-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: What is the ultimate French toast topping?
Crunch time at Microsoft
- Thread starter rpm
- Start date
Do you have any idea how many professional people use Linux too? Performance-based, Linux can outrun Windows any day, it utilises available hardware much better and is a lot cheaper to support. This is also why 75-80% of the web is hosted on Linux systems.
You can do a lot more than just the above mentioned on Linux. Any sort of word processing can be done in Linux, taking LaTEX as an example (and it is a lot faster than M$ Word, as it does the formatting for you* [however I'm not going into that detail]). Almost all C++ applications are written in Linux, which once again relates to a lot of our professional usage.
Why pay your $$$ for Vista, if Linux is better? And that's for free?
It is auxiliary in solving another big global problem in 90% cases:
Software Piracy!
Spending less on soft means more quid for hardware
Do you understand? LOL.
It is auxiliary in solving another big global problem in 90% cases:
Software Piracy!
Spending less on soft means more quid for hardware
Do you understand? LOL.
Abe
Expert Member
As a new console owner, yes probably. What annoys me is the price they charge for games on the consoles as opposed to the PC games.
I'll never upgrade to vista.
Nor Linux,
for the simple reason that vista is too expensive for
something that XP does twice as good, and never
to linux because im not someone who like to
overcomplicate my life.
Buying a PC or Notebook without a OS cd is leading
to more and more Ripped XP CD's
So i bet a lot of you Linuxies are going to bite my
head off 'cause i don't like linux, well why should
i get linux if i'm perfectly happy with windows XP?
I know it suck sometimes and it could be better, but
It can't be perfect.Don't you dare tell me linux is.
Nor Linux,
for the simple reason that vista is too expensive for
something that XP does twice as good, and never
to linux because im not someone who like to
overcomplicate my life.
Buying a PC or Notebook without a OS cd is leading
to more and more Ripped XP CD's
So i bet a lot of you Linuxies are going to bite my
head off 'cause i don't like linux, well why should
i get linux if i'm perfectly happy with windows XP?
I know it suck sometimes and it could be better, but
It can't be perfect.Don't you dare tell me linux is.
You don't have to. Revolution has begun. Don't blame the "Linuxies" if you happen to be on board a sinking ship.
vodacom3g
Vodacom Representative
I've been running Vista since RC1, first on 32-bit and lately 64-bit.
I've not seen application compatibility issues, but the thing is dog slow, even on my latest platform (3GHz Quad-core CPU, 4G of RAM, *****-hot display card). Could have bought 2 x 24" iMac's for the same price the hardware cost me so far to try and get some speed out of the system.
In comparison, built a new media / file server a few weeks ago.
6TB storage, 2.4G Core-Duo, 4GB RAM (basically the stuff that came out of the previous Vista machine) running Ubutu 64-bit server. It's so fast before I can think to do something, it's done.
I've not seen application compatibility issues, but the thing is dog slow, even on my latest platform (3GHz Quad-core CPU, 4G of RAM, *****-hot display card). Could have bought 2 x 24" iMac's for the same price the hardware cost me so far to try and get some speed out of the system.
In comparison, built a new media / file server a few weeks ago.
6TB storage, 2.4G Core-Duo, 4GB RAM (basically the stuff that came out of the previous Vista machine) running Ubutu 64-bit server. It's so fast before I can think to do something, it's done.
vodacom3g
Vodacom Representative
Yup, I do loose 1TB to RAID-5, but it's a breeze to add a new drive to the Array. Takes about 2 days to extend the array with another TB, but there's no performance hit while it happens. Will probably bump another drive in this weekend.
n3rin3
Member
No... I was hoping to see more possitive things about Vista. I am running Vista 64 and I love it. Took a little getting used to and most of the driver issues are all sorted. Even for my 64 bit.
I do not have a single thing I previously used that I cannot use now.
Only thing is I do need to upgrade my graphics card, it's definately way under-spec'd so games are a problem right now but most of the new games require a decent graphics card anyway. They just don't perform the same without it.
So it's not Vista forcing you to spend money on new hardware, technology advances, as it should.
With new technology there are always teething problems but Vista for me was like time travelling to the future. I love it.
I do not have a single thing I previously used that I cannot use now.
Only thing is I do need to upgrade my graphics card, it's definately way under-spec'd so games are a problem right now but most of the new games require a decent graphics card anyway. They just don't perform the same without it.
So it's not Vista forcing you to spend money on new hardware, technology advances, as it should.
With new technology there are always teething problems but Vista for me was like time travelling to the future. I love it.
vodacom3g
Vodacom Representative
Multiple, independent tests show Vista is substantially slower than XP on the same hardware. Saw numbers of up to 50%, comparing XP-SP3 with Vista-SP1.
My biggest hassle lies with Explorer. It just stops working for a few seconds at a time when you try and do something.
n3rin3
Member
Admittedly it is slower but I think it's also dependant on your hardware.
I tried upgrading my RAM to speed it up a bit but it made no difference. I can understand the games are affected cause of my graphics card but all the other hardware should be good enough.
I figured it was just the graphics card causing the lag because of the more "animated" menus etc.
Maybe I should reconsider then before spending a fortune on a new graphics card.
But I really like the design and look. I love the gadgets and I find it much more user friendly. sigh...
... n3rin3 gives more thought to new graphics card
I tried upgrading my RAM to speed it up a bit but it made no difference. I can understand the games are affected cause of my graphics card but all the other hardware should be good enough.
I figured it was just the graphics card causing the lag because of the more "animated" menus etc.
Maybe I should reconsider then before spending a fortune on a new graphics card.
But I really like the design and look. I love the gadgets and I find it much more user friendly. sigh...
... n3rin3 gives more thought to new graphics card
Unfortunately, not really. I have to admit that Outlook 2007 is a pretty good one. The closes you could come to this in Linux is to emulate Outlook 2003 in Wine as Office 2k7 is not supported yet in Linux emulators. There is a thread somewhere around in the last week that does discuss this issue, however.
vodacom3g
Vodacom Representative
Admittedly it is slower but I think it's also dependant on your hardware.
I tried upgrading my RAM to speed it up a bit but it made no difference. I can understand the games are affected cause of my graphics card but all the other hardware should be good enough.
I figured it was just the graphics card causing the lag because of the more "animated" menus etc.
Maybe I should reconsider then before spending a fortune on a new graphics card.
But I really like the design and look. I love the gadgets and I find it much more user friendly. sigh...
That's my point above. I pretty much run the fastest of everything you can get today and it's still slow. Or rather it's not slow in general, some functions will just stop for a few seconds and then carry on.
For example, often when I click on 'New mail' the screen will pop up but I have to wait up to 15 seconds before it becomes available for me to type anything in it.
Same with Explorer, double-click on a drive and the next screen takes a long time to open up. But not always, other times it's lightning fast.
Open up an Excel spreadsheet and again it just spins it wheels for a while and then it opens up.
I first thought it's hardware after I upgraded my XP system to Vista. So I got the latest Core-Duo (at the time) but it did not help a lot. At this point I was very close to switching to MAC but not all my apps will work so I went for yet another upgrade (to Q-C + faster RAM and a bigger display card) but it again did not help much.
The feeling that I get is that the system just 'forgets' there's an end-user trying to work and goes off and do other stuff.
When it comes to operating systems, esp on PCs, I'm not a power user like most of the guys on this forum. So I can only speak as an average user. I use Vista Business on my work pc, one of IBM's high end machines. I find it rather disappointing when it comes to speed, i.e. startup, shutdown process takes 5 minutes each. For the rest of the day you are tortured by the pace it takes to open files/folders, and if you don't know how to swear, I suggest learning a few, 'cause you're going to need them.
I have 'downgraded' to XP, and I nearly fell over when I saw that 'snail' moving at a speed of a rabbit. When it comes to the look and feel, the cosmetics, I think Vista is good. For instance, one of the features I like is their search, which is everywhere. What I like about is that it makes things easy to find, and it is quick. But as they say looks can be deceiving, and some say don't judge a book by it's cover.
I have 'downgraded' to XP, and I nearly fell over when I saw that 'snail' moving at a speed of a rabbit. When it comes to the look and feel, the cosmetics, I think Vista is good. For instance, one of the features I like is their search, which is everywhere. What I like about is that it makes things easy to find, and it is quick. But as they say looks can be deceiving, and some say don't judge a book by it's cover.
n3rin3
Member
Ok so I played a around a bit last night to see if there was anything I could do to speed it up a bit.
For all it's wonderful features it's a little "over protective" for a home PC.
There's a lot of backround processes that run at startup according to a schedule set out by windows (unless changed by you) either on a daily or weekly basis.
Naturally when your virus scan kicks in your PC slows down. But windows defender runs a scan daily as well and the system does an automatic defrag once a week. Automatic updates run daily as well.
I think this contributes to the problem. I toned down some of the display properties ALOT and there is an improvement. I set display [properties to full performance instead of visual and turned off all the "pretty" features, only leaving the Vista look as far as the task bar and menus go and it seems to be better. But it's only been a few hours though.
I am a bit dissapointed though, I thought the a new graphics card would solve my problem but given what you've said, vodacom3g, I think I may have to reconsider. Everything else on my machine is pretty high spec'd, adequate for Vista, in fact far beyond what the recommended sys req are for Vista.
For all it's wonderful features it's a little "over protective" for a home PC.
There's a lot of backround processes that run at startup according to a schedule set out by windows (unless changed by you) either on a daily or weekly basis.
Naturally when your virus scan kicks in your PC slows down. But windows defender runs a scan daily as well and the system does an automatic defrag once a week. Automatic updates run daily as well.
I think this contributes to the problem. I toned down some of the display properties ALOT and there is an improvement. I set display [properties to full performance instead of visual and turned off all the "pretty" features, only leaving the Vista look as far as the task bar and menus go and it seems to be better. But it's only been a few hours though.
I am a bit dissapointed though, I thought the a new graphics card would solve my problem but given what you've said, vodacom3g, I think I may have to reconsider. Everything else on my machine is pretty high spec'd, adequate for Vista, in fact far beyond what the recommended sys req are for Vista.
A high end system which supports LESS hardware, less specialised software and is SLOWER and much more of an irritation to the user?
Why is that a HIGHER end system? Was Win ME a HIGH END system?
The answer is to rewrite the code and make it lean, make it more secure
- they should look at UNIX, maybe they should dump NT and make
Win7 based on UNIX and work things out that way.
MS doesn't listen. They sell vapourware. They sold DOS, Win95, Windows CE (which is Windows 3.1 actually) and Vista this way, they promise the moon and they deliver you your backyard - albeit years too late. MS sells vapourware. They promise features which are superior to current competition for the future, yet these features never materialise in the future whenever
the dud finally arrives - its years late and on the way MS 'changes it's mind'
maybe because they don't know how to write a real operating system?
NT (is based originally on OS/2)
Windows is based on DOS.
Win95 is a far cry from Cairo.
DOS was never written by them.
You see you wasted all that money to get a less than steller performance.
What is VISTA doing for you that XP didn't do? Do you really need Aero?
Do you really need the UAC?
Do you use your computer to work or just look at pretty graphic menus and icons?
You can still get a Mac and bootcamp or run Vista/XP in a Virtual Machine.
I suggest you sell your COPY of Vista to some naive kid who wants to play the latest gamez and get a MBP/MB and install Windows XP there and dual boot that or run it via as a virtual machine on MacOSX for your legacy apps.