windows vista and all our maps

Hi David,

As with all previous MS releases, upgrades suck. XP to Vista is no different - I did it because I had to to preserve operation of Quickbooks and MYSF, both accounting systems critical for me.

The XP installation was my original one - the first time I have run for years without constant re-installation, so it was pretty "dirty" from countless trials of different software packages.

A quick acquaintance with TweakVista and most problems gone (UAC turned off)
Some fairly bad software like Adobe stuff (acroreader 8, flash 8) has a lot of trouble installing properly as it doesn't like Vista or IE7 much. The horrors of Adobe reader 7 have not left me yet........

For running previous/ incompatible apps, just install MS Virtual PC 2007 and enjoy both worlds. As always, the new version needs twice the RAM of the outgoing. I have 2Gb and no issues.

there is quite a difference to the core - the security is a big change and the networking is also a big change - this causes all previous TCP/IP stuff to no longer work - eg IP printer ports are all wiped in the upgrade and need to be re-created.

In my view Mike is Microsoft bashing. Last year's product is good enough blah blah, windows 2000 was no better than W98 etc. Microsoft has contributed nothing to society blah blah. It's scaring Apple plenty, you just have to look at their negative TV advertising to realise that.

When you get your new laptop with Vista, just make sure you have the max RAM and you will enjoy the new system As with all previous new OS from Microsoft, it requires the latest hardware and the most RAM and the fastest graphics. No difference than before. You can still use AVGFree antivirus as it's Vista compatible.

If you need to run older software, Microsoft has catered for that with the free download "Microsoft Virtual PC 2007". I have used this and it's fantastic - it sets up a Virtual PC inside the Vista OS and you can install XP, W2k, Win98 onto it (you need a license though). It uses the Vista drivers to provide audio and graphics, and you can seamlessly copy files in and out.

With this you can run all your legacy apps which don't work on Vista, Discoveraus, Quickbooks, etc, etc.

I'm using Vista, and I like it, I'm not waiting for SP1, not doomsaying. Not using it in Corporate environment yet, but for Home or SOHO use it's fine.

Just bought a laptop for my son last week.

Want it with Vista sir ? No.

I want XP.

Oooh, you can have the system straight away with Vista.

I will wait for XP Pro. How long?

I will check and get back to you.

Phone call later - there is a delay because there are such a large number on back order, are you willing to wait 1 to 2 weeks? You can have Vista now?

I will wait -

arrived after 1 week.

Also, not all software will run on Vista.
Friend loaded Vista on his new fast dual core system.
Just sitting there idling, it was running at 13% CPU usage!

I'm running XP on this box but it doesn't run my applications any better than 2000 or 98 did - an operating system is just for running applications - it's not an end in it's own right - after all... who wants a computer which can start up with a swish screen but not do a lot else...?

Perhaps you could explain why Microsoft Vista is so much better than other operating systems...?

Mike Harding

It's better than CPM and Linux because they can't run Office.

It's better than OS/2 and....

If you don't think XP is better than 98, why did you change?

Oldplodder, the fact that the OS is using some of the CPU to run itself is not anything to worry about. A CPU is not a tyre - it doesn't last longer if you use it sparingly !

My Vista CPU usage is currently 0%-5% I am running Norton Antivirus Corporate edition, Spyware Doctor, IE7, Outlook 2003, a PPTP VPN connection to a remote site, etc, in all 62 processes are running. I have Vista Ultimate with everything running but UAC turned off.

There must be something using the CPU but it's not Vista - probably the horrible Norton Internet Security stuff.

So you can't explain then.

Actually Linux can run Office - although not Microsoft's version.

XP doesn't crash as often as 98 - that's why I changed.

Gerhardp1: I have been using computers and writing everything from embedded to applications since we had to stoke them up with coal in the mornings - I don't give a toss what OS I run all I want it to do is handle the housekeeping and not get in my way. When one considers the billions of dollars Microsoft have spent on OS development over many years one cannot conclude they have done a good job. It's an OS for Gawds sake, it's not rocket science!

Mike Harding

bought a new laptop last month with vista ,worked fine for 8 days ,then the modem stopped working,sent away,recieved back yesterday with the h/drive and modem replaced and the cover scratched and marked as though its a year old and ofcourse nothing on the h/drive ,all my work gone including vista and the laptop looking as though they played shuffle board with it while waiting for parts
just waiting for them to wake up and get to work(sorry a bit off topic ,but iam going to see how good toshiba's warrenty is)

Just heard that the section of NAB that I deal with are having all their computers ugraded to XP from 2000, naturally all the staff are very excited to have the latest!!!!

Soooooo, does this mean the NAB IT mob know something the rest of us don't?

I wouldn't think NAB would be doing a mass rollout company wide to replace 2k with xp as I don't think there would be a large cost/benefit. Maybe when they lease new machines they install XP. I rolled out XP at work and it was the best choice we made as it has reduced os/application issues to bugger all. But we waited until the first service pack. All servers are 2k3 and this has proven to be a very stable platform for SQL, Exchange and other apps.

Mike, love your analagies. 'Actually Linux can run Office - although not Microsoft's version. 'My commodore uses a water pump; not the one from a falcon though

I'm not a big user of either Open Office or MS Office but can't OO read and write the MS file formats?

Mike Harding

I must be old.
Like Mike I am hanging off on Vista.
Started on computers with CPM (pre DOS), and have done the DOS 2,3,4,5, 6 Windows 3.0,3.1, 95, 98, 2000, XP upgrades over the last 20 years, thats a new operating system every 2 years or so, just on PCs. Havn't counted the Unix boxes.
(OK, CPM was Z80, not PC)

I don't change cars that often!

If you have a new PC with duel core cpu, min 1Gb RAM and SATA2 hard drive Vista will let your apps run faster. Vista can use the dual cores independently (something UNIX was designed to do 20 years ago). In addition the SATA2 interface allows asynchronous disk access so larger reads and writes will be faster. If you have the very latest nVidia graphics card (8800 GTS/GTX) it will also look better and draw faster. Last time I looked the graphics card was $850. Having said that I would not upgrade from XP unless you have a very good reason. With Vista you must have Vista drivers for everything. No Vista driver no load. MS made this mistake with 2000 and XP and it produced no end of nightmares particularly with printers. Vista will be good but at the moment you need a $5k system to take advantage of it.

Steve

Hi Steve, Your statement that you need a $5000 system is wrong.

I am running Vista Ultimate with a Core 2 Duo 6600 processor, 2Gb RAM, SATA 2 hard drive in a Shuttle XPC, Radeon X1300 Graphics Card. This is not a low end spec but it's by no means a high end spec either, and it's less than $2000. Delete the Shuttle and use normal Motherboard and case and the price drops another $500, so you can get a good Vista performance for $1500. FAR short of your fanciful $5000. Would it run better on a $5000 machine - yes. Does Linux/Unix run better on a $5000 machine than a $1500 one? - Yes.

The problem as I see it with Microsoft bashers is they bend the facts to suit their beliefs. So what if Unix could multi task and multithread 20 years ago - there is still no viable expansion of that technological advantage to the everyday desktop. None of the Microsoft bashers have produced a viable competitive product, they just self-serve by bashing the only company that provides what users need/want to get business done.

It took Microsoft to make it available to everyday people.

Will have to disagree with you on Microsoft, Gerhardp1.

It was actually IBM that developed the idea of a desktop PC, and the hardware, and gave Bill Gates the chance to write the operating system for it.

And IBM were willing to create a resonably open system in hardware and OS terms, that it took off and other hardware manufacturers joined the band wagon.

Something that Apple didn't do. Something that Linux is doing now.

I also remember DR DOS and other PC operating systems. Remember OS2 from IBM?

But Bill knows how to throw his weight around, and tie in software suppliers so that other OS don't get a chance. I have programmes that were ported to various OSs, but have stopped being done, because Bill bought them out or copied them and swamped the market.

Now I know you will say that is market forces at play. So be it. But I assume you drive a commodore, and it does everything you want fromn a car?

Gerhardp1,
I did't say it would not run on a cheaper system, it will, I'm sure it will run well. MS say them selves that the Vista features are only available if your system can support them. Currently that requires a very expensive graphics card and upmarket disk controlers. I am also not a MS basher. I believe that they provide one of the available options in the market place and use many of there products. On the other hand MS is far from perfect and some of there corperate activities leave a lot to be desired. So much so that the US government felt they needed to act. This time I believe that they delivered what looks to be a much improved product, though I think it's real power will not be released until hardware catches up and software writers take advantage of the newer features available in the OS. To purchase this type of system and the latest software will not leave much change from $5,000. Once you start putting RAID arrays in machines the cost tends to esculate.

I realise that UNIX is a specialist OS but for users of that system you need to prise there fingers off of it. It is not for the general user population but it is a very powerful and efficient OS. MS did not invent multi threading or multi processor concepts but have introduced them to there products. The point is that this stuff would have been nice in XP.

I think you will find that Apple beat MS on the usability front by some years. They had an effective though expensive system very early on. I have used Mac's before and they are a nice system also. Unlike you I am happy to use whatever tool is the most suitable UNIX, MS, Mac OS who cares. They all do the job they are designed to do. Once again, I'm not bashing MS, I am saying wait as I susspect that Vista will be much better on next years hardware.

Steve

Linux Eats Windows/vista/chicken noodle soup.

Steve.. Ask nicely and I'll give you a copy of XP ;) Install it yourself

I got a new laptp and Vista and it runs Mapsource (Garmin software), Ozi no worries (small error at end - no dramas running it though.

I agree upgrades are a worry but a newie like mine with fresh Vista - no probs - some teething probs that if you need help with I am available for a modest fee hahahah like U pay for the phone call

Status: Thrillseeker