Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: Richie London on 26 May 2008, 18:34:02
-
http://wepokers.blogspot.com/2008/05/microsoft-confirms-windows-7-for-2010.html
-
Judging by past performance 2010 doesn't look hopeful - add at least 18 months!!
-
I think it may be out in beta fairly soon (then expect release in 18months or so) :-X
MS ain't too pleased with Vista's take up, so keen to get it out.
-
i have xp, my kids have vista and i dont like it
richie
-
i have xp, my kids have vista and i dont like it
richie
Vista's biggest problem is that people do not like change. Same as XP's biggest problem was that people didn't like it as it was different to Windows 2000 (or 98, for those too slow to understand NT).
There's little doubt that Vista is a more robust, secure OS, and faster on modern hardware. XP was pretty secure if used properly but most users insisted on running as Admin. Idiots.
-
Judging by the marketing success of 'VISTA' with all its "BELLS & WHISTLES' over XP Pro. best not get to excited. I think one pc magazine called VISTA " The worst upgrade ever"
Suppose we'll have to wait and see
-
Judging by the marketing success of 'VISTA' with all its "BELLS & WHISTLES' over XP Pro. best not get to excited. I think one pc magazine called VISTA " The worst upgrade ever"
Suppose we'll have to wait and see
Vista actually makes massive sense for XP Pro users - reason for getting XP Pro is you are part of an Active Directory. Vista has massive enhancements for corporate users, allowing much better centralised control.
For Home use, Vista makes sense due to most home users running XP dangerously with full admin rights - ideal for virus and malware writers.
Any IT mag that comes up with such a statement are obviously a bunch of amateurs, and do not understand, and are miffed that their old games or hookey software doesn't run too well on it - ie, likes of Computer Shopper etc.
-
Hi TB, dont get me wrong, vista is a very good upgrade from xp pro. my points were aimed at the initial launch of vista when there were massive compatability problems. i was one of the first wave of people to go out and buy a retail copy . but the problems i had trying to install it you would'nt believe. you could'nt get drivers for anything. i even had to use an xp emulator to fool my printer and scanner into thinking i was still running xp.
These days things are much better and most things are vista ready (plug and play). i just hope that windows 7 is launched in a more proffesioal way and Microsoft do the ground work before launch, not after.
Did'nt mean to slag off the OS just the way it was launched.
Mark
-
i have xp, my kids have vista and i dont like it
richie
Vista's biggest problem is that people do not like change. Same as XP's biggest problem was that people didn't like it as it was different to Windows 2000 (or 98, for those too slow to understand NT).
There's little doubt that Vista is a more robust, secure OS, and faster on modern hardware. XP was pretty secure if used properly but most users insisted on running as Admin. Idiots.
You can't beat NT 4 SP6 ;D ;D
-
i have xp, my kids have vista and i dont like it
richie
Vista's biggest problem is that people do not like change. Same as XP's biggest problem was that people didn't like it as it was different to Windows 2000 (or 98, for those too slow to understand NT).
There's little doubt that Vista is a more robust, secure OS, and faster on modern hardware. XP was pretty secure if used properly but most users insisted on running as Admin. Idiots.
You can't beat NT 4 SP6 ;D ;D
Showing your age now James :y ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Judging by the marketing success of 'VISTA' with all its "BELLS & WHISTLES' over XP Pro. best not get to excited. I think one pc magazine called VISTA " The worst upgrade ever"
Suppose we'll have to wait and see
Vista actually makes massive sense for XP Pro users - reason for getting XP Pro is you are part of an Active Directory. Vista has massive enhancements for corporate users, allowing much better centralised control.
For Home use, Vista makes sense due to most home users running XP dangerously with full admin rights - ideal for virus and malware writers.
Any IT mag that comes up with such a statement are obviously a bunch of amateurs, and do not understand, and are miffed that their old games or hookey software doesn't run too well on it - ie, likes of Computer Shopper etc.
TB makes sense here, many people 'think' they know about computers when they actually dont. I started programming on a BBC when I was 8, degree in Networks and comms, and spent 5 years as a programmer in France before joining the army (long story) and even now I dont profess to know'everything'. I know a bit but often I find myself implementing other people's techie advice very well.
Back to Vista, Microsoft had to take these people away from an interface that was too technical and which integrates more with peripherals, etc. Look at the solid following Mac has just because of such an approach to the working of the OS. Windows 7 looks like it may be the rehash to 98 that 2000 was. ie much of the same with a few extra add-ons but essentially the same!
Geek on, Garth! :D
-
Hi TB, dont get me wrong, vista is a very good upgrade from xp pro. my points were aimed at the initial launch of vista when there were massive compatability problems. i was one of the first wave of people to go out and buy a retail copy . but the problems i had trying to install it you would'nt believe. you could'nt get drivers for anything. i even had to use an xp emulator to fool my printer and scanner into thinking i was still running xp.
These days things are much better and most things are vista ready (plug and play). i just hope that windows 7 is launched in a more proffesioal way and Microsoft do the ground work before launch, not after.
Did'nt mean to slag off the OS just the way it was launched.
Mark
Microsoft's problem was launching Vista late. XP was around for so long, that most programmers got lazy, and some of the programming rules they broke became the normality. Then these apps were broken under Vista's stricter regime.
As for drivers, thats not MS's fault, hopefully vendors have learnt their lesson now, but then I said the same things shortly after XP was launched!
-
Judging by the marketing success of 'VISTA' with all its "BELLS & WHISTLES' over XP Pro. best not get to excited. I think one pc magazine called VISTA " The worst upgrade ever"
Suppose we'll have to wait and see
Vista actually makes massive sense for XP Pro users - reason for getting XP Pro is you are part of an Active Directory. Vista has massive enhancements for corporate users, allowing much better centralised control.
For Home use, Vista makes sense due to most home users running XP dangerously with full admin rights - ideal for virus and malware writers.
Any IT mag that comes up with such a statement are obviously a bunch of amateurs, and do not understand, and are miffed that their old games or hookey software doesn't run too well on it - ie, likes of Computer Shopper etc.
TB makes sense here, many people 'think' they know about computers when they actually dont. I started programming on a BBC when I was 8, degree in Networks and comms, and spent 5 years as a programmer in France before joining the army (long story) and even now I dont profess to know'everything'. I know a bit but often I find myself implementing other people's techie advice very well.
Back to Vista, Microsoft had to take these people away from an interface that was too technical and which integrates more with peripherals, etc. Look at the solid following Mac has just because of such an approach to the working of the OS. Windows 7 looks like it may be the rehash to 98 that 2000 was. ie much of the same with a few extra add-ons but essentially the same!
Geek on, Garth! :D
Absolutely. Nobody knows everything about computers. Very few people in this world know everything about a small section of computing. Just most people think they do ;D
-
Vista can be pretty good, even very good, on the right system. It needs a lot of resources to work well.
New systems can have these resources installed cheaply, older ones can't, so the "upgrade" to vista has had lots of problems due to inadequate resources - new OS on old kit
There is also customer resistance, many folks think that because their old system worked fine on 512Mb RAM, they are being ripped off when told they should have 1 - 2 Gb RAM ... even though RAM is so cheap now it is stupid ... I have designed several systems for people to say "why do I need so much RAM and such a big graphics card - I don't play games" ..
it is all down to perception.. the facts are ignored...
-
Vista can be pretty good, even very good, on the right system. It needs a lot of resources to work well.
New systems can have these resources installed cheaply, older ones can't, so the "upgrade" to vista has had lots of problems due to inadequate resources - new OS on old kit
There is also customer resistance, many folks think that because their old system worked fine on 512Mb RAM, they are being ripped off when told they should have 1 - 2 Gb RAM ... even though RAM is so cheap now it is stupid ... I have designed several systems for people to say "why do I need so much RAM and such a big graphics card - I don't play games" ..
it is all down to perception.. the facts are ignored...
Yup, valid points. Ideally need Core2 type CPUs and 2G ram, and a newish GPU (even modern built in ones are good enough - running X3100 at moment).
On my older P4 stuff, I tend to stick to XP, as Vista is a step to far for old hardware.
-
I've been in IT since the 286 (nearly 20 years) and I know I don't know a lot.
However I do know CA-Clipper inside out and can develop an ISAM database extremely well.
-
I've been in IT since the 286 (nearly 20 years) and I know I don't know a lot.
However I do know CA-Clipper inside out and can develop an ISAM database extremely well.
lol that was my first PC!!! I total of 4mb RAM and 30MB HD, what a beast! ;D ;D ;D
-
I've been in IT since the 286 (nearly 20 years) and I know I don't know a lot.
However I do know CA-Clipper inside out and can develop an ISAM database extremely well.
lol that was my first PC!!! I total of 4mb RAM and 30MB HD, what a beast! ;D ;D ;D
First job Apricot 286 1MB 30MB HDD Hercules graphics
-
Hi TB, dont get me wrong, vista is a very good upgrade from xp pro. my points were aimed at the initial launch of vista when there were massive compatability problems. i was one of the first wave of people to go out and buy a retail copy . but the problems i had trying to install it you would'nt believe. you could'nt get drivers for anything. i even had to use an xp emulator to fool my printer and scanner into thinking i was still running xp.
These days things are much better and most things are vista ready (plug and play). i just hope that windows 7 is launched in a more proffesioal way and Microsoft do the ground work before launch, not after.
Did'nt mean to slag off the OS just the way it was launched.
Mark
Microsoft's problem was launching Vista late. XP was around for so long, that most programmers got lazy, and some of the programming rules they broke became the normality. Then these apps were broken under Vista's stricter regime.
As for drivers, thats not MS's fault, hopefully vendors have learnt their lesson now, but then I said the same things shortly after XP was launched!
Agreed..
-
I've been in IT since the 286 (nearly 20 years) and I know I don't know a lot.
However I do know CA-Clipper inside out and can develop an ISAM database extremely well.
If we're into "my dad's bigger than your dad", I've been in IT since 1966, long before micro procesors and PCs.
My only experience of Vista was the on the laptop I bought for my son before he went off to University last year. We were unimpressed. I'm sorry, I don't care how good it is technically, the UI is absolutely horrid! We had problems connecting it to the home network and the internet, the help facility didn't and it just looked so garish.
I like XP Pro, and I do run as an admin, but, believe me, the wife and brat definitely don't!
-
I've been in IT since the 286 (nearly 20 years) and I know I don't know a lot.
However I do know CA-Clipper inside out and can develop an ISAM database extremely well.
If we're into "my dad's bigger than your dad", I've been in IT since 1966, long before micro procesors and PCs.
My only experience of Vista was the on the laptop I bought for my son before he went off to University last year. We were unimpressed. I'm sorry, I don't care how good it is technically, the UI is absolutely horrid! We had problems connecting it to the home network and the internet, the help facility didn't and it just looked so garish.
I like XP Pro, and I do run as an admin, but, believe me, the wife and brat definitely don't!
:o
Thats my birth year..I though I was an old IT man here ;D ;D
-
I've been in IT since the 286 (nearly 20 years) and I know I don't know a lot.
However I do know CA-Clipper inside out and can develop an ISAM database extremely well.
If we're into "my dad's bigger than your dad", I've been in IT since 1966, long before micro procesors and PCs.
My only experience of Vista was the on the laptop I bought for my son before he went off to University last year. We were unimpressed. I'm sorry, I don't care how good it is technically, the UI is absolutely horrid! We had problems connecting it to the home network and the internet, the help facility didn't and it just looked so garish.
I like XP Pro, and I do run as an admin, but, believe me, the wife and brat definitely don't!
This is the problem IMHO. Too much was changed when it didn't need to be. Let's face it: an operating system is a mundane piece of software that allows users to run programs, store files and, increasingly, provide a secure environment in which to do it.
Ever since windows 95, the same basic user interface has been honed through 98, ME (shudder), NT4, W2K and XP. Changes have been made, but never on such a massive scale that users got overwhelmed.
That all changed with vista. I suspect the software engineers got carried away with the task of developing a boring operating system and started doing what comes naturally to them - adding bloatware features because they're "cool".
Granted, a lot of the boring things like security have been enhanced but that's not what the end user appreciates. The end user spends 5 minutes trying to do what he did in 5 seconds before and concludes that it's "cr@p" because nothing is where it used to be. He then loses out on all the good work that had gone into making it more secure, etc. >:(
Kevin
-
I've been in IT since the 286 (nearly 20 years) and I know I don't know a lot.
However I do know CA-Clipper inside out and can develop an ISAM database extremely well.
If we're into "my dad's bigger than your dad", I've been in IT since 1966, long before micro procesors and PCs.
My only experience of Vista was the on the laptop I bought for my son before he went off to University last year. We were unimpressed. I'm sorry, I don't care how good it is technically, the UI is absolutely horrid! We had problems connecting it to the home network and the internet, the help facility didn't and it just looked so garish.
I like XP Pro, and I do run as an admin, but, believe me, the wife and brat definitely don't!
Initially, I struggled to 'get' the interface. However, once it 'clicked' it all became clear. Most of the interface difficulties are based around us knowing XP too well....
-
I've been in IT since the 286 (nearly 20 years) and I know I don't know a lot.
However I do know CA-Clipper inside out and can develop an ISAM database extremely well.
If we're into "my dad's bigger than your dad", I've been in IT since 1966, long before micro procesors and PCs.
My only experience of Vista was the on the laptop I bought for my son before he went off to University last year. We were unimpressed. I'm sorry, I don't care how good it is technically, the UI is absolutely horrid! We had problems connecting it to the home network and the internet, the help facility didn't and it just looked so garish.
I like XP Pro, and I do run as an admin, but, believe me, the wife and brat definitely don't!
This is the problem IMHO. Too much was changed when it didn't need to be. Let's face it: an operating system is a mundane piece of software that allows users to run programs, store files and, increasingly, provide a secure environment in which to do it.
Ever since windows 95, the same basic user interface has been honed through 98, ME (shudder), NT4, W2K and XP. Changes have been made, but never on such a massive scale that users got overwhelmed.
That all changed with vista. I suspect the software engineers got carried away with the task of developing a boring operating system and started doing what comes naturally to them - adding bloatware features because they're "cool".
Granted, a lot of the boring things like security have been enhanced but that's not what the end user appreciates. The end user spends 5 minutes trying to do what he did in 5 seconds before and concludes that it's "cr@p" because nothing is where it used to be. He then loses out on all the good work that had gone into making it more secure, etc. >:(
Kevin
I think the XP interface was more radical in some ways, only most of us chose to immediately put it into Classic - things like control panel etc. I still know many people who cannot handle change and modify their XP to look exactly like W2K...
-
I've been in IT since the 286 (nearly 20 years) and I know I don't know a lot.
However I do know CA-Clipper inside out and can develop an ISAM database extremely well.
If we're into "my dad's bigger than your dad", I've been in IT since 1966, long before micro procesors and PCs.
My only experience of Vista was the on the laptop I bought for my son before he went off to University last year. We were unimpressed. I'm sorry, I don't care how good it is technically, the UI is absolutely horrid! We had problems connecting it to the home network and the internet, the help facility didn't and it just looked so garish.
I like XP Pro, and I do run as an admin, but, believe me, the wife and brat definitely don't!
This is the problem IMHO. Too much was changed when it didn't need to be. Let's face it: an operating system is a mundane piece of software that allows users to run programs, store files and, increasingly, provide a secure environment in which to do it.
Ever since windows 95, the same basic user interface has been honed through 98, ME (shudder), NT4, W2K and XP. Changes have been made, but never on such a massive scale that users got overwhelmed.
That all changed with vista. I suspect the software engineers got carried away with the task of developing a boring operating system and started doing what comes naturally to them - adding bloatware features because they're "cool".
Granted, a lot of the boring things like security have been enhanced but that's not what the end user appreciates. The end user spends 5 minutes trying to do what he did in 5 seconds before and concludes that it's "cr@p" because nothing is where it used to be. He then loses out on all the good work that had gone into making it more secure, etc. >:(
Kevin
I think the XP interface was more radical in some ways, only most of us chose to immediately put it into Classic - things like control panel etc. I still know many people who cannot handle change and modify their XP to look exactly like W2K...
another here ;D ;D
-
I've been in IT since the 286 (nearly 20 years) and I know I don't know a lot.
However I do know CA-Clipper inside out and can develop an ISAM database extremely well.
If we're into "my dad's bigger than your dad", I've been in IT since 1966, long before micro procesors and PCs.
My only experience of Vista was the on the laptop I bought for my son before he went off to University last year. We were unimpressed. I'm sorry, I don't care how good it is technically, the UI is absolutely horrid! We had problems connecting it to the home network and the internet, the help facility didn't and it just looked so garish.
I like XP Pro, and I do run as an admin, but, believe me, the wife and brat definitely don't!
This is the problem IMHO. Too much was changed when it didn't need to be. Let's face it: an operating system is a mundane piece of software that allows users to run programs, store files and, increasingly, provide a secure environment in which to do it.
Ever since windows 95, the same basic user interface has been honed through 98, ME (shudder), NT4, W2K and XP. Changes have been made, but never on such a massive scale that users got overwhelmed.
That all changed with vista. I suspect the software engineers got carried away with the task of developing a boring operating system and started doing what comes naturally to them - adding bloatware features because they're "cool".
Granted, a lot of the boring things like security have been enhanced but that's not what the end user appreciates. The end user spends 5 minutes trying to do what he did in 5 seconds before and concludes that it's "cr@p" because nothing is where it used to be. He then loses out on all the good work that had gone into making it more secure, etc. >:(
Kevin
I think the XP interface was more radical in some ways, only most of us chose to immediately put it into Classic - things like control panel etc. I still know many people who cannot handle change and modify their XP to look exactly like W2K...
another here ;D ;D
;D - I did too for the first couple of months ;D
-
I've been in IT since the 286 (nearly 20 years) and I know I don't know a lot.
However I do know CA-Clipper inside out and can develop an ISAM database extremely well.
If we're into "my dad's bigger than your dad", I've been in IT since 1966, long before micro procesors and PCs.
My only experience of Vista was the on the laptop I bought for my son before he went off to University last year. We were unimpressed. I'm sorry, I don't care how good it is technically, the UI is absolutely horrid! We had problems connecting it to the home network and the internet, the help facility didn't and it just looked so garish.
I like XP Pro, and I do run as an admin, but, believe me, the wife and brat definitely don't!
This is the problem IMHO. Too much was changed when it didn't need to be. Let's face it: an operating system is a mundane piece of software that allows users to run programs, store files and, increasingly, provide a secure environment in which to do it.
Ever since windows 95, the same basic user interface has been honed through 98, ME (shudder), NT4, W2K and XP. Changes have been made, but never on such a massive scale that users got overwhelmed.
That all changed with vista. I suspect the software engineers got carried away with the task of developing a boring operating system and started doing what comes naturally to them - adding bloatware features because they're "cool".
Granted, a lot of the boring things like security have been enhanced but that's not what the end user appreciates. The end user spends 5 minutes trying to do what he did in 5 seconds before and concludes that it's "cr@p" because nothing is where it used to be. He then loses out on all the good work that had gone into making it more secure, etc. >:(
Kevin
I think the XP interface was more radical in some ways, only most of us chose to immediately put it into Classic - things like control panel etc. I still know many people who cannot handle change and modify their XP to look exactly like W2K...
another here ;D ;D
;D - I did too for the first couple of months ;D
erm still same here :-[ ;D
-
I think the XP interface was more radical in some ways, only most of us chose to immediately put it into Classic - things like control panel etc. I still know many people who cannot handle change and modify their XP to look exactly like W2K...
::)
Yep. First thing I did.
;D
That's the point though, in a way. No one tries to make people "upgrade" to cars you can steer with your feet or lawn mowers that you pull round the garden instead of push. Once a convention has been established it's best to stick with it, unless it's going to be as important as the transition from command prompt to graphical interface. If it 'ain't broke...
Kevin
-
I think the XP interface was more radical in some ways, only most of us chose to immediately put it into Classic - things like control panel etc. I still know many people who cannot handle change and modify their XP to look exactly like W2K...
::)
Yep. First thing I did.
;D
That's the point though, in a way. No one tries to make people "upgrade" to cars you can steer with your feet or lawn mowers that you pull round the garden instead of push. Once a convention has been established it's best to stick with it, unless it's going to be as important as the transition from command prompt to graphical interface. If it 'ain't broke...
Kevin
The old XP interface was fine for us experienced with it. But Vista's interface is easier for newcomers apparently. Us - being good with computers - should be able to adapt better, but many IT types are old stuck-in-the-muds, myself included ;D
-
My XP has the 98 style start menus but the nice blue boxes for windows.
ALL animations are disabled - as they should always be
-
Vista bag of pooh, at least XP works ok now after all these years. ::)
-
Vista bag of pooh, at least XP works ok now after all these years. ::)
Thats a rather sweeping statement :-/
-
I still know many people who cannot handle change and modify their XP to look exactly like W2K...
Mine is still in "W2K style" - and I like it :D
My bro got a lappy with Vista last year, unfortunately Vista really struggled on 1gb RAM and an average processor.
Just had a new PC at work, on Vista but with dual core processors and 4gb of ram - it is brilliant, completely understand it now!
It has been mentioned already, but it needs new hardware to flourish - upgrading not as simple.
-
I still know many people who cannot handle change and modify their XP to look exactly like W2K...
Mine is still in "W2K style" - and I like it :D
My bro got a lappy with Vista last year, unfortunately Vista really struggled on 1gb RAM and an average processor.
Just had a new PC at work, on Vista but with dual core processors and 4gb of ram - it is brilliant, completely understand it now!
It has been mentioned already, but it needs new hardware to flourish - upgrading not as simple.
Yup Core2 series processor, 2+Gb RAM, and a nodern vga card are what makes Vista sing.
For a laugh, I installed it on the OOF server (before Windows server went on) - Core2 Quad core 2.4Ghz, 4G RAM, fairly fast disk array, ATI 1000 series video. It flew. From switch on to ready desktop, under 10s 8-)
-
Did i open a hornets nest TB? i do like a lively debate.
I think we can all agree to disagree about which versions of windows we prefere. Suppose its what we get used to. Us older pc users out there tend to stick to what we know (or think we know) about. Was on xp for years myself and (Eventually) went onto vista, although i had to build a new more powerful pc to really enjoy its advantages (more ram, better graphics card and a much faster cpu.
I wonder if another rebuild will be needed for windows 7 (maybe quad core with a minimum of 2 gig of ram)And of course another licence to buy.
We love you Bill Gates
Tomoco
-
Did i open a hornets nest TB? i do like a lively debate.
I think we can all agree to disagree about which versions of windows we prefere. Suppose its what we get used to. Us older pc users out there tend to stick to what we know (or think we know) about. Was on xp for years myself and (Eventually) went onto vista, although i had to build a new more powerful pc to really enjoy its advantages (more ram, better graphics card and a much faster cpu.
I wonder if another rebuild will be needed for windows 7 (maybe quad core with a minimum of 2 gig of ram)And of course another licence to buy.
We love you Bill Gates
Tomoco
Yup, some people like to stick to old stuff - looking through OOF's logs, 0.5% still using Me, 0.3% using pre 2000 NT variants, 0.5% on 98, and 1 person still using 95 (and a few connections from a Windows 3 machine!).
Some of the browsers in use is even more worrying - remember unsupported stuff is not patched :o
-
Last month I came on via the PS3 - what was listed for that?
-
Last month I came on via the PS3 - what was listed for that?
Listed as 'ah, thats the mug who bought one of them'
-
Biggest problem with not running Xp in Admin mode is that so many games seem to require it. Rebuilt my boy's PC recently and knowing just enough to be dangerous I only gave him Power User access. None of the games he has would run and these are not 'bleeding edge' games but fairly normal stuff including World of Warcraft and Neverwinter Nights (OK, so I have a lot of RolePlaying games....yes I'm a Nerd/Geek/Whatever). The only way to get the games to run was to give him Admin rights which meant no network for him. He went right off on one but when he had to make the choice he went for the games.
-
You know what? As an MCSE, I still do not like using Vista. It is bloated beyond necessity. Granted it looks relatively pretty, but that is not a deciding factor when most people purchase an operating system. XP is, and is most likely to be, Microsoft's best offering in terms of an OS (except for DOS 6.22!!).
I have to say though, that even given my career leanings, I am an OS X convert. Apple have got THE BEST operating system out there bar none. Slick and efficient. More stable than XP sp2 as well. And that takes a bit of beating.
P.S. - Did I show up as an OS X user on the logs??
-
Last month I came on via the PS3 - what was listed for that?
Listed as 'ah, thats the mug who bought one of them'
>:( >:( >:( >:(
-
Biggest problem with not running Xp in Admin mode is that so many games seem to require it. Rebuilt my boy's PC recently and knowing just enough to be dangerous I only gave him Power User access. None of the games he has would run and these are not 'bleeding edge' games but fairly normal stuff including World of Warcraft and Neverwinter Nights (OK, so I have a lot of RolePlaying games....yes I'm a Nerd/Geek/Whatever). The only way to get the games to run was to give him Admin rights which meant no network for him. He went right off on one but when he had to make the choice he went for the games.
And the lazy programming of some software houses is what has caused a lot of the pain in upgrading to Vista kernel.
-
You know what? As an MCSE, I still do not like using Vista. It is bloated beyond necessity. Granted it looks relatively pretty, but that is not a deciding factor when most people purchase an operating system. XP is, and is most likely to be, Microsoft's best offering in terms of an OS (except for DOS 6.22!!).
I have to say though, that even given my career leanings, I am an OS X convert. Apple have got THE BEST operating system out there bar none. Slick and efficient. More stable than XP sp2 as well. And that takes a bit of beating.
P.S. - Did I show up as an OS X user on the logs??
Everyone has there own preference. OS X isn't bad at all, but I still reckon Windows is the better desktop. Which is odd, as the previews of Windows 7 look a bit OS X like ;D
As to stability, the NT kernel, and Vista kernel, do tend to be very very stable. Last kernel crash (BSOD) I had that wan't hardware related? Can't remember. Don't use Macs enough to comment on later OS X versions stability. Both OSes likely suffer instability due to 3rd party drivers rather than anything else, hardly Apple/MS fault.
If the OS + software does what you need it to do, thats all that matters :y
We have a few Mac users, using OS X and, believe it or not, classic OS ;D
-
as a programmer I need a stable and widely used environment
so still xp pro..
-
as a programmer I need a stable and widely used environment
so still xp pro..
I use a mix of XP Pro and Vista for actual programming. Tending to use more Vista now, catches my bad programming habits earlier ;D
-
I installed a dual boot on my laptop when I first installed Vista. I found Vista a nightmare when it first came out due to the compatibility issues with drivers and software as mentioned earlier.
I haven't used xp for a long time now - Vista is far less likely to crash and works fine on my old laptop. I did upgrade the processor (1.8 Pentium M from a 1.4) and have 2gb of ram and runs quicker than a couple of mates with core 2 processors with a 1gb ram. I think the ram is a big factor when running vista - 2gb or more is the way to go.
-
as a programmer I need a stable and widely used environment
so still xp pro..
I use a mix of XP Pro and Vista for actual programming. Tending to use more Vista now, catches my bad programming habits earlier ;D
What sort of programming do you do?
-
By the way MS very late decided to support vista for SQL 2005
ie service pack 2 ..
-
By the way MS very late decided to support vista for SQL 2005
ie service pack 2 ..
I think there may have been a marketing ploy to only run new version of SQL on Vista, only it wasn't ready in time....
....I try not to be cynical...
-
as a programmer I need a stable and widely used environment
so still xp pro..
I use a mix of XP Pro and Vista for actual programming. Tending to use more Vista now, catches my bad programming habits earlier ;D
What sort of programming do you do?
Whatever needs doing, on whatever platform needs it.
-
By the way MS very late decided to support vista for SQL 2005
ie service pack 2 ..
I think there may have been a marketing ploy to only run new version of SQL on Vista, only it wasn't ready in time....
....I try not to be cynical...
Agreed..
-
as a programmer I need a stable and widely used environment
so still xp pro..
I use a mix of XP Pro and Vista for actual programming. Tending to use more Vista now, catches my bad programming habits earlier ;D
What sort of programming do you do?
Whatever needs doing, on whatever platform needs it.
I seem to spend most of the day now in Visual Objects, adding new features all the time. Still suffering from having the best DOS programmes in our market, makes Windows harder.
-
as a programmer I need a stable and widely used environment
so still xp pro..
I use a mix of XP Pro and Vista for actual programming. Tending to use more Vista now, catches my bad programming habits earlier ;D
What sort of programming do you do?
Whatever needs doing, on whatever platform needs it.
I seem to spend most of the day now in Visual Objects, adding new features all the time. Still suffering from having the best DOS programmes in our market, makes Windows harder.
.NET is undoubtedly the easiest platform to code for, followed by Win32. All the others are cumbersome in comparison...
-
We are going .net for the next version, investigating other database engines, but I am sure we will stay with Advantage Database Server.
I'm going to get a C.NET course though :y
I don't want to know Visual bloody Basic - it's crap!
-
We are going .net for the next version, investigating other database engines, but I am sure we will stay with Advantage Database Server.
I'm going to get a C.NET course though :y
I don't want to know Visual bloody Basic - it's crap!
vb.net, esp 2005 and 2008 versions is much better than the old ones. language is irrelevent in .net. My own view is c# and vb.net are the most productive, c++ is a bit clunky in .net.
if you're going .net, ms-sql will become the natural db choice, due to excellent integration, and the freebie version is good enough for most things (replication aside)
-
We are going .net for the next version, investigating other database engines, but I am sure we will stay with Advantage Database Server.
I'm going to get a C.NET course though :y
I don't want to know Visual bloody Basic - it's crap!
vb.net, esp 2005 and 2008 versions is much better than the old ones. language is irrelevent in .net. My own view is c# and vb.net are the most productive, c++ is a bit clunky in .net.
if you're going .net, ms-sql will become the natural db choice, due to excellent integration, and the freebie version is good enough for most things (replication aside)
I cannot stand VB6 the IDE is rubbish and I can't stand the way it breaks my careful formatting.
I want = to line up in a column and they will >:(
As to ms-sql - we will have to benchmark against our current server, which started as a reindeing NLM about 15 years ago and became a server in its own right about 12 years ago (V3) and is now one of the best performing client server engines (V9) - which is also platform neutral NT, NW & Pingu.
I would like to try Vulcan which is VO.NET
-
We are going .net for the next version, investigating other database engines, but I am sure we will stay with Advantage Database Server.
I'm going to get a C.NET course though :y
I don't want to know Visual bloody Basic - it's crap!
vb.net, esp 2005 and 2008 versions is much better than the old ones. language is irrelevent in .net. My own view is c# and vb.net are the most productive, c++ is a bit clunky in .net.
if you're going .net, ms-sql will become the natural db choice, due to excellent integration, and the freebie version is good enough for most things (replication aside)
I cannot stand VB6 the IDE is rubbish and I can't stand the way it breaks my careful formatting.
I want = to line up in a column and they will >:(
As to ms-sql - we will have to benchmark against our current server, which started as a reindeing NLM about 15 years ago and became a server in its own right about 12 years ago (V3) and is now one of the best performing client server engines (V9) - which is also platform neutral NT, NW & Pingu.
I would like to try Vulcan which is VO.NET
remember vb6 is about 10,000,000 years old. However, if you need columns in vb6, ole in excel if you can guarantee installed, or use MS Flexgrid included with vb. Even in .net, still use a grid control ;)
MS-SQL and Oracle are the 2 fastest in the mid range server market. Which of these is fastest depends on the query and whether 32 bit or 64 bit. MS SQL is Windows only, Oracle is more for Unix, though Windows versions available. MYSQL is making inroads now they have improved scalability.
-
We are going .net for the next version, investigating other database engines, but I am sure we will stay with Advantage Database Server.
I'm going to get a C.NET course though :y
I don't want to know Visual bloody Basic - it's crap!
vb.net, esp 2005 and 2008 versions is much better than the old ones. language is irrelevent in .net. My own view is c# and vb.net are the most productive, c++ is a bit clunky in .net.
if you're going .net, ms-sql will become the natural db choice, due to excellent integration, and the freebie version is good enough for most things (replication aside)
I cannot stand VB6 the IDE is rubbish and I can't stand the way it breaks my careful formatting.
I want = to line up in a column and they will >:(
As to ms-sql - we will have to benchmark against our current server, which started as a reindeing NLM about 15 years ago and became a server in its own right about 12 years ago (V3) and is now one of the best performing client server engines (V9) - which is also platform neutral NT, NW & Pingu.
I would like to try Vulcan which is VO.NET
remember vb6 is about 10,000,000 years old. However, if you need columns in vb6, ole in excel if you can guarantee installed, or use MS Flexgrid included with vb. Even in .net, still use a grid control ;)
MS-SQL and Oracle are the 2 fastest in the mid range server market. Which of these is fastest depends on the query and whether 32 bit or 64 bit. MS SQL is Windows only, Oracle is more for Unix, though Windows versions available. MYSQL is making inroads now they have improved scalability.
I was thinking I like my code to line up - easy to read and the stupid VB editor removed all of my white space and made the code difficult to read, the small amount I had to work on is distinguished by all variables being the same length.
I want to pit MS SQL up against ADS Sybase bought Extended Systems and kept the dev. team for this one product. Last comparison I saw was a long time ago but ADS wiped the floor with all the others.
-
Oh our market is single user up to about 30 users, but most customers have between 5 and 10 users. Even the biggest single site in the country is under 25 users.
-
Who cares? JVM works anywhere :)
-
I don't understand any of this. I switch my laptop on and connect to the internet and go from there. :)
-
as a programmer I need a stable and widely used environment
so still xp pro..
I use a mix of XP Pro and Vista for actual programming. Tending to use more Vista now, catches my bad programming habits earlier ;D
What sort of programming do you do?
Whatever needs doing, on whatever platform needs it.
I seem to spend most of the day now in Visual Objects, adding new features all the time. Still suffering from having the best DOS programmes in our market, makes Windows harder.
.NET is undoubtedly the easiest platform to code for, followed by Win32. All the others are cumbersome in comparison...
Definitely :y
-
We are going .net for the next version, investigating other database engines, but I am sure we will stay with Advantage Database Server.
I'm going to get a C.NET course though :y
I don't want to know Visual bloody Basic - it's crap!
Cant see functional difference between C.net and vb.net or else..
except unreadable crap C syntax (by the way I coded in C under unix many years)
-
We are going .net for the next version, investigating other database engines, but I am sure we will stay with Advantage Database Server.
I'm going to get a C.NET course though :y
I don't want to know Visual bloody Basic - it's crap!
vb.net, esp 2005 and 2008 versions is much better than the old ones. language is irrelevent in .net. My own view is c# and vb.net are the most productive, c++ is a bit clunky in .net.
if you're going .net, ms-sql will become the natural db choice, due to excellent integration, and the freebie version is good enough for most things (replication aside)
Cant tell better..Thanks :y
-
And for vb6.. still the most quick and easy (at least for me) development language for one specific task although the executable is not that fast..
But main advantage for vb6 is it works cooperatively with all office and sql environments..And there are millions of free activex components to download and use in a minute..
And it never requires a powerful machine..And if the machine is above pentium ;D you can do serious tasks like multi huge dimensional annual report calculations vice versa.. :o
One example in ex-previous job in a bank (with 800 branches) yearly income balances and some critical calculations were done in a P3-500 machine with 512 Mb of ram within 3 minutes..(And some raid SCSI disks)
And .net.. Of course everthing here is a bit different..
Sometimes the compiled codes of vb6 and .net can reach a ratio of 1/30 in execution times as net is multithreaded.. (matrix transposition)
But for .net you need a plan for objects, methods ..Requires more time for design..
However for all these environments if you want efficiency you need a rich library of codes and objects..