in 98. I found this to happen to all my games. And it's still true today. win 3.1 is faster then 95, 95 is faster then 98, and 98 is faster then xp, and xp is faster then vista. With every operating system the OS will use more memory and more cpu power. The technology is only getting faster, so they don't have to program to worry about speed and memory nearly as much. This was XP and Vista's cause. Hell I even remember people b****ing about 98 being slow.
Upgrading OS's requires upgrading your hardware, Just as going with a high end graphics card requires you upgrade your power supply. Upgrading your Hard Drive to SATA requires you upgrade your board to a board that supports it or buying hardware to match it.
Score: 0
|Does the web look and function the same? No.
Does it play my mp3 audio? No.
Does it run iTunes? Sure, after Apple got their act together.
Same old clueless Dingo. you'd know the above, and the explanations behind them if you didn't immediately dismiss *anything* said about vista in a positive vein as "stuff from M$ employees".
Score: 0
|XP is stable and secure, I have had less crashes in Vista then XP in same launch period of a year. Does XP handle Core2Duo very well. no not really does it handle x64 processors, no not really does it support DDR3 no not at all. Does it support QuadCore? no not at all, Does it support direct x10, nope no it doesn't. Does it support Stereo bluetooth connections, not one bit, does it support bluetooth well, no you must upgrade to service pack 2, does it always recognize USB 2.0 devices no, it's well documented, Vista sees them much better. Does it support wireless printing. Barely only certain routers, does vista yes perfectly. Does it support lots of ram, no it doesnt vista does. Does it support Display no it doesn't, does it support HDMI, only on low end converter cards (not actual graphics card that are worth paying for). Does it look a lot better, Thats a matter of opinion. I think it looks great.
Does the web look different, At launch with IE7 before they launched on Xp also, does it play mp3,s yes why didnt you stay with windows 95 it did too, Does it run iTunes, yes so did windows 98. Why the hell did you upgrade to XP?
Why do i as a consumer need to pay for the same OS functions over and over again?
Because if we did not sir, companies who build OS's would go out of business and you would lose support and have to change operating systems ever half a decade or so. What fun would that be, buying a bunch of hardware and software to play games and listen to your mp3s then say oh MS is dead where do we go now, ah crap lets go buy a New OS and different technology that isn't compatible with my current system and lack support and in 2-3 years it will run smooth, then 2 years later rinse and repeat.
If we all paid a subscription I am sure they could just update the OS all the time until updating the OS starts to bog it down and a new freshly coded OS will be needed. Oh s*** wait that's vista!
Score: 0
|> Does XP handle Core2Duo very well.
It indeed does.
> no not really does it handle x64 processors
Blatant lies. WinXP 64 is rock stable.
> no not really does it support DDR3
Blatant lies - OS has NOTHING to do with your memory hardware configuration. Even MS-DOS runs on DDR3 motherboards.
> Does it support QuadCore?
WinXP Pro indeed supports 16 cores CPU configuration - and you can easily find the evidence in the Internet. Blatant lies.
> Does it support direct x10
There are VERY few DX10 titles today that show ANY visible improvement in visual quality.
Almost all the rest said by you is also down right lies.
You are a poor Vista fan boy who try to justify $400 lost on Ultra edition, $800 spent on GeForce 8800 Ultra, no less than $300 spent on Intel Quad Core CPU, and no less than $500 for 2GB of DDR3 RAM ... and cool MoBo.
Pity you.
Score: 0
|pathetic? if anyone is pathetic it would be you with this long winded holier then thou attitude.
He probably should have stated its optimized for Vista as Xp is 8 years old.
When Vista hits SP2 and its still slow then you can complain, Xp didn't get better until sp2 as well.
Score: 0
|Why do the M$ drones keep saying that since XP is "eight years old" it is somehow no good. LOL. M$ sure has you brainwashed.
What, is XP going to stop working? Wear out? It is not a car.
Score: 0
|hard to take anything pro-M$ as not being from a paid shill...look at how they are bribing and manipulating ISO to get their closed, proprietary, patent encumbered, horrible M$OOXML format standardized.
http://www.groklaw.com/
Score: 0
|Actually at some point, newer programs will not run on xp as well as newer hardware, so in a way yes it will wear out.
Score: 0
|Your point? Apple does the same thing as well as everybody else! You think they released a new version of their OS for that warm feeling inside? Your logic=fail
Score: 0
|Then keep using XP! Nobody is holding a gun to your head telling you to switch. If you like XP so much then use it and move on! We honestly don't really care what you do!
Score: 0
|except M$, no longer patching their security holes.
No thanks, i will run Ubuntu where i do not have to pay for the same thing over and over again.
Score: 0
|Ok whatever floats your boat. Have fun trying to get all your programs/hardware to work.
Score: 0
|Dontcha love this logic?
MS forces Vista on people...
But he doesn't use it.
Yeah, some force there... I can see they really *forced* you to use Vista.
El Dingo: Failing at logic daily on BetaNews.com
Score: 0
|AMD AM2 6000+
4Gb RAM
Twin 500Gb Seagate Barracudas
No Vista.
I prefer to have my hardware actually run fast.
Dsspite all the "enhancements" under the hood (some of which are pretty hokey like the new wunnerful audio API), the only one really worth anything is the movement of device drivers out of the kernel. If you have stable device drivers, that's not a problem (it helps if you don't rush out and upgrade your drivers every time a vendor hiccups).
For corporations it makes even less sense, which is why adoption is and will remain glacial there.
Score: 0
|"El Dingo: Failing at logic daily on BetaNews.com"
Not the first time and certainly wont be the last.
Score: 0
|You forgot to mention that the claims of DX10 performance are blatant lies in and of themselves and no serious gamer runs Vista because of that - and the gamer sites are screaming that. Add to that the fact that game designers themselves are pooh poohing Vista (check out the M$ mouthpiece ExtremeTech for a surprising bit of honesty in painting things as they truly are for a change) and the verdict is in:
SeperDud.
The M$ mouthpieces here can evangelize all they want but they can't change the fact that this is the biggest / most expensive flop the company has ever had.
And the primary reason is that it didn't deliver.
No fanboi can change that.
Score: 0
|You forgot to mention that the claims of DX10 performance are blatant lies in and of themselves and no serious gamer runs Vista because of that
BS.
Think for a second. (That's really all it requires)
DX 10 is a completely different API than DX9. All other DX versions were merely extensions to the existing API. Obviously, from 1 to 9, the devs had little work to do do add one of the new extensions and "whallah!", they are now upgraded to the new version.
It's a bit harder...and takes a bit longer to build a whole new boat.
You also utterly fail to take into account the amount of time it took for DX9 games to look like they do now, as opposed to when it was initially released. Upon inital release, they looked almost identical to DX8. You see, it takes *time* for the devs to master and implement new features.
If you're going to piss on Vista, at least stick to the stuff you don't have to make-believe, like stated reqs, initial performance, and such.
Score: 0
|lmao...
Don't tell me you're using Xp with that rig...
At *least* tell me you've got Linux on it.
...and don't tell me you play DX games.
Score: 0
|Why would you run iTunes with any of the opinions you voice? Go get a Sansa or other compatible hardware and load up Rockbox if you want a superior non-capitalist (free) product.
Anyway you should talk less out of your behind - it's not what it was intended for in case your mum forgot to mention that last time she dropped off some food in the basement.
Score: 0
|Microsoft official rep has once said it IS possible to bring DX10 to Windows XP.
So, indeed MS forces people to upgrade to Vista because users feel like they won't get their paid visual experience with XP.
And believe me, Wine will implement most DX10 features on top of OpenGL ... I smell Vista being completely trumped.
Score: 0
|Microsoft official rep has once said it IS possible to bring DX10 to Windows XP.
Anything is possible. Windows apps could run natively in Linux. The problem is time, effort, and payoff.
There were problems in XP a simple SP couldn't fix. The driver model would have had to be rewritten or DX10 would have had to be cut back.
Sure...it could have been done. But to what end? It wsa an eight year old OS. How much effort do you really expect them to put into it?
So, indeed MS forces people to upgrade to Vista because users feel like they won't get their paid visual experience with XP.
MSFT has known about Stardock for a *long* time. If you don't know who they are, Google them. They've even worked together. The XP UI can be modified *very* easily. It had little to do with UI.
And believe me, Wine will implement most DX10 features on top of OpenGL
Yes, about as well as it does DX9. Poorly.
I smell Vista being completely trumped.
I smell venison. *shrug*
Score: 0
|I f*cking wonder in what ways Vista is faster than Windows XP.
On my *ancient* computer (Sempron 3100, 512MB DDR RAM) Windows XP boots to a desktop in 14 seconds, and shuts down in less than a second. Cold start up of any application from Office 2003 suite takes less than 2 seconds, and it fires up instantly on consequent runs.
I applaud to those id**ts who claim that Vista is faster. Vista cannot be faster and I bet $5000 that in majority of situations/work scenarios XP will outperform Vista.
Not to mention *constant* HDD access in Vista, MUCH decreased notebook battery life (http://www-900.ibm.com/lenovoinfo/cn/thinkpad/x300/feature.html), g**d*** RAM (at least 1GB) and HDD (at least 12GB) requirements.
Keep running that beast, imb***les.
Score: 0
|Dude, you admit your machine is ancient. Vista *will* run like crap on that thing.
No-one is saying Vista runs faster on ancient hardware.
Durr....
Score: 0
|Vista has UI improvements that take advantage of modern graphics cards. In all other areas, Vista is likely to be slightly slower due to a greater overhead. I just switched back after running Vista for over 6 months and feel a weight lifted even though I generally enjoyed using Vista.
I think XP is just more wholesome =). I don't think that there is any reason to run Vista. I think that Vista is just so underwhelmingly NOT different from XP. That's it's greatest problem. There's nothing that Vista offers that is going to make someone want to purchase it. With the Vista Transformation packs, even the Aero interface doesn't seem to be too special.
Score: 0
|I believe that he is saying that his machine is crap, but XP runs fine, and that Vista runs like crap on a machine that is fine.
Score: 0
|Ubuntu Linux offers more new innovation than Vista has. In fact a new version is due out in less than a month with many new and real improvements included.
Score: 0
|if it only had a mature gaming echosystem......1 can dream
Score: 0
|I feel so sorry for all those that feel the need to get to work 14 seconds after their butts touch the chair!
Take a breather man, you'll live longer. Enjoy the little wait.
Score: 0
|new and real improvements included.
Over Vista?
Really?
Care to name a few?
Score: 0
|lmao...
No, he's saying Vista sucks because it won't run on crap hardware.
That's like saying since XP won't run on my 386 in the basement that, obviously, XP is crap.
Score: 0
|price? You do not have to pay for the same OS over and over again
Score: 0
|lmao...
Funny how price is the *only* thing you can think of.
Sucks to be you.
Score: 0
|There's nothing that Vista offers that is going to make someone want to purchase it.
As a gamer I can spot one off the bat. Directx 10. Huge improvement and that a lot of games are coming out as Directx 10, and as said earlier, Dual and Quad core processing, Lots of RAM, faster RAM, Better video connections supported. Native support for wireless printers, bluetooth printers and devices (no service pack needed). Lots of great qualities. Better networking for those who have OS X. XP was horrible about keeping connections to share drives with OS X, now i never have problems.
There is so much different then XP it's unbelievable. The average computer users email, web, word processing, and music, and watch a dvd. For them no go back to 95 I am sure you can grab a copy for a few bucks and never upgrade again. Nor should you ever need to. But those who want to do more, and do, do more. We require upgrade for new technology, and XP just isn't cutting it anymore.
Score: 0
|One thing many people forget about is that almost everyone upgraded to XP as soon as it was released, and right now 1,5 years after Vista release people still argue why one needs Vista at all. And those who run Vista cannot give really strong arguments why one has to upgrade to it. I haven't heard any.
Yes, one day MS forces everyone to upgrade to their new OS but until then I will be using Linux and my Windows addicted friends will be waiting for Windows 7 because they have seen it and they were disgusted.
I don't tell me 2k is any better. 2K used to be a corporate only OS and strictly speaking XP could be easily set up such a way that it was indistinguishable from 2k even by its memory requirements. Besides XP was a gradual upgrade with really nice features like RDP, fast user switching and nice visual style.
Score: 0
|Sorry but anything that requires hours of research just to get your hardware to work with it is far from "innovative." Not to mention the fact that most programs will not work with it. That is something that can't be changed overnight and likely wont be changed anywhere in the near future if ever. Mac users might start seeing more compatibility, but Linux right now is nothing more than a very small niche.
This is not a sarcastic question. What is it that is so innovative about this new version?
Score: 0
|Nice one :-)
Score: 0
|> Take a breather man, you'll live longer. Enjoy the little wait.
Now imagine you have to wait for two minutes until your TV set shows anything after you switched it on, two minutes before you can drive your car after you run it, and so on and so off.
I suppose you're going to live until 150 y.o.?
Score: 0
|IMO Microsoft never made painful any "upgrade" process: you find Windows Update still open even to Win98. They know perfectly well the difference between OS and apps, and there's no problem to keep using your OS for as long as you wish to run your present apps. In today's world computer networks are the backbone of all corporations, whatever their size; of all governments over the planet; of all the international relations and almost of all sea, air, space and even land communications (high-speed trains, GPS, etc), and I think they are perfectly conscious of that: obviously their main concern is the network safety when their OS is used (they cannot have all networks in their hands, of course), and that's not an easy task. But I suspect that in the hardware providers policy (don't forget 85% of the hardware we use every day comes from asian countries and therefore was not made under american laws), that responsible behaviour is in many cases not present at all. In other cases networks need a lot of money to switch to Vista that they simply don't have: invent and invest are two very different verbs, even when they are pronounced in a very similar way, and the economic moment is not specially good at all. Anyway I hope Dell will be able to manage any driver issues, as Cherry said.
Score: 0
|I applaud dell for trying to make the upgrade process as painless as possible. It is not easy. My opinion is that those who are saying works great and love it or absolutley hate it are off topic. The focus of the article is Deployment services and isn't intended for home users. My company had no plans to switch to vista ("Upgrade" seems to be an opinion and a source of controversy) because there is no autocad for Vista that i know of. Not my decision, but we are an HP house. I hope HP has something to ease as dell does. deployment it truely not Dell's problem. They didn't have to invest in deployment tools. Again I give cudos to dell for the decision to make a deployment tool.
**I have never owned a dell and probably never will.**
Score: 0
|I have two DELLs =). Couldn't resist as they always have the best price on equipment when coupon codes are applied (www.retailmenot.com)
Score: 0
|I run Vista on my system, and you'd be hard pressed to remove it.
The laptop also runs Vista, again, not going to get me to put XP on there.
Mind you, I'm not in the group with few skills and little knowledge who read something on the net and think "Hey they seem to know something, I'll do the same".
Neither do I care if I get a few extra FPS on this or that game. That's what a Wii, XBox, etc are for.
I don't tweak, remove functions or services via nLite, I don't "optimize" my system.
And yet, it chugs along, day after day, hour after hour doing what I ask it to do.
I guess if I tried hard enough, ran old enough hardware, and wanted to go with the crowd I could find something to complain about regarding Vista.
But as it stands, I'm pretty happy with it, like the interface, like the new network features and methods.
Score: 0
|Hear hear. I'm running a C2Q and Vista works fine. I've purchased machines for many a person from different companies, Gateway, Dell, HP etc. and no problems. I can understand what a FEW people get upset about - like before SP1, said companies would ship Vista 32 with a possible 4gb Ram and only SEE 2.5 or 3.5, so obviously people were miffed. Otherwise though, I think the people out there complaining are running older (even 2 years can qualify as OLD) hardware, having issues and blaming Vista.
I think the OS will fall into its prime between this and next year, and it will be the new XP.
Score: 0
|Same here. Personally my computer is actually faster with Vista than it was with XP. The search box under start, and the cache system is enough to win me over alone.
Score: 0
|That's kinda how I felt ... until Adobe applications started having issues updating with Vista ... I like some of the new interface bits -- however, as I'm not someone who cares about a few extra FPs and who doesn't want to bother tweaking his system, I made the switch back to XP.
There is less to configure with XP. And Windows Explorer doesn't have as many tacky things hanging off of it (the grouping bar mainly)...
Out of the box, you will have to gut Vista a little - you absolutely have to remove the User Access Control in order to not go insance (Entire Windows freezing to ask for permission for reorganizing your start bar 1 icon at a time is a bit ridiculous).
Vista isn't bad - it's just not good.
Score: 0
|When I hear people b****ing about how slow Vista is, it makes me wonder if they're not actually running ancient Athlons or Pentium 4s. I started out running Vista on a Barton core mobile running at 2.5Ghz, and it was DOG slow. Then, I spent a measly hundred dollars on a 939 board and X2 combo, and now Vista absolutely scorches XP. Yet that same upgrade made little or no difference when running XP. My Vista Bench is 5.0; lowest being the CPU and everything else being 5.7 or above. Jumping to Vista x64 further increased performance AND reliability. My reliability index has been maxed at 10.0 since day one. If your satisfied with XP, why are you even reading this thread? Oh the irony.
Score: 0
|To answer your question - I feel like I missing something by un-adopting Vista. So I'm personally keeping my eyes open and hearing what others have to say about Vista.
DELL gave me a 32-bit version of Vista. I'm now on a 32-bit version of Windows. That's something I'm currently confused about. I have a Core2Duo ... it might make sense to try a 64-bit version...
Score: 0
|And what's NEW about Dell's approach again?
XP > *
Vista SUCKS.
Score: 0
|Rock on dude. Friggin' A!
Score: 0
|Vista does not exactly fly.. I would like to know what kind of specs you need for Vista be optimal..
My specs:
Intel core 2 duo 3.0 Ghz
4 GB ddr2 ram
Nvidia 8800 GTS 640 Mb
Would a quad core or 8 Gb ram make vista run faster ?
Score: 0
|Remember, its not what Vista can do for you, but what you can buy for Vista..... Long live Linux!!!!
Score: 0
|32bit or 64bit?
If it's 32 then Vista (or any 32bit OS) won't use more than 3.5 GB RAM if you have the 640Mb video card.
A quad core should make it faster, but not as much as you'd hope.
Score: 0
|Perhaps a 10000 RPM HDD or RAID will.
Score: 0
|If Vista is performing poorly on that kind of configuration then something is very wrong with your computer. Both Vista RTM and Vista SP 1 are faster on my computer than Windows XP SP 2 was. Here's my system configuration:
Intel DP35DP Motherboard (BIOS ver 0413)
Intel P35 NB chipset/ICH9R SB chipset
Intel Core 2 E6420 CPU (2.13GHz w/4MB L2 cache)
2GB DDR2-800 Memory
Nvidia GeForce 7600GS PCI-e graphics w/256MB DDR2 video memory
Western Digital Raptor 150GB Hard Disk
Score: 0
|GD,
This machine I'm typing on is a Dell XPS M1730, specked to the max including twin 64GB SSD's dual SLI Nvidia GFX, 4GB ram, T7700 processor etc.
Took me 2 weeks to find out how to install XP, got it running, imaged it.
When Vista SP1 arrived did a reformat and installed the original Vista OS. What a waste, going back to XP.
The only thing I have found to date on Vista that is of any benefit is it's boot time, everything else is slow, plus a 20gb difference in disk usage speaks for itself.
That you like it is fine, simply expressing my observations.
Score: 0
|"If Vista is performing poorly on that kind of configuration then something is very wrong with your computer."
Or might be that he doesn't approve of the slowness of Vista compared to an XP running on the same hardware?! Don't you think? That's what most people reverting to XP believe, and they are not few.
Score: 0
|Plus, not everyone can afford to go out and buy the latest and greatest hardware everytime Microsoft upgrades their OS. I can get many of the same features, and eye candy (and then some), as Vista on Linux and still not have to push my hardware nearly as much as would be the case with Vista. Long Live Linux. In other words Linux users can't use hardware as an excuse because hardware is far less of an issue under it than it is for Vista.
Score: 0
|Either something is very wrong or you are just blowing smoke. I have a computer that isn't half the computer you have and it performs better in Vista than XP.
AMD X2 3800+
1GB DDR RAM
Nvidia 6150 LE
Yah it could stand a little more RAM and a better video card, but for every day use it works great. Plus I am not going to bother upgrading it because I am getting a new one this summer.
Score: 0
|Plus, not everyone can afford to go out and buy the latest and greatest hardware everytime Microsoft upgrades their OS.
ROFLMAO!!
You do realize the last OS release from MS pre-Vista was ~8 years ago, right?
If you want your computer to last more than 8 years without upgrades you aren't *interested* in performance...
Duh?
Score: 0
|And yet it is still better than their newest one. Makes one think (You should try that at least once in your life). Vista is nothing but bloatware with very little real innovation.
Of course I'm interested in how my system performs. That is why I've upgraded to a much better OS that truly improves with time. Linux.
Score: 0
|I agree that Vista RTM was slightly slower than Windows XP on the same hardware, but Vista SP 1 is significantly faster than Windows XP. Vista SP 1 no longer requires massive amounts of memory and actually runs significantly faster than Windows XP even on a computer with 1GB of memory, a single core processor and an older 7200rpm hard disk with 2MB of cache.
Score: 0
|Vista is nothing but bloatware with very little real innovation.
*yawn*
You can keep saying it, but it ain't true. I've posted the links, as have many others. That's like saying Server 2003 isn't anymore secure or stable than XP.
That is why I've upgraded to a much better OS that truly improves with time. Linux.
Pure BS.
RedHat 3 booted a *hell* of a lot faster and was *much* more responsive than their latest version.
Your fail at logic...again.
Score: 0
|Meh, run both; virtualize either.
:-D
Score: 0
|ok vista is running fine.. except ive got some error that makes me have to reboot the computer way too often... and its slow booting as hell..
and im not on SP1 ive got a wave 2 language version :(
Score: 0
|You're still just a tool. You'll never change. Just like Vista, you're a joke that can't be taken seriously. You're no different than a creationist that quotes the bible as proof. [rolleyes] I truly do feel sorry for you and your pathetic attempts.
I'm using Ubuntu, SFB.
Score: 0
|I can't say as I didn't test SP1 and reverting my notebook to Vista just for that would be a pain for no major gain. Maybe in a couple of years I will try again.
And I saw people saying the contrary about SP1. Will wait to have more opinions anyway.
Score: 0
|lmao...
Nothing intelligent to add, so you fall back to insults and accusations.
Well, at least you stay true to form.
If you could argue the point, you would...but you can't (we're all shocked...) :)
Score: 0
|PC_Tool actually has contributed some of the most useful smart a** comments on betanews.com consistently for as long as I can remember...
Score: 0
|Yes, I do feel very sorry for you, and even more sorry for anyone who has to live with you. You'll never be anything other than a tool. Real pathetic.
Score: 0
|nice, very 10 year old of you, or did you turn 11 ?
Score: 0
|rather then answering his question you proved his point, congrats you are now 10.
Score: 0
|What are you, a zero? What question did he ask? He supports a joke of an OS.
Score: 0
|Har, har. Someone think that up for you? As if the opinions of nobodies actually mean anything to me. [rolleyes]
Score: 0
|Age 0? WTF? Are you retarded or just can't understand simple sentences?
He stated there is innovation and if you bother to look Vista does offer more then XP, but you are content with Linux, so here's a thought if you don't use the OS, WHY come into a thread that discusses it?
Score: 0
|Have you tried repairing your install? What I would do is just go in like you were upgrading and do it again.(Yes this does work) It will keep all your files. You might lose a few settings you put into the OS, but other than that it will be just like it was before.
Score: 0
|Still nothing?
Pathetic.
Score: 0
|Apparently, most of the users here, IYO, are nobodies.
You see, we *all* think^Wknow you're full of s***.
Score: 0
|I would verify all of your drivers are installed properly. (Check device manager to make sure there aren't missing drivers, or problem drivers).
Also, it would help if we knew what the error was that was causing the reboots. If there is an error message, copy it down and post it here.
As for SP1, that sucks, but you should still be able to update via auto-update to at least get the performance/compatibility updates, which should help quite a bit.
Your system specs are fine. You should be able to run Vista with no problems.
What motherboard are you using (or is this a brand-name system?)
Score: 0
|His purpose here is clear. To slam Vista.
It doesn't matter if he actually knows *anything* about it.
He's trolling. ...and not doing a half-bad job of it either, unfortunately.
Score: 0
|have you tried reformatting and installing Ubuntu? Your machine will run faster than you have ever seen.
Score: 0
|You'll just have to install a dozen or so apps from different developers that look and act entirely different to get even close tot he same functionality...
Yeah, sounds like fun.
Score: 0
|Heh..
smart a** comments
Guilty as charged.
Score: 0
|You run out of intelligent things to say and now have decided to fight with insults instead of intelligent conversation? I can't say I'm surprised.
"I'm using Ubuntu, SFB."
Wow your so special. We all so impressed.
Edit: lol just scrolled down and saw PC's post. Guess this has already been said.
Score: 0
|10? I was thinking more like 7-8 judging by the intelligence of his posts.(That may be a stretch) I am not even joking when I say this, I have heard better insults from my 7 year old niece.
Score: 0
|Having installed it myself and noticed various problems not least of all speed and also outlook express has gone - which I rely upon for a payment script so for me, its not gonna be Vista, its slow, cumbersome and not worth a cent. The old addage that appiles here is off course if somethings working and producing the desired effect, why change it >>> XP I like many others, wont be going down vista street.
Score: 0
|I'm about 1 hour into using my "new" XPSP3 install after having uninstalled Vista Home Premium from my DELL Inspiron 530 -- a very well equipped system that has flying colors on Vista's Experience Index (I think mine scores a 5.9).
I removed Vista because I could not but help feeling that I was in some way compromising myself by using an operating system that was bloated and is suffering from adoption issues.
My biggest complaint about XP is that it's too fast and that I'm tripping over myself when I'm working with it =).
Now, I'll thank DELL for my Vista License if I choose to reinstall it -- but honestly ... I'm just going to get in line with the naysayers and echo the fact that Vista has failed to attract a user-base by failing to provide anything new beyond the Aero interface...
Score: 0
|Obviously you haven't done a lot of research regarding the changes to vista... Also, it is very obvious if you run an almost 8 year old OS (Vista was released in Oct 2001) on your computer it is going to run a heck of a lot faster than something that is much newer than that!
When I first loaded XP on my system I thought "oh man this is slow" because of the themes service... Obviously the hardware I had wasn't designed for the OS, it was actually labeled as a Windows 2000 compatible machine. Even the first XP branded machines were slow... I didn't see really fast XP machines until about January 2004, by that time the OS was already more than 2 years old.
The OS is a facilatator between your computers hardware and the programs that are running on it, and you will not see a lot of speed enhancements until the programmers start calling some of the new functions and features in Vista.
If you really want to know what is new in Vista, you should check out Mark Russinovich's articles regarding the kernel changes in Vista. There are some really cool things under the hood, the following are the articles he published that I recommend you reading before bashing Vista and saying nothing is new in it:
http://www.microsoft.com...ues/2007/02/VistaKernel/
http://www.microsoft.com...ues/2007/03/VistaKernel/
http://www.microsoft.com...ues/2007/04/VistaKernel/
And here is an article about UAC which I highly recommend to read before bashing UAC next time... http://www.microsoft.com...tmag/issues/2007/06/UAC/
Score: 0
|Yes, it's true that Vista has a lot of new things. But people need it or want it? That's the issue here and why you see people reverting and saying they are really happy with XP.
Score: 0
|. But people need it or want it? That's the issue here
Not really.
The issue is underpowered systems. If OEMs had gotten their act together, and MSFT had stated *realistic* upgrade specs, Vista would have been only sold or installed on systems built to handle it *well*.
People are sticking with XP because the lowendian systems being sold to the vast majority of users now can't hack it.
Score: 0
|"...MSFT had stated *realistic* upgrade specs..."
Exactly. They probably should have specified dual core or better for serious performance.
Score: 0
|Very well said.
Score: 0
|They probably should have specified dual core or better for anything over Home Basic.
T,FTFY
Score: 0
|Oh come on, they are sticking with Vista also due to there still being software compatibility issues. Even if it is Joe Bob's Visual Basic Tic Tac Toe v3.0 -- there are many of us using both mainstream and obscure applications that still don't play nicely with Vista.
And yeah, it's like 2000 > XP. Vista SP1 was neat, but I actually do think that the want/need question is valid.
It's also valid to say that "low-endian" systems are getting more popular with systems such as the $200 computers and budget systems that run on more energy efficient hardware. Those can't take advantage of Vista, yet they are modern machines.
I still feel that the OS should only get faster and more efficient as time progresses.
Score: 0
|I still feel that the OS should only get faster and more efficient as time progresses.
Not going to happen. It is impossible to gain additional features *and* be smaller/faster.
Score: 0
|Adding SP1 to my Vista Basic slowed it down. It adds several seconds to startup, and also screwed with my audio drivers. Vista = turkey.
Score: 0
|It's a well known issue with Vista SP 1 that some hardware drivers have to be reinstalled after the SP 1 update is installed. Vista SP 1 is the fastest and most secure version of Windows NT ever created.
Score: 0
|In our org we have 7 different vendors who specifically state don't migrate to vista, it isn't supported, and it breaks the apps. These aren't off the shelf software packages. Some may have workarounds, but we're pretty much held to abide by this until they get in gear. most have promised that this summer their newer versions will be out of beta and ready.
I find it interesting that so many companies have waited so long, they obviously were still in a wait and see mode.
Score: 0
|Just my opinion but it doesn't surprise me in the least. I would imagine that most companies didn't begin development on update for their apps until well after Vista was release as they didn't think Microsoft would release Vista when they did. Here it is a year after and most seem to be still under the assumption that many consumers and businesses still do not want Vista. Which that wouldn't be an entirely inaccurate assumption I don't believe.
Score: 0
|What are these companies going to do in July when no new XP PCs will be sold anymore?
Score: 0
|Move over to Linux. Many servers already are using it as it is.
Score: 0
|Charge large amounts of $ to customers for Vista compatible versions of software =)
Score: 0
|What a great idea, completely stop support for windows and move onto a new os and retrain all the employees, hire new system admins, and spend money trying to get programs that run on windows to run on Linux. Its pure genius!
NO company in their right mind would abandon everything and go right to Linux, a slow migration maybe, but it still has not proven itself as a viable desktop solution yet.
Look, we get it you love linux but no one cares about it, it has the same niche market it did 10 years ago and it will 10 years from now as well.
If OSX cannot penetrate the market as well as Windows what hope does Linux have?
Also what does a desktop OS have ANYTHING to do with a server?
"Move over to Linux. Many servers already are using it as it is"
Yeah, not so much...there was some growth but windows grew more...
http://www.itjungle.com/tfh/tfh030308-story02.html
Score: 0
|