Vista's not so bad it seems

[alexmanners]

Hmm... I guess that's fine then . Maybe it was the windows version I was trying to install...

[Hidden_Hunter]

Originally Posted by alexmanners

I took a class to get my A+ as well, and that is all Desktop configuration and hardware, as well as networking of computers. My CCNA class was focused on networking, and I learned windows is inferior through constantly facing problems originating from the Operating System and compatibility issues. Setting up servers on Linux boxes, be it FTP, DNS, DHCP, was in the long run easier to set up and maintain then the windows systems set up.
And congrats on the CCNA, good luck with the CCNP... So much to memorize.



For the most part, it just works. In odd cases you have to reconfigure xorg, or add support for trackpads, soundcards, etc but most stuff is pretty much working off install (The one thing that irks me is how certain Fans refuse to work properly even after pwmconfiging it).
But for the sake of the argument, I'll rephrase myself: If you can get Ubuntu installed by someone with some Linux know-how, it will just work and be a reliable machine for years.

I have "linux know-how" and it doesn't stop it being any less of a pain though :/


I'm not sure what specific issues you're refering to with o/s compatability effecting the network, at a very basic network access level there is very little difference in how they operate. I don't have any issues with windows server DHCP or DNS service and I think that their DHCP server scales very well when used in combination with routers/switches that properally support DHCP forwarding (usually the issue rather than the actual server)

[jeffy777]

I've been meaning to upgrade to Vista.....but I'm really just too busy to actually do it. The hard part is that XP works so well for me, so I really don't see the need to take the plunge. However, if I could just flip a switch and it was done, I would do it. I just don't feel like reinstalling everything, etc.

[alexmanners]

Originally Posted by Hidden_Hunter

I have "linux know-how" and it doesn't stop it being any less of a pain though :/

True, but it gets better over time. Look at Hoary compared to Ibex

Originally Posted by Hidden_Hunter

I'm not sure what specific issues you're refering to with o/s compatability effecting the network, at a very basic network access level there is very little difference in how they operate. I don't have any issues with windows server DHCP or DNS service and I think that their DHCP server scales very well when used in combination with routers/switches that properally support DHCP forwarding (usually the issue rather than the actual server)

It wasn't that O/S compatibility was effecting the network, but that windows server was just not worth the trouble and from what I experienced, unreliable. I didn't have any problems with Windows Server 2003 DHCP server, until it just stopped working one day (still don't know why...). I did have to configure some Cisco routers to do just that, pass the DHCP to the adjoining network, but I had some issues with the server in addition to that.

[Viper007Bond]

Originally Posted by jeffy777

I've been meaning to upgrade to Vista.....but I'm really just too busy to actually do it. The hard part is that XP works so well for me, so I really don't see the need to take the plunge. However, if I could just flip a switch and it was done, I would do it. I just don't feel like reinstalling everything, etc.

It took me an afternoon to make the switch.

[jeffy777]

Originally Posted by Viper007Bond

It took me an afternoon to make the switch.

Yeah, I know. I'm just really strapped for time, and XP meets all my needs, so I just can't force myself to get around to it. Someday I will.....

[otispunkmeyer]

Originally Posted by LurkerPatrol

I was using Vista on my work machine early on, and it was an old dell with a P4, 2 GB of ram, IGP vid card etc etc, and it was slow as heck. It wasn't even running the regular shiny GUI (I apologize I don't know the name of it). I had to borrow my dad's leftover office computer (with XP pro on it) in order to continue working. I was hoping that once all the little faults are fixed and its more stable, that I would look into it.

So I assume after reading the thread, that it's good? . Quad core + 4 GB should be adequate right?

yeah if u get 64bit

32bit will make a good chunk of that 4th gig of ram unusable because it just cant address it. i think 3.5gig is the max 32bit windows can address or something. get 64bit vista and you'll be sorted for as much ram as you can buy

[otispunkmeyer]

Originally Posted by Viper007Bond

My SP2 disc defaults to NTFS (I wipe my C: and start over 1-2 times a year).

cant fat not format large drives also? i think XP Home was the one that maybe defaulted to FAT. not sure though

Originally Posted by jeffy777

I've been meaning to upgrade to Vista.....but I'm really just too busy to actually do it. The hard part is that XP works so well for me, so I really don't see the need to take the plunge. However, if I could just flip a switch and it was done, I would do it. I just don't feel like reinstalling everything, etc.

they really need something like you can do on OSX

like that archive and install feature. i think in the end i started over with Leopard coz i wasnt happy with archive and install but i did a backup of my tiger, installed leopard and then just used the migrator to get all my apps, files, music etc back. worked a treat and while it probably took just as long as starting from scratch with vista and going to manually reinstall everything, i just went down stairs to watch tv/do stuff and came back later when it was done. Automation FTW

there must be some kinda program out there that can do this or similar for windows....there must be. its the one thing i like about windows. you can always always find a program to do something when your stuck

[prizrak]

Vista is fine if you disable UAC and have a box with insane amounts of power.

[Cobol74]

Not so - my small laptop works OK with it - memory hungry tho'.

[73GMCSprint]

I find it somewhat funny that everyone's gripes with Vista are the EXACT same gripes everyone has ever had with ANY new version of Windows that came out.

"It sucks big floppy donkey dick"

"It's a memory hog"

"It's slow on my computer that was built when the last version of windows came out"

"It doesn't run my games"

"It kicked my dog and drank all my beer"


And no, I'm not running Vista yet, because I know the limitations of my current system, but I will be switching when I upgrade my box later this summer.

[-Cpt. J.-]

Originally Posted by 73GMCSprint

I find it somewhat funny that everyone's gripes with Vista are the EXACT same gripes everyone has ever had with ANY new version of Windows that came out.

"It sucks big floppy donkey dick"

"It's a memory hog"

"It's slow on my computer that was built when the last version of windows came out"

"It doesn't run my games"

"It kicked my dog and drank all my beer"


And no, I'm not running Vista yet, because I know the limitations of my current system, but I will be switching when I upgrade my box later this summer.

Whatever. Vista i a big pile of FAIL. XP should have been the last 32bit OS from Microsoft.

90% of people who use Vista now are using a 32bit Vista... it's fucking pointless to say that you can add more than 1GB of RAM if it only supports 3GB, wich eventually in time will not be good for more than surfing the web. Personally I think that Microsoft could not be bothered to make a 64bit OS because they knew that if they make a 32bit OS pretty it will be enough.

[prizrak]

It loads commonly used programs into RAM so when you start them, they start up faster. What is the point of having RAM if you don't use it? There's a reason webservers literally use 100% of their RAM.

See my comments in my previous post though. Vista works best on a new PC with lots of RAM.

My Ubuntu does the same thing on a 1.25 GB box (Linux always tried to use RAM more than swap as it is faster) but it is at about 50% most of the time

I mean, what computer made within the last 5 years (which is forever in computer terms) has less than a gig of RAM? And what are you doing trying to run Vista on such an old ass computer?

My laptop is 2 years old, came with 512MB RAM originally..... In fact you will struggle to find an OEM box in the midrange from the past 2-3 years even that has 1GB or more. Even less chance if it's a laptop obviously.

I find it somewhat funny that everyone's gripes with Vista are the EXACT same gripes everyone has ever had with ANY new version of Windows that came out.

"It sucks big floppy donkey dick"

"It's a memory hog"

"It's slow on my computer that was built when the last version of windows came out"

"It doesn't run my games"

"It kicked my dog and drank all my beer"


And no, I'm not running Vista yet, because I know the limitations of my current system, but I will be switching when I upgrade my box later this summer.

See the problem is that both OS X and Linux based OS's manage to put out new versions w/o making it an enourmous hardware hog. I have a friend who has a G5 laptop and it runs the latest OS X like a champ. Likewise the latest version of Ubuntu is no more power hungry than the previous.

Major thing is that for all that bloat the OS doesn't seem to be that much better than the one it is replacing.

[alexmanners]

G4 laptop , never could make a G5 laptop due to cooling issues . And my thoughts exact. You should NOT have to buy a new computer just to run an operating system! I bought an eMac 700 Mhz with 600+ megs of RAM running OS X 10.1 (original ftw), then I was able to upgrade to 10.4 and run at basically the same speed. There is no reason for an operating system to be nearly as bloated and bogged down as Vista is. One thing Vista could have done to make their OS much faster is to employ a similar technique to what Apple used in Leopard. Each window is rendered in 3D so that GFX card is the one running it, not the CPU. Smarty!

[prizrak]

G4 laptop , never could make a G5 laptop due to cooling issues

My bad was never big into Apple, just remember that it was the laptop before MacIntel came out.

One thing Vista could have done to make their OS much faster is to employ a similar technique to what Apple used in Leopard. Each window is rendered in 3D so that GFX card is the one running it, not the CPU. Smarty!

Pretty sure that Aero Glass does the same thing.

I also forgot to touch one point, ease of install/use of an OS.
It is very hard to compare those across the board. For me for instance Ubuntu works perfectly on every single piece of hardware I have ever owned. We are talking self made desktop made from spare parts, 3 different laptops from 3 different generations (one being a tablet at that). I have also installed it on other people's systems. This of course is all anecdotal

The main thing that needs to be remembered is that Windows is generally either preinstalled on a PC or the components have been specifically tested by the manufacturer for it and drivers supplied. For the most part Linux does not come installed with your PC and components are tested/drivers written by a community of enthusiasts. Granted that doesn't help when your hardware doesn't work but it is something to keep in mind.

In my own experience I was installing XP SP2 on my father's computer that was using a SATA II controller for HDDs and XP was not able to pick up the controller in native SATA mode only in IDE emulation mode. To make matters worse the ONLY way to load a driver at install time (aside from making a custom install disk that would require a working XP installation in the first place) would be through a floppy. No option for even a CD, technology that has been around for decades, much less USB key or network. Which as you can imagine was quite a bit of a PITA on a system that was never meant to have a floppy. So things aren't exactly peachy on that front either.

I very seriously doubt that anyone who picks up an Ubuntu XPS M1330 from Dell would find any kind of hardware compatibility issues with that laptop. (drooling over one for a bit now have to do car upgrades first).

On to ease of use.

Ease of use is generally a phrase used to describe how intuitive the interface is. However, most people do not realize that when you are used to something it becomes easy to use. There is a good article on called Linux is not Windows it makes a few mistakes but uses and excellent analogy. Complaining that Linux is hard to use as compared to Windows is similar to saying that motorcycles are hard to drive because they are not like cars. Both are actually very easy to use but both require you to learn how to use them in the first place.

Case in point, I cannot stand OS X (sorry alex) because to me it is hard to use, there is only one menu, it is for all windows, the close/minimize buttons are on the wrong side and the mouse only has one button. Yet Apple is highly regarded as producer of the most intuitive interfaces in the world. The reason why I find OS X awkward is because I have come from years of using Windows and KDE/Gnome environments in Linux and I am used to the behavior of those OS's. Hell first time I used a mouse in 3.11 I thought it was the most idiotic invention on the planet and wanted my DOS shell back (I started early in PC's)

P.S. I am not saying one OS is better than the other, everyone has their own preferences I just wanted to point out certain things when comparing OS's

[Adunaphel]

Originally Posted by prizrak

In my own experience I was installing XP SP2 on my father's computer that was using a SATA II controller for HDDs and XP was not able to pick up the controller in native SATA mode only in IDE emulation mode. To make matters worse the ONLY way to load a driver at install time (aside from making a custom install disk that would require a working XP installation in the first place) would be through a floppy. No option for even a CD, technology that has been around for decades, much less USB key or network. Which as you can imagine was quite a bit of a PITA on a system that was never meant to have a floppy. So things aren't exactly peachy on that front either.

http://www.nliteos.com/

[alexmanners]

Originally Posted by prizrak

Case in point, I cannot stand OS X (sorry alex) because to me it is hard to use, there is only one menu, it is for all windows, the close/minimize buttons are on the wrong side and the mouse only has one button. Yet Apple is highly regarded as producer of the most intuitive interfaces in the world. The reason why I find OS X awkward is because I have come from years of using Windows and KDE/Gnome environments in Linux and I am used to the behavior of those OS's. Hell first time I used a mouse in 3.11 I thought it was the most idiotic invention on the planet and wanted my DOS shell back

Oh I know exactly how you feel! I started on OS 7 on a hand-me-down computer and it was all I had ever been exposed to. So when people tried to introduce me to Windows, I thought it was stupid and awkward and the start button was all confusing. But eventually I started using Linux and OS X, Linux being my main OS, and I agree that Apple did some weird things to their OS to be "different." Gentoo FTW.

[prizrak]

Originally Posted by Adunaphel

http://www.nliteos.com/

Originally Posted by prizrak

In my own experience I was installing XP SP2 on my father's computer that was using a SATA II controller for HDDs and XP was not able to pick up the controller in native SATA mode only in IDE emulation mode. To make matters worse the ONLY way to load a driver at install time (aside from making a custom install disk that would require a working XP installation in the first place) would be through a floppy. No option for even a CD, technology that has been around for decades, much less USB key or network. Which as you can imagine was quite a bit of a PITA on a system that was never meant to have a floppy. So things aren't exactly peachy on that front either.

Gentoo FTW.

Gentoo hates me, was never able to get a successful install of it.