At 05:22 PM 12/2/2007, you wrote:
>And the ironic part is Vista is much more stable than XP when it >first came out, XP was slower than Win2K uyntil SP1 >came out, as late as 2004 it hadn't been adopted by Big Biz in large >numbers, you had to upgrade a lot of hardware to make it run on an >older machine. At work we didn't allow XP into our PC's for at least a year because it was such a headache, of course now that it's seasoned and mature it work great. Just the same, we are buying PC's with Vista and downgrading them to XP for now until we are confident that all critical applications will work with Vista. SNIP >Basically everything that people are saying or complaining about in >Vista, they were complaining about when XP first came out but now >people talk as if XP is Da Bomb? > >SNIP It's human nature to forget the pain, and remember the good things. >SDR is the wave of the future for RF and Vista's new sound models are >the wave of the future for DSP/DAW .... > >I'll end this here but don't get mad at me in a couple of years when I >get to say "I told ya so" ... > >JR My main PC a 2.8GHz Core 2 duo with 3 GB ram was acting funny after some questionable software was installed, so it was time to format and reload the OS and applications. So since Corporate was trying to get me to try Vista on a non-critical work PC I decided to install it on this PC instead, which I did yesterday. So far most things are going smooth but there are some definite issues; 1. My main audio card is a Delta-44, for which there are no Vista drivers. 2. My main two development software packages will not install or run correctly. That is a big minus, they are older versions of Borland software which run fine on Xp, but lately Borland thinks their software is made of solid gold and the upgrade charges are outrageous. Other pieces of software are also not Vista compatible with no replacement at present. 3. When I reboot (a real reboot) the machine takes about 10 minutes before it settles down, non-stop disk access and CPU usage for 10 minutes after the login. 4. Xp took 87Mb of Ram after a re-boot with nothing running, Vista Enterprise take 743 MB of RAM for the same thing, wow talk about a resource hog. 5. A lot of silly irritating changes, in some cases where one window would come up with multiple tabs to handle related things now they are individual programs in separate menus, why? It makes no sense, one could not say it's better the new way. Some things I have not been able to find at all, how do you control how window explorer behaves? I like seeing file extensions but someone at MS decided it's that I don't know what I want and they are going to decide for me. Overall I agree, Vista is much better than Xp when it first started where BSOD were quite common. Items 1 through 4 are irritations that may eventually go away except #2 which I consider critical, Vmware may come to the rescue on this one since I don't feel like spending a ton of money on upgrades. With number 5, time will allow me to get use to the differences just like we got use to the quirks in XP when it came out. Eventually Vista will take over and Xp will start to die, with a 8000 Lb gorilla behind that scenario there will be no choice, but by then Vista will hopefully be in finer shape. Overall I would say the FUD is exaggerated, but then I have not looked at the fine details yet. Cecil K5NWA www.softrockradio.org www.qrpradio.com "Blessed are the cracked, for they shall let in the light."
