Which version of Vista do you use? Tell the truth. Don't be embarrassed.

[DereX888]

I certainly agree than Win2K and XP are very similar (after all, they are both NT5.x).

Changes have occurred to the kernel from 5.x to 6.0 - may be not as sweeping as from 4.0 to 5.0. But there are enough changes to make Vista-specific software not work on 5.x. e.g., /.../

At the time when Msoft changed direction (killed Longhorn and started anew with 2K3 code) one of the key Msoft people (Allchin perhaps?) wrote very disgrunted piece about why Vista as it is (not Longhorn - aka Vista beta, as it supposed to be) why this Vista ought to be NT5.4 (and not 5.3 either - now I dont remember why) instead of NT6.0

[JohnnyMalaria]

Interesting - do you have a link? (Why not 5.2 even?)

[DereX888]

Interesting - do you have a link? (Why not 5.2 even?)

I'll give you link when I find it.
I have so many dead and not well described urls in my favorites I really need to clean it up one day
IIRC I think I saved that page as .mht too, I should have it somewhere on disc.

[TheFamilyMan]

Going OT...oh well...

Microsoft lacks discipline. They claim to hire the best talent but it never comes out in their products. I guess the Redmond storm sewers and landfill get the benefit of the best an brightest Microsoft employees. Vista is half baked. Some of it is good but is this the best they can do after 5-7 years of work?

I manage/develop software for a large corporation that claims it hires the best and brightest. In my experience, only about 1 in 5 of the software developers I've worked with throughout my career really had the talent and instinct required to design and implement good software. I've always wondered how any mammoth software projects succeeds if the industry in generally suffers the same situation.

[RabidDog]

Major Diff about home premium business and Ultra is the number of processors and cores they support..I think home only supports max dual core, premium might support quad core but NOT dual processor(1x4,not 2x2) and the two business editions support quad core and quad processors(4x4) oh and home and premium CANNOT be legally virtualized, but nor can I drive legally drive above the speed limit. AFAIK. I could be wrong.

[edDV]

Major Diff about home premium business and Ultra is the number of processors and cores they support..I think home only supports max dual core, premium might support quad core but NOT dual processor(1x4,not 2x2) and the two business editions support quad core and quad processors(4x4) oh and home and premium CANNOT be legally virtualized, but nor can I drive legally drive above the speed limit. AFAIK. I could be wrong.

Are you sure? I thought Business and Ultra were just about connecting with Biz/Edu networks. I do that and was told by the sysops in the sky that I needed one of those. Otherwise I would have saved $110 and gone with Home Premium. Now I need more memory.
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/campaigns/campaigntemplate.asp?CampaignID=37&S...&CMP=KNC-GOOGL

PS: Don't hurry. My machine that works has XP. Vista is an experiment.

[gll99]

THeFamilyMan wrote

Going OT...oh well...

You can't go OT in this thread if you do any one of the following:

1) Quote anything about Vista that someone else posted
2) Use the word Vista somewhere in your post
3) Use the words " I don't use it" or some variation
4) Say I use XP (or any other OS)
5) Use the words hate or love and MS in the same sentence

----------------------------------------------------------------------

In the last week or two trying to decide on a system and possibly looking at Vista one thing it brings to mind is that when I first switched to XP (I wasn't an early bird) I don't remember worrying too much about the basic hardware. I mean the mobo, cpu and even the video card although sometimes drivers had to be found for some cards. With Vista it seems to be more of an issue. With XP I had a few things that needed drivers but for every piece of hardware except one old scanner I was able to find XP drivers. Maybe I'm misreading peoples comments and reviews on the net but with Vista unless you have a pretty new pc it seems like it's more miss than hit. It sounds like certain cards while they work on XP will never work with Vista because the architecture or driver design has changed too much and they are incompatible with Vista. So it's not just a matter of the manufacturer writing a new driver and making it compatible.

Did I misunderstand that?

Makes one wonder if "Vista certified" or "Vista compatible" labelled hardware is a guarantee of compatibility with all versions.

[edDV]

Did I misunderstand that?

You understood. But you seem new to this game.

Vista is a piece of cake compared to any OS from 1970's until Win 98SE/NT4/MACOSX.

Until then, hardware constrained the software and it only got worse with each new OS release. XP was well matched to hardware. Vista is well matched to multicore CPU.

[JohnnyMalaria]

The general licensing model for Vista is two physical processors with as many logical processors as you like. So, two quad cores will be seen as 8 processors.

The major difference between Business and Ultimate is that Business doesn't have any of the multimedia stuff (WMM, WDM, Media Center etc).

Vista doesn't add anything new as far as multicore (multiprocessor) support goes (except a small number of new API functions). The licensing model is the same as XP. Multiprocessor support has been around since at least NT3.51.

Consumers believe that Vista = multiprocessor support simply because multicore chips have become widespread and dirt cheap. Intel have been hyping this as a new paradigm - a revolution. Well, it ain't. Dual single core motherboards have been around for years and Windows has been using them for just as long.

Any program developed using Microsoft's Visual Studio in the past decade has automatically been multithreaded. However, a multithreaded application doesn't automatically mean it will run in parallel on multiple processors/cores. To achieve that, you have to know how to make use of Windows' multithreading and appropriately program those parts of the application that can run in parallel. Again, there's more hype from Intel about this aimed at developers - "Multicore is mainstream, therefore buy all our development tools". I tried some - pretty much useless and expensive.

(BTW, if the server version of Vista - Longhorn Server 2008 - follows previous models, the top end version will support up to 32 physical processors. With the advent of 8-core chips, that could mean 256 usable processors.....)

[Dv8ted2]

THeFamilyMan wrote

Going OT...oh well...

You can't go OT in this thread if you do any one of the following:

1) Quote anything about Vista that someone else posted
2) Use the word Vista somewhere in your post
3) Use the words " I don't use it" or some variation
4) Say I use XP (or any other OS)
5) Use the words hate or love and MS in the same sentence

----------------------------------------------------------------------

In the last week or two trying to decide on a system and possibly looking at Vista one thing it brings to mind is that when I first switched to XP (I wasn't an early bird) I don't remember worrying too much about the basic hardware. I mean the mobo, cpu and even the video card although sometimes drivers had to be found for some cards. With Vista it seems to be more of an issue. With XP I had a few things that needed drivers but for every piece of hardware except one old scanner I was able to find XP drivers. Maybe I'm misreading peoples comments and reviews on the net but with Vista unless you have a pretty new pc it seems like it's more miss than hit. It sounds like certain cards while they work on XP will never work with Vista because the architecture or driver design has changed too much and they are incompatible with Vista. So it's not just a matter of the manufacturer writing a new driver and making it compatible.

Did I misunderstand that?

Makes one wonder if "Vista certified" or "Vista compatible" labelled hardware is a guarantee of compatibility with all versions.

The hardware will still work if a new driver was written. I have a Radeon 9550 that worked in XP. It worked in Vista, but needed a new driver to get beyond the 640X480 low rez he**.

[DereX888]

Vista is well matched to multicore CPU.

How so?
This is one of the most bullshitting statements from Microsoft IMHO.
Vista doesn't run i.e. major system services etc on one core (the OS) another user's program on another and i.e. defragger in the background on another, and a video on another, and ... (you get the drift I think).
Vista just run them all same as any other NT - consecutively according to their priorities one by one, 'filling up' one CPU (core) after another (when available and needed). Only few things - probably those that were specifically rewritten for it - try to use separate processes on another core than their parent started, anything else (almost everything) is not really multi-core multitasking, its a same old single-CPU multitasking just spread onto more cores. Microsoft would need to write completely new OS from scratch to do so, patching old IBM's code won't get it any further I'm afraid, its simply time to replace NT code with something modern, but as I said many times I doubt it will ever happen in Redmond (unless they'll buy some new OS from someone else again, as usual).

OTOH AFAIR Longhorn was supposed to be built to work perfectly on multi-CPU/cores, but even in last beta I had it didn't either.

Also lets not forget, even NT3 had multiprocessor support already. Just because Msoft disable multiCPUs in some of its Vista version it doesnt make it different 'versions'. Theyre exactly the same versions, but with extra thousands of code lines to make sure you can't use it on more processors than what you paid for

[gll99]

edDV wrote

You understood. But you seem new to this game.

The Vista game? Yes I'm new at it but until now that's due to my lack of interest in the OS. If I wasn't looking for a new pc I still wouldn't care too much but I want to at least get something that will be compatible with Vista in case I want it in the future. Right or wrong, many comments I've read left me with the distinct impression that different versions of Vista had different hardware requirements. If all "Vista certified hardware" ie... mobo, cpu's, video cards, etc... work with every version of Vista then that's good to hear. I blame MS just as much as some dumb internet posters for not making that clear. If it's only the driver game then that was true in the switch from vxd to wdm with win2k (XP ) when moving from win98 to XP so it's nothing new if they also have new driver models for Vista.

Vista is a piece of cake compared to any OS from 1970's

Seemed so easy for me then. Once I clear up all the misconceptions about Vista then it should be a breeze.


btw) Does Vista still call home all the time and become cripple ware if you don't re-validate

Edit:
I was writing when DereX888 posted so I reserve the right to modify my comments after assessing what he said about Vista.

[redwudz]

JMO, but the majority of the Vista driver 'issues' seem to be from older hardware that manufacturers haven't or won't update. Vista apparently does have problems with a few add-on audio cards, I assume because it uses mostly software for audio processing. But that also helps to easily add surround sound.

With video cards, I think most any will work, but you may have poor graphics performance. I don't game and my Vista performance ratings are over five for everything but graphics. That's about three. But I'm not going to spend $200US or more on a video card I won't use for much but viewing video.

I just installed a second Vista Home Premium OS in my new HTPC computer after I found a updated HDTV card driver. Both installs are working fine.

[yoda313]

btw) Does Vista still call home all the time and become cripple ware if you don't re-validate

I have vista premium but can't stipulate to this directly. I have dsl and a usb wifi g receiver. I would not be aware of any direct connections. To date I have not experienced any obvious validation tactics. I have never been asked to provide a serial code or anything if that is what you are asking. There is more detail out there I'm sure.

[DereX888]

JMO about the drivers: some people seem to forget that device drivers are not Microsoft's responsibility. You simply can't expect drivers written for one version of the OS to work on another. There is no such thing as 'universal drivers', but yes some drivers may work on other versions of NT than the one it was written for, but it may happen only with simple devices that are most likely common throughout all the hardware - of course providing OS itself will allow you to use it (which could be prevented in the Vista code for various reasons).
Anyways lack of Vista drivers for thousands of devices out there is not Vista's fault, but the device manufacturer's fault only.
How can anyone blame Vista/Microsoft for it? Its stupid. Call the manufacturer, its their duty to provide support for their hardware, not Microsoft's. And if the manufacturer don't want to make Vista drivers for your device (assuming its not some 15 years old outdated junk) and suggests buying a new 'vista supported' model - obviously next time don't buy anything from such manufacturer, find more honest and reliable manufacturer. Your best vote is your money
But whatever, quit complaining about Vista because of lack of the drivers for some of your gear Its like blaming your car manufacturer for flat tire you got on a bad road...
Microsoft's job is to patch Vista now, not to create basic drivers for stuff they don't make and may not even know it exists, obviously.

Edit:
I was writing when DereX888 posted so I reserve the right to modify my comments after assessing what he said about Vista.

That... sounds... scary...
In case my free speech rights can be override with some laws forbiding me from saying what i think about certain companies and their products (since anything is possible with the law interpretations nowadays in the land-of-the-(formerly)-free), I reserve the rights to plead temporal insanity at every time I touch any keyboard :O
Youre not (yet another) lawyer, are you?

[gll99]

It was stated earlier in this thread that if I bought an OEM version of Vista that I might not be able to transfer the licence to another pc if I change my mobo or the whole pc.

How does this Nov 2006 apply?

http://news.com.com/Microsoft+backtracks+on+Vista+transfer+limits/2100-1016_3-6131900....?tag=nefd.lede

On Oct. 16, Microsoft issued the new user license for Vista, including terms that would have limited the ability of those who buy a boxed copy of the operating system to transfer that license. Under the proposed terms, users could have made such a switch only one time.

However, the new restriction prompted an outcry among hardware enthusiasts and others. Microsoft is returning the licensing terms to basically what they were in Windows XP--users can transfer their license to a new PC an unlimited number of times, provided they uninstall and stop using it on the prior machine.

The software maker said it paid attention to the response both directly to the company and on blogs and decided to reverse course. Microsoft had hoped to use the change to aid its ongoing efforts to thwart piracy.

"We're trying to be really clear about our intention to prevent piracy," said Microsoft product manager Mike Burk. "At the same time, after listening to the feedback that came in, (we) felt that we needed to make this change."

By reversing course, Burk said, Microsoft hoped to assuage users' concerns, particularly those of hobbyists who frequently upgrade the components of their PC, in some cases triggering Windows to consider the machine a new PC.

The plan to limit transfers was part of a series of changes to the terms that apply to boxed copies of Vista, not to the license that comes on a new, Vista-equipped PC.

It seems to say that pre-installed versions would still be limited to the hardware that it was bought but other versions can be be transferred. Would OEM count as box copies or not? It only mentions 2 categories of licences in the article and doesn't specify OEM which can be bought separately from a preinstalled pc.

[jagabo]

OEM is not a boxed copy. Boxed copies are the full retail product.

[gadgetguy]

But whatever, quit complaining about Vista because of lack of the drivers for some of your gear Its like blaming your car manufacturer for flat tire you got on a bad road...
Microsoft's job is to patch Vista now, not to create basic drivers for stuff they don't make and may not even know it exists, obviously.

It's a perfectly valid complaint to say that you uninstalled Vista and went back to XP because there were no Vista drivers for your hardware. Making that complaint isn't blaming M$, it's blaming the current conditions. It's true that the hardware manufacturers are responsible for providing drivers, but much of the hardware that M$ will require new drivers for isn't even being made anymore. The manufacturers don't make any money off of drivers or bios upgrades, so why should they be held hostage by M$ "upgrade" requirements.

[DereX888]

But whatever, quit complaining about Vista because of lack of the drivers for some of your gear Its like blaming your car manufacturer for flat tire you got on a bad road...
Microsoft's job is to patch Vista now, not to create basic drivers for stuff they don't make and may not even know it exists, obviously.

It's a perfectly valid complaint to say that you uninstalled Vista and went back to XP because there were no Vista drivers for your hardware. Making that complaint isn't blaming M$, it's blaming the current conditions. It's true that the hardware manufacturers are responsible for providing drivers, but much of the hardware that M$ will require new drivers for isn't even being made anymore. The manufacturers don't make any money off of drivers or bios upgrades, so why should they be held hostage by M$ "upgrade" requirements.

I hate to defend Microsoft again, but in the same logic:
The manufacturers don't make any money off of drivers or bios upgrades...
Msoft don't make any money off of drivers either!

Of course its a valid reason to not use Vista because of lack of the device drivers, but complaints should go *only* to device manufacturer.
One might as well pickup another same/similiar hardware from *another* manufacturer who did made an effort to create Vista drivers for their hardware, while one cannot find another Vista manufacturer, apparently (of course one can just swap Windows with Linux etc, but then one may have even less chances to find drivers )
Again, no one should expect Msoft to make drivers for every possible hardware out there. IMHO Msoft is already 'nice' for including their own basic drivers for some of the most common devices out there, come on.

[gll99]

OEM is not a boxed copy. Boxed copies are the full retail product.

I just read where it says OEM is the version that comes pre-installed with a new computer purchase

http://www.smartcomputing.com/Editorial/article.asp?article=articles/archive/r1102/04r...4r02.asp&guid=

I went back and looked at a couple of local sites that offered OEM Vista and found the notes where it says that they only sell them with systems.

What confused me before is that the main site where I was checking computer parts, is selling them and id's them as oem versions but except for XP OS, I didn't see a reference to the need for a system purchase with Vista. So I thought they were different.

http://www.sprintcomputer.com/systems/parts.php?cat_sel=Operatingsystem

[TBoneit]

Vista activation seems to be tied to the motherboard and other hardware info.

I tried dual booting XP & Vista Ultimate with a Asrock mobo.
Problems.... I had to reinstall Vista multiple times, Tried changing the Mobo no joy. It finally dawned on me that XP was doing something to the Vista install. Anyway I mention that because despite six (6) install never a problem with activation on the OEM Vista Ultimate untill I changed the mobo from a celeron 2.52 asrock to a Asus w/AMD64 x2 4200+. That required a call explaining that the other mobo must not have been compatible and thus I changed it.

My best guess at this point in time is that when Vista phones home to activate it sends hardware details and as long as they still match it activates OK.

I do like it much better with the dual core of course.

gll99, OEM copies of windows have needed to sold with hardware for quite a while now. That explains why you will see some E-Bay sellers selling them with junky hard drives.

[DereX888]

OEM stands for Optional Equipment Manufacturer (or such), hence they always *must* sell software licenced from someone else with a hardware *only*

[redwudz]

My OEM (Usually 'Original Equipment Manufacturer') copy of Vista Premium came in a plastic DVD box with a folder included, similar to most video DVDs. It says right on the front 'Only for use with a New computer' or something like that and it says 'OEM' right on the box. I bought it at the same time as I got the motherboard and CPU and that qualified me to purchase that version. Some dealers may have a lower threshold for purchase, like just a $4 keyboard, but MS frowns on that.

[DereX888]

My OEM (Usually 'Original Equipment Manufacturer') copy of Vista Premium came in a plastic DVD box with a folder included, similar to most video DVDs. It says right on the front 'Only for use with a New computer' or something like that and it says 'OEM' right on the box. I bought it at the same time as I got the motherboard and CPU and that qualified me to purchase that version. Some dealers may have a lower threshold for purchase, like just a $4 keyboard, but MS frowns on that.

Yeah, thats normal and exactly for what OEM licence is for.
I remember I bought once Windows 98 SE for someone - OEM version with a LED diode or a capacitor or something like that

[gll99]

I saw some references to buying the OEM OS with an hdd while others said only with system purchase. So it clearly looks like normally it should be tied to the original system to which the first activation is done. Yet TBoneit you were able to convince them to reactivate when you changed the mobo so it must be the key component and there must be a bit of flexibility for hard luck cases.

Confusing issues like this is what keeps guys like me from buying in early.

One vendor offered Vista Home Premium OEM for $99 (regularly about $149) with system purchase. I might be able to convince him to let me have if I buy the mobo, cpu and ram from him but I haven't tried until I know more about what I'll buy and the licensing issues.

[DereX888]

I saw some references to buying the OEM OS with an hdd while others said only with system purchase. So it clearly looks like normally it should be tied to the original system to which the first activation is done. Yet TBoneit you were able to convince them to reactivate when you changed the mobo so it must be the key component and there must be a bit of flexibility for hard luck cases.

Confusing issues like this is what keeps guys like me from buying in early.

One vendor offered Vista Home Premium OEM for $99 (regularly about $149) with system purchase. I might be able to convince him to let me have if I buy the mobo, cpu and ram from him but I haven't tried until I know more about what I'll buy and the licensing issues.

When that day comes when software I'd like to use won't work on Windows 2000 anymore, I will completely move to linux. Im still using Windows on half of my computers, but its just because they all work fine and Im too lazy to change it.

I am not going to 'ask for permission' OS manufacturer every time I make any hardware upgrades to my system LOL
Thats stupid, ridiculus and actually not even funny.
Those who have no choice obviously must obey the master and stick to latest Windozes, but I do have a choice, so...

[gll99]

@DereX888

I vowed not to switch but in the long run I knew I would one day because ..

Resistance is futile

I can hang on a a lot longer. I'm not in business or anything. If it was to my advantage financially to buy Vista while upgrading then it would make sense to do it. If they were offering discounted retail versions with systems then it would be worth it. If the cost advantage is really just an illusion because of the severe limitations of OEM versions then I'll wait until the price of Retail versions drops to reasonable levels.

[DereX888]

@DereX888

I vowed not to switch but in the long run I knew I would one day because ..

Resistance is futile

I can hang on a a lot longer. I'm not in business or anything. If it was to my advantage financially to buy Vista while upgrading then it would make sense to do it. If they were offering discounted retail versions with systems then it would be worth it. If the cost advantage is really just an illusion because of the severe limitations of OEM versions then I'll wait until the price of Retail versions drops to reasonable levels.

I get every Windows for free and Im not going to use Vista same as I rid of XP for same reasons:
Digital Restrictions Management
Windows Genuine disAdvantage
Activation crap
Wasting of millions of CPU cycles for useless processes related to the above, none of which is needed at all by users
etc etc (I wrote it many times here, no point to repeat myself, and those who are interested in the subject can find all the info easily on the web).
Resistance is futile, yes (I liked the show too, hehe) but since Im on completely different planet than Borgs - I dont need Vista to play latest dumb games, or use latest DRMs to play my music since I dont pay for crappy compressed music nor use any Zune or GayPod - I can easily evade it and dive into linux planet completely :P

I don't vow not to switch. I am not using XP or Vista or whatever comes after that. I was briefly interested in Longhorn, but since Msoft commited abortion to LH, I know Windows 2000 is the end of the Windows line for me.

[edDV]

It comes down to the applications you want to use and which OS they run on. In the video world linux is thin and MacOS hasn't been much better but now that Adobe is slowly moving back and AVID may expand their MAC offerings things are beginning to even out at the high end. Consumers need to use iLfe stuff or stay with Windows.

[nTekka]

My laptop got upgraded to Vista Home Premium from Windows XP MCE... Such a big disappointment, had to immediately upgrade RAM to 2 gb. Even then still showing slowness in everything. All those bloated crap they call Aero lost its appealing look after a week of usage. The sidebar alone took up at least 5% of my RAM and its useless since I have to either place it on top or provide 1/6 of my screen to have it displayed at all time. I like the OSX concept of pressing a single button to have it appear instantly and disappears when you don't need it.

I just feel bad for the vast majority of people who has to put up with a "forced" DRM/WGA/Activation or whatever MS wants to throw on its legit customers, simply because these people doesn't know that there are ways to circumvent these and enjoy true computing with freedom.