HIJACKED THREAD: Virtual Memory and Virtual Machines (WAS: RE: Why XP is doomed)
Oooh... that brings up some questions... I've always wondered if anybody has looked at Virtual Machines, and the use of Page files... Let me explain. Let's say we have a box with 4 virtual machines. Each virtual machine is given 512 megs of Memory, and is running windows 2003. The host server has 4 gigs of ram, so the 2 gigs being used by the VMs is no problem, and plenty of room to spare. Of the four MVs, you have: A) A DHCP/DNS/WINS server B) An Active Directory server C) An IIS server serving simple static pages D) An SQL Server with a moderately heavy database Could someone take VMs A, B, and C and give them a ZERO page file increasing performance for all parties? This is assuming that the jobs that VMs A, B, and C are all able to run their important but trivial tasks directly from memory, while VM D has less to compete with for IO to the harddrives? Has anybody done this kind of thing with success? Just a thought. It's ripe for the squashing. Sm:)e. --Matt Ross _ From: Ken Schaefer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: NT System Admin Issues [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tue, 13 May 2008 18:36:38 -0700 Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Will this affect performance? If you are asking this type of question, then I suspect that you are probably not very familiar with the memory management architecture of Windows, so this isn't really something you should be doing. Michael has provided steps on how to configure this if you want to. In Windows, only the kernel sees physical memory All user mode applications (most of those processes you see listed in Task Manager) see virtual memory that's presented to them by the kernel. On a 32bit version of Windows, each application sees 4GB of address space. Each application sees its own *unique* 4GB of address space - the application believes that there is nothing else running on the system. Out of that 4GB of address space, the upper 2GB is reserved for the kernel, and the application itself is free to use the lower 2GB. Because each process has the same layout for reserved kernel space, this is actually shared between all processes. OK - so now the virtual memory manager needs to map all this memory to real physical memory. E.g. iexplore.exe uses bytes 0x0001 - 0x000F to store an image. The Windows VMM needs to store this somewhere in physical memory. It does so by using mapping tables. Now, what happens when you only have 1GB of physical RAM in your machine, but each application, thnking it has up to 2GB available, starts actually *using* all that virtual memory? The VMM runs out of physical memory to store all this stuff. So it moves some stuff to the page file. If you have no page file, nothing can be moved, and your applications will start crashing with out-of-memory exceptions (because the VMM will deny them memory allocations). If you system has plenty of physical RAM, then is no need for page file. If your machine doesn't, you need a page file to fake physical RAM. Cheers Ken -Original Message- From: paul cheuk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, 14 May 2008 11:16 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Dear Ken, How can I configure Windows to run without a page file? Will this affect the performance ? Thanks. Paul Cheuk. ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~ ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~
RE: HIJACKED THREAD: Virtual Memory and Virtual Machines (WAS: RE: Why XP is doomed)
So, you are talking about: a) Disabling the page file inside VMs (A), (B) and (C) b) Hoping that the OSes inside those machines never need more than 512MB of RAM ? I suppose it's possible. But do you want to risk it? I'm not sure you'd gain very much. Most people put the VMs on a SAN (for performance as well as HA reasons), so raw IOps shouldn't be an issue. Cheers Ken From: Matthew W. Ross [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, 14 May 2008 4:37 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: HIJACKED THREAD: Virtual Memory and Virtual Machines (WAS: RE: Why XP is doomed) Oooh... that brings up some questions... I've always wondered if anybody has looked at Virtual Machines, and the use of Page files... Let me explain. Let's say we have a box with 4 virtual machines. Each virtual machine is given 512 megs of Memory, and is running windows 2003. The host server has 4 gigs of ram, so the 2 gigs being used by the VMs is no problem, and plenty of room to spare. Of the four MVs, you have: A) A DHCP/DNS/WINS server B) An Active Directory server C) An IIS server serving simple static pages D) An SQL Server with a moderately heavy database Could someone take VMs A, B, and C and give them a ZERO page file increasing performance for all parties? This is assuming that the jobs that VMs A, B, and C are all able to run their important but trivial tasks directly from memory, while VM D has less to compete with for IO to the harddrives? Has anybody done this kind of thing with success? Just a thought. It's ripe for the squashing. Sm:)e. --Matt Ross ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~
RE: HIJACKED THREAD: Virtual Memory and Virtual Machines (WAS: RE: Why XP is doomed)
In my case, I don't have a SAN. Just a decent raid controller, and a bunch of smaller VMs doing single tasks. Also, there are options in VMWare to allow/disallow swapping of memory of the guest OS. I don't know if Microsoft's Server 2008 VM has that setting. --Matt Ross _ From: Ken Schaefer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: NT System Admin Issues [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tue, 13 May 2008 23:40:33 -0700 Subject: RE: HIJACKED THREAD: Virtual Memory and Virtual Machines (WAS: RE: Why XP is doomed) So, you are talking about: a) Disabling the page file inside VMs (A), (B) and (C) b) Hoping that the OSes inside those machines never need more than 512MB of RAM ? I suppose it’s possible. But do you want to risk it? I’m not sure you’d gain very much. Most people put the VMs on a SAN (for performance as well as HA reasons), so raw IOps shouldn’t be an issue. Cheers Ken From: Matthew W. Ross [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, 14 May 2008 4:37 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: HIJACKED THREAD: Virtual Memory and Virtual Machines (WAS: RE: Why XP is doomed) Oooh... that brings up some questions... I've always wondered if anybody has looked at Virtual Machines, and the use of Page files... Let me explain. Let's say we have a box with 4 virtual machines. Each virtual machine is given 512 megs of Memory, and is running windows 2003. The host server has 4 gigs of ram, so the 2 gigs being used by the VMs is no problem, and plenty of room to spare. Of the four MVs, you have: A) A DHCP/DNS/WINS server B) An Active Directory server C) An IIS server serving simple static pages D) An SQL Server with a moderately heavy database Could someone take VMs A, B, and C and give them a ZERO page file increasing performance for all parties? This is assuming that the jobs that VMs A, B, and C are all able to run their important but trivial tasks directly from memory, while VM D has less to compete with for IO to the harddrives? Has anybody done this kind of thing with success? Just a thought. It's ripe for the squashing. Sm:)e. --Matt Ross ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~
RE: HIJACKED THREAD: Virtual Memory and Virtual Machines (WAS: RE: Why XP is doomed)
Hi, Swapping VM memory to host page file isn’t the same as disabling the page file in the Guest OS. One allows over-committing memory on the host (because some of the RAM used by the guests can be paged to the page file on the host), whereas the other prevents the guest from using a page file inside the guest OS. Windows Server 2008 Hyper-V does not support over-committing memory. If you allocate 8GB of RAM in total to your guest machines, you must have 8GB of physical available RAM (plus about 50MB/VM for management overhead and VMBus) in the machine. Cheers Ken From: Matthew W. Ross [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, 14 May 2008 5:05 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: HIJACKED THREAD: Virtual Memory and Virtual Machines (WAS: RE: Why XP is doomed) In my case, I don't have a SAN. Just a decent raid controller, and a bunch of smaller VMs doing single tasks. Also, there are options in VMWare to allow/disallow swapping of memory of the guest OS. I don't know if Microsoft's Server 2008 VM has that setting. --Matt Ross From: Ken Schaefer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: NT System Admin Issues [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tue, 13 May 2008 23:40:33 -0700 Subject: RE: HIJACKED THREAD: Virtual Memory and Virtual Machines (WAS: RE: Why XP is doomed) So, you are talking about: a) Disabling the page file inside VMs (A), (B) and (C) b) Hoping that the OSes inside those machines never need more than 512MB of RAM ? I suppose it’s possible. But do you want to risk it? I’m not sure you’d gain very much. Most people put the VMs on a SAN (for performance as well as HA reasons), so raw IOps shouldn’t be an issue. Cheers Ken From: Matthew W. Ross [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, 14 May 2008 4:37 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: HIJACKED THREAD: Virtual Memory and Virtual Machines (WAS: RE: Why XP is doomed) Oooh... that brings up some questions... I've always wondered if anybody has looked at Virtual Machines, and the use of Page files... Let me explain. Let's say we have a box with 4 virtual machines. Each virtual machine is given 512 megs of Memory, and is running windows 2003. The host server has 4 gigs of ram, so the 2 gigs being used by the VMs is no problem, and plenty of room to spare. Of the four MVs, you have: A) A DHCP/DNS/WINS server B) An Active Directory server C) An IIS server serving simple static pages D) An SQL Server with a moderately heavy database Could someone take VMs A, B, and C and give them a ZERO page file increasing performance for all parties? This is assuming that the jobs that VMs A, B, and C are all able to run their important but trivial tasks directly from memory, while VM D has less to compete with for IO to the harddrives? Has anybody done this kind of thing with success? Just a thought. It's ripe for the squashing. Sm:)e. --Matt Ross ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~
RE: HIJACKED THREAD: Virtual Memory and Virtual Machines (WAS: RE: Why XP is doomed)
What performance increase. Windows doesn't swap because it likes to, but because it needs to emulate ram. With Windows updates usually the ram requirements go up with time. I would prefer it swaps above it crashing myself. From: Ken Schaefer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 8:41 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: HIJACKED THREAD: Virtual Memory and Virtual Machines (WAS: RE: Why XP is doomed) So, you are talking about: a) Disabling the page file inside VMs (A), (B) and (C) b) Hoping that the OSes inside those machines never need more than 512MB of RAM ? I suppose it's possible. But do you want to risk it? I'm not sure you'd gain very much. Most people put the VMs on a SAN (for performance as well as HA reasons), so raw IOps shouldn't be an issue. Cheers Ken From: Matthew W. Ross [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, 14 May 2008 4:37 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: HIJACKED THREAD: Virtual Memory and Virtual Machines (WAS: RE: Why XP is doomed) Oooh... that brings up some questions... I've always wondered if anybody has looked at Virtual Machines, and the use of Page files... Let me explain. Let's say we have a box with 4 virtual machines. Each virtual machine is given 512 megs of Memory, and is running windows 2003. The host server has 4 gigs of ram, so the 2 gigs being used by the VMs is no problem, and plenty of room to spare. Of the four MVs, you have: A) A DHCP/DNS/WINS server B) An Active Directory server C) An IIS server serving simple static pages D) An SQL Server with a moderately heavy database Could someone take VMs A, B, and C and give them a ZERO page file increasing performance for all parties? This is assuming that the jobs that VMs A, B, and C are all able to run their important but trivial tasks directly from memory, while VM D has less to compete with for IO to the harddrives? Has anybody done this kind of thing with success? Just a thought. It's ripe for the squashing. Sm:)e. --Matt Ross *** The information in this e-mail is confidential and intended solely for the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the sender by return e-mail delete this e-mail and refrain from any disclosure or action based on the information. *** ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~
RE: Why XP is doomed
Ken Schaefer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 05/13/2008 08:28:29 PM: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, 14 May 2008 4:00 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed John Hornbuckle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 05/12/2008 08:29:20 PM: My Pentium D is only 2.8 GHz, so you?ve got me beat there. I?ve also got just 2 GB of RAM. I use Photoshop, but not working with huge images and no video editing. I don?t think you can do 4 GB without going 64-bit, right? You can install 4G, but XP won't see more than ... 3.2G? ... of it. Even on 64 bit XP/Vista, Huh? Simply not true. Covered many times on this list. Please read the links to the Microsoft Windows Hardware Developer Center (WHDC) posted previously The even on 64 bit was not intended as pertaining to the preceeding statement. Photoshop CS3 won't use more than 4G for images, and 2G for cache. Photoshop is a user more application. All user mode applications, on 32bit Windows, see 4GB of virtual address space. That is regardless of whether there is 1GB of RAM in the machine, 256MB of RAMin the machine or 50GB of RAM in the machine See http://kb.adobe.com/selfservice/viewContent.do?externalId=322829 for the explanation of how it uses 4G. Photoshop will use 3 GB for it's image data. You can see the actual amount of RAM Photoshop can use in the Maximum Used By Photoshop number when you set the Maximum Used by Photoshop slider in the Memory Image Cache preference to 100%. The RAM above the 100% used by Photoshop, which is from approximately 3 GB to 3.7 GB, can be used directly by Photoshop plug-ins (some plug-ins need large chunks of contiguous RAM), filters, actions, etc. If you have more than 4 GB (to 6 GB (Windows) or 8 GB (Mac OS)), the RAM above 4 GB is used by the operating system as a cache for the Photoshop scratch disk data. Data that previously was written directly to the hard disk by Photoshop, is now cached in this high RAM before being written to the hard disk by the operating system. If you are working with files large enough to take advantage of these extra 2 GB of RAM, the RAM cache can speed performance of Photoshop. So the cache is OS, not the application, for a total use of 6G on Windows, as noted above. ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~
RE: HIJACKED THREAD: Virtual Memory and Virtual Machines (WAS: RE: Why XP is doomed)
The swapping option in vmware server, for example, is using the pagefile on the HOST to be able to add memory and let the vm's swap in and out of ram. Enabling this on vmware server and actually using it Ive seen takes my server about 12 minutes to boot. Totally unreasonable, so I would just always disable ram sharing. ESX 2.53+ does this much better and although an obvious performance hit, I have done it on production machines without anyone knowing. _ From: Matthew W. Ross [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 3:05 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: HIJACKED THREAD: Virtual Memory and Virtual Machines (WAS: RE: Why XP is doomed) In my case, I don't have a SAN. Just a decent raid controller, and a bunch of smaller VMs doing single tasks. Also, there are options in VMWare to allow/disallow swapping of memory of the guest OS. I don't know if Microsoft's Server 2008 VM has that setting. --Matt Ross _ From: Ken Schaefer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: NT System Admin Issues [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tue, 13 May 2008 23:40:33 -0700 Subject: RE: HIJACKED THREAD: Virtual Memory and Virtual Machines (WAS: RE: Why XP is doomed) So, you are talking about: a) Disabling the page file inside VMs (A), (B) and (C) b) Hoping that the OSes inside those machines never need more than 512MB of RAM ? I suppose it's possible. But do you want to risk it? I'm not sure you'd gain very much. Most people put the VMs on a SAN (for performance as well as HA reasons), so raw IOps shouldn't be an issue. Cheers Ken From: Matthew W. Ross [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, 14 May 2008 4:37 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: HIJACKED THREAD: Virtual Memory and Virtual Machines (WAS: RE: Why XP is doomed) Oooh... that brings up some questions... I've always wondered if anybody has looked at Virtual Machines, and the use of Page files... Let me explain. Let's say we have a box with 4 virtual machines. Each virtual machine is given 512 megs of Memory, and is running windows 2003. The host server has 4 gigs of ram, so the 2 gigs being used by the VMs is no problem, and plenty of room to spare. Of the four MVs, you have: A) A DHCP/DNS/WINS server B) An Active Directory server C) An IIS server serving simple static pages D) An SQL Server with a moderately heavy database Could someone take VMs A, B, and C and give them a ZERO page file increasing performance for all parties? This is assuming that the jobs that VMs A, B, and C are all able to run their important but trivial tasks directly from memory, while VM D has less to compete with for IO to the harddrives? Has anybody done this kind of thing with success? Just a thought. It's ripe for the squashing. Sm:)e. --Matt Ross ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~
Re: Why XP is doomed
More and more laptops these days are also shipping with SSDs, and with the price of flash plumetting, it may be all laptops will use them in the future. Biggest problem is wear leveling and Windows' dependence on the pagefile, which will kill a ssd in time. Maybe MS will fix that issue. I run Linux on my laptop without a pagefile and it runs like a dream, try running Windows without a pagefile and watch all hell break loose. Ken Schaefer wrote: There are lots of laptop models that have 7200 RPM as an option. All of our new Latitudes are coming with 7200 RPM disks (probably a couple of thousand this year). Over at MSFT, their IBM Thinkpads are defaulting to 7200 RPM, and I expect their other vendors will be going that way too. It’s now only on the cheaper models, or the ultralights, where 7200 RPM isn’t being offered. 7200 RPM still does have a price premium over 5400 RPM (as well as reduced space). Cheers Ken *From:* HELP_PC [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *Sent:* Tuesday, 13 May 2008 2:29 AM *To:* NT System Admin Issues *Subject:* R: Why XP is doomed 15k for SAS were until a couple of monthes ago only for SAS 3.5'' .Now they are out also for SAS 2.5'. Manufacturers started now to ship some models of laptops with 2.5'' 7200 rpm *GuidoElia* *HELPPC* *Da:* Sam Cayze [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *Inviato:* lunedì 12 maggio 2008 17.21 *A:* NT System Admin Issues *Oggetto:* RE: Why XP is doomed Ok, maybe the 80’s was a stretch, I was kidding. But 72000 RPM 2.5” disks have been out for a few years I would imagine. At least three years I would imagine, since I have been working with laptops. Usually you have to buy them separately, as the manufacturer does not ship them. Even 10,000 RPM 2.5” drives are out now. SAS and SATA. I just got a 15K RPM in my workstation now. *From:* HELP_PC [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *Sent:* Monday, May 12, 2008 10:12 AM *To:* NT System Admin Issues *Subject:* RE: Why XP is doomed You are wrong . On laptops 7200rpm disks are new! Some brands started now to distribute them on laptops and for workstations 1 rpm SATA *GuidoElia* *HELPPC* *Da:* Sam Cayze [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *Inviato:* lunedì 12 maggio 2008 16.48 *A:* NT System Admin Issues *Oggetto:* RE: Why XP is doomed I never buy any laptops with 5400 RPM disks. That’s so 1980’s. I throw 7200 in all our laptops, heat has never been a problem. Now, on an ultra-portable or tablet, I could see how it could be... But then again, there are many 7200 RPM drives that claim they are just as cool as 5400 rpm drives... *From:* Bill Lambert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *Sent:* Monday, May 12, 2008 9:04 AM *To:* NT System Admin Issues *Subject:* RE: Why XP is doomed Doesn’t putting in a 7200 spin disk increase the heat factor? I always thought that was the reason some laptops come with 5400 spin drives to keep the heat down. Bill Lambert Concuity 847-941-9206 *From:* Ken Schaefer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *Sent:* Sunday, May 11, 2008 6:46 AM *To:* NT System Admin Issues *Subject:* RE: Why XP is doomed My wife has a top of the line Sony SZ48 series Vaio. Fantastic machine – carbon fibre case, weighs next to nothing, two GPUs. Performance out of the box is abysmal. I replaced the drive with a 7200 RPM disk, upped the RAM, and tried to remove as much Sony crapware as possible (it even comes with its own copy of SQL Server to manage your media – because WMP obviously can’t do that). Runs a lot better now, but I suspect it’ll run a lot better with a clean install. Cheers Ken *From:* John Hornbuckle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *Sent:* Sunday, 11 May 2008 9:22 PM *To:* NT System Admin Issues *Subject:* RE: Why XP is doomed Check out this story: http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=429 It’s a perfect example of a manufacturer shipping a Vista machine with unacceptable performance. This resulted in a black eye for the manufacturer (Sony in this case, but they’re not the only ones to do this) and a lost customer for the manufacturer and Microsoft alike. I didn’t participate in the Vista beta, but I did grab it as soon as it RTM’d. I installed it on my home desktop, which is a modest box (Pentium D CPU w/ 2 GB of RAM) I built myself a good year before Vista was released. It ran great. Still does. Now, if I could run Vista fine on a machine that I built from parts that were never designed to work with Vista, why is it that PC manufacturers can’t ship brand new machines that work as well? John *From:* Matthew W. Ross [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *Sent:* Sunday, May 11, 2008 3:44 AM *To:* NT System Admin Issues *Subject:* RE: Why XP is doomed Hold on there... If an OS requires new drivers and more horsepower... we can't blame the new OS? Oh yes we can. --Matt ross
RE: Why XP is doomed
Windows has no dependence on a page file. I'm typing this on a machine that has no page file configured at the moment, and there is no hell breaking lose At the moment SSDs have pretty poor write performance - it's completely awful compared to a 7200 RPM drive (let alone faster drives that you get in desktops). Until *that* issue is fixed, you won't see them in anything but ruggedized laptops or ultralights or similar that are worried about battery life. Cheers Ken -Original Message- From: Phillip Partipilo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, 13 May 2008 6:34 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Why XP is doomed More and more laptops these days are also shipping with SSDs, and with the price of flash plumetting, it may be all laptops will use them in the future. Biggest problem is wear leveling and Windows' dependence on the pagefile, which will kill a ssd in time. Maybe MS will fix that issue. I run Linux on my laptop without a pagefile and it runs like a dream, try running Windows without a pagefile and watch all hell break loose. Ken Schaefer wrote: There are lots of laptop models that have 7200 RPM as an option. All of our new Latitudes are coming with 7200 RPM disks (probably a couple of thousand this year). Over at MSFT, their IBM Thinkpads are defaulting to 7200 RPM, and I expect their other vendors will be going that way too. It's now only on the cheaper models, or the ultralights, where 7200 RPM isn't being offered. 7200 RPM still does have a price premium over 5400 RPM (as well as reduced space). Cheers Ken *From:* HELP_PC [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *Sent:* Tuesday, 13 May 2008 2:29 AM *To:* NT System Admin Issues *Subject:* R: Why XP is doomed 15k for SAS were until a couple of monthes ago only for SAS 3.5'' .Now they are out also for SAS 2.5'. Manufacturers started now to ship some models of laptops with 2.5'' 7200 rpm *GuidoElia* *HELPPC* *Da:* Sam Cayze [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *Inviato:* lunedì 12 maggio 2008 17.21 *A:* NT System Admin Issues *Oggetto:* RE: Why XP is doomed Ok, maybe the 80's was a stretch, I was kidding. But 72000 RPM 2.5 disks have been out for a few years I would imagine. At least three years I would imagine, since I have been working with laptops. Usually you have to buy them separately, as the manufacturer does not ship them. Even 10,000 RPM 2.5 drives are out now. SAS and SATA. I just got a 15K RPM in my workstation now. *From:* HELP_PC [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *Sent:* Monday, May 12, 2008 10:12 AM *To:* NT System Admin Issues *Subject:* RE: Why XP is doomed You are wrong . On laptops 7200rpm disks are new! Some brands started now to distribute them on laptops and for workstations 1 rpm SATA *GuidoElia* *HELPPC* *Da:* Sam Cayze [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *Inviato:* lunedì 12 maggio 2008 16.48 *A:* NT System Admin Issues *Oggetto:* RE: Why XP is doomed I never buy any laptops with 5400 RPM disks. That's so 1980's. I throw 7200 in all our laptops, heat has never been a problem. Now, on an ultra-portable or tablet, I could see how it could be... But then again, there are many 7200 RPM drives that claim they are just as cool as 5400 rpm drives... *From:* Bill Lambert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *Sent:* Monday, May 12, 2008 9:04 AM *To:* NT System Admin Issues *Subject:* RE: Why XP is doomed Doesn't putting in a 7200 spin disk increase the heat factor? I always thought that was the reason some laptops come with 5400 spin drives to keep the heat down. Bill Lambert Concuity 847-941-9206 *From:* Ken Schaefer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *Sent:* Sunday, May 11, 2008 6:46 AM *To:* NT System Admin Issues *Subject:* RE: Why XP is doomed My wife has a top of the line Sony SZ48 series Vaio. Fantastic machine - carbon fibre case, weighs next to nothing, two GPUs. Performance out of the box is abysmal. I replaced the drive with a 7200 RPM disk, upped the RAM, and tried to remove as much Sony crapware as possible (it even comes with its own copy of SQL Server to manage your media - because WMP obviously can't do that). Runs a lot better now, but I suspect it'll run a lot better with a clean install. Cheers Ken *From:* John Hornbuckle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *Sent:* Sunday, 11 May 2008 9:22 PM *To:* NT System Admin Issues *Subject:* RE: Why XP is doomed Check out this story: http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=429 It's a perfect example of a manufacturer shipping a Vista machine with unacceptable performance. This resulted in a black eye for the manufacturer (Sony in this case, but they're not the only ones to do this) and a lost customer for the manufacturer and Microsoft alike. I didn't participate in the Vista beta, but I did grab it as soon as it RTM'd. I installed it on my home desktop, which
RE: Why XP is doomed
But ever new OS needs drivers. Every new os has always had greater requirements than the last. Vista has had issues, oems providing quality drivers being one. Vista compatable being another. XP neeed double the memory of Windows 2000. XP sp2 needed double again over XP sp0, and broke hardware if the bios was not up to date. It has its good points and its bad points. I use it and would not go back. Regards, David Houston Dame Computers Ltd. Office: +35312873159 Mobile: +353876810844 Suppprt: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Matthew W. Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: NT System Admin Issues ntsysadmin@lyris.sunbelt-software.com Sent: 11/05/08 08:44 Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Hold on there... If an OS requires new drivers and more horsepower... we can't blame the new OS? Oh yes we can. --Matt ross _ From: John Hornbuckle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Vista wasn't perfect out of the gate, but it's not the piece of junk people think it is, either. A huge reason Vista has a negative image is that the hardware OEMs have been releasing buggy drivers for it--if they released drivers for it at all--and have been shipping Vista computers that either don't have enough horsepower or are bloated with crapware or bad drivers (or all three). It all adds up to a bad experience for users, and the OS gets the blame. ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~
RE: Why XP is doomed
Hi Durf, The score reflects the lowest performing part of the computer. If you compared all the tests not just the overall score to see if there is greater performance on the Vostro. Regards, David Houston Dame Computers Ltd. Office: +35312873159 Mobile: +353876810844 Suppprt: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Durf [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: NT System Admin Issues ntsysadmin@lyris.sunbelt-software.com Sent: 11/05/08 14:50 Subject: Re: Why XP is doomed Yeah, I suspect so - I have a Thinkpad T60p with a Vista Experience score of 4.6 that was running like crap after having used it with the OEM install for about six months and throwing about five different VPN clients at it. After picking up a new Dell Vostro 300 with a minimal config (Vista Experience = 3.5), doing a clean install of Vista SP1 integrated on it, and seeing how it *flew* compared to the laptop, I redid the laptop, and now it performs fine. The desktop still seems subjectively a bit faster for everyday use, though, which is odd as the scores are so divergent. -- Durf On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 7:45 AM, Ken Schaefer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My wife has a top of the line Sony SZ48 series Vaio. Fantastic machine ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~
RE: Why XP is doomed
You could run Windows 2000 Pro in 64 MB. It really liked 128 MB, but 64 MB worked fine. Couldn't do that with XP. Regards, Michael B. Smith MCSE/Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com -Original Message- From: Ziots, Edward [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 9:16 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Funny, I have to disagree with XP needing 2X the memory Windows 2000 does, I ran both Windows 2000 and XP with 1GB RAM on same machine with no issues. ( Win2k SP4 Pro, then wiped and rebuilt with XP SP2, still fine performance) Its when you short-change the system with like 512MB and through a ton of applications on the system that are memory intensive is when you run into issues. If that is one favor you can do with any Microsoft OS, DON'T skimp on the RAM, your computer will be happy you did, and you will too. Z Edward E. Ziots Network Engineer Lifespan Organization MCSE,MCSA,MCP,Security+,Network+,CCA Phone: 401-639-3505 -Original Message- From: David Houston [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 8:59 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed But ever new OS needs drivers. Every new os has always had greater requirements than the last. Vista has had issues, oems providing quality drivers being one. Vista compatable being another. XP neeed double the memory of Windows 2000. XP sp2 needed double again over XP sp0, and broke hardware if the bios was not up to date. It has its good points and its bad points. I use it and would not go back. Regards, David Houston Dame Computers Ltd. Office: +35312873159 Mobile: +353876810844 Suppprt: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Matthew W. Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: NT System Admin Issues ntsysadmin@lyris.sunbelt-software.com Sent: 11/05/08 08:44 Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Hold on there... If an OS requires new drivers and more horsepower... we can't blame the new OS? Oh yes we can. --Matt ross _ From: John Hornbuckle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Vista wasn't perfect out of the gate, but it's not the piece of junk people think it is, either. A huge reason Vista has a negative image is that the hardware OEMs have been releasing buggy drivers for it--if they released drivers for it at all--and have been shipping Vista computers that either don't have enough horsepower or are bloated with crapware or bad drivers (or all three). It all adds up to a bad experience for users, and the OS gets the blame. ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~ ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~ ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~
Re: Why XP is doomed
I see what you had on your system but from where I was at, Win 2k had 64 MB of RAM we started our XP systems with 128 MB and rapidly moved that to 256. Near the end of our installs for XP we were spec'ing systems with 1 GB of RAM. Yes Windows runs better with more RAM but not all companies would purchase a lot to begin with. Now it is easier, at least for me to simply tell the powers that be we need to start at 2 GB and for very good performance go to 4 GB with Vista. Not a lot of questions are asked why. Most of these staffers remember that most of the RAM above 64 MB in Win 98SE was wasted now they can see the value of purchasing more but when Win 2k and XP came out they would argue every penny and RAM was what they complained about the most. Jon On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 9:16 AM, Ziots, Edward [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Funny, I have to disagree with XP needing 2X the memory Windows 2000 does, I ran both Windows 2000 and XP with 1GB RAM on same machine with no issues. ( Win2k SP4 Pro, then wiped and rebuilt with XP SP2, still fine performance) Its when you short-change the system with like 512MB and through a ton of applications on the system that are memory intensive is when you run into issues. If that is one favor you can do with any Microsoft OS, DON'T skimp on the RAM, your computer will be happy you did, and you will too. Z Edward E. Ziots Network Engineer Lifespan Organization MCSE,MCSA,MCP,Security+,Network+,CCA Phone: 401-639-3505 -Original Message- From: David Houston [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 8:59 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed But ever new OS needs drivers. Every new os has always had greater requirements than the last. Vista has had issues, oems providing quality drivers being one. Vista compatable being another. XP neeed double the memory of Windows 2000. XP sp2 needed double again over XP sp0, and broke hardware if the bios was not up to date. It has its good points and its bad points. I use it and would not go back. Regards, David Houston Dame Computers Ltd. Office: +35312873159 Mobile: +353876810844 Suppprt: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Matthew W. Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: NT System Admin Issues ntsysadmin@lyris.sunbelt-software.com Sent: 11/05/08 08:44 Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Hold on there... If an OS requires new drivers and more horsepower... we can't blame the new OS? Oh yes we can. --Matt ross _ From: John Hornbuckle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Vista wasn't perfect out of the gate, but it's not the piece of junk people think it is, either. A huge reason Vista has a negative image is that the hardware OEMs have been releasing buggy drivers for it--if they released drivers for it at all--and have been shipping Vista computers that either don't have enough horsepower or are bloated with crapware or bad drivers (or all three). It all adds up to a bad experience for users, and the OS gets the blame. ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~ ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~ ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~
Re: Why XP is doomed
Actually I have found any OS loves you when you add memory. Even the *nix boxes and MAC cubes like memory and space. - Original Message - From: Ziots, Edward [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: NT System Admin Issues ntsysadmin@lyris.sunbelt-software.com Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 9:16 AM Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Funny, I have to disagree with XP needing 2X the memory Windows 2000 does, I ran both Windows 2000 and XP with 1GB RAM on same machine with no issues. ( Win2k SP4 Pro, then wiped and rebuilt with XP SP2, still fine performance) Its when you short-change the system with like 512MB and through a ton of applications on the system that are memory intensive is when you run into issues. If that is one favor you can do with any Microsoft OS, DON'T skimp on the RAM, your computer will be happy you did, and you will too. Z Edward E. Ziots Network Engineer Lifespan Organization MCSE,MCSA,MCP,Security+,Network+,CCA Phone: 401-639-3505 -Original Message- From: David Houston [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 8:59 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed But ever new OS needs drivers. Every new os has always had greater requirements than the last. Vista has had issues, oems providing quality drivers being one. Vista compatable being another. XP neeed double the memory of Windows 2000. XP sp2 needed double again over XP sp0, and broke hardware if the bios was not up to date. It has its good points and its bad points. I use it and would not go back. Regards, David Houston Dame Computers Ltd. Office: +35312873159 Mobile: +353876810844 Suppprt: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Matthew W. Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: NT System Admin Issues ntsysadmin@lyris.sunbelt-software.com Sent: 11/05/08 08:44 Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Hold on there... If an OS requires new drivers and more horsepower... we can't blame the new OS? Oh yes we can. --Matt ross _ From: John Hornbuckle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Vista wasn't perfect out of the gate, but it's not the piece of junk people think it is, either. A huge reason Vista has a negative image is that the hardware OEMs have been releasing buggy drivers for it--if they released drivers for it at all--and have been shipping Vista computers that either don't have enough horsepower or are bloated with crapware or bad drivers (or all three). It all adds up to a bad experience for users, and the OS gets the blame. ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~ ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~ __ This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are property of Indiana Members Credit Union, are confidential, and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom this e-mail is addressed. If you are not one of the named recipient(s) or otherwise have reason to believe that you have received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately from your computer. Any other use, retention, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __ ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~
Re: Why XP is doomed
Amen. Jon On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 9:26 AM, Michael B. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You could run Windows 2000 Pro in 64 MB. It really liked 128 MB, but 64 MB worked fine. Couldn't do that with XP. Regards, Michael B. Smith MCSE/Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com http://theessentialexchange.com/ -Original Message- From: Ziots, Edward [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 9:16 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Funny, I have to disagree with XP needing 2X the memory Windows 2000 does, I ran both Windows 2000 and XP with 1GB RAM on same machine with no issues. ( Win2k SP4 Pro, then wiped and rebuilt with XP SP2, still fine performance) Its when you short-change the system with like 512MB and through a ton of applications on the system that are memory intensive is when you run into issues. If that is one favor you can do with any Microsoft OS, DON'T skimp on the RAM, your computer will be happy you did, and you will too. Z Edward E. Ziots Network Engineer Lifespan Organization MCSE,MCSA,MCP,Security+,Network+,CCA Phone: 401-639-3505 -Original Message- From: David Houston [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 8:59 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed But ever new OS needs drivers. Every new os has always had greater requirements than the last. Vista has had issues, oems providing quality drivers being one. Vista compatable being another. XP neeed double the memory of Windows 2000. XP sp2 needed double again over XP sp0, and broke hardware if the bios was not up to date. It has its good points and its bad points. I use it and would not go back. Regards, David Houston Dame Computers Ltd. Office: +35312873159 Mobile: +353876810844 Suppprt: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Matthew W. Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: NT System Admin Issues ntsysadmin@lyris.sunbelt-software.com Sent: 11/05/08 08:44 Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Hold on there... If an OS requires new drivers and more horsepower... we can't blame the new OS? Oh yes we can. --Matt ross _ From: John Hornbuckle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Vista wasn't perfect out of the gate, but it's not the piece of junk people think it is, either. A huge reason Vista has a negative image is that the hardware OEMs have been releasing buggy drivers for it--if they released drivers for it at all--and have been shipping Vista computers that either don't have enough horsepower or are bloated with crapware or bad drivers (or all three). It all adds up to a bad experience for users, and the OS gets the blame. ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~ ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~ ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~ ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~
Re: Why XP is doomed
Same could be said of Windows 95 running on 16MB, it really liked 64MB but 16MB would work. - Original Message - From: Michael B. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: NT System Admin Issues ntsysadmin@lyris.sunbelt-software.com Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 9:26 AM Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed You could run Windows 2000 Pro in 64 MB. It really liked 128 MB, but 64 MB worked fine. Couldn't do that with XP. Regards, Michael B. Smith MCSE/Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com -Original Message- From: Ziots, Edward [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 9:16 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Funny, I have to disagree with XP needing 2X the memory Windows 2000 does, I ran both Windows 2000 and XP with 1GB RAM on same machine with no issues. ( Win2k SP4 Pro, then wiped and rebuilt with XP SP2, still fine performance) Its when you short-change the system with like 512MB and through a ton of applications on the system that are memory intensive is when you run into issues. If that is one favor you can do with any Microsoft OS, DON'T skimp on the RAM, your computer will be happy you did, and you will too. Z Edward E. Ziots Network Engineer Lifespan Organization MCSE,MCSA,MCP,Security+,Network+,CCA Phone: 401-639-3505 -Original Message- From: David Houston [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 8:59 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed But ever new OS needs drivers. Every new os has always had greater requirements than the last. Vista has had issues, oems providing quality drivers being one. Vista compatable being another. XP neeed double the memory of Windows 2000. XP sp2 needed double again over XP sp0, and broke hardware if the bios was not up to date. It has its good points and its bad points. I use it and would not go back. Regards, David Houston Dame Computers Ltd. Office: +35312873159 Mobile: +353876810844 Suppprt: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Matthew W. Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: NT System Admin Issues ntsysadmin@lyris.sunbelt-software.com Sent: 11/05/08 08:44 Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Hold on there... If an OS requires new drivers and more horsepower... we can't blame the new OS? Oh yes we can. --Matt ross _ From: John Hornbuckle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Vista wasn't perfect out of the gate, but it's not the piece of junk people think it is, either. A huge reason Vista has a negative image is that the hardware OEMs have been releasing buggy drivers for it--if they released drivers for it at all--and have been shipping Vista computers that either don't have enough horsepower or are bloated with crapware or bad drivers (or all three). It all adds up to a bad experience for users, and the OS gets the blame. ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~ ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~ ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~ __ This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are property of Indiana Members Credit Union, are confidential, and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom this e-mail is addressed. If you are not one of the named recipient(s) or otherwise have reason to believe that you have received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately from your computer. Any other use, retention, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __ ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~
Re: Why XP is doomed
It has just become ridiculous how much memory you need for a workstation. I remember upgrading workstations to 32MB of memory and then 64MB and we thought that was a lot. Servers back then only had 1-2GB of memory. I remember the old Novell servers running with 512MB of memory. Mike Original Message: - From: Jon Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 09:29:37 -0400 To: ntsysadmin@lyris.sunbelt-software.com Subject: Re: Why XP is doomed Amen. Jon On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 9:26 AM, Michael B. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You could run Windows 2000 Pro in 64 MB. It really liked 128 MB, but 64 MB worked fine. Couldn't do that with XP. Regards, Michael B. Smith MCSE/Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com http://theessentialexchange.com/ -Original Message- From: Ziots, Edward [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 9:16 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Funny, I have to disagree with XP needing 2X the memory Windows 2000 does, I ran both Windows 2000 and XP with 1GB RAM on same machine with no issues. ( Win2k SP4 Pro, then wiped and rebuilt with XP SP2, still fine performance) Its when you short-change the system with like 512MB and through a ton of applications on the system that are memory intensive is when you run into issues. If that is one favor you can do with any Microsoft OS, DON'T skimp on the RAM, your computer will be happy you did, and you will too. Z Edward E. Ziots Network Engineer Lifespan Organization MCSE,MCSA,MCP,Security+,Network+,CCA Phone: 401-639-3505 -Original Message- From: David Houston [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 8:59 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed But ever new OS needs drivers. Every new os has always had greater requirements than the last. Vista has had issues, oems providing quality drivers being one. Vista compatable being another. XP neeed double the memory of Windows 2000. XP sp2 needed double again over XP sp0, and broke hardware if the bios was not up to date. It has its good points and its bad points. I use it and would not go back. Regards, David Houston Dame Computers Ltd. Office: +35312873159 Mobile: +353876810844 Suppprt: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Matthew W. Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: NT System Admin Issues ntsysadmin@lyris.sunbelt-software.com Sent: 11/05/08 08:44 Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Hold on there... If an OS requires new drivers and more horsepower... we can't blame the new OS? Oh yes we can. --Matt ross _ From: John Hornbuckle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Vista wasn't perfect out of the gate, but it's not the piece of junk people think it is, either. A huge reason Vista has a negative image is that the hardware OEMs have been releasing buggy drivers for it--if they released drivers for it at all--and have been shipping Vista computers that either don't have enough horsepower or are bloated with crapware or bad drivers (or all three). It all adds up to a bad experience for users, and the OS gets the blame. ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~ ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~ ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~ ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~ myhosting.com - Premium Microsoft® Windows® and Linux web and application hosting - http://link.myhosting.com/myhosting ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~
RE: Why XP is doomed
Hell Memory these days is cheap. I got 4GB in my XP machine, and will be running Vmworkstation and a few hacking tools from home on 2k8 and Nix Os's in VM's, and still runs like a champ. Z Edward E. Ziots Network Engineer Lifespan Organization MCSE,MCSA,MCP,Security+,Network+,CCA Phone: 401-639-3505 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 9:36 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Why XP is doomed It has just become ridiculous how much memory you need for a workstation. I remember upgrading workstations to 32MB of memory and then 64MB and we thought that was a lot. Servers back then only had 1-2GB of memory. I remember the old Novell servers running with 512MB of memory. Mike Original Message: - From: Jon Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 09:29:37 -0400 To: ntsysadmin@lyris.sunbelt-software.com Subject: Re: Why XP is doomed Amen. Jon On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 9:26 AM, Michael B. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You could run Windows 2000 Pro in 64 MB. It really liked 128 MB, but 64 MB worked fine. Couldn't do that with XP. Regards, Michael B. Smith MCSE/Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com http://theessentialexchange.com/ -Original Message- From: Ziots, Edward [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 9:16 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Funny, I have to disagree with XP needing 2X the memory Windows 2000 does, I ran both Windows 2000 and XP with 1GB RAM on same machine with no issues. ( Win2k SP4 Pro, then wiped and rebuilt with XP SP2, still fine performance) Its when you short-change the system with like 512MB and through a ton of applications on the system that are memory intensive is when you run into issues. If that is one favor you can do with any Microsoft OS, DON'T skimp on the RAM, your computer will be happy you did, and you will too. Z Edward E. Ziots Network Engineer Lifespan Organization MCSE,MCSA,MCP,Security+,Network+,CCA Phone: 401-639-3505 -Original Message- From: David Houston [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 8:59 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed But ever new OS needs drivers. Every new os has always had greater requirements than the last. Vista has had issues, oems providing quality drivers being one. Vista compatable being another. XP neeed double the memory of Windows 2000. XP sp2 needed double again over XP sp0, and broke hardware if the bios was not up to date. It has its good points and its bad points. I use it and would not go back. Regards, David Houston Dame Computers Ltd. Office: +35312873159 Mobile: +353876810844 Suppprt: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Matthew W. Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: NT System Admin Issues ntsysadmin@lyris.sunbelt-software.com Sent: 11/05/08 08:44 Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Hold on there... If an OS requires new drivers and more horsepower... we can't blame the new OS? Oh yes we can. --Matt ross _ From: John Hornbuckle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Vista wasn't perfect out of the gate, but it's not the piece of junk people think it is, either. A huge reason Vista has a negative image is that the hardware OEMs have been releasing buggy drivers for it--if they released drivers for it at all--and have been shipping Vista computers that either don't have enough horsepower or are bloated with crapware or bad drivers (or all three). It all adds up to a bad experience for users, and the OS gets the blame. ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~ ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~ ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~ ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~ myhosting.com - Premium Microsoft(r) Windows(r) and Linux web and application hosting - http://link.myhosting.com/myhosting ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~ ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~
Re: Why XP is doomed
I have pc's right now with more memory than their respective file servers. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: NT System Admin Issues ntsysadmin@lyris.sunbelt-software.com Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 9:36 AM Subject: Re: Why XP is doomed It has just become ridiculous how much memory you need for a workstation. I remember upgrading workstations to 32MB of memory and then 64MB and we thought that was a lot. Servers back then only had 1-2GB of memory. I remember the old Novell servers running with 512MB of memory. Mike Original Message: - From: Jon Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 09:29:37 -0400 To: ntsysadmin@lyris.sunbelt-software.com Subject: Re: Why XP is doomed Amen. Jon On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 9:26 AM, Michael B. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You could run Windows 2000 Pro in 64 MB. It really liked 128 MB, but 64 MB worked fine. Couldn't do that with XP. Regards, Michael B. Smith MCSE/Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com http://theessentialexchange.com/ -Original Message- From: Ziots, Edward [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 9:16 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Funny, I have to disagree with XP needing 2X the memory Windows 2000 does, I ran both Windows 2000 and XP with 1GB RAM on same machine with no issues. ( Win2k SP4 Pro, then wiped and rebuilt with XP SP2, still fine performance) Its when you short-change the system with like 512MB and through a ton of applications on the system that are memory intensive is when you run into issues. If that is one favor you can do with any Microsoft OS, DON'T skimp on the RAM, your computer will be happy you did, and you will too. Z Edward E. Ziots Network Engineer Lifespan Organization MCSE,MCSA,MCP,Security+,Network+,CCA Phone: 401-639-3505 -Original Message- From: David Houston [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 8:59 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed But ever new OS needs drivers. Every new os has always had greater requirements than the last. Vista has had issues, oems providing quality drivers being one. Vista compatable being another. XP neeed double the memory of Windows 2000. XP sp2 needed double again over XP sp0, and broke hardware if the bios was not up to date. It has its good points and its bad points. I use it and would not go back. Regards, David Houston Dame Computers Ltd. Office: +35312873159 Mobile: +353876810844 Suppprt: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Matthew W. Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: NT System Admin Issues ntsysadmin@lyris.sunbelt-software.com Sent: 11/05/08 08:44 Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Hold on there... If an OS requires new drivers and more horsepower... we can't blame the new OS? Oh yes we can. --Matt ross _ From: John Hornbuckle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Vista wasn't perfect out of the gate, but it's not the piece of junk people think it is, either. A huge reason Vista has a negative image is that the hardware OEMs have been releasing buggy drivers for it--if they released drivers for it at all--and have been shipping Vista computers that either don't have enough horsepower or are bloated with crapware or bad drivers (or all three). It all adds up to a bad experience for users, and the OS gets the blame. ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~ ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~ ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~ ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~ myhosting.com - Premium Microsoft® Windows® and Linux web and application hosting - http://link.myhosting.com/myhosting ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~ __ This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are property of Indiana Members Credit Union, are confidential, and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom this e-mail is addressed. If you are not one of the named recipient(s) or otherwise have reason to believe that you have received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately from your computer. Any other use, retention, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
RE: Why XP is doomed
Same. Christopher J. Bosak Vector Company c. 847.603.4673 [EMAIL PROTECTED] You need to install an RTFM Interface, due to an LBNC issue. - B.O.F.H. (Merged 2 into 1) - Me -Original Message- From: David W. McSpadden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 08:40 hrs To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Why XP is doomed I have pc's right now with more memory than their respective file servers. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: NT System Admin Issues ntsysadmin@lyris.sunbelt-software.com Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 9:36 AM Subject: Re: Why XP is doomed It has just become ridiculous how much memory you need for a workstation. I remember upgrading workstations to 32MB of memory and then 64MB and we thought that was a lot. Servers back then only had 1-2GB of memory. I remember the old Novell servers running with 512MB of memory. Mike Original Message: - From: Jon Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 09:29:37 -0400 To: ntsysadmin@lyris.sunbelt-software.com Subject: Re: Why XP is doomed Amen. Jon On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 9:26 AM, Michael B. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You could run Windows 2000 Pro in 64 MB. It really liked 128 MB, but 64 MB worked fine. Couldn't do that with XP. Regards, Michael B. Smith MCSE/Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com http://theessentialexchange.com/ -Original Message- From: Ziots, Edward [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 9:16 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Funny, I have to disagree with XP needing 2X the memory Windows 2000 does, I ran both Windows 2000 and XP with 1GB RAM on same machine with no issues. ( Win2k SP4 Pro, then wiped and rebuilt with XP SP2, still fine performance) Its when you short-change the system with like 512MB and through a ton of applications on the system that are memory intensive is when you run into issues. If that is one favor you can do with any Microsoft OS, DON'T skimp on the RAM, your computer will be happy you did, and you will too. Z Edward E. Ziots Network Engineer Lifespan Organization MCSE,MCSA,MCP,Security+,Network+,CCA Phone: 401-639-3505 -Original Message- From: David Houston [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 8:59 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed But ever new OS needs drivers. Every new os has always had greater requirements than the last. Vista has had issues, oems providing quality drivers being one. Vista compatable being another. XP neeed double the memory of Windows 2000. XP sp2 needed double again over XP sp0, and broke hardware if the bios was not up to date. It has its good points and its bad points. I use it and would not go back. Regards, David Houston Dame Computers Ltd. Office: +35312873159 Mobile: +353876810844 Suppprt: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Matthew W. Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: NT System Admin Issues ntsysadmin@lyris.sunbelt-software.com Sent: 11/05/08 08:44 Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Hold on there... If an OS requires new drivers and more horsepower... we can't blame the new OS? Oh yes we can. --Matt ross _ From: John Hornbuckle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Vista wasn't perfect out of the gate, but it's not the piece of junk people think it is, either. A huge reason Vista has a negative image is that the hardware OEMs have been releasing buggy drivers for it--if they released drivers for it at all--and have been shipping Vista computers that either don't have enough horsepower or are bloated with crapware or bad drivers (or all three). It all adds up to a bad experience for users, and the OS gets the blame. ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~ ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~ ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~ ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~ myhosting.com - Premium MicrosoftR WindowsR and Linux web and application hosting - http://link.myhosting.com/myhosting ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~ __ This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are property of Indiana Members Credit Union, are confidential, and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom this e-mail is addressed. If you are not one of the named recipient(s) or otherwise have reason to believe that you have
RE: Why XP is doomed
Funny, I have to disagree with XP needing 2X the memory Windows 2000 does, I ran both Windows 2000 and XP with 1GB RAM on same machine with no issues. ( Win2k SP4 Pro, then wiped and rebuilt with XP SP2, still fine performance) Its when you short-change the system with like 512MB and through a ton of applications on the system that are memory intensive is when you run into issues. If that is one favor you can do with any Microsoft OS, DON'T skimp on the RAM, your computer will be happy you did, and you will too. Z Edward E. Ziots Network Engineer Lifespan Organization MCSE,MCSA,MCP,Security+,Network+,CCA Phone: 401-639-3505 -Original Message- From: David Houston [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 8:59 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed But ever new OS needs drivers. Every new os has always had greater requirements than the last. Vista has had issues, oems providing quality drivers being one. Vista compatable being another. XP neeed double the memory of Windows 2000. XP sp2 needed double again over XP sp0, and broke hardware if the bios was not up to date. It has its good points and its bad points. I use it and would not go back. Regards, David Houston Dame Computers Ltd. Office: +35312873159 Mobile: +353876810844 Suppprt: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Matthew W. Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: NT System Admin Issues ntsysadmin@lyris.sunbelt-software.com Sent: 11/05/08 08:44 Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Hold on there... If an OS requires new drivers and more horsepower... we can't blame the new OS? Oh yes we can. --Matt ross _ From: John Hornbuckle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Vista wasn't perfect out of the gate, but it's not the piece of junk people think it is, either. A huge reason Vista has a negative image is that the hardware OEMs have been releasing buggy drivers for it--if they released drivers for it at all--and have been shipping Vista computers that either don't have enough horsepower or are bloated with crapware or bad drivers (or all three). It all adds up to a bad experience for users, and the OS gets the blame. ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~ ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~
RE: Why XP is doomed
I don't think price is the point. I have 4GB on my workstation so I can run VMware workstation. Is the reason for needing so much memory just code bloat or crappy coding? Original Message: - From: Ziots, Edward [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 09:42:01 -0400 To: ntsysadmin@lyris.sunbelt-software.com Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Hell Memory these days is cheap. I got 4GB in my XP machine, and will be running Vmworkstation and a few hacking tools from home on 2k8 and Nix Os's in VM's, and still runs like a champ. Z Edward E. Ziots Network Engineer Lifespan Organization MCSE,MCSA,MCP,Security+,Network+,CCA Phone: 401-639-3505 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 9:36 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Why XP is doomed It has just become ridiculous how much memory you need for a workstation. I remember upgrading workstations to 32MB of memory and then 64MB and we thought that was a lot. Servers back then only had 1-2GB of memory. I remember the old Novell servers running with 512MB of memory. Mike Original Message: - From: Jon Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 09:29:37 -0400 To: ntsysadmin@lyris.sunbelt-software.com Subject: Re: Why XP is doomed Amen. Jon On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 9:26 AM, Michael B. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You could run Windows 2000 Pro in 64 MB. It really liked 128 MB, but 64 MB worked fine. Couldn't do that with XP. Regards, Michael B. Smith MCSE/Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com http://theessentialexchange.com/ -Original Message- From: Ziots, Edward [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 9:16 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Funny, I have to disagree with XP needing 2X the memory Windows 2000 does, I ran both Windows 2000 and XP with 1GB RAM on same machine with no issues. ( Win2k SP4 Pro, then wiped and rebuilt with XP SP2, still fine performance) Its when you short-change the system with like 512MB and through a ton of applications on the system that are memory intensive is when you run into issues. If that is one favor you can do with any Microsoft OS, DON'T skimp on the RAM, your computer will be happy you did, and you will too. Z Edward E. Ziots Network Engineer Lifespan Organization MCSE,MCSA,MCP,Security+,Network+,CCA Phone: 401-639-3505 -Original Message- From: David Houston [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 8:59 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed But ever new OS needs drivers. Every new os has always had greater requirements than the last. Vista has had issues, oems providing quality drivers being one. Vista compatable being another. XP neeed double the memory of Windows 2000. XP sp2 needed double again over XP sp0, and broke hardware if the bios was not up to date. It has its good points and its bad points. I use it and would not go back. Regards, David Houston Dame Computers Ltd. Office: +35312873159 Mobile: +353876810844 Suppprt: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Matthew W. Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: NT System Admin Issues ntsysadmin@lyris.sunbelt-software.com Sent: 11/05/08 08:44 Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Hold on there... If an OS requires new drivers and more horsepower... we can't blame the new OS? Oh yes we can. --Matt ross _ From: John Hornbuckle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Vista wasn't perfect out of the gate, but it's not the piece of junk people think it is, either. A huge reason Vista has a negative image is that the hardware OEMs have been releasing buggy drivers for it--if they released drivers for it at all--and have been shipping Vista computers that either don't have enough horsepower or are bloated with crapware or bad drivers (or all three). It all adds up to a bad experience for users, and the OS gets the blame. ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~ ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~ ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~ ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~ myhosting.com - Premium Microsoft(r) Windows(r) and Linux web and application hosting - http://link.myhosting.com/myhosting ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~ ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm
Re: Why XP is doomed
/propercoding That's what happens with the use of everyone else's code. Even in class the instructors would say if you have routine that gets you the results you want just give credit to the originator and program around it. That kind of patchwork programming is what we have laying around our Internet and bloating our pc's. /propercodingrant - Original Message - From: John Hornbuckle [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: NT System Admin Issues ntsysadmin@lyris.sunbelt-software.com Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 9:55 AM Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed I'm not a programmer, but it does seem to me that today's programmers have been able to get sloppy in terms of memory usage. When I was a kid, I had a Commodore 64. It took a lot of talent and creativity to be able to program for a 64k machine. I think programmers these days figure the end user will have 1-2 gigs of RAM, so they don't try too hard to write ultra-efficient code. This is true at both the OS and the application level. John Hornbuckle MIS Department Taylor County School District 318 North Clark Street Perry, FL 32347 www.taylor.k12.fl.us -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 9:36 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Why XP is doomed It has just become ridiculous how much memory you need for a workstation. I remember upgrading workstations to 32MB of memory and then 64MB and we thought that was a lot. Servers back then only had 1-2GB of memory. I remember the old Novell servers running with 512MB of memory. Mike ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~ __ This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are property of Indiana Members Credit Union, are confidential, and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom this e-mail is addressed. If you are not one of the named recipient(s) or otherwise have reason to believe that you have received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately from your computer. Any other use, retention, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __ ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~
RE: Why XP is doomed
The Wang VS 80 was a multiuser DP/WP system running on 512k (yes, k, not mb) of memory. http://www.tjunker.com/vswhat.html Michael B. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] 5/13/2008 6:55 AM HAhahahah. My SQL 4.1 servers had 32 MB! My Exchange 5.0 servers had 32 MB! Let's seethat was about 1996-1997, so if 4 GB (4,096 MB) is the norm, that's what, about 12,700% growth in 12 years? Not bad for the hardware and software companies. Must be lots of NOOPs in that code :-) Regards, Michael B. Smith MCSE/Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 9:36 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Why XP is doomed It has just become ridiculous how much memory you need for a workstation. I remember upgrading workstations to 32MB of memory and then 64MB and we thought that was a lot. Servers back then only had 1-2GB of memory. I remember the old Novell servers running with 512MB of memory. Mike Original Message: - From: Jon Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 09:29:37 -0400 To: ntsysadmin@lyris.sunbelt-software.com Subject: Re: Why XP is doomed Amen. Jon On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 9:26 AM, Michael B. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You could run Windows 2000 Pro in 64 MB. It really liked 128 MB, but 64 MB worked fine. Couldn't do that with XP. Regards, Michael B. Smith MCSE/Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com http://theessentialexchange.com/ -Original Message- From: Ziots, Edward [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 9:16 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Funny, I have to disagree with XP needing 2X the memory Windows 2000 does, I ran both Windows 2000 and XP with 1GB RAM on same machine with no issues. ( Win2k SP4 Pro, then wiped and rebuilt with XP SP2, still fine performance) Its when you short-change the system with like 512MB and through a ton of applications on the system that are memory intensive is when you run into issues. If that is one favor you can do with any Microsoft OS, DON'T skimp on the RAM, your computer will be happy you did, and you will too. Z Edward E. Ziots Network Engineer Lifespan Organization MCSE,MCSA,MCP,Security+,Network+,CCA Phone: 401-639-3505 -Original Message- From: David Houston [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 8:59 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed But ever new OS needs drivers. Every new os has always had greater requirements than the last. Vista has had issues, oems providing quality drivers being one. Vista compatable being another. XP neeed double the memory of Windows 2000. XP sp2 needed double again over XP sp0, and broke hardware if the bios was not up to date. It has its good points and its bad points. I use it and would not go back. Regards, David Houston Dame Computers Ltd. Office: +35312873159 Mobile: +353876810844 Suppprt: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Matthew W. Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: NT System Admin Issues ntsysadmin@lyris.sunbelt-software.com Sent: 11/05/08 08:44 Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Hold on there... If an OS requires new drivers and more horsepower... we can't blame the new OS? Oh yes we can. --Matt ross _ From: John Hornbuckle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Vista wasn't perfect out of the gate, but it's not the piece of junk people think it is, either. A huge reason Vista has a negative image is that the hardware OEMs have been releasing buggy drivers for it--if they released drivers for it at all--and have been shipping Vista computers that either don't have enough horsepower or are bloated with crapware or bad drivers (or all three). It all adds up to a bad experience for users, and the OS gets the blame. ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~ ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~ ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~ ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~ myhosting.com - Premium MicrosoftR WindowsR and Linux web and application hosting - http://link.myhosting.com/myhosting ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~ ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~ ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com
RE: Why XP is doomed
HAhahahah. My SQL 4.1 servers had 32 MB! My Exchange 5.0 servers had 32 MB! Let's seethat was about 1996-1997, so if 4 GB (4,096 MB) is the norm, that's what, about 12,700% growth in 12 years? Not bad for the hardware and software companies. Must be lots of NOOPs in that code :-) Regards, Michael B. Smith MCSE/Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 9:36 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Why XP is doomed It has just become ridiculous how much memory you need for a workstation. I remember upgrading workstations to 32MB of memory and then 64MB and we thought that was a lot. Servers back then only had 1-2GB of memory. I remember the old Novell servers running with 512MB of memory. Mike Original Message: - From: Jon Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 09:29:37 -0400 To: ntsysadmin@lyris.sunbelt-software.com Subject: Re: Why XP is doomed Amen. Jon On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 9:26 AM, Michael B. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You could run Windows 2000 Pro in 64 MB. It really liked 128 MB, but 64 MB worked fine. Couldn't do that with XP. Regards, Michael B. Smith MCSE/Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com http://theessentialexchange.com/ -Original Message- From: Ziots, Edward [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 9:16 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Funny, I have to disagree with XP needing 2X the memory Windows 2000 does, I ran both Windows 2000 and XP with 1GB RAM on same machine with no issues. ( Win2k SP4 Pro, then wiped and rebuilt with XP SP2, still fine performance) Its when you short-change the system with like 512MB and through a ton of applications on the system that are memory intensive is when you run into issues. If that is one favor you can do with any Microsoft OS, DON'T skimp on the RAM, your computer will be happy you did, and you will too. Z Edward E. Ziots Network Engineer Lifespan Organization MCSE,MCSA,MCP,Security+,Network+,CCA Phone: 401-639-3505 -Original Message- From: David Houston [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 8:59 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed But ever new OS needs drivers. Every new os has always had greater requirements than the last. Vista has had issues, oems providing quality drivers being one. Vista compatable being another. XP neeed double the memory of Windows 2000. XP sp2 needed double again over XP sp0, and broke hardware if the bios was not up to date. It has its good points and its bad points. I use it and would not go back. Regards, David Houston Dame Computers Ltd. Office: +35312873159 Mobile: +353876810844 Suppprt: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Matthew W. Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: NT System Admin Issues ntsysadmin@lyris.sunbelt-software.com Sent: 11/05/08 08:44 Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Hold on there... If an OS requires new drivers and more horsepower... we can't blame the new OS? Oh yes we can. --Matt ross _ From: John Hornbuckle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Vista wasn't perfect out of the gate, but it's not the piece of junk people think it is, either. A huge reason Vista has a negative image is that the hardware OEMs have been releasing buggy drivers for it--if they released drivers for it at all--and have been shipping Vista computers that either don't have enough horsepower or are bloated with crapware or bad drivers (or all three). It all adds up to a bad experience for users, and the OS gets the blame. ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~ ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~ ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~ ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~ myhosting.com - Premium MicrosoftR WindowsR and Linux web and application hosting - http://link.myhosting.com/myhosting ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~ ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~
RE: Why XP is doomed
I'm not a programmer, but it does seem to me that today's programmers have been able to get sloppy in terms of memory usage. When I was a kid, I had a Commodore 64. It took a lot of talent and creativity to be able to program for a 64k machine. I think programmers these days figure the end user will have 1-2 gigs of RAM, so they don't try too hard to write ultra-efficient code. This is true at both the OS and the application level. John Hornbuckle MIS Department Taylor County School District 318 North Clark Street Perry, FL 32347 www.taylor.k12.fl.us -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 9:36 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Why XP is doomed It has just become ridiculous how much memory you need for a workstation. I remember upgrading workstations to 32MB of memory and then 64MB and we thought that was a lot. Servers back then only had 1-2GB of memory. I remember the old Novell servers running with 512MB of memory. Mike ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~
RE: Why XP is doomed
Not really, I use the extra memory for the extra OS's I am Vming. Not because I really need more than 1GB for XP ( 512MB for OS) (512MB for applications). Now we all know that developers (well most) aren't coding securely, and don't care how much resources there application take up, as long it runs. I agree there is bloat and crappy coding in the M$ OS, its evident with the patching that is needed to be done by admin's each and every month. People code, and people aren't perfect therefore crappy, bug-filled, unsecure code will exist for a long time to come. Z Edward E. Ziots Network Engineer Lifespan Organization MCSE,MCSA,MCP,Security+,Network+,CCA Phone: 401-639-3505 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 9:54 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed I don't think price is the point. I have 4GB on my workstation so I can run VMware workstation. Is the reason for needing so much memory just code bloat or crappy coding? Original Message: - From: Ziots, Edward [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 09:42:01 -0400 To: ntsysadmin@lyris.sunbelt-software.com Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Hell Memory these days is cheap. I got 4GB in my XP machine, and will be running Vmworkstation and a few hacking tools from home on 2k8 and Nix Os's in VM's, and still runs like a champ. Z Edward E. Ziots Network Engineer Lifespan Organization MCSE,MCSA,MCP,Security+,Network+,CCA Phone: 401-639-3505 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 9:36 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Why XP is doomed It has just become ridiculous how much memory you need for a workstation. I remember upgrading workstations to 32MB of memory and then 64MB and we thought that was a lot. Servers back then only had 1-2GB of memory. I remember the old Novell servers running with 512MB of memory. Mike Original Message: - From: Jon Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 09:29:37 -0400 To: ntsysadmin@lyris.sunbelt-software.com Subject: Re: Why XP is doomed Amen. Jon On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 9:26 AM, Michael B. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You could run Windows 2000 Pro in 64 MB. It really liked 128 MB, but 64 MB worked fine. Couldn't do that with XP. Regards, Michael B. Smith MCSE/Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com http://theessentialexchange.com/ -Original Message- From: Ziots, Edward [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 9:16 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Funny, I have to disagree with XP needing 2X the memory Windows 2000 does, I ran both Windows 2000 and XP with 1GB RAM on same machine with no issues. ( Win2k SP4 Pro, then wiped and rebuilt with XP SP2, still fine performance) Its when you short-change the system with like 512MB and through a ton of applications on the system that are memory intensive is when you run into issues. If that is one favor you can do with any Microsoft OS, DON'T skimp on the RAM, your computer will be happy you did, and you will too. Z Edward E. Ziots Network Engineer Lifespan Organization MCSE,MCSA,MCP,Security+,Network+,CCA Phone: 401-639-3505 -Original Message- From: David Houston [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 8:59 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed But ever new OS needs drivers. Every new os has always had greater requirements than the last. Vista has had issues, oems providing quality drivers being one. Vista compatable being another. XP neeed double the memory of Windows 2000. XP sp2 needed double again over XP sp0, and broke hardware if the bios was not up to date. It has its good points and its bad points. I use it and would not go back. Regards, David Houston Dame Computers Ltd. Office: +35312873159 Mobile: +353876810844 Suppprt: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Matthew W. Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: NT System Admin Issues ntsysadmin@lyris.sunbelt-software.com Sent: 11/05/08 08:44 Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Hold on there... If an OS requires new drivers and more horsepower... we can't blame the new OS? Oh yes we can. --Matt ross _ From: John Hornbuckle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Vista wasn't perfect out of the gate, but it's not the piece of junk people think it is, either. A huge reason Vista has a negative image is that the hardware OEMs have been releasing buggy drivers for it--if they released drivers for it at all--and have been shipping Vista computers that either don't have enough horsepower or are bloated with crapware or bad drivers (or all three). It all adds up to a bad experience for users, and the OS gets the blame. ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm
RE: Why XP is doomed
Good point! I had forgotten about Sleep. I LOVE it. I haven't done a complete Shutdown on my tablet in 2 months, it takes about 3 seconds to come back on when I open the lid and has run flawlessly. Awesome feature. Tim From: John Hornbuckle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 7:38 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed If your organization doesn't need things like increased security, improved ease of management, and better performance with offline files and folders, then no-Vista probably wouldn't be of use to you. Ditto for improved sleep/hibernate and increased speed through ReadyBoost and SuperFetch. For my organization, these new features bring benefits over XP. In fact, most organizations benefit from improved speed, security, and reliability. But if yours doesn't, that's okay. John From: Murray Freeman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 7:31 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Now let me understand this. I should spend the money to acquire a new FASTER computer so that I can run Vista which runs at the very SAME speed that an older slower computer did running XP, but Vista really has little if any to offer in the way of benefits. Now I get it! I'm loving this thread, because so far I don't hear any good reasons to upgrade to Vista. I've been in IT for nearly 44 years. During that time I've seen a lot of changes, and in most cases more productivity for smaller amounts of financial investment. But I just have a real problem with spending MORE to get virtually nothing for my investment..other than I can tell people that I have VISTA!!! I want to thank everyone for reaffirming the decision I had already made for my organization. Murray From: Graeme Carstairs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 3:29 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Why XP is doomed I have 2.2 GHZ Centrino Duo laptop with 2GB of RAM and Vista works as fast as my previous XP Machine which was a 1.8GHX Centrino Duo and 2GB RAM. So your Pentium D 3 Ghz should be fine and dandy with or without the 4gb obviously 4gb would be better but then that goes for xp too. Graeme On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 8:59 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED]mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Hornbuckle [EMAIL PROTECTED]mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 05/12/2008 03:53:29 PM: Well, it's moot that a crappy system being sold by a vendor is good enough to run XP. It's also good enough to run Windows for Workgroups and DOS-but that's not the point. Yes, Vista has higher hardware requirements. Just like XP has higher requirements than Win9x had, and just like Win9x had higher requirements than Win3x had. Every OS that comes out is likely to have higher requirements than the OS before it. But honestly, Vista's hardware requirements aren't crazy high. As I mentioned before, I'm running it at home on a Pentium D processor- which is a very modest CPU by today's standards. Vista works just fine with it. The biggest issue with the hardware vendors, as seen in the ZDNet piece, is the crapware installed at the factory. The author of the article got the Sony laptop working perfectly with Vista without changing the hardware at all. Really ... I have a Pentium D, 3GHz, 2M RAM. You think if I bumped the RAM to 4G that Vista would be OK with it? I mostly use this PC for photoediting (Photoshop CS3), and video editing (which in my case is converting PAL to NTSC, or making a DVD out of AVI files, using Nero 7). Feel free to reply offlist John Hornbuckle MIS Department Taylor County School District 318 North Clark Street Perry, FL 32347 www.taylor.k12.fl.ushttp://www.taylor.k12.fl.us From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 3:35 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Ken Schaefer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 05/11/2008 03:58:17 AM: If a vendor sells an underpowered machine, then perhaps the vendor should take some blame. I believe the point is that the hardware is not underpowered for Xp, but is underpowered for Vista. Especially if the vendor isn't (or can't ... ) offer XP on that hardware. -- Carbon credits are a bit like beating someone up on this side of the world and sponsoring one of those poor starving kids on the other side of the world to make up for the fact that you're a complete shit at home. ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~
RE: Why XP is doomed
Exactly. You could throw a Gig of RAM at a Win2K machine, but it would have been task specific and VERY expensive back in the day to do so. Definitely not standard issue back in 2000. -Original Message- From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 8:26 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed You could run Windows 2000 Pro in 64 MB. It really liked 128 MB, but 64 MB worked fine. Couldn't do that with XP. Regards, Michael B. Smith MCSE/Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com -Original Message- From: Ziots, Edward [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 9:16 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Funny, I have to disagree with XP needing 2X the memory Windows 2000 does, I ran both Windows 2000 and XP with 1GB RAM on same machine with no issues. ( Win2k SP4 Pro, then wiped and rebuilt with XP SP2, still fine performance) Its when you short-change the system with like 512MB and through a ton of applications on the system that are memory intensive is when you run into issues. If that is one favor you can do with any Microsoft OS, DON'T skimp on the RAM, your computer will be happy you did, and you will too. Z Edward E. Ziots Network Engineer Lifespan Organization MCSE,MCSA,MCP,Security+,Network+,CCA Phone: 401-639-3505 -Original Message- From: David Houston [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 8:59 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed But ever new OS needs drivers. Every new os has always had greater requirements than the last. Vista has had issues, oems providing quality drivers being one. Vista compatable being another. XP neeed double the memory of Windows 2000. XP sp2 needed double again over XP sp0, and broke hardware if the bios was not up to date. It has its good points and its bad points. I use it and would not go back. Regards, David Houston Dame Computers Ltd. Office: +35312873159 Mobile: +353876810844 Suppprt: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Matthew W. Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: NT System Admin Issues ntsysadmin@lyris.sunbelt-software.com Sent: 11/05/08 08:44 Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Hold on there... If an OS requires new drivers and more horsepower... we can't blame the new OS? Oh yes we can. --Matt ross _ From: John Hornbuckle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Vista wasn't perfect out of the gate, but it's not the piece of junk people think it is, either. A huge reason Vista has a negative image is that the hardware OEMs have been releasing buggy drivers for it--if they released drivers for it at all--and have been shipping Vista computers that either don't have enough horsepower or are bloated with crapware or bad drivers (or all three). It all adds up to a bad experience for users, and the OS gets the blame. ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~ ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~ ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~ ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~
RE: Why XP is doomed
No offense, but your post sounds like it was written bya MS Marketing Wiz. Increased Security is a good thing. But define increased security. Since all our info is retained on servers, isn't that where I should be concerned about security? Improved ease of management is another good thing, but I'm not sure that Vista will improve management of my servers. Oh, and I'm not clear just how Vista will improve the ease of workstation management. Sleep/Hibernate isn't an issue here, but that's not to say it might not be an issue some day, I just don't see it. If Vista is more reliable than XP, that's a good thing, but we're not having a reliablity issue with our workstations or servers for that fact. Finally, SPEED, now that's a hot button for me. But what got me to respond the first time to this thread was the fact that one individual had a faster laptop, but Vista wasn't running any faster than XP on an older slower laptop. So, is there really an increase in speed? Murray From: John Hornbuckle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 7:38 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed If your organization doesn't need things like increased security, improved ease of management, and better performance with offline files and folders, then no-Vista probably wouldn't be of use to you. Ditto for improved sleep/hibernate and increased speed through ReadyBoost and SuperFetch. For my organization, these new features bring benefits over XP. In fact, most organizations benefit from improved speed, security, and reliability. But if yours doesn't, that's okay. John From: Murray Freeman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 7:31 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Now let me understand this. I should spend the money to acquire a new FASTER computer so that I can run Vista which runs at the very SAME speed that an older slower computer did running XP, but Vista really has little if any to offer in the way of benefits. Now I get it! I'm loving this thread, because so far I don't hear any good reasons to upgrade to Vista. I've been in IT for nearly 44 years. During that time I've seen a lot of changes, and in most cases more productivity for smaller amounts of financial investment. But I just have a real problem with spending MORE to get virtually nothing for my investment..other than I can tell people that I have VISTA!!! I want to thank everyone for reaffirming the decision I had already made for my organization. Murray From: Graeme Carstairs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 3:29 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Why XP is doomed I have 2.2 GHZ Centrino Duo laptop with 2GB of RAM and Vista works as fast as my previous XP Machine which was a 1.8GHX Centrino Duo and 2GB RAM. So your Pentium D 3 Ghz should be fine and dandy with or without the 4gb obviously 4gb would be better but then that goes for xp too. Graeme On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 8:59 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Hornbuckle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 05/12/2008 03:53:29 PM: Well, it's moot that a crappy system being sold by a vendor is good enough to run XP. It's also good enough to run Windows for Workgroups and DOS-but that's not the point. Yes, Vista has higher hardware requirements. Just like XP has higher requirements than Win9x had, and just like Win9x had higher requirements than Win3x had. Every OS that comes out is likely to have higher requirements than the OS before it. But honestly, Vista's hardware requirements aren't crazy high. As I mentioned before, I'm running it at home on a Pentium D processor- which is a very modest CPU by today's standards. Vista works just fine with it. The biggest issue with the hardware vendors, as seen in the ZDNet piece, is the crapware installed at the factory. The author of the article got the Sony laptop working perfectly with Vista without changing the hardware at all. Really ... I have a Pentium D, 3GHz, 2M RAM. You think if I bumped the RAM to 4G that Vista would be OK with it? I mostly use this PC for photoediting (Photoshop CS3), and video editing (which in my case is converting PAL to NTSC, or making a DVD out of AVI files, using Nero 7). Feel free to reply offlist John Hornbuckle MIS Department Taylor County School District 318 North Clark Street Perry, FL 32347 www.taylor.k12.fl.us From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 3:35 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Ken Schaefer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 05/11/2008 03:58:17 AM: If a vendor sells an underpowered machine, then perhaps the vendor should take some blame. I believe the point is that the hardware is not underpowered for Xp, but is underpowered for Vista. Especially if the vendor isn't
Re: Why XP is doomed
I have to say I agree and disagree with both threads. I agree with Murray because in my org the pc's are just dumb terminals and all the work is done from the db on a server. If I was in an org where everyone was responsible for their own data storage and servers where mainly for print servers then I guess I see where a more secure, faster pc would come in handy. But right now I push policy from the DC and the pc is stuck with what I allow it to do not the user. If I don't want him storing files on it I don't allow it. I don't have to worry about someone hacking the pc. I just keep the data lines tethered with a tight string and I feel good when I go home at night. - Original Message - From: Murray Freeman To: NT System Admin Issues Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 11:06 AM Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed No offense, but your post sounds like it was written bya MS Marketing Wiz. Increased Security is a good thing. But define increased security. Since all our info is retained on servers, isn't that where I should be concerned about security? Improved ease of management is another good thing, but I'm not sure that Vista will improve management of my servers. Oh, and I'm not clear just how Vista will improve the ease of workstation management. Sleep/Hibernate isn't an issue here, but that's not to say it might not be an issue some day, I just don't see it. If Vista is more reliable than XP, that's a good thing, but we're not having a reliablity issue with our workstations or servers for that fact. Finally, SPEED, now that's a hot button for me. But what got me to respond the first time to this thread was the fact that one individual had a faster laptop, but Vista wasn't running any faster than XP on an older slower laptop. So, is there really an increase in speed? Murray From: John Hornbuckle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 7:38 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed If your organization doesn't need things like increased security, improved ease of management, and better performance with offline files and folders, then no-Vista probably wouldn't be of use to you. Ditto for improved sleep/hibernate and increased speed through ReadyBoost and SuperFetch. For my organization, these new features bring benefits over XP. In fact, most organizations benefit from improved speed, security, and reliability. But if yours doesn't, that's okay. John From: Murray Freeman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 7:31 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Now let me understand this. I should spend the money to acquire a new FASTER computer so that I can run Vista which runs at the very SAME speed that an older slower computer did running XP, but Vista really has little if any to offer in the way of benefits. Now I get it! I'm loving this thread, because so far I don't hear any good reasons to upgrade to Vista. I've been in IT for nearly 44 years. During that time I've seen a lot of changes, and in most cases more productivity for smaller amounts of financial investment. But I just have a real problem with spending MORE to get virtually nothing for my investment..other than I can tell people that I have VISTA!!! I want to thank everyone for reaffirming the decision I had already made for my organization. Murray -- From: Graeme Carstairs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 3:29 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Why XP is doomed I have 2.2 GHZ Centrino Duo laptop with 2GB of RAM and Vista works as fast as my previous XP Machine which was a 1.8GHX Centrino Duo and 2GB RAM. So your Pentium D 3 Ghz should be fine and dandy with or without the 4gb obviously 4gb would be better but then that goes for xp too. Graeme On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 8:59 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Hornbuckle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 05/12/2008 03:53:29 PM: Well, it's moot that a crappy system being sold by a vendor is good enough to run XP. It's also good enough to run Windows for Workgroups and DOS-but that's not the point. Yes, Vista has higher hardware requirements. Just like XP has higher requirements than Win9x had, and just like Win9x had higher requirements than Win3x had. Every OS that comes out is likely to have higher requirements than the OS before it. But honestly, Vista's hardware requirements aren't crazy high. As I mentioned before, I'm running it at home on a Pentium D processor- which is a very modest CPU by today's standards. Vista works just fine with it. The biggest issue with the hardware vendors, as seen in the ZDNet piece, is the crapware installed at the factory. The author of the article got
RE: Why XP is doomed
As far as security...NO security is all encompassing you can't secure servers and not care about the clients connecting to the servers. John has gone into detail in earlier posts regarding the specifics of what has been improved with Vista in the security arena. If you are going to disregard all positive things said about Vista because it sounds like Microsoft Marketing then there really is no point trying to have a rational conversation with you regarding the good and the bad. You are only interested in the bad. Closed minds make for frustrating discussion. TVK From: Murray Freeman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 10:07 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed No offense, but your post sounds like it was written bya MS Marketing Wiz. Increased Security is a good thing. But define increased security. Since all our info is retained on servers, isn't that where I should be concerned about security? Improved ease of management is another good thing, but I'm not sure that Vista will improve management of my servers. Oh, and I'm not clear just how Vista will improve the ease of workstation management. Sleep/Hibernate isn't an issue here, but that's not to say it might not be an issue some day, I just don't see it. If Vista is more reliable than XP, that's a good thing, but we're not having a reliablity issue with our workstations or servers for that fact. Finally, SPEED, now that's a hot button for me. But what got me to respond the first time to this thread was the fact that one individual had a faster laptop, but Vista wasn't running any faster than XP on an older slower laptop. So, is there really an increase in speed? Murray From: John Hornbuckle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 7:38 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed If your organization doesn't need things like increased security, improved ease of management, and better performance with offline files and folders, then no-Vista probably wouldn't be of use to you. Ditto for improved sleep/hibernate and increased speed through ReadyBoost and SuperFetch. For my organization, these new features bring benefits over XP. In fact, most organizations benefit from improved speed, security, and reliability. But if yours doesn't, that's okay. John From: Murray Freeman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 7:31 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Now let me understand this. I should spend the money to acquire a new FASTER computer so that I can run Vista which runs at the very SAME speed that an older slower computer did running XP, but Vista really has little if any to offer in the way of benefits. Now I get it! I'm loving this thread, because so far I don't hear any good reasons to upgrade to Vista. I've been in IT for nearly 44 years. During that time I've seen a lot of changes, and in most cases more productivity for smaller amounts of financial investment. But I just have a real problem with spending MORE to get virtually nothing for my investment..other than I can tell people that I have VISTA!!! I want to thank everyone for reaffirming the decision I had already made for my organization. Murray From: Graeme Carstairs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 3:29 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Why XP is doomed I have 2.2 GHZ Centrino Duo laptop with 2GB of RAM and Vista works as fast as my previous XP Machine which was a 1.8GHX Centrino Duo and 2GB RAM. So your Pentium D 3 Ghz should be fine and dandy with or without the 4gb obviously 4gb would be better but then that goes for xp too. Graeme On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 8:59 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED]mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Hornbuckle [EMAIL PROTECTED]mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 05/12/2008 03:53:29 PM: Well, it's moot that a crappy system being sold by a vendor is good enough to run XP. It's also good enough to run Windows for Workgroups and DOS-but that's not the point. Yes, Vista has higher hardware requirements. Just like XP has higher requirements than Win9x had, and just like Win9x had higher requirements than Win3x had. Every OS that comes out is likely to have higher requirements than the OS before it. But honestly, Vista's hardware requirements aren't crazy high. As I mentioned before, I'm running it at home on a Pentium D processor- which is a very modest CPU by today's standards. Vista works just fine with it. The biggest issue with the hardware vendors, as seen in the ZDNet piece, is the crapware installed at the factory. The author of the article got the Sony laptop working perfectly with Vista without changing the hardware at all. Really ... I have a Pentium D, 3GHz, 2M RAM. You think if I bumped the RAM to 4G that Vista would be OK with it? I mostly use this PC for photoediting (Photoshop CS3), and video editing (which
RE: Why XP is doomed
Why we are _slowly_ moving to vista: 1. Easier to make generic images for multiple machine types - If I image a machine with Vista, it's more likely to work out of the box... or even boot. XP and previous had HAL issues. 2. Offline Files - The offline file feature of Windows is finially stable enough with Vista to be useful for our laptop users. All new laptops will be Vista laptops. 3. Business Departments are requiring it - Even though It's not that different from XP, the labs which teach Business in our schools want to be using the Latest and Greatest, including Vista and Office 2007. Why we are avoiding going to vista: 1. No other real benefits - Besides the above, there are not that many real reasons to make the jump. 2. Slower performance - On the same hardware, Vista will run slowly, or not run at all. Older, but not that old hardware is unsupported. 3. Cost - Since we're already running XP, an upgrade to Vista would be a huge cost for us. We will purchase a Vista Business license with each new computer we bring in. Those are our reasons to go with/without vista. --Matt Ross - Original Message - From: Ken Schaefer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: NT System Admin Issues [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Mon, 12 May 2008 18:36:17 -0700 Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Whether or not Vista offers any benefits to you, is something only you can decide. But can we have enough of the Vista has no benefits or Vista is the bee's knees posts? This has been *done to death* on the list already. If people want to share *why* they are moving to Vista, or why they aren't (e.g. a technical issue with app compat or something) then that's useful information. But the below is worth nothing. You've already posted this before, there's no need to post it again. Cheers Ken From: Murray Freeman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, 13 May 2008 9:31 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Now let me understand this. I should spend the money to acquire a new FASTER computer so that I can run Vista which runs at the very SAME speed that an older slower computer did running XP, but Vista really has little if any to offer in the way of benefits. Now I get it! I'm loving this thread, because so far I don't hear any good reasons to upgrade to Vista. I've been in IT for nearly 44 years. During that time I've seen a lot of changes, and in most cases more productivity for smaller amounts of financial investment. But I just have a real problem with spending MORE to get virtually nothing for my investment..other than I can tell people that I have VISTA!!! I want to thank everyone for reaffirming the decision I had already made for my organization. Murray From: Graeme Carstairs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 3:29 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Why XP is doomed I have 2.2 GHZ Centrino Duo laptop with 2GB of RAM and Vista works as fast as my previous XP Machine which was a 1.8GHX Centrino Duo and 2GB RAM. So your Pentium D 3 Ghz should be fine and dandy with or without the 4gb obviously 4gb would be better but then that goes for xp too. Graeme ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~ ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~
RE: Why XP is doomed
But he has a point. We're constantly forced to buy bigger better PC's in the workplace when a significant number of the workforce is either doing basic Office apps or some kind of app departmental or enterprise app like accounting. Many companies can get away with using a thin client, so a more powerful (and bloated) desktop OS isn't exactly important. Tim Vander Kooi [EMAIL PROTECTED] 5/13/2008 8:13 AM As far as security…NO security is all encompassing you can’t secure servers and not care about the clients connecting to the servers. John has gone into detail in earlier posts regarding the specifics of what has been improved with Vista in the security arena. If you are going to disregard all positive things said about Vista because it sounds like Microsoft Marketing then there really is no point trying to have a rational conversation with you regarding the good and the bad. You are only interested in the bad. Closed minds make for frustrating discussion. TVK From:Murray Freeman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 10:07 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed No offense, but your post sounds like it was written bya MS Marketing Wiz. Increased Security is a good thing. But define increased security. Since all our info is retained on servers, isn't that where I should be concerned about security? Improved ease of management is another good thing, but I'm not sure that Vista will improve management of my servers. Oh, and I'm not clear just how Vista will improve the ease of workstation management. Sleep/Hibernate isn't an issue here, but that's not to say it might not be an issue some day, I just don't see it. If Vista is more reliable than XP, that's a good thing, but we're not having a reliablity issue with our workstations or servers for that fact. Finally, SPEED, now that's a hot button for me. But what got me to respond the first time to this thread was the fact that one individual had a faster laptop, but Vista wasn't running any faster than XP on an older slower laptop. So, is there really an increase in speed? Murray From:John Hornbuckle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 7:38 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed If your organization doesn’t need things like increased security, improved ease of management, and better performance with offline files and folders, then no—Vista probably wouldn’t be of use to you. Ditto for improved sleep/hibernate and increased speed through ReadyBoost and SuperFetch. For my organization, these new features bring benefits over XP. In fact, most organizations benefit from improved speed, security, and reliability. But if yours doesn’t, that’s okay. John From:Murray Freeman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 7:31 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Now let me understand this. I should spend the money to acquire a new FASTER computer so that I can run Vista which runs at the very SAME speed that an older slower computer did running XP, but Vista really has little if any to offer in the way of benefits. Now I get it! I'm loving this thread, because so far I don't hear any good reasons to upgrade to Vista. I've been in IT for nearly 44 years. During that time I've seen a lot of changes, and in most cases more productivity for smaller amounts of financial investment. But I just have a real problem with spending MORE to get virtually nothing for my investment..other than I can tell people that I have VISTA!!! I want to thank everyone for reaffirming the decision I had already made for my organization. Murray From:Graeme Carstairs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 3:29 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Why XP is doomed I have 2.2 GHZ Centrino Duo laptop with 2GB of RAM and Vista works as fast as my previous XP Machine which was a 1.8GHX Centrino Duo and 2GB RAM. So your Pentium D 3 Ghz should be fine and dandy with or without the 4gb obviously 4gb would be better but then that goes for xp too. Graeme On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 8:59 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Hornbuckle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 05/12/2008 03:53:29 PM: Well, it's moot that a crappy system being sold by a vendor is good enough to run XP. It's also good enough to run Windows for Workgroups and DOS—but that's not the point. Yes, Vista has higher hardware requirements. Just like XP has higher requirements than Win9x had, and just like Win9x had higher requirements than Win3x had. Every OS that comes out is likely to have higher requirements than the OS before it. But honestly, Vista's hardware requirements aren't crazy high. As I mentioned before, I'm running it at home on a Pentium D processor— which is a very modest CPU by today's standards. Vista works just fine with it. The biggest issue with the hardware vendors, as seen in the ZDNet piece
RE: Why XP is doomed
I don't think I have a closed mind at all, but I have to say that I've read the majority of the posts on this subject. My mind was pretty well made up well before this thread, and many of the responses here just confirmed for me what I had already determined from many other sources. Murray From: Tim Vander Kooi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 10:14 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed As far as security...NO security is all encompassing you can't secure servers and not care about the clients connecting to the servers. John has gone into detail in earlier posts regarding the specifics of what has been improved with Vista in the security arena. If you are going to disregard all positive things said about Vista because it sounds like Microsoft Marketing then there really is no point trying to have a rational conversation with you regarding the good and the bad. You are only interested in the bad. Closed minds make for frustrating discussion. TVK From: Murray Freeman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 10:07 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed No offense, but your post sounds like it was written bya MS Marketing Wiz. Increased Security is a good thing. But define increased security. Since all our info is retained on servers, isn't that where I should be concerned about security? Improved ease of management is another good thing, but I'm not sure that Vista will improve management of my servers. Oh, and I'm not clear just how Vista will improve the ease of workstation management. Sleep/Hibernate isn't an issue here, but that's not to say it might not be an issue some day, I just don't see it. If Vista is more reliable than XP, that's a good thing, but we're not having a reliablity issue with our workstations or servers for that fact. Finally, SPEED, now that's a hot button for me. But what got me to respond the first time to this thread was the fact that one individual had a faster laptop, but Vista wasn't running any faster than XP on an older slower laptop. So, is there really an increase in speed? Murray From: John Hornbuckle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 7:38 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed If your organization doesn't need things like increased security, improved ease of management, and better performance with offline files and folders, then no-Vista probably wouldn't be of use to you. Ditto for improved sleep/hibernate and increased speed through ReadyBoost and SuperFetch. For my organization, these new features bring benefits over XP. In fact, most organizations benefit from improved speed, security, and reliability. But if yours doesn't, that's okay. John From: Murray Freeman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 7:31 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Now let me understand this. I should spend the money to acquire a new FASTER computer so that I can run Vista which runs at the very SAME speed that an older slower computer did running XP, but Vista really has little if any to offer in the way of benefits. Now I get it! I'm loving this thread, because so far I don't hear any good reasons to upgrade to Vista. I've been in IT for nearly 44 years. During that time I've seen a lot of changes, and in most cases more productivity for smaller amounts of financial investment. But I just have a real problem with spending MORE to get virtually nothing for my investment..other than I can tell people that I have VISTA!!! I want to thank everyone for reaffirming the decision I had already made for my organization. Murray From: Graeme Carstairs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 3:29 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Why XP is doomed I have 2.2 GHZ Centrino Duo laptop with 2GB of RAM and Vista works as fast as my previous XP Machine which was a 1.8GHX Centrino Duo and 2GB RAM. So your Pentium D 3 Ghz should be fine and dandy with or without the 4gb obviously 4gb would be better but then that goes for xp too. Graeme On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 8:59 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Hornbuckle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 05/12/2008 03:53:29 PM: Well, it's moot that a crappy system being sold by a vendor is good enough to run XP. It's also good enough to run Windows for Workgroups and DOS-but that's not the point. Yes, Vista has higher hardware requirements. Just like XP has higher requirements than Win9x had, and just like Win9x had higher requirements than Win3x had. Every OS that comes out is likely to have higher requirements than the OS before it. But honestly, Vista's hardware requirements aren't crazy high. As I mentioned before, I'm running it at home on a Pentium D processor- which is a very modest CPU by today's
RE: Why XP is doomed
LOL! I'm not on Microsoft's payroll. Just passing on my experiences. As for increased security... I mentioned earlier the different model Vista uses (things like programs not executing with admin rights even if you're logged in as an admin, or IE's Protected Mode feature). This site covers some other aspects of Vista's security, and how it differs from XP's: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/windowsvista/aa905062.aspx As for ease of workstation management... I mentioned earlier the convenience of not having to login as an administrator to do administrative tasks. This extends to functions beyond simply right-clicking a program and using Run as... to run it as an admin. There's also a Task Scheduler that's quite a bit more powerful/flexible than XP's. As for sleep/hibernate... Not a benefit to everyone, but I would think most people would benefit from it. It's about as good as turning the computer off, in terms of power usage, but with the benefit of having the computer pop back up in like 3-5 seconds. It's great for laptops and desktops alike. As for reliability... Again, you may be running super-stable apps and drivers that never bring the OS down. If so, you're lucky; we don't always have that luxury. With Vista, a buggy app or driver is a lot less likely to bring the whole system down than with XP. As for speed... Everyone's mileage may vary. Personally, I find Vista's boot time on my machines to be zippier than XP's (although not dramatically so). There's also SuperFetch and ReadyBoost (I don't use ReadyBoost myself, though). I also like that Vista automatically keeps the system defragged by default. John From: Murray Freeman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 11:07 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed No offense, but your post sounds like it was written bya MS Marketing Wiz. Increased Security is a good thing. But define increased security. Since all our info is retained on servers, isn't that where I should be concerned about security? Improved ease of management is another good thing, but I'm not sure that Vista will improve management of my servers. Oh, and I'm not clear just how Vista will improve the ease of workstation management. Sleep/Hibernate isn't an issue here, but that's not to say it might not be an issue some day, I just don't see it. If Vista is more reliable than XP, that's a good thing, but we're not having a reliablity issue with our workstations or servers for that fact. Finally, SPEED, now that's a hot button for me. But what got me to respond the first time to this thread was the fact that one individual had a faster laptop, but Vista wasn't running any faster than XP on an older slower laptop. So, is there really an increase in speed? Murray From: John Hornbuckle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 7:38 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed If your organization doesn't need things like increased security, improved ease of management, and better performance with offline files and folders, then no-Vista probably wouldn't be of use to you. Ditto for improved sleep/hibernate and increased speed through ReadyBoost and SuperFetch. For my organization, these new features bring benefits over XP. In fact, most organizations benefit from improved speed, security, and reliability. But if yours doesn't, that's okay. John From: Murray Freeman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 7:31 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Now let me understand this. I should spend the money to acquire a new FASTER computer so that I can run Vista which runs at the very SAME speed that an older slower computer did running XP, but Vista really has little if any to offer in the way of benefits. Now I get it! I'm loving this thread, because so far I don't hear any good reasons to upgrade to Vista. I've been in IT for nearly 44 years. During that time I've seen a lot of changes, and in most cases more productivity for smaller amounts of financial investment. But I just have a real problem with spending MORE to get virtually nothing for my investment..other than I can tell people that I have VISTA!!! I want to thank everyone for reaffirming the decision I had already made for my organization. Murray From: Graeme Carstairs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 3:29 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Why XP is doomed I have 2.2 GHZ Centrino Duo laptop with 2GB of RAM and Vista works as fast as my previous XP Machine which was a 1.8GHX Centrino Duo and 2GB RAM. So your Pentium D 3 Ghz should be fine and dandy with or without the 4gb obviously 4gb would be better but then that goes for xp too. Graeme On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 8:59 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Hornbuckle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 05/12/2008 03:53:29 PM
RE: Why XP is doomed
I should say that we're not upgrading existing machines here. The benefits of Vista, for us, don't justify the time and money that would require. But all of the new machines we're ordering are coming with Vista. We don't see the sense in buying brand new computers with an OS that's on its way out the door. The exit may be slow, but it's definitely taking place. Vista has had its struggles, but we've concluded that the reality is that it's not going away. But I don't begrudge those who choose to skip it. We skipped Windows 2000 here, going from Win9x directly to WinXP. John Hornbuckle MIS Department Taylor County School District 318 North Clark Street Perry, FL 32347 www.taylor.k12.fl.us -Original Message- From: Matthew W. Ross [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 11:16 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Why we are _slowly_ moving to vista: 1. Easier to make generic images for multiple machine types - If I image a machine with Vista, it's more likely to work out of the box... or even boot. XP and previous had HAL issues. 2. Offline Files - The offline file feature of Windows is finially stable enough with Vista to be useful for our laptop users. All new laptops will be Vista laptops. 3. Business Departments are requiring it - Even though It's not that different from XP, the labs which teach Business in our schools want to be using the Latest and Greatest, including Vista and Office 2007. Why we are avoiding going to vista: 1. No other real benefits - Besides the above, there are not that many real reasons to make the jump. 2. Slower performance - On the same hardware, Vista will run slowly, or not run at all. Older, but not that old hardware is unsupported. 3. Cost - Since we're already running XP, an upgrade to Vista would be a huge cost for us. We will purchase a Vista Business license with each new computer we bring in. Those are our reasons to go with/without vista. --Matt Ross ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~
RE: Why XP is doomed
My 2.0GHz Core2Duo w/2GB Vista machine is definitely faster than my former 1.7GHz Pentium 4 w/512MB XP machine. So yes, there is an increase in speed. Now some people use boot-up time or recover-from-hibernate or some other bogus benchmark to gauge system speed. If that's what you do, expect to be disappointed that Vista starts up hardly faster than XP even on much faster hardware. What matters is how it does after it's up and running. You also have to adjust your habits to higher performance in order to see a gain in productivity. A user who only opens one program at a time and closes it before opening the next won't see a benefit from 2GB of RAM no matter what OS is in use. Regarding security, are your users ... (a) Able to browse the Internet with no restrictions? (b) Allowed to download executable files off the web with no filtering other than their antivirus? (c) Operating with local administrator privileges? If you said yes to all questions, then Vista's improved security can reduce the chance that a user will contract something that your antivirus doesn't catch. Carl From: Murray Freeman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 11:07 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed No offense, but your post sounds like it was written bya MS Marketing Wiz. Increased Security is a good thing. But define increased security. Since all our info is retained on servers, isn't that where I should be concerned about security? Improved ease of management is another good thing, but I'm not sure that Vista will improve management of my servers. Oh, and I'm not clear just how Vista will improve the ease of workstation management. Sleep/Hibernate isn't an issue here, but that's not to say it might not be an issue some day, I just don't see it. If Vista is more reliable than XP, that's a good thing, but we're not having a reliablity issue with our workstations or servers for that fact. Finally, SPEED, now that's a hot button for me. But what got me to respond the first time to this thread was the fact that one individual had a faster laptop, but Vista wasn't running any faster than XP on an older slower laptop. So, is there really an increase in speed? Murray From: John Hornbuckle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 7:38 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed If your organization doesn't need things like increased security, improved ease of management, and better performance with offline files and folders, then no-Vista probably wouldn't be of use to you. Ditto for improved sleep/hibernate and increased speed through ReadyBoost and SuperFetch. For my organization, these new features bring benefits over XP. In fact, most organizations benefit from improved speed, security, and reliability. But if yours doesn't, that's okay. John From: Murray Freeman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 7:31 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Now let me understand this. I should spend the money to acquire a new FASTER computer so that I can run Vista which runs at the very SAME speed that an older slower computer did running XP, but Vista really has little if any to offer in the way of benefits. Now I get it! I'm loving this thread, because so far I don't hear any good reasons to upgrade to Vista. I've been in IT for nearly 44 years. During that time I've seen a lot of changes, and in most cases more productivity for smaller amounts of financial investment. But I just have a real problem with spending MORE to get virtually nothing for my investment..other than I can tell people that I have VISTA!!! I want to thank everyone for reaffirming the decision I had already made for my organization. Murray _ From: Graeme Carstairs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 3:29 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Why XP is doomed I have 2.2 GHZ Centrino Duo laptop with 2GB of RAM and Vista works as fast as my previous XP Machine which was a 1.8GHX Centrino Duo and 2GB RAM. So your Pentium D 3 Ghz should be fine and dandy with or without the 4gb obviously 4gb would be better but then that goes for xp too. Graeme On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 8:59 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Hornbuckle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 05/12/2008 03:53:29 PM: Well, it's moot that a crappy system being sold by a vendor is good enough to run XP. It's also good enough to run Windows for Workgroups and DOS-but that's not the point. Yes, Vista has higher hardware requirements. Just like XP has higher requirements than Win9x had, and just like Win9x had higher requirements than Win3x had. Every OS that comes out is likely to have higher requirements than the OS before it. But honestly, Vista's hardware requirements aren't crazy high. As I mentioned before, I'm running it at home on a Pentium D processor- which
Re: Why XP is doomed
I don't know. That new 3D application switcher is probably worth every dollar invested. What pushed my organization over the edge to upgrade to Vista is the new built in Chess game. The AI is incredible. Klint Murray Freeman wrote: Now let me understand this. I should spend the money to acquire a new FASTER computer so that I can run Vista which runs at the very SAME speed that an older slower computer did running XP, but Vista really has little if any to offer in the way of benefits. Now I get it! I'm loving this thread, because so far I don't hear any good reasons to upgrade to Vista. I've been in IT for nearly 44 years. During that time I've seen a lot of changes, and in most cases more productivity for smaller amounts of financial investment. But I just have a real problem with spending MORE to get virtually nothing for my investment..other than I can tell people that I have VISTA!!! I want to thank everyone for reaffirming the decision I had already made for my organization. *Murray* *From:* Graeme Carstairs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *Sent:* Monday, May 12, 2008 3:29 PM *To:* NT System Admin Issues *Subject:* Re: Why XP is doomed I have 2.2 GHZ Centrino Duo laptop with 2GB of RAM and Vista works as fast as my previous XP Machine which was a 1.8GHX Centrino Duo and 2GB RAM. So your Pentium D 3 Ghz should be fine and dandy with or without the 4gb obviously 4gb would be better but then that goes for xp too. Graeme On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 8:59 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Hornbuckle [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 05/12/2008 03:53:29 PM: Well, it's moot that a crappy system being sold by a vendor is good enough to run XP. It's also good enough to run Windows for Workgroups and DOS---but that's not the point. Yes, Vista has higher hardware requirements. Just like XP has higher requirements than Win9x had, and just like Win9x had higher requirements than Win3x had. Every OS that comes out is likely to have higher requirements than the OS before it. But honestly, Vista's hardware requirements aren't crazy high. As I mentioned before, I'm running it at home on a Pentium D processor--- which is a very modest CPU by today's standards. Vista works just fine with it. The biggest issue with the hardware vendors, as seen in the ZDNet piece, is the crapware installed at the factory. The author of the article got the Sony laptop working perfectly with Vista without changing the hardware at all. Really ... I have a Pentium D, 3GHz, 2M RAM. You think if I bumped the RAM to 4G that Vista would be OK with it? I mostly use this PC for photoediting (Photoshop CS3), and video editing (which in my case is converting PAL to NTSC, or making a DVD out of AVI files, using Nero 7). Feel free to reply offlist John Hornbuckle MIS Department Taylor County School District 318 North Clark Street Perry, FL 32347 www.taylor.k12.fl.us http://www.taylor.k12.fl.us From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 3:35 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Ken Schaefer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 05/11/2008 03:58:17 AM: If a vendor sells an underpowered machine, then perhaps the vendor should take some blame. I believe the point is that the hardware is not underpowered for Xp, but is underpowered for Vista. Especially if the vendor isn't (or can't ... ) offer XP on that hardware. -- Carbon credits are a bit like beating someone up on this side of the world and sponsoring one of those poor starving kids on the other side of the world to make up for the fact that you're a complete shit at home. ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~
RE: Why XP is doomed
John Hornbuckle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 05/12/2008 08:29:20 PM: My Pentium D is only 2.8 GHz, so you?ve got me beat there. I?ve also got just 2 GB of RAM. I use Photoshop, but not working with huge images and no video editing. I don?t think you can do 4 GB without going 64-bit, right? You can install 4G, but XP won't see more than ... 3.2G? ... of it. Even on 64 bit XP/Vista, Photoshop CS3 won't use more than 4G for images, and 2G for cache. My system rates 4.7 on the Windows Experience Index, with the lowest subscore being on the processor. Haven't bothered running the Experience yet ... John From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 4:00 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Really ... I have a Pentium D, 3GHz, 2M RAM. You think if I bumped the RAM to 4G that Vista would be OK with it? I mostly use this PC for photoediting (Photoshop CS3), and video editing (which in my case is converting PAL to NTSC, or making a DVD out of AVI files, using Nero 7). Feel free to reply offlist ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~
Re: Why XP is doomed
Right, some apps may be compiled in such a fashion where they can utilize a 3gb application address space if a 32-bit os is booted with the /3gb switch, but of course they need to be specially compiled to do so, otherwise 2gb is all you can get in application space. 64-bit is really a nice change. Is PS available in a 64-bit version yet? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Hornbuckle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 05/12/2008 08:29:20 PM: My Pentium D is only 2.8 GHz, so you’ve got me beat there. I’ve also got just 2 GB of RAM. I use Photoshop, but not working with huge images and no video editing. I don’t think you can do 4 GB without going 64-bit, right? You can install 4G, but XP won't see more than ... 3.2G? ... of it. Even on 64 bit XP/Vista, Photoshop CS3 won't use more than 4G for images, and 2G for cache. My system rates 4.7 on the Windows Experience Index, with the lowest subscore being on the processor. Haven't bothered running the Experience yet ... John From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 4:00 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Really ... I have a Pentium D, 3GHz, 2M RAM. You think if I bumped the RAM to 4G that Vista would be OK with it? I mostly use this PC for photoediting (Photoshop CS3), and video editing (which in my case is converting PAL to NTSC, or making a DVD out of AVI files, using Nero 7). Feel free to reply offlist If this email is spam, report it here: http://www.OnlyMyEmail.com/ReportSpam http://www.onlymyemail.com/view/?action=reportSpamId=ODEzNjQ6NjMyNzM0NDE5OnBqcEBwc25ldC5jb20%3D ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~
Re: Why XP is doomed
Phillip Partipilo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 05/13/2008 02:18:31 PM: Right, some apps may be compiled in such a fashion where they can utilize a 3gb application address space if a 32-bit os is booted with the /3gb switch, but of course they need to be specially compiled to do so, otherwise 2gb is all you can get in application space. 64-bit is really a nice change. Is PS available in a 64-bit version yet? Not yet. Next version (CS4) is supposed to be 64 bit, on Windows first, then Mac. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Hornbuckle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 05/12/2008 08:29:20 PM: My Pentium D is only 2.8 GHz, so you?ve got me beat there. I?ve also got just 2 GB of RAM. I use Photoshop, but not working with huge images and no video editing. I don?t think you can do 4 GB without going 64-bit, right? You can install 4G, but XP won't see more than ... 3.2G? ... of it. Even on 64 bit XP/Vista, Photoshop CS3 won't use more than 4G for images, and 2G for cache. -- Michael Leone Network Administrator, ISM Philadelphia Housing Authority 2500 Jackson St Philadelphia, PA 19145 Tel: 215-684-4180 Cell: 215-252-0143 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~
RE: Why XP is doomed
I actually almost got thrown out of college for doing that. In Advanced Assembly my Sophomore year I used, with permission, the code from a fellow student who had written a better piece of code for the previous assignment that the current assignment was built from. The only difference between my code and the code of most of my other classmates, was I gave the proper credit in the code itself, and got accused of cheating by the instructor and got us both called in front of the student ethics committee. Basically, the teacher was pissed that I cited my work, even though he gave us the code in class. Except he didn't cite the source. It became one of those stupid college politically footballs because everyone on the committee had to admit (privately) that I followed proper coding procedure even if the instructor didn't. I had to redo the assignment using my code from the previous assignment (which I don't think even the instructor could get to work for the second part, which is why we all ended up with the other student's code.) Eventually the guy I borrowed from showed me how to imbed his code into mine so the instructor wouldn't see it, then I submitted that to pass the class. Needless to say I never took that instructor for a programming class again... BTW, the lesson we learned was to not take hardware based programming classes from the Software instructors. -Original Message- From: David W. McSpadden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 7:04 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Why XP is doomed /propercoding That's what happens with the use of everyone else's code. Even in class the instructors would say if you have routine that gets you the results you want just give credit to the originator and program around it. That kind of patchwork programming is what we have laying around our Internet and bloating our pc's. /propercodingrant - Original Message - From: John Hornbuckle [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: NT System Admin Issues ntsysadmin@lyris.sunbelt-software.com Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 9:55 AM Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed I'm not a programmer, but it does seem to me that today's programmers have been able to get sloppy in terms of memory usage. When I was a kid, I had a Commodore 64. It took a lot of talent and creativity to be able to program for a 64k machine. I think programmers these days figure the end user will have 1-2 gigs of RAM, so they don't try too hard to write ultra-efficient code. This is true at both the OS and the application level. John Hornbuckle MIS Department Taylor County School District 318 North Clark Street Perry, FL 32347 www.taylor.k12.fl.us -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 9:36 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Why XP is doomed It has just become ridiculous how much memory you need for a workstation. I remember upgrading workstations to 32MB of memory and then 64MB and we thought that was a lot. Servers back then only had 1-2GB of memory. I remember the old Novell servers running with 512MB of memory. Mike ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~ __ This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are property of Indiana Members Credit Union, are confidential, and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom this e-mail is addressed. If you are not one of the named recipient(s) or otherwise have reason to believe that you have received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately from your computer. Any other use, retention, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __ ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~ ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~
RE: Why XP is doomed
What happens when someone wants a laptop, and to be able to work on files etc away from the office? Do you make them VPN in all the time to be able to edit something off an internal file server? Cheers Ken From: David W. McSpadden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, 14 May 2008 1:11 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Why XP is doomed I have to say I agree and disagree with both threads. I agree with Murray because in my org the pc's are just dumb terminals and all the work is done from the db on a server. If I was in an org where everyone was responsible for their own data storage and servers where mainly for print servers then I guess I see where a more secure, faster pc would come in handy. But right now I push policy from the DC and the pc is stuck with what I allow it to do not the user. If I don't want him storing files on it I don't allow it. I don't have to worry about someone hacking the pc. I just keep the data lines tethered with a tight string and I feel good when I go home at night. - Original Message - From: Murray Freemanmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: NT System Admin Issuesmailto:ntsysadmin@lyris.sunbelt-software.com Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 11:06 AM Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed No offense, but your post sounds like it was written bya MS Marketing Wiz. Increased Security is a good thing. But define increased security. Since all our info is retained on servers, isn't that where I should be concerned about security? Improved ease of management is another good thing, but I'm not sure that Vista will improve management of my servers. Oh, and I'm not clear just how Vista will improve the ease of workstation management. Sleep/Hibernate isn't an issue here, but that's not to say it might not be an issue some day, I just don't see it. If Vista is more reliable than XP, that's a good thing, but we're not having a reliablity issue with our workstations or servers for that fact. Finally, SPEED, now that's a hot button for me. But what got me to respond the first time to this thread was the fact that one individual had a faster laptop, but Vista wasn't running any faster than XP on an older slower laptop. So, is there really an increase in speed? Murray From: John Hornbuckle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 7:38 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed If your organization doesn't need things like increased security, improved ease of management, and better performance with offline files and folders, then no-Vista probably wouldn't be of use to you. Ditto for improved sleep/hibernate and increased speed through ReadyBoost and SuperFetch. For my organization, these new features bring benefits over XP. In fact, most organizations benefit from improved speed, security, and reliability. But if yours doesn't, that's okay. John From: Murray Freeman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 7:31 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Now let me understand this. I should spend the money to acquire a new FASTER computer so that I can run Vista which runs at the very SAME speed that an older slower computer did running XP, but Vista really has little if any to offer in the way of benefits. Now I get it! I'm loving this thread, because so far I don't hear any good reasons to upgrade to Vista. I've been in IT for nearly 44 years. During that time I've seen a lot of changes, and in most cases more productivity for smaller amounts of financial investment. But I just have a real problem with spending MORE to get virtually nothing for my investment..other than I can tell people that I have VISTA!!! I want to thank everyone for reaffirming the decision I had already made for my organization. Murray From: Graeme Carstairs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 3:29 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Why XP is doomed I have 2.2 GHZ Centrino Duo laptop with 2GB of RAM and Vista works as fast as my previous XP Machine which was a 1.8GHX Centrino Duo and 2GB RAM. So your Pentium D 3 Ghz should be fine and dandy with or without the 4gb obviously 4gb would be better but then that goes for xp too. Graeme On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 8:59 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED]mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Hornbuckle [EMAIL PROTECTED]mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 05/12/2008 03:53:29 PM: Well, it's moot that a crappy system being sold by a vendor is good enough to run XP. It's also good enough to run Windows for Workgroups and DOS-but that's not the point. Yes, Vista has higher hardware requirements. Just like XP has higher requirements than Win9x had, and just like Win9x had higher requirements than Win3x had. Every OS that comes out is likely to have higher requirements than the OS before it. But honestly, Vista's hardware requirements aren't crazy high. As I mentioned before, I'm running it at home
RE: Why XP is doomed
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, 14 May 2008 4:00 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed John Hornbuckle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 05/12/2008 08:29:20 PM: My Pentium D is only 2.8 GHz, so you've got me beat there. I've also got just 2 GB of RAM. I use Photoshop, but not working with huge images and no video editing. I don't think you can do 4 GB without going 64-bit, right? You can install 4G, but XP won't see more than ... 3.2G? ... of it. Even on 64 bit XP/Vista, Huh? Simply not true. Covered many times on this list. Please read the links to the Microsoft Windows Hardware Developer Center (WHDC) posted previously Photoshop CS3 won't use more than 4G for images, and 2G for cache. Photoshop is a user more application. All user mode applications, on 32bit Windows, see 4GB of virtual address space. That is regardless of whether there is 1GB of RAM in the machine, 256MB of RAMin the machine or 50GB of RAM in the machine Cheers Ken ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~
Re: Why XP is doomed
That's how dad did it, that's how America does it, and it's worked out pretty well so far. ;-) On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 8:19 PM, Ken Schaefer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What happens when someone wants a laptop, and to be able to work on files etc away from the office? Do you make them VPN in all the time to be able to edit something off an internal file server? Cheers Ken From: David W. McSpadden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, 14 May 2008 1:11 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Why XP is doomed To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Why XP is doomed I have to say I agree and disagree with both threads. I agree with Murray because in my org the pc's are just dumb terminals and all the work is done from the db on a server. If I was in an org where everyone was responsible for their own data storage and servers where mainly for print servers then I guess I see where a more secure, faster pc would come in handy. But right now I push policy from the DC and the pc is stuck with what I allow it to do not the user. If I don't want him storing files on it I don't allow it. I don't have to worry about someone hacking the pc. I just keep the data lines tethered with a tight string and I feel good when I go home at night. - Original Message - From: Murray Freeman To: NT System Admin Issues Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 11:06 AM Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed No offense, but your post sounds like it was written bya MS Marketing Wiz. Increased Security is a good thing. But define increased security. Since all our info is retained on servers, isn't that where I should be concerned about security? Improved ease of management is another good thing, but I'm not sure that Vista will improve management of my servers. Oh, and I'm not clear just how Vista will improve the ease of workstation management. Sleep/Hibernate isn't an issue here, but that's not to say it might not be an issue some day, I just don't see it. If Vista is more reliable than XP, that's a good thing, but we're not having a reliablity issue with our workstations or servers for that fact. Finally, SPEED, now that's a hot button for me. But what got me to respond the first time to this thread was the fact that one individual had a faster laptop, but Vista wasn't running any faster than XP on an older slower laptop. So, is there really an increase in speed? Murray From: John Hornbuckle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 7:38 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed If your organization doesn't need things like increased security, improved ease of management, and better performance with offline files and folders, then no—Vista probably wouldn't be of use to you. Ditto for improved sleep/hibernate and increased speed through ReadyBoost and SuperFetch. For my organization, these new features bring benefits over XP. In fact, most organizations benefit from improved speed, security, and reliability. But if yours doesn't, that's okay. John From: Murray Freeman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 7:31 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Now let me understand this. I should spend the money to acquire a new FASTER computer so that I can run Vista which runs at the very SAME speed that an older slower computer did running XP, but Vista really has little if any to offer in the way of benefits. Now I get it! I'm loving this thread, because so far I don't hear any good reasons to upgrade to Vista. I've been in IT for nearly 44 years. During that time I've seen a lot of changes, and in most cases more productivity for smaller amounts of financial investment. But I just have a real problem with spending MORE to get virtually nothing for my investment..other than I can tell people that I have VISTA!!! I want to thank everyone for reaffirming the decision I had already made for my organization. Murray From: Graeme Carstairs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 3:29 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Why XP is doomed To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Why XP is doomed I have 2.2 GHZ Centrino Duo laptop with 2GB of RAM and Vista works as fast as my previous XP Machine which was a 1.8GHX Centrino Duo and 2GB RAM. So your Pentium D 3 Ghz should be fine and dandy with or without the 4gb obviously 4gb would be better but then that goes for xp too. Graeme I have 2.2 GHZ Centrino Duo laptop with 2GB of RAM and Vista works as fast as my previous XP Machine which was a 1.8GHX Centrino Duo and 2GB RAM. So your Pentium D 3 Ghz should be fine and dandy with or without the 4gb obviously 4gb would be better
RE: Why XP is doomed
Dear Ken, How can I configure Windows to run without a page file? Will this affect the performance ? Thanks. Paul Cheuk. |-+ | | Ken Schaefer | | | [EMAIL PROTECTED]| | | .com| | || | | 13/05/08 19:12 | | | Please respond to| | | NT System Admin | | | Issues | | || |-+ --| | | | To: NT System Admin Issues ntsysadmin@lyris.sunbelt-software.com | | cc: | | Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed | --| Windows has no dependence on a page file. I'm typing this on a machine that has no page file configured at the moment, and there is no hell breaking lose At the moment SSDs have pretty poor write performance - it's completely awful compared to a 7200 RPM drive (let alone faster drives that you get in desktops). Until *that* issue is fixed, you won't see them in anything but ruggedized laptops or ultralights or similar that are worried about battery life. Cheers Ken -Original Message- From: Phillip Partipilo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, 13 May 2008 6:34 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Why XP is doomed More and more laptops these days are also shipping with SSDs, and with the price of flash plumetting, it may be all laptops will use them in the future. Biggest problem is wear leveling and Windows' dependence on the pagefile, which will kill a ssd in time. Maybe MS will fix that issue. I run Linux on my laptop without a pagefile and it runs like a dream, try running Windows without a pagefile and watch all hell break loose. Ken Schaefer wrote: There are lots of laptop models that have 7200 RPM as an option. All of our new Latitudes are coming with 7200 RPM disks (probably a couple of thousand this year). Over at MSFT, their IBM Thinkpads are defaulting to 7200 RPM, and I expect their other vendors will be going that way too. It's now only on the cheaper models, or the ultralights, where 7200 RPM isn't being offered. 7200 RPM still does have a price premium over 5400 RPM (as well as reduced space). Cheers Ken *From:* HELP_PC [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *Sent:* Tuesday, 13 May 2008 2:29 AM *To:* NT System Admin Issues *Subject:* R: Why XP is doomed 15k for SAS were until a couple of monthes ago only for SAS 3.5'' .Now they are out also for SAS 2.5'. Manufacturers started now to ship some models of laptops with 2.5'' 7200 rpm *GuidoElia* *HELPPC* *Da:* Sam Cayze [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *Inviato:* lunedì 12 maggio 2008 17.21 *A:* NT System Admin Issues *Oggetto:* RE: Why XP is doomed Ok, maybe the 80's was a stretch, I was kidding. But 72000 RPM 2.5 disks have been out for a few years I would imagine. At least three years I would imagine, since I have been working with laptops. Usually you have to buy them separately, as the manufacturer does not ship them. Even 10,000 RPM 2.5 drives are out now. SAS and SATA. I just got a 15K RPM in my workstation now. *From:* HELP_PC [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *Sent:* Monday, May 12, 2008 10:12 AM *To:* NT System Admin Issues *Subject:* RE: Why XP is doomed You are wrong . On laptops 7200rpm disks are new! Some brands started now to distribute them on laptops and for workstations 1 rpm SATA *GuidoElia* *HELPPC* *Da:* Sam Cayze [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *Inviato:* lunedì 12 maggio 2008 16.48 *A:* NT System Admin Issues *Oggetto:* RE: Why XP is doomed I never buy any laptops with 5400 RPM disks. That's so 1980's. I throw 7200 in all our laptops, heat has never been a problem. Now, on an ultra-portable or tablet, I could see how it could be... But then again, there are many 7200 RPM drives that claim they are just as cool as 5400 rpm drives... *From:* Bill Lambert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *Sent:* Monday, May 12, 2008 9:04 AM *To:* NT System Admin Issues *Subject:* RE: Why XP is doomed Doesn't putting in a 7200 spin disk increase the heat factor? I always thought
Re: Why XP is doomed
System control panel. Advanced tab. Performance settings. Advanced tab. Virtual memory settings. 2008/5/13 paul cheuk [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Dear Ken, How can I configure Windows to run without a page file? Will this affect the performance ? Thanks. Paul Cheuk. |-+ | | Ken Schaefer | | | [EMAIL PROTECTED]| | | .com| | || | | 13/05/08 19:12 | | | Please respond to| | | NT System Admin | | | Issues | | || |-+ --| | | | To: NT System Admin Issues ntsysadmin@lyris.sunbelt-software.com | | cc: | | Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed | --| Windows has no dependence on a page file. I'm typing this on a machine that has no page file configured at the moment, and there is no hell breaking lose At the moment SSDs have pretty poor write performance - it's completely awful compared to a 7200 RPM drive (let alone faster drives that you get in desktops). Until *that* issue is fixed, you won't see them in anything but ruggedized laptops or ultralights or similar that are worried about battery life. Cheers Ken -Original Message- From: Phillip Partipilo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, 13 May 2008 6:34 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Why XP is doomed More and more laptops these days are also shipping with SSDs, and with the price of flash plumetting, it may be all laptops will use them in the future. Biggest problem is wear leveling and Windows' dependence on the pagefile, which will kill a ssd in time. Maybe MS will fix that issue. I run Linux on my laptop without a pagefile and it runs like a dream, try running Windows without a pagefile and watch all hell break loose. Ken Schaefer wrote: There are lots of laptop models that have 7200 RPM as an option. All of our new Latitudes are coming with 7200 RPM disks (probably a couple of thousand this year). Over at MSFT, their IBM Thinkpads are defaulting to 7200 RPM, and I expect their other vendors will be going that way too. It's now only on the cheaper models, or the ultralights, where 7200 RPM isn't being offered. 7200 RPM still does have a price premium over 5400 RPM (as well as reduced space). Cheers Ken *From:* HELP_PC [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *Sent:* Tuesday, 13 May 2008 2:29 AM *To:* NT System Admin Issues *Subject:* R: Why XP is doomed 15k for SAS were until a couple of monthes ago only for SAS 3.5'' .Now they are out also for SAS 2.5'. Manufacturers started now to ship some models of laptops with 2.5'' 7200 rpm *GuidoElia* *HELPPC* *Da:* Sam Cayze [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *Inviato:* lunedì 12 maggio 2008 17.21 *A:* NT System Admin Issues *Oggetto:* RE: Why XP is doomed Ok, maybe the 80's was a stretch, I was kidding. But 72000 RPM 2.5 disks have been out for a few years I would imagine. At least three years I would imagine, since I have been working with laptops. Usually you have to buy them separately, as the manufacturer does not ship them. Even 10,000 RPM 2.5 drives are out now. SAS and SATA. I just got a 15K RPM in my workstation now. *From:* HELP_PC [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *Sent:* Monday, May 12, 2008 10:12 AM *To:* NT System Admin Issues *Subject:* RE: Why XP is doomed You are wrong . On laptops 7200rpm disks are new! Some brands started now to distribute them on laptops and for workstations 1 rpm SATA *GuidoElia* *HELPPC* *Da:* Sam Cayze [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *Inviato:* lunedì 12 maggio 2008 16.48 *A:* NT System Admin Issues *Oggetto:* RE: Why XP is doomed I never buy any laptops with 5400 RPM disks. That's so 1980's. I throw 7200 in all our laptops, heat has never been a problem. Now, on an ultra-portable or tablet, I could see how it could be... But then again, there are many 7200 RPM drives that claim they are just as cool
RE: Why XP is doomed
Will this affect performance? If you are asking this type of question, then I suspect that you are probably not very familiar with the memory management architecture of Windows, so this isn't really something you should be doing. Michael has provided steps on how to configure this if you want to. In Windows, only the kernel sees physical memory All user mode applications (most of those processes you see listed in Task Manager) see virtual memory that's presented to them by the kernel. On a 32bit version of Windows, each application sees 4GB of address space. Each application sees its own *unique* 4GB of address space - the application believes that there is nothing else running on the system. Out of that 4GB of address space, the upper 2GB is reserved for the kernel, and the application itself is free to use the lower 2GB. Because each process has the same layout for reserved kernel space, this is actually shared between all processes. OK - so now the virtual memory manager needs to map all this memory to real physical memory. E.g. iexplore.exe uses bytes 0x0001 - 0x000F to store an image. The Windows VMM needs to store this somewhere in physical memory. It does so by using mapping tables. Now, what happens when you only have 1GB of physical RAM in your machine, but each application, thnking it has up to 2GB available, starts actually *using* all that virtual memory? The VMM runs out of physical memory to store all this stuff. So it moves some stuff to the page file. If you have no page file, nothing can be moved, and your applications will start crashing with out-of-memory exceptions (because the VMM will deny them memory allocations). If you system has plenty of physical RAM, then is no need for page file. If your machine doesn't, you need a page file to fake physical RAM. Cheers Ken -Original Message- From: paul cheuk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, 14 May 2008 11:16 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Dear Ken, How can I configure Windows to run without a page file? Will this affect the performance ? Thanks. Paul Cheuk. ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~
RE: Why XP is doomed
Dear Ken, Thanks for the explanation. Paul Cheuk Tel: (852) 2987 7232 Fax: (852) 2987 3542, (852) 2987 4843 |-+ | | Ken Schaefer | | | [EMAIL PROTECTED]| | | .com| | || | | 14/05/08 09:36 | | | Please respond to| | | NT System Admin | | | Issues | | || |-+ --| | | | To: NT System Admin Issues ntsysadmin@lyris.sunbelt-software.com | | cc: | | Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed | --| Will this affect performance? If you are asking this type of question, then I suspect that you are probably not very familiar with the memory management architecture of Windows, so this isn't really something you should be doing. Michael has provided steps on how to configure this if you want to. In Windows, only the kernel sees physical memory All user mode applications (most of those processes you see listed in Task Manager) see virtual memory that's presented to them by the kernel. On a 32bit version of Windows, each application sees 4GB of address space. Each application sees its own *unique* 4GB of address space - the application believes that there is nothing else running on the system. Out of that 4GB of address space, the upper 2GB is reserved for the kernel, and the application itself is free to use the lower 2GB. Because each process has the same layout for reserved kernel space, this is actually shared between all processes. OK - so now the virtual memory manager needs to map all this memory to real physical memory. E.g. iexplore.exe uses bytes 0x0001 - 0x000F to store an image. The Windows VMM needs to store this somewhere in physical memory. It does so by using mapping tables. Now, what happens when you only have 1GB of physical RAM in your machine, but each application, thnking it has up to 2GB available, starts actually *using* all that virtual memory? The VMM runs out of physical memory to store all this stuff. So it moves some stuff to the page file. If you have no page file, nothing can be moved, and your applications will start crashing with out-of-memory exceptions (because the VMM will deny them memory allocations). If you system has plenty of physical RAM, then is no need for page file. If your machine doesn't, you need a page file to fake physical RAM. Cheers Ken -Original Message- From: paul cheuk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, 14 May 2008 11:16 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Dear Ken, How can I configure Windows to run without a page file? Will this affect the performance ? Thanks. Paul Cheuk. ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~ Disclaimer: The information contained in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy, forward, disclose, retain or use any part of this email. If you have received this email in error, please delete it from your system and notify the sender immediately by return email. Please note that errors can occur in electronically transmitted materials. The sender does not accept liability for any such errors. ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~
RE: Why XP is doomed
Doesn't putting in a 7200 spin disk increase the heat factor? I always thought that was the reason some laptops come with 5400 spin drives to keep the heat down. Bill Lambert Concuity 847-941-9206 From: Ken Schaefer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2008 6:46 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed My wife has a top of the line Sony SZ48 series Vaio. Fantastic machine - carbon fibre case, weighs next to nothing, two GPUs. Performance out of the box is abysmal. I replaced the drive with a 7200 RPM disk, upped the RAM, and tried to remove as much Sony crapware as possible (it even comes with its own copy of SQL Server to manage your media - because WMP obviously can't do that). Runs a lot better now, but I suspect it'll run a lot better with a clean install. Cheers Ken From: John Hornbuckle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, 11 May 2008 9:22 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Check out this story: http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=429 It's a perfect example of a manufacturer shipping a Vista machine with unacceptable performance. This resulted in a black eye for the manufacturer (Sony in this case, but they're not the only ones to do this) and a lost customer for the manufacturer and Microsoft alike. I didn't participate in the Vista beta, but I did grab it as soon as it RTM'd. I installed it on my home desktop, which is a modest box (Pentium D CPU w/ 2 GB of RAM) I built myself a good year before Vista was released. It ran great. Still does. Now, if I could run Vista fine on a machine that I built from parts that were never designed to work with Vista, why is it that PC manufacturers can't ship brand new machines that work as well? John From: Matthew W. Ross [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2008 3:44 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Hold on there... If an OS requires new drivers and more horsepower... we can't blame the new OS? Oh yes we can. --Matt ross From: John Hornbuckle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Vista wasn't perfect out of the gate, but it's not the piece of junk people think it is, either. A huge reason Vista has a negative image is that the hardware OEMs have been releasing buggy drivers for it--if they released drivers for it at all--and have been shipping Vista computers that either don't have enough horsepower or are bloated with crapware or bad drivers (or all three). It all adds up to a bad experience for users, and the OS gets the blame. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.23.15/1426 - Release Date: 5/10/2008 11:12 AM ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~
RE: Why XP is doomed
I thought we were talking about performance, not heat! :-0 Regards, Michael B. Smith MCSE/Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com From: Bill Lambert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 10:04 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Doesn't putting in a 7200 spin disk increase the heat factor? I always thought that was the reason some laptops come with 5400 spin drives to keep the heat down. Bill Lambert Concuity 847-941-9206 From: Ken Schaefer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2008 6:46 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed My wife has a top of the line Sony SZ48 series Vaio. Fantastic machine - carbon fibre case, weighs next to nothing, two GPUs. Performance out of the box is abysmal. I replaced the drive with a 7200 RPM disk, upped the RAM, and tried to remove as much Sony crapware as possible (it even comes with its own copy of SQL Server to manage your media - because WMP obviously can't do that). Runs a lot better now, but I suspect it'll run a lot better with a clean install. Cheers Ken From: John Hornbuckle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, 11 May 2008 9:22 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Check out this story: http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=429 It's a perfect example of a manufacturer shipping a Vista machine with unacceptable performance. This resulted in a black eye for the manufacturer (Sony in this case, but they're not the only ones to do this) and a lost customer for the manufacturer and Microsoft alike. I didn't participate in the Vista beta, but I did grab it as soon as it RTM'd. I installed it on my home desktop, which is a modest box (Pentium D CPU w/ 2 GB of RAM) I built myself a good year before Vista was released. It ran great. Still does. Now, if I could run Vista fine on a machine that I built from parts that were never designed to work with Vista, why is it that PC manufacturers can't ship brand new machines that work as well? John From: Matthew W. Ross [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2008 3:44 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Hold on there... If an OS requires new drivers and more horsepower... we can't blame the new OS? Oh yes we can. --Matt ross _ From: John Hornbuckle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Vista wasn't perfect out of the gate, but it's not the piece of junk people think it is, either. A huge reason Vista has a negative image is that the hardware OEMs have been releasing buggy drivers for it--if they released drivers for it at all--and have been shipping Vista computers that either don't have enough horsepower or are bloated with crapware or bad drivers (or all three). It all adds up to a bad experience for users, and the OS gets the blame. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.23.15/1426 - Release Date: 5/10/2008 11:12 AM ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~
RE: Why XP is doomed
Surely you could do this in XP with RunAs? Or has Vista implemented some new-fangled, singing 'n dancing version of it? -Original Message- From: John Hornbuckle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 11 May 2008 18:28 To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed I like the extra security Vista provides. I also like that when my techs work on users' machines, they can do things that require admin rights without logging in with an admin account. It speeds up certain tasks considerably. -Original Message- From: Phillip Partipilo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2008 10:32 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Why XP is doomed The OS is just hosting the applications that I use to get my job done. XP is good enough for this task. No reason whatsoever to upgrade. Michael B. Smith wrote: Hah. I blogged on this just yesterday: http://theessentialexchange.com/blogs/michael/archive/2008/05/09/just-fl uff- on-vista.aspx And no, I didn't read Cringely... I think it was something Paul Thurrott wrote that was the straw/camel's back for me. I dunno, I read too many things every day. Granted, I'm not the average user. Not even the average power user. I've got physical machines that run XP, that run Vista, that run Server 2008, that run Server 2003 - and believe it or not, one that runs Linux. And probably twice as many virtuals as I've got physicals. The market can't have it every way. Since XP was released, Microsoft has been absolutely PUMMELLED by spam, by viruses, by worms, by lack of hardware capabilities, by lack of software capabilities, etc. etc. etc. Microsoft responded to what the market demanded, and Vista is the answer. Graphically, Vista is gorgeous - if you have the graphics horsepower to make it happen. Vista provides software support for technologies that weren't even conceived of when XP was released. The hardware support that Vista provides makes it MUCH easier for the OS to NOT crash when there are driver bugs. Or bugs in any add-on product. And on and on and on. All of those things come at a cost - in memory and in processor. If you want a minimal version of Vista - go install Server 2008. See how lean and mean it is. And how little it can do in the base configuration. Then, start adding the features and roles you require in order to get to a workable desktop machine, and see how those changes impact performance. In some ways, a desktop machine has to be more powerful than a server. It certainly has to have more fluff. I'm not a Microsoft rah rah man. However, I'm well aware of where I make my money - and that's based on Microsoft products. I criticize the Microsoft machine on a daily basis - and I do it in public forums, such as this one, on my blog; and I do it in private forums, for betas (and even alphas) of certain software that I take a particular interest in. Vista _IS_ sucky in some ways. And I've bugged those that affect me. For example, even after SP1, wireless doesn't just work like it did in XP. Many users have to reboot when switching wireless connections. For me, I'm tech savvy enough to open a command prompt and do an ipconfig /renew. It's irritating. But does that mean that Vista is going away? Don't be silly. Even if you hate Vista, it introduces many technologies that are part of the future of computing. You need to learn it. It's the stepping stone to what comes next. Microsoft isn't abandoning Vista. They've made that clear too. Many people have taken the fact that there is so much talk about Windows 7 already to mean that Microsoft is abandoning Vista. The only reason that they can make THAT claim is because they choose to ignore that Microsoft has also stated that never again will there be 5+ years between operating system releases. It was simply too long, and Microsoft heard that message too. You don't have to get with the program. But you should. Time marches on. And so does software - and hardware - and Microsoft. Regards, Michael B. Smith MCSE/Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2008 10:44 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed MS's earnings were disappointing? Welcome to 2008. They can stand in line with the other 80% of companies with the same problems. As for support, XP has been around since 2001 and mainstream support goes until Apr. 2009. That's a damn long life cycle for any software maker. This is the same whining that went on with Windows 98 and Windows 2000. I don't remember the world ending in either case. Think about what other software was released in 2001 and if it's still support. I wonder if Adobe still supports Photoshop 6.0? I'll bet Apple still supports OSX 10.0.0, but Apple seems to be living the rock star life these days. Now Ill also say I'm still a HUGE XP fan. I use XP at home on all
Re: Why XP is doomed
Yup. We have nearly 5000 machines, and only maybe a dozen or so could actually run Vista. So that means a wholesale change of our desktops to get exactly what? Add the latest Office version which takes awhile for even experienced users to use, and it becomes a tough decision. Maybe I should rephrase that last part. In the past, the decision was pretty much a no-brainer because of the learning curves, productivity drops, etc. Now MS is putting us in the position where it makes sense to look at alternative solutions, whether it be Apple or opensource. We don't need gorgeous in the workplace. We need speed, function and to be error-free. Micheal Espinola Jr [EMAIL PROTECTED] 5/10/2008 9:35 AM MBS said nothing to the effect of my question to you. My annoyance with the whole this is having to purchase new hardware to buy a new version of something that I dont need. Yea, I know, progress, etc, yadda, yadda. But Vista brings nothing to the table for me to justify a corporate upgrade. Its all a financial loss with no outstanding gain - other than continued support. I dont care for or need the dazzle of Vista in the workplace. On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 12:11 PM, HELP_PC [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Michael Smith couldn't answer better! GuidoElia HELPPC -Messaggio originale- Da: Micheal Espinola Jr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Inviato: sabato 10 maggio 2008 17.59 A: NT System Admin Issues Oggetto: Re: R: Why XP is doomed And besides being on the latest version of Windows, what are you getting out of your addition investments? Is there something you can do on Vista that you cant on XP? On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 11:50 AM, HELP_PC [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think you are right . Windows Xp was sucking a lot on a PentiumIII 1ghz machine with 256MB RAM, where Win 98 was really fast. I am now deploying Q6600 or T9300 machines with Vista and 4GB RAM and I am quite satisfied. GuidoElia HELPPC -Messaggio originale- Da: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Inviato: sabato 10 maggio 2008 16.44 A: NT System Admin Issues Oggetto: RE: Why XP is doomed MS's earnings were disappointing? Welcome to 2008. They can stand in line with the other 80% of companies with the same problems. As for support, XP has been around since 2001 and mainstream support goes until Apr. 2009. That's a damn long life cycle for any software maker. This is the same whining that went on with Windows 98 and Windows 2000. I don't remember the world ending in either case. Think about what other software was released in 2001 and if it's still support. I wonder if Adobe still supports Photoshop 6.0? I'll bet Apple still supports OSX 10.0.0, but Apple seems to be living the rock star life these days. Now Ill also say I'm still a HUGE XP fan. I use XP at home on all my machines. My work machine is Vista and while I don't really dislike it, it really doesn't do much for me either. But eventually the time will come to upgrade, and I'm sure my world won't end either. The Vista sucks thing has certainly taken on a life of its own. I would venture to guess that a very large percentage of the people who say it sucks have never tried it. It doesn't totally suck, it's justslightly sucky. Frankly if they could just get it to perform better, it would be great. -Original Message- From: Angus Scott-Fleming [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2008 7:20 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Why XP is doomed Interesting analysis from Cringely. As always, follow the money ... --- Included Stuff Follows --- I, Cringely . The Pulpit . Wimpy | PBS ... Several readers are concerned about Microsoft's decision to stop selling Windows XP and -- most importantly -- end security updates for the venerable operating system. This has everything to do with business and nothing at all to do with technology. Wearing my business reporter's fedora, then, I'll point you back a week or so to Microsoft's most recent earnings announcement, which disappointed Wall Street. This is significant because it is hard to find a Wall Street analyst who remembers the last time Microsoft's earnings were disappointing. It simply doesn't happen. That's because Microsoft has a myriad of tools for adjusting the numbers to look just right. Because Microsoft has so many tools for fine-tuning its financials (primarily the management of expenses, by the way -- Microsoft makes so much money that it tunes the numbers by throwing cash away), the fact that this last set of numbers disappointed suggests to me that they, too, could have been avoided. Microsoft probably decided to deliberately take an earnings hit precisely so they could play the we have to get the earnings up card to justify the final death of XP. Microsoft has been under huge pressure from its hardware OEMs to dump
RE: Why XP is doomed
This is why I am still on XP. The manufacturers of core business applications that we use have not released Vista compatible versions. The only good thing in my view about the drop dead date is that it forces the companies to release Vista compatible versions. Krishna Reddy IT Manager Nucomm, Inc. -Original Message- From: Phillip Partipilo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2008 10:32 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Why XP is doomed The OS is just hosting the applications that I use to get my job done. XP is good enough for this task. No reason whatsoever to upgrade. Michael B. Smith wrote: Hah. I blogged on this just yesterday: http://theessentialexchange.com/blogs/michael/archive/2008/05/09/just- fluff- on-vista.aspx And no, I didn't read Cringely... I think it was something Paul Thurrott wrote that was the straw/camel's back for me. I dunno, I read too many things every day. Granted, I'm not the average user. Not even the average power user. I've got physical machines that run XP, that run Vista, that run Server 2008, that run Server 2003 - and believe it or not, one that runs Linux. And probably twice as many virtuals as I've got physicals. The market can't have it every way. Since XP was released, Microsoft has been absolutely PUMMELLED by spam, by viruses, by worms, by lack of hardware capabilities, by lack of software capabilities, etc. etc. etc. Microsoft responded to what the market demanded, and Vista is the answer. Graphically, Vista is gorgeous - if you have the graphics horsepower to make it happen. Vista provides software support for technologies that weren't even conceived of when XP was released. The hardware support that Vista provides makes it MUCH easier for the OS to NOT crash when there are driver bugs. Or bugs in any add-on product. And on and on and on. All of those things come at a cost - in memory and in processor. If you want a minimal version of Vista - go install Server 2008. See how lean and mean it is. And how little it can do in the base configuration. Then, start adding the features and roles you require in order to get to a workable desktop machine, and see how those changes impact performance. In some ways, a desktop machine has to be more powerful than a server. It certainly has to have more fluff. I'm not a Microsoft rah rah man. However, I'm well aware of where I make my money - and that's based on Microsoft products. I criticize the Microsoft machine on a daily basis - and I do it in public forums, such as this one, on my blog; and I do it in private forums, for betas (and even alphas) of certain software that I take a particular interest in. Vista _IS_ sucky in some ways. And I've bugged those that affect me. For example, even after SP1, wireless doesn't just work like it did in XP. Many users have to reboot when switching wireless connections. For me, I'm tech savvy enough to open a command prompt and do an ipconfig /renew. It's irritating. But does that mean that Vista is going away? Don't be silly. Even if you hate Vista, it introduces many technologies that are part of the future of computing. You need to learn it. It's the stepping stone to what comes next. Microsoft isn't abandoning Vista. They've made that clear too. Many people have taken the fact that there is so much talk about Windows 7 already to mean that Microsoft is abandoning Vista. The only reason that they can make THAT claim is because they choose to ignore that Microsoft has also stated that never again will there be 5+ years between operating system releases. It was simply too long, and Microsoft heard that message too. You don't have to get with the program. But you should. Time marches on. And so does software - and hardware - and Microsoft. Regards, Michael B. Smith MCSE/Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2008 10:44 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed MS's earnings were disappointing? Welcome to 2008. They can stand in line with the other 80% of companies with the same problems. As for support, XP has been around since 2001 and mainstream support goes until Apr. 2009. That's a damn long life cycle for any software maker. This is the same whining that went on with Windows 98 and Windows 2000. I don't remember the world ending in either case. Think about what other software was released in 2001 and if it's still support. I wonder if Adobe still supports Photoshop 6.0? I'll bet Apple still supports OSX 10.0.0, but Apple seems to be living the rock star life these days. Now Ill also say I'm still a HUGE XP fan. I use XP at home on all my machines. My work machine is Vista and while I don't really dislike it, it really doesn't do much for me either. But eventually the time will come
RE: Why XP is doomed
Question. How many times have those computers been upgraded? i.e., What came pre-installed initially? From: RAY ZORZ [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 10:40 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Why XP is doomed Yup. We have nearly 5000 machines, and only maybe a dozen or so could actually run Vista. So that means a wholesale change of our desktops to get exactly what? Add the latest Office version which takes awhile for even experienced users to use, and it becomes a tough decision. Maybe I should rephrase that last part. In the past, the decision was pretty much a no-brainer because of the learning curves, productivity drops, etc. Now MS is putting us in the position where it makes sense to look at alternative solutions, whether it be Apple or opensource. We don't need gorgeous in the workplace. We need speed, function and to be error-free. Micheal Espinola Jr [EMAIL PROTECTED] 5/10/2008 9:35 AM MBS said nothing to the effect of my question to you. My annoyance with the whole this is having to purchase new hardware to buy a new version of something that I dont need. Yea, I know, progress, etc, yadda, yadda. But Vista brings nothing to the table for me to justify a corporate upgrade. Its all a financial loss with no outstanding gain - other than continued support. I dont care for or need the dazzle of Vista in the workplace. On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 12:11 PM, HELP_PC [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Michael Smith couldn't answer better! GuidoElia HELPPC -Messaggio originale- Da: Micheal Espinola Jr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Inviato: sabato 10 maggio 2008 17.59 A: NT System Admin Issues Oggetto: Re: R: Why XP is doomed And besides being on the latest version of Windows, what are you getting out of your addition investments? Is there something you can do on Vista that you cant on XP? On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 11:50 AM, HELP_PC [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think you are right . Windows Xp was sucking a lot on a PentiumIII 1ghz machine with 256MB RAM, where Win 98 was really fast. I am now deploying Q6600 or T9300 machines with Vista and 4GB RAM and I am quite satisfied. GuidoElia HELPPC -Messaggio originale- Da: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Inviato: sabato 10 maggio 2008 16.44 A: NT System Admin Issues Oggetto: RE: Why XP is doomed MS's earnings were disappointing? Welcome to 2008. They can stand in line with the other 80% of companies with the same problems. As for support, XP has been around since 2001 and mainstream support goes until Apr. 2009. That's a damn long life cycle for any software maker. This is the same whining that went on with Windows 98 and Windows 2000. I don't remember the world ending in either case. Think about what other software was released in 2001 and if it's still support. I wonder if Adobe still supports Photoshop 6.0? I'll bet Apple still supports OSX 10.0.0, but Apple seems to be living the rock star life these days. Now Ill also say I'm still a HUGE XP fan. I use XP at home on all my machines. My work machine is Vista and while I don't really dislike it, it really doesn't do much for me either. But eventually the time will come to upgrade, and I'm sure my world won't end either. The Vista sucks thing has certainly taken on a life of its own. I would venture to guess that a very large percentage of the people who say it sucks have never tried it. It doesn't totally suck, it's justslightly sucky. Frankly if they could just get it to perform better, it would be great. -Original Message- From: Angus Scott-Fleming [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2008 7:20 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Why XP is doomed Interesting analysis from Cringely. As always, follow the money ... --- Included Stuff Follows --- I, Cringely . The Pulpit . Wimpy | PBS ... Several readers are concerned about Microsoft's decision to stop selling Windows XP and -- most importantly -- end security updates for the venerable operating system. This has everything to do with business and nothing at all to do with technology. Wearing my business reporter's fedora, then, I'll point you back a week or so to Microsoft's most recent earnings announcement, which disappointed Wall Street. This is significant because it is hard to find a Wall Street analyst who remembers the last time Microsoft's earnings were disappointing. It simply doesn't happen. That's because Microsoft has a myriad of tools for adjusting the numbers to look just right. Because Microsoft has so many tools for fine-tuning its financials (primarily the management of expenses, by the way -- Microsoft makes so much money that it tunes the numbers by throwing cash away), the fact that this last set of numbers disappointed suggests to me that they, too, could have been avoided. Microsoft
RE: Why XP is doomed
I never buy any laptops with 5400 RPM disks. That's so 1980's. I throw 7200 in all our laptops, heat has never been a problem. Now, on an ultra-portable or tablet, I could see how it could be... But then again, there are many 7200 RPM drives that claim they are just as cool as 5400 rpm drives... From: Bill Lambert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 9:04 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Doesn't putting in a 7200 spin disk increase the heat factor? I always thought that was the reason some laptops come with 5400 spin drives to keep the heat down. Bill Lambert Concuity 847-941-9206 From: Ken Schaefer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2008 6:46 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed My wife has a top of the line Sony SZ48 series Vaio. Fantastic machine - carbon fibre case, weighs next to nothing, two GPUs. Performance out of the box is abysmal. I replaced the drive with a 7200 RPM disk, upped the RAM, and tried to remove as much Sony crapware as possible (it even comes with its own copy of SQL Server to manage your media - because WMP obviously can't do that). Runs a lot better now, but I suspect it'll run a lot better with a clean install. Cheers Ken From: John Hornbuckle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, 11 May 2008 9:22 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Check out this story: http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=429 It's a perfect example of a manufacturer shipping a Vista machine with unacceptable performance. This resulted in a black eye for the manufacturer (Sony in this case, but they're not the only ones to do this) and a lost customer for the manufacturer and Microsoft alike. I didn't participate in the Vista beta, but I did grab it as soon as it RTM'd. I installed it on my home desktop, which is a modest box (Pentium D CPU w/ 2 GB of RAM) I built myself a good year before Vista was released. It ran great. Still does. Now, if I could run Vista fine on a machine that I built from parts that were never designed to work with Vista, why is it that PC manufacturers can't ship brand new machines that work as well? John From: Matthew W. Ross [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2008 3:44 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Hold on there... If an OS requires new drivers and more horsepower... we can't blame the new OS? Oh yes we can. --Matt ross From: John Hornbuckle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Vista wasn't perfect out of the gate, but it's not the piece of junk people think it is, either. A huge reason Vista has a negative image is that the hardware OEMs have been releasing buggy drivers for it--if they released drivers for it at all--and have been shipping Vista computers that either don't have enough horsepower or are bloated with crapware or bad drivers (or all three). It all adds up to a bad experience for users, and the OS gets the blame. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.23.15/1426 - Release Date: 5/10/2008 11:12 AM ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~
RE: Why XP is doomed
And, how long did it take these companies to release XP-compatible versions of their products? -Original Message- From: Krishna Reddy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2008 8:42 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed This is why I am still on XP. The manufacturers of core business applications that we use have not released Vista compatible versions. The only good thing in my view about the drop dead date is that it forces the companies to release Vista compatible versions. Krishna Reddy IT Manager Nucomm, Inc. -Original Message- From: Phillip Partipilo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2008 10:32 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Why XP is doomed The OS is just hosting the applications that I use to get my job done. XP is good enough for this task. No reason whatsoever to upgrade. Michael B. Smith wrote: Hah. I blogged on this just yesterday: http://theessentialexchange.com/blogs/michael/archive/2008/05/09/just- fluff- on-vista.aspx And no, I didn't read Cringely... I think it was something Paul Thurrott wrote that was the straw/camel's back for me. I dunno, I read too many things every day. Granted, I'm not the average user. Not even the average power user. I've got physical machines that run XP, that run Vista, that run Server 2008, that run Server 2003 - and believe it or not, one that runs Linux. And probably twice as many virtuals as I've got physicals. The market can't have it every way. Since XP was released, Microsoft has been absolutely PUMMELLED by spam, by viruses, by worms, by lack of hardware capabilities, by lack of software capabilities, etc. etc. etc. Microsoft responded to what the market demanded, and Vista is the answer. Graphically, Vista is gorgeous - if you have the graphics horsepower to make it happen. Vista provides software support for technologies that weren't even conceived of when XP was released. The hardware support that Vista provides makes it MUCH easier for the OS to NOT crash when there are driver bugs. Or bugs in any add-on product. And on and on and on. All of those things come at a cost - in memory and in processor. If you want a minimal version of Vista - go install Server 2008. See how lean and mean it is. And how little it can do in the base configuration. Then, start adding the features and roles you require in order to get to a workable desktop machine, and see how those changes impact performance. In some ways, a desktop machine has to be more powerful than a server. It certainly has to have more fluff. I'm not a Microsoft rah rah man. However, I'm well aware of where I make my money - and that's based on Microsoft products. I criticize the Microsoft machine on a daily basis - and I do it in public forums, such as this one, on my blog; and I do it in private forums, for betas (and even alphas) of certain software that I take a particular interest in. Vista _IS_ sucky in some ways. And I've bugged those that affect me. For example, even after SP1, wireless doesn't just work like it did in XP. Many users have to reboot when switching wireless connections. For me, I'm tech savvy enough to open a command prompt and do an ipconfig /renew. It's irritating. But does that mean that Vista is going away? Don't be silly. Even if you hate Vista, it introduces many technologies that are part of the future of computing. You need to learn it. It's the stepping stone to what comes next. Microsoft isn't abandoning Vista. They've made that clear too. Many people have taken the fact that there is so much talk about Windows 7 already to mean that Microsoft is abandoning Vista. The only reason that they can make THAT claim is because they choose to ignore that Microsoft has also stated that never again will there be 5+ years between operating system releases. It was simply too long, and Microsoft heard that message too. You don't have to get with the program. But you should. Time marches on. And so does software - and hardware - and Microsoft. Regards, Michael B. Smith MCSE/Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2008 10:44 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed MS's earnings were disappointing? Welcome to 2008. They can stand in line with the other 80% of companies with the same problems. As for support, XP has been around since 2001 and mainstream support goes until Apr. 2009. That's a damn long life cycle for any software maker. This is the same whining that went on with Windows 98 and Windows 2000. I don't remember the world ending in either case. Think about what other software was released in 2001 and if it's still support. I wonder if Adobe still supports Photoshop 6.0? I'll bet Apple still supports OSX 10.0.0, but Apple seems to be living
RE: Why XP is doomed
It's not interesting at all. Fast forward a few years when Windows 7 is released and the headline will be Why Vista is doomed. And after Windows 8, Why Windows 7 is doomed, ad infinitum. There's no worthwhile discussion here. It's the same story release after release just change the name. Some of what the guy says doesn't even make any sense. MS under pressure from the OEM's? MS have life cycle dates posted on their websites. They can't change that. The guy acts like MS could just pull it today and be done with it. That's an ludicrous thought path to travel. Besides, Dell brought XP back because of customer demand early on and now they sell machines with a Vista/XP option on the OS config screen. If they are pressuring MS to get rid of XP they sure are doing it in a strange way. -- Mike Gill -Original Message- From: Angus Scott-Fleming [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2008 7:20 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Why XP is doomed Interesting analysis from Cringely. As always, follow the money ... ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~
RE: Why XP is doomed
Power consumption and battery life are the main consideration in a laptop. Heat is just a natural byproduct of higher speed. Carl From: Bill Lambert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 10:04 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Doesn't putting in a 7200 spin disk increase the heat factor? I always thought that was the reason some laptops come with 5400 spin drives to keep the heat down. Bill Lambert Concuity 847-941-9206 From: Ken Schaefer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2008 6:46 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed My wife has a top of the line Sony SZ48 series Vaio. Fantastic machine - carbon fibre case, weighs next to nothing, two GPUs. Performance out of the box is abysmal. I replaced the drive with a 7200 RPM disk, upped the RAM, and tried to remove as much Sony crapware as possible (it even comes with its own copy of SQL Server to manage your media - because WMP obviously can't do that). Runs a lot better now, but I suspect it'll run a lot better with a clean install. Cheers Ken From: John Hornbuckle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, 11 May 2008 9:22 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Check out this story: http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=429 It's a perfect example of a manufacturer shipping a Vista machine with unacceptable performance. This resulted in a black eye for the manufacturer (Sony in this case, but they're not the only ones to do this) and a lost customer for the manufacturer and Microsoft alike. I didn't participate in the Vista beta, but I did grab it as soon as it RTM'd. I installed it on my home desktop, which is a modest box (Pentium D CPU w/ 2 GB of RAM) I built myself a good year before Vista was released. It ran great. Still does. Now, if I could run Vista fine on a machine that I built from parts that were never designed to work with Vista, why is it that PC manufacturers can't ship brand new machines that work as well? John From: Matthew W. Ross [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2008 3:44 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Hold on there... If an OS requires new drivers and more horsepower... we can't blame the new OS? Oh yes we can. --Matt ross _ From: John Hornbuckle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Vista wasn't perfect out of the gate, but it's not the piece of junk people think it is, either. A huge reason Vista has a negative image is that the hardware OEMs have been releasing buggy drivers for it--if they released drivers for it at all--and have been shipping Vista computers that either don't have enough horsepower or are bloated with crapware or bad drivers (or all three). It all adds up to a bad experience for users, and the OS gets the blame. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.23.15/1426 - Release Date: 5/10/2008 11:12 AM ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~
RE: Why XP is doomed
You are wrong . On laptops 7200rpm disks are new! Some brands started now to distribute them on laptops and for workstations 1 rpm SATA GuidoElia HELPPC _ Da: Sam Cayze [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Inviato: lunedì 12 maggio 2008 16.48 A: NT System Admin Issues Oggetto: RE: Why XP is doomed I never buy any laptops with 5400 RPM disks. That's so 1980's. I throw 7200 in all our laptops, heat has never been a problem. Now, on an ultra-portable or tablet, I could see how it could be... But then again, there are many 7200 RPM drives that claim they are just as cool as 5400 rpm drives... From: Bill Lambert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 9:04 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Doesn't putting in a 7200 spin disk increase the heat factor? I always thought that was the reason some laptops come with 5400 spin drives to keep the heat down. Bill Lambert Concuity 847-941-9206 From: Ken Schaefer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2008 6:46 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed My wife has a top of the line Sony SZ48 series Vaio. Fantastic machine - carbon fibre case, weighs next to nothing, two GPUs. Performance out of the box is abysmal. I replaced the drive with a 7200 RPM disk, upped the RAM, and tried to remove as much Sony crapware as possible (it even comes with its own copy of SQL Server to manage your media - because WMP obviously can't do that). Runs a lot better now, but I suspect it'll run a lot better with a clean install. Cheers Ken From: John Hornbuckle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, 11 May 2008 9:22 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Check out this story: http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=429 It's a perfect example of a manufacturer shipping a Vista machine with unacceptable performance. This resulted in a black eye for the manufacturer (Sony in this case, but they're not the only ones to do this) and a lost customer for the manufacturer and Microsoft alike. I didn't participate in the Vista beta, but I did grab it as soon as it RTM'd. I installed it on my home desktop, which is a modest box (Pentium D CPU w/ 2 GB of RAM) I built myself a good year before Vista was released. It ran great. Still does. Now, if I could run Vista fine on a machine that I built from parts that were never designed to work with Vista, why is it that PC manufacturers can't ship brand new machines that work as well? John From: Matthew W. Ross [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2008 3:44 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Hold on there... If an OS requires new drivers and more horsepower... we can't blame the new OS? Oh yes we can. --Matt ross _ From: John Hornbuckle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Vista wasn't perfect out of the gate, but it's not the piece of junk people think it is, either. A huge reason Vista has a negative image is that the hardware OEMs have been releasing buggy drivers for it--if they released drivers for it at all--and have been shipping Vista computers that either don't have enough horsepower or are bloated with crapware or bad drivers (or all three). It all adds up to a bad experience for users, and the OS gets the blame. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.23.15/1426 - Release Date: 5/10/2008 11:12 AM ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~
RE: Why XP is doomed
No need to run as with Vista. When doing admin things, you're automatically prompted for an admin password. Or in Printers, for instance, you can right-click a printer and select run as administrator - properties. Can't do that in XP. These are little things, but they really do save time. As for the extra security, I like that even when I'm logged in as an admin, I'm not running things (IE, command prompt, etc.) as an admin when it's not necessary. I also like that I can move my mouse over a minimized item on the task bar and see a quick thumbnail of the window. That has turned out to be handy. Also, folder redirection seems to work better on our Vista machines than XP. Less intrusive and more responsive. -Original Message- From: Rankin, James R [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 6:58 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Surely you could do this in XP with RunAs? Or has Vista implemented some new-fangled, singing 'n dancing version of it? -Original Message- From: John Hornbuckle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 11 May 2008 18:28 To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed I like the extra security Vista provides. I also like that when my techs work on users' machines, they can do things that require admin rights without logging in with an admin account. It speeds up certain tasks considerably. -Original Message- From: Phillip Partipilo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2008 10:32 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Why XP is doomed The OS is just hosting the applications that I use to get my job done. XP is good enough for this task. No reason whatsoever to upgrade. Michael B. Smith wrote: Hah. I blogged on this just yesterday: http://theessentialexchange.com/blogs/michael/archive/2008/05/09/just-fl uff- on-vista.aspx And no, I didn't read Cringely... I think it was something Paul Thurrott wrote that was the straw/camel's back for me. I dunno, I read too many things every day. Granted, I'm not the average user. Not even the average power user. I've got physical machines that run XP, that run Vista, that run Server 2008, that run Server 2003 - and believe it or not, one that runs Linux. And probably twice as many virtuals as I've got physicals. The market can't have it every way. Since XP was released, Microsoft has been absolutely PUMMELLED by spam, by viruses, by worms, by lack of hardware capabilities, by lack of software capabilities, etc. etc. etc. Microsoft responded to what the market demanded, and Vista is the answer. Graphically, Vista is gorgeous - if you have the graphics horsepower to make it happen. Vista provides software support for technologies that weren't even conceived of when XP was released. The hardware support that Vista provides makes it MUCH easier for the OS to NOT crash when there are driver bugs. Or bugs in any add-on product. And on and on and on. All of those things come at a cost - in memory and in processor. If you want a minimal version of Vista - go install Server 2008. See how lean and mean it is. And how little it can do in the base configuration. Then, start adding the features and roles you require in order to get to a workable desktop machine, and see how those changes impact performance. In some ways, a desktop machine has to be more powerful than a server. It certainly has to have more fluff. I'm not a Microsoft rah rah man. However, I'm well aware of where I make my money - and that's based on Microsoft products. I criticize the Microsoft machine on a daily basis - and I do it in public forums, such as this one, on my blog; and I do it in private forums, for betas (and even alphas) of certain software that I take a particular interest in. Vista _IS_ sucky in some ways. And I've bugged those that affect me. For example, even after SP1, wireless doesn't just work like it did in XP. Many users have to reboot when switching wireless connections. For me, I'm tech savvy enough to open a command prompt and do an ipconfig /renew. It's irritating. But does that mean that Vista is going away? Don't be silly. Even if you hate Vista, it introduces many technologies that are part of the future of computing. You need to learn it. It's the stepping stone to what comes next. Microsoft isn't abandoning Vista. They've made that clear too. Many people have taken the fact that there is so much talk about Windows 7 already to mean that Microsoft is abandoning Vista. The only reason that they can make THAT claim is because they choose to ignore that Microsoft has also stated that never again will there be 5+ years between operating system releases. It was simply too long, and Microsoft heard that message too. You don't have to get with the program. But you should. Time marches on. And so does software - and hardware - and Microsoft. Regards, Michael B. Smith MCSE/Exchange MVP http
RE: Why XP is doomed
AFAIK, they're still running the OS they came with, plus the hundreds of patches. Would it be great to work in an environment where we had a couple year cycle and new machines were constantly being bought? Yes. But I don't work there. When I worked for a non-profit, we pretty relied on donated hardware. And now I work for a state agency going through hiring freezes and budget cuts. Rod Trent [EMAIL PROTECTED] 5/12/2008 7:46 AM Question… How many times have those computers been upgraded? i.e., What came pre-installed initially? From:RAY ZORZ [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 10:40 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Why XP is doomed Yup. We have nearly 5000 machines, and only maybe a dozen or so could actually run Vista. So that means a wholesale change of our desktops to get exactly what? Add the latest Office version which takes awhile for even experienced users to use, and it becomes a tough decision. Maybe I should rephrase that last part. In the past, the decision was pretty much a no-brainer because of the learning curves, productivity drops, etc. Now MS is putting us in the position where it makes sense to look at alternative solutions, whether it be Apple or opensource. We don't need gorgeous in the workplace. We need speed, function and to be error-free. Micheal Espinola Jr [EMAIL PROTECTED] 5/10/2008 9:35 AM MBS said nothing to the effect of my question to you. My annoyance with the whole this is having to purchase new hardware to buy a new version of something that I dont need. Yea, I know, progress, etc, yadda, yadda. But Vista brings nothing to the table for me to justify a corporate upgrade. Its all a financial loss with no outstanding gain - other than continued support. I dont care for or need the dazzle of Vista in the workplace. On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 12:11 PM, HELP_PC [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Michael Smith couldn't answer better! GuidoElia HELPPC -Messaggio originale- Da: Micheal Espinola Jr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Inviato: sabato 10 maggio 2008 17.59 A: NT System Admin Issues Oggetto: Re: R: Why XP is doomed And besides being on the latest version of Windows, what are you getting out of your addition investments? Is there something you can do on Vista that you cant on XP? On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 11:50 AM, HELP_PC [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think you are right . Windows Xp was sucking a lot on a PentiumIII 1ghz machine with 256MB RAM, where Win 98 was really fast. I am now deploying Q6600 or T9300 machines with Vista and 4GB RAM and I am quite satisfied. GuidoElia HELPPC -Messaggio originale- Da: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Inviato: sabato 10 maggio 2008 16.44 A: NT System Admin Issues Oggetto: RE: Why XP is doomed MS's earnings were disappointing? Welcome to 2008. They can stand in line with the other 80% of companies with the same problems. As for support, XP has been around since 2001 and mainstream support goes until Apr. 2009. That's a damn long life cycle for any software maker. This is the same whining that went on with Windows 98 and Windows 2000. I don't remember the world ending in either case. Think about what other software was released in 2001 and if it's still support. I wonder if Adobe still supports Photoshop 6.0? I'll bet Apple still supports OSX 10.0.0, but Apple seems to be living the rock star life these days. Now Ill also say I'm still a HUGE XP fan. I use XP at home on all my machines. My work machine is Vista and while I don't really dislike it, it really doesn't do much for me either. But eventually the time will come to upgrade, and I'm sure my world won't end either. The Vista sucks thing has certainly taken on a life of its own. I would venture to guess that a very large percentage of the people who say it sucks have never tried it. It doesn't totally suck, it's justslightly sucky. Frankly if they could just get it to perform better, it would be great. -Original Message- From: Angus Scott-Fleming [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2008 7:20 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Why XP is doomed Interesting analysis from Cringely. As always, follow the money ... --- Included Stuff Follows --- I, Cringely . The Pulpit . Wimpy | PBS ... Several readers are concerned about Microsoft's decision to stop selling Windows XP and -- most importantly -- end security updates for the venerable operating system. This has everything to do with business and nothing at all to do with technology. Wearing my business reporter's fedora, then, I'll point you back a week or so to Microsoft's most recent earnings announcement, which disappointed Wall Street. This is significant because it is hard to find a Wall Street analyst who remembers the last time Microsoft's earnings were disappointing. It simply doesn't happen
RE: Why XP is doomed
Ok, maybe the 80's was a stretch, I was kidding. But 72000 RPM 2.5 disks have been out for a few years I would imagine. At least three years I would imagine, since I have been working with laptops. Usually you have to buy them separately, as the manufacturer does not ship them. Even 10,000 RPM 2.5 drives are out now. SAS and SATA. I just got a 15K RPM in my workstation now. From: HELP_PC [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 10:12 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed You are wrong . On laptops 7200rpm disks are new! Some brands started now to distribute them on laptops and for workstations 1 rpm SATA GuidoElia HELPPC Da: Sam Cayze [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Inviato: lunedì 12 maggio 2008 16.48 A: NT System Admin Issues Oggetto: RE: Why XP is doomed I never buy any laptops with 5400 RPM disks. That's so 1980's. I throw 7200 in all our laptops, heat has never been a problem. Now, on an ultra-portable or tablet, I could see how it could be... But then again, there are many 7200 RPM drives that claim they are just as cool as 5400 rpm drives... From: Bill Lambert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 9:04 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Doesn't putting in a 7200 spin disk increase the heat factor? I always thought that was the reason some laptops come with 5400 spin drives to keep the heat down. Bill Lambert Concuity 847-941-9206 From: Ken Schaefer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2008 6:46 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed My wife has a top of the line Sony SZ48 series Vaio. Fantastic machine - carbon fibre case, weighs next to nothing, two GPUs. Performance out of the box is abysmal. I replaced the drive with a 7200 RPM disk, upped the RAM, and tried to remove as much Sony crapware as possible (it even comes with its own copy of SQL Server to manage your media - because WMP obviously can't do that). Runs a lot better now, but I suspect it'll run a lot better with a clean install. Cheers Ken From: John Hornbuckle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, 11 May 2008 9:22 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Check out this story: http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=429 It's a perfect example of a manufacturer shipping a Vista machine with unacceptable performance. This resulted in a black eye for the manufacturer (Sony in this case, but they're not the only ones to do this) and a lost customer for the manufacturer and Microsoft alike. I didn't participate in the Vista beta, but I did grab it as soon as it RTM'd. I installed it on my home desktop, which is a modest box (Pentium D CPU w/ 2 GB of RAM) I built myself a good year before Vista was released. It ran great. Still does. Now, if I could run Vista fine on a machine that I built from parts that were never designed to work with Vista, why is it that PC manufacturers can't ship brand new machines that work as well? John From: Matthew W. Ross [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2008 3:44 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Hold on there... If an OS requires new drivers and more horsepower... we can't blame the new OS? Oh yes we can. --Matt ross From: John Hornbuckle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Vista wasn't perfect out of the gate, but it's not the piece of junk people think it is, either. A huge reason Vista has a negative image is that the hardware OEMs have been releasing buggy drivers for it--if they released drivers for it at all--and have been shipping Vista computers that either don't have enough horsepower or are bloated with crapware or bad drivers (or all three). It all adds up to a bad experience for users, and the OS gets the blame. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.23.15/1426 - Release Date: 5/10/2008 11:12 AM ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~
RE: Why XP is doomed
Windows Vista running XP Pro in VM. FTW Christopher J. Bosak Vector Company c. 847.603.4673 [EMAIL PROTECTED] You need to install an RTFM Interface, due to an LBNC issue. - B.O.F.H. (Merged 2 into 1) - Me From: RAY ZORZ [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 09:40 hrs To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Why XP is doomed Yup. We have nearly 5000 machines, and only maybe a dozen or so could actually run Vista. So that means a wholesale change of our desktops to get exactly what? Add the latest Office version which takes awhile for even experienced users to use, and it becomes a tough decision. Maybe I should rephrase that last part. In the past, the decision was pretty much a no-brainer because of the learning curves, productivity drops, etc. Now MS is putting us in the position where it makes sense to look at alternative solutions, whether it be Apple or opensource. We don't need gorgeous in the workplace. We need speed, function and to be error-free. Micheal Espinola Jr [EMAIL PROTECTED] 5/10/2008 9:35 AM MBS said nothing to the effect of my question to you. My annoyance with the whole this is having to purchase new hardware to buy a new version of something that I dont need. Yea, I know, progress, etc, yadda, yadda. But Vista brings nothing to the table for me to justify a corporate upgrade. Its all a financial loss with no outstanding gain - other than continued support. I dont care for or need the dazzle of Vista in the workplace. On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 12:11 PM, HELP_PC [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Michael Smith couldn't answer better! GuidoElia HELPPC -Messaggio originale- Da: Micheal Espinola Jr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Inviato: sabato 10 maggio 2008 17.59 A: NT System Admin Issues Oggetto: Re: R: Why XP is doomed And besides being on the latest version of Windows, what are you getting out of your addition investments? Is there something you can do on Vista that you cant on XP? On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 11:50 AM, HELP_PC [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think you are right . Windows Xp was sucking a lot on a PentiumIII 1ghz machine with 256MB RAM, where Win 98 was really fast. I am now deploying Q6600 or T9300 machines with Vista and 4GB RAM and I am quite satisfied. GuidoElia HELPPC -Messaggio originale- Da: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Inviato: sabato 10 maggio 2008 16.44 A: NT System Admin Issues Oggetto: RE: Why XP is doomed MS's earnings were disappointing? Welcome to 2008. They can stand in line with the other 80% of companies with the same problems. As for support, XP has been around since 2001 and mainstream support goes until Apr. 2009. That's a damn long life cycle for any software maker. This is the same whining that went on with Windows 98 and Windows 2000. I don't remember the world ending in either case. Think about what other software was released in 2001 and if it's still support. I wonder if Adobe still supports Photoshop 6.0? I'll bet Apple still supports OSX 10.0.0, but Apple seems to be living the rock star life these days. Now Ill also say I'm still a HUGE XP fan. I use XP at home on all my machines. My work machine is Vista and while I don't really dislike it, it really doesn't do much for me either. But eventually the time will come to upgrade, and I'm sure my world won't end either. The Vista sucks thing has certainly taken on a life of its own. I would venture to guess that a very large percentage of the people who say it sucks have never tried it. It doesn't totally suck, it's justslightly sucky. Frankly if they could just get it to perform better, it would be great. -Original Message- From: Angus Scott-Fleming [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2008 7:20 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Why XP is doomed Interesting analysis from Cringely. As always, follow the money . --- Included Stuff Follows --- I, Cringely . The Pulpit . Wimpy | PBS ... Several readers are concerned about Microsoft's decision to stop selling Windows XP and -- most importantly -- end security updates for the venerable operating system. This has everything to do with business and nothing at all to do with technology. Wearing my business reporter's fedora, then, I'll point you back a week or so to Microsoft's most recent earnings announcement, which disappointed Wall Street. This is significant because it is hard to find a Wall Street analyst who remembers the last time Microsoft's earnings were disappointing. It simply doesn't happen. That's because Microsoft has a myriad of tools for adjusting the numbers to look just right. Because Microsoft has so many tools for fine-tuning its financials (primarily the management of expenses, by the way -- Microsoft makes so much money that it tunes the numbers by throwing cash away), the fact
RE: Why XP is doomed
Nothing, that counts for about ½ of the developers in the world. Z Edward E. Ziots Network Engineer Lifespan Organization MCSE,MCSA,MCP,Security+,Network+,CCA Phone: 401-639-3505 -Original Message- From: Christopher J. Bosak [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2008 11:26 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed What's wrong with blaming the people who can't program a decent driver in the first place? From: Matthew W. Ross [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2008 02:44 hrs. To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Hold on there... If an OS requires new drivers and more horsepower... we can't blame the new OS? Oh yes we can. --Matt ross From: John Hornbuckle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Vista wasn't perfect out of the gate, but it's not the piece of junk people think it is, either. A huge reason Vista has a negative image is that the hardware OEMs have been releasing buggy drivers for it--if they released drivers for it at all--and have been shipping Vista computers that either don't have enough horsepower or are bloated with crapware or bad drivers (or all three). It all adds up to a bad experience for users, and the OS gets the blame. ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~
RE: Why XP is doomed
Ahhh...ok, thanks. I should start living in the 21st century, huh... Bill Lambert Concuity 847-941-9206 From: Sam Cayze [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 9:48 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed I never buy any laptops with 5400 RPM disks. That's so 1980's. I throw 7200 in all our laptops, heat has never been a problem. Now, on an ultra-portable or tablet, I could see how it could be... But then again, there are many 7200 RPM drives that claim they are just as cool as 5400 rpm drives... From: Bill Lambert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 9:04 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Doesn't putting in a 7200 spin disk increase the heat factor? I always thought that was the reason some laptops come with 5400 spin drives to keep the heat down. Bill Lambert Concuity 847-941-9206 From: Ken Schaefer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2008 6:46 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed My wife has a top of the line Sony SZ48 series Vaio. Fantastic machine - carbon fibre case, weighs next to nothing, two GPUs. Performance out of the box is abysmal. I replaced the drive with a 7200 RPM disk, upped the RAM, and tried to remove as much Sony crapware as possible (it even comes with its own copy of SQL Server to manage your media - because WMP obviously can't do that). Runs a lot better now, but I suspect it'll run a lot better with a clean install. Cheers Ken From: John Hornbuckle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, 11 May 2008 9:22 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Check out this story: http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=429 It's a perfect example of a manufacturer shipping a Vista machine with unacceptable performance. This resulted in a black eye for the manufacturer (Sony in this case, but they're not the only ones to do this) and a lost customer for the manufacturer and Microsoft alike. I didn't participate in the Vista beta, but I did grab it as soon as it RTM'd. I installed it on my home desktop, which is a modest box (Pentium D CPU w/ 2 GB of RAM) I built myself a good year before Vista was released. It ran great. Still does. Now, if I could run Vista fine on a machine that I built from parts that were never designed to work with Vista, why is it that PC manufacturers can't ship brand new machines that work as well? John From: Matthew W. Ross [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2008 3:44 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Hold on there... If an OS requires new drivers and more horsepower... we can't blame the new OS? Oh yes we can. --Matt ross From: John Hornbuckle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Vista wasn't perfect out of the gate, but it's not the piece of junk people think it is, either. A huge reason Vista has a negative image is that the hardware OEMs have been releasing buggy drivers for it--if they released drivers for it at all--and have been shipping Vista computers that either don't have enough horsepower or are bloated with crapware or bad drivers (or all three). It all adds up to a bad experience for users, and the OS gets the blame. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.23.15/1426 - Release Date: 5/10/2008 11:12 AM ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~
RE: Why XP is doomed
I have to disagree with the paragraph about the pressure from OEMs to dump XP. Seems to me, several HP and Dell included, are doing exactly the opposite. Both are offering to exercise the OEM downgrade rights for you and ship PCs to you with XP pre-installed, but with a Vista license attached and including media for both OSes. -Original Message- From: Angus Scott-Fleming [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2008 7:20 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Why XP is doomed Interesting analysis from Cringely. As always, follow the money ... --- Included Stuff Follows --- I, Cringely . The Pulpit . Wimpy | PBS ... Several readers are concerned about Microsoft's decision to stop selling Windows XP and -- most importantly -- end security updates for the venerable operating system. This has everything to do with business and nothing at all to do with technology. Wearing my business reporter's fedora, then, I'll point you back a week or so to Microsoft's most recent earnings announcement, which disappointed Wall Street. This is significant because it is hard to find a Wall Street analyst who remembers the last time Microsoft's earnings were disappointing. It simply doesn't happen. That's because Microsoft has a myriad of tools for adjusting the numbers to look just right. Because Microsoft has so many tools for fine-tuning its financials (primarily the management of expenses, by the way -- Microsoft makes so much money that it tunes the numbers by throwing cash away), the fact that this last set of numbers disappointed suggests to me that they, too, could have been avoided. Microsoft probably decided to deliberately take an earnings hit precisely so they could play the we have to get the earnings up card to justify the final death of XP. Microsoft has been under huge pressure from its hardware OEMs to dump XP, thus forcing millions of customers who have been avoiding Vista and Vista's inevitable hardware upgrade to finally buy new computers. Dumping XP will help Dell and HP AND Microsoft, big-time. It won't do anything for you or me, though, since Vista still sucks, but we obviously don't matter. Those customers who think they'll keep XP going on their own will probably be out of luck, too. With Microsoft abandoning security upgrades, hackers will eat holes in the old OS practically overnight. And if one or more of the security companies like Symantec or McAfee think they can make a business out of defending XP, I simply doubt that customers will pay. - Included Stuff Ends - Other topics also discussed in his column here: http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2008/pulpit_20080509_004880.html ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~ ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~
RE: Why XP is doomed
I agree. We love the new administrator prompts here and they do save a lot of time. We also use Folder Redirection and Offline Folders which is much better than XP. Offline Folders has never been reliable for us on XP the files are constantly getting out of sync and corrupted. A real pain in the backside. Vista is far better in this area. Tim -Original Message- From: John Hornbuckle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 10:16 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed No need to run as with Vista. When doing admin things, you're automatically prompted for an admin password. Or in Printers, for instance, you can right-click a printer and select run as administrator - properties. Can't do that in XP. These are little things, but they really do save time. As for the extra security, I like that even when I'm logged in as an admin, I'm not running things (IE, command prompt, etc.) as an admin when it's not necessary. I also like that I can move my mouse over a minimized item on the task bar and see a quick thumbnail of the window. That has turned out to be handy. Also, folder redirection seems to work better on our Vista machines than XP. Less intrusive and more responsive. -Original Message- From: Rankin, James R [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 6:58 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Surely you could do this in XP with RunAs? Or has Vista implemented some new-fangled, singing 'n dancing version of it? -Original Message- From: John Hornbuckle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 11 May 2008 18:28 To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed I like the extra security Vista provides. I also like that when my techs work on users' machines, they can do things that require admin rights without logging in with an admin account. It speeds up certain tasks considerably. -Original Message- From: Phillip Partipilo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2008 10:32 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Why XP is doomed The OS is just hosting the applications that I use to get my job done. XP is good enough for this task. No reason whatsoever to upgrade. Michael B. Smith wrote: Hah. I blogged on this just yesterday: http://theessentialexchange.com/blogs/michael/archive/2008/05/09/just-fl uff- on-vista.aspx And no, I didn't read Cringely... I think it was something Paul Thurrott wrote that was the straw/camel's back for me. I dunno, I read too many things every day. Granted, I'm not the average user. Not even the average power user. I've got physical machines that run XP, that run Vista, that run Server 2008, that run Server 2003 - and believe it or not, one that runs Linux. And probably twice as many virtuals as I've got physicals. The market can't have it every way. Since XP was released, Microsoft has been absolutely PUMMELLED by spam, by viruses, by worms, by lack of hardware capabilities, by lack of software capabilities, etc. etc. etc. Microsoft responded to what the market demanded, and Vista is the answer. Graphically, Vista is gorgeous - if you have the graphics horsepower to make it happen. Vista provides software support for technologies that weren't even conceived of when XP was released. The hardware support that Vista provides makes it MUCH easier for the OS to NOT crash when there are driver bugs. Or bugs in any add-on product. And on and on and on. All of those things come at a cost - in memory and in processor. If you want a minimal version of Vista - go install Server 2008. See how lean and mean it is. And how little it can do in the base configuration. Then, start adding the features and roles you require in order to get to a workable desktop machine, and see how those changes impact performance. In some ways, a desktop machine has to be more powerful than a server. It certainly has to have more fluff. I'm not a Microsoft rah rah man. However, I'm well aware of where I make my money - and that's based on Microsoft products. I criticize the Microsoft machine on a daily basis - and I do it in public forums, such as this one, on my blog; and I do it in private forums, for betas (and even alphas) of certain software that I take a particular interest in. Vista _IS_ sucky in some ways. And I've bugged those that affect me. For example, even after SP1, wireless doesn't just work like it did in XP. Many users have to reboot when switching wireless connections. For me, I'm tech savvy enough to open a command prompt and do an ipconfig /renew. It's irritating. But does that mean that Vista is going away? Don't be silly. Even if you hate Vista, it introduces many technologies that are part of the future of computing. You need to learn it. It's the stepping stone to what comes next. Microsoft isn't abandoning Vista. They've made that clear too. Many people have taken the fact that there is so much talk about Windows
RE: Why XP is doomed
Yep, Dell just made an announcement a few weeks ago they are sticking with selling XP still. My new Dell came with Xp but I have a Vista licenses if I should ever try and upgrade. ( Puke put it in Vmworkstation) and be done with it. Z Edward E. Ziots Network Engineer Lifespan Organization MCSE,MCSA,MCP,Security+,Network+,CCA Phone: 401-639-3505 -Original Message- From: Jim Majorowicz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 1:20 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed I have to disagree with the paragraph about the pressure from OEMs to dump XP. Seems to me, several HP and Dell included, are doing exactly the opposite. Both are offering to exercise the OEM downgrade rights for you and ship PCs to you with XP pre-installed, but with a Vista license attached and including media for both OSes. -Original Message- From: Angus Scott-Fleming [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2008 7:20 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Why XP is doomed Interesting analysis from Cringely. As always, follow the money ... --- Included Stuff Follows --- I, Cringely . The Pulpit . Wimpy | PBS ... Several readers are concerned about Microsoft's decision to stop selling Windows XP and -- most importantly -- end security updates for the venerable operating system. This has everything to do with business and nothing at all to do with technology. Wearing my business reporter's fedora, then, I'll point you back a week or so to Microsoft's most recent earnings announcement, which disappointed Wall Street. This is significant because it is hard to find a Wall Street analyst who remembers the last time Microsoft's earnings were disappointing. It simply doesn't happen. That's because Microsoft has a myriad of tools for adjusting the numbers to look just right. Because Microsoft has so many tools for fine-tuning its financials (primarily the management of expenses, by the way -- Microsoft makes so much money that it tunes the numbers by throwing cash away), the fact that this last set of numbers disappointed suggests to me that they, too, could have been avoided. Microsoft probably decided to deliberately take an earnings hit precisely so they could play the we have to get the earnings up card to justify the final death of XP. Microsoft has been under huge pressure from its hardware OEMs to dump XP, thus forcing millions of customers who have been avoiding Vista and Vista's inevitable hardware upgrade to finally buy new computers. Dumping XP will help Dell and HP AND Microsoft, big-time. It won't do anything for you or me, though, since Vista still sucks, but we obviously don't matter. Those customers who think they'll keep XP going on their own will probably be out of luck, too. With Microsoft abandoning security upgrades, hackers will eat holes in the old OS practically overnight. And if one or more of the security companies like Symantec or McAfee think they can make a business out of defending XP, I simply doubt that customers will pay. - Included Stuff Ends - Other topics also discussed in his column here: http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2008/pulpit_20080509_004880.html ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~ ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~ ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~
RE: Why XP is doomed
Not trying to argue, but I have been ordering 7200 rpm drives factory installed in my Dell laptops for probably over 2 years now. From: HELP_PC [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 11:29 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: R: Why XP is doomed 15k for SAS were until a couple of monthes ago only for SAS 3.5'' .Now they are out also for SAS 2.5'. Manufacturers started now to ship some models of laptops with 2.5'' 7200 rpm GuidoElia HELPPC Da: Sam Cayze [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Inviato: lunedì 12 maggio 2008 17.21 A: NT System Admin Issues Oggetto: RE: Why XP is doomed Ok, maybe the 80's was a stretch, I was kidding. But 72000 RPM 2.5 disks have been out for a few years I would imagine. At least three years I would imagine, since I have been working with laptops. Usually you have to buy them separately, as the manufacturer does not ship them. Even 10,000 RPM 2.5 drives are out now. SAS and SATA. I just got a 15K RPM in my workstation now. From: HELP_PC [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 10:12 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed You are wrong . On laptops 7200rpm disks are new! Some brands started now to distribute them on laptops and for workstations 1 rpm SATA GuidoElia HELPPC Da: Sam Cayze [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Inviato: lunedì 12 maggio 2008 16.48 A: NT System Admin Issues Oggetto: RE: Why XP is doomed I never buy any laptops with 5400 RPM disks. That's so 1980's. I throw 7200 in all our laptops, heat has never been a problem. Now, on an ultra-portable or tablet, I could see how it could be... But then again, there are many 7200 RPM drives that claim they are just as cool as 5400 rpm drives... From: Bill Lambert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 9:04 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Doesn't putting in a 7200 spin disk increase the heat factor? I always thought that was the reason some laptops come with 5400 spin drives to keep the heat down. Bill Lambert Concuity 847-941-9206 From: Ken Schaefer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2008 6:46 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed My wife has a top of the line Sony SZ48 series Vaio. Fantastic machine - carbon fibre case, weighs next to nothing, two GPUs. Performance out of the box is abysmal. I replaced the drive with a 7200 RPM disk, upped the RAM, and tried to remove as much Sony crapware as possible (it even comes with its own copy of SQL Server to manage your media - because WMP obviously can't do that). Runs a lot better now, but I suspect it'll run a lot better with a clean install. Cheers Ken From: John Hornbuckle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, 11 May 2008 9:22 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Check out this story: http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=429 It's a perfect example of a manufacturer shipping a Vista machine with unacceptable performance. This resulted in a black eye for the manufacturer (Sony in this case, but they're not the only ones to do this) and a lost customer for the manufacturer and Microsoft alike. I didn't participate in the Vista beta, but I did grab it as soon as it RTM'd. I installed it on my home desktop, which is a modest box (Pentium D CPU w/ 2 GB of RAM) I built myself a good year before Vista was released. It ran great. Still does. Now, if I could run Vista fine on a machine that I built from parts that were never designed to work with Vista, why is it that PC manufacturers can't ship brand new machines that work as well? John From: Matthew W. Ross [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2008 3:44 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Hold on there... If an OS requires new drivers and more horsepower... we can't blame the new OS? Oh yes we can. --Matt ross From: John Hornbuckle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Vista wasn't perfect out of the gate, but it's not the piece of junk people think it is, either. A huge reason Vista has a negative image is that the hardware OEMs have been releasing buggy drivers for it--if they released drivers for it at all--and have been shipping Vista computers that either don't have enough horsepower or are bloated with crapware or bad drivers (or all three). It all adds up to a bad experience for users, and the OS gets the blame. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.23.15/1426 - Release Date: 5/10/2008 11:12 AM ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~
RE: Why XP is doomed
Ken Schaefer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 05/11/2008 03:58:17 AM: If a vendor sells an underpowered machine, then perhaps the vendor should take some blame. I believe the point is that the hardware is not underpowered for Xp, but is underpowered for Vista. Especially if the vendor isn't (or can't ... ) offer XP on that hardware. If an ISV writes a buggy driver, then I?m pretty sure that?s the ISV?s fault. No argument there. Cheers Ken From: Matthew W. Ross [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, 11 May 2008 5:44 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Hold on there... If an OS requires new drivers and more horsepower... we can't blame the new OS? Oh yes we can. --Matt ross From: John Hornbuckle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Vista wasn't perfect out of the gate, but it's not the piece of junk people think it is, either. A huge reason Vista has a negative image is that the hardware OEMs have been releasing buggy drivers for it--if they released drivers for it at all--and have been shipping Vista computers that either don't have enough horsepower or are bloated with crapware or bad drivers (or all three). It all adds up to a bad experience for users, and the OS gets the blame. ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~
RE: Why XP is doomed
John Hornbuckle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 05/11/2008 01:28:13 PM: I like the extra security Vista provides. I also like that when my techs work on users' machines, they can do things that require admin rights without logging in with an admin account. It speeds up certain tasks considerably. That could be helpful. Can you not do a lot of the same things by doing a runas cmd, then doing the install or whatever from the resulting command environment)? -- Michael Leone Network Administrator, ISM Philadelphia Housing Authority 2500 Jackson St Philadelphia, PA 19145 Tel: 215-684-4180 Cell: 215-252-0143 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~
RE: Why XP is doomed
You could, but not as effectively or securely as you can with Vista. The Vista implementation ensures that only the install program runs under the admin rights and as soon as the install completes the admin privileges are not available to be used for other purposes. Tim From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 2:39 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed John Hornbuckle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 05/11/2008 01:28:13 PM: I like the extra security Vista provides. I also like that when my techs work on users' machines, they can do things that require admin rights without logging in with an admin account. It speeds up certain tasks considerably. That could be helpful. Can you not do a lot of the same things by doing a runas cmd, then doing the install or whatever from the resulting command environment)? -- Michael Leone Network Administrator, ISM Philadelphia Housing Authority 2500 Jackson St Philadelphia, PA 19145 Tel: 215-684-4180 Cell: 215-252-0143 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~
RE: Why XP is doomed
Well, it's moot that a crappy system being sold by a vendor is good enough to run XP. It's also good enough to run Windows for Workgroups and DOS-but that's not the point. Yes, Vista has higher hardware requirements. Just like XP has higher requirements than Win9x had, and just like Win9x had higher requirements than Win3x had. Every OS that comes out is likely to have higher requirements than the OS before it. But honestly, Vista's hardware requirements aren't crazy high. As I mentioned before, I'm running it at home on a Pentium D processor-which is a very modest CPU by today's standards. Vista works just fine with it. The biggest issue with the hardware vendors, as seen in the ZDNet piece, is the crapware installed at the factory. The author of the article got the Sony laptop working perfectly with Vista without changing the hardware at all. John Hornbuckle MIS Department Taylor County School District 318 North Clark Street Perry, FL 32347 www.taylor.k12.fl.us From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 3:35 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Ken Schaefer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 05/11/2008 03:58:17 AM: If a vendor sells an underpowered machine, then perhaps the vendor should take some blame. I believe the point is that the hardware is not underpowered for Xp, but is underpowered for Vista. Especially if the vendor isn't (or can't ... ) offer XP on that hardware. ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~
Re: Why XP is doomed
I have 2.2 GHZ Centrino Duo laptop with 2GB of RAM and Vista works as fast as my previous XP Machine which was a 1.8GHX Centrino Duo and 2GB RAM. So your Pentium D 3 Ghz should be fine and dandy with or without the 4gb obviously 4gb would be better but then that goes for xp too. Graeme On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 8:59 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Hornbuckle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 05/12/2008 03:53:29 PM: Well, it's moot that a crappy system being sold by a vendor is good enough to run XP. It's also good enough to run Windows for Workgroups and DOS—but that's not the point. Yes, Vista has higher hardware requirements. Just like XP has higher requirements than Win9x had, and just like Win9x had higher requirements than Win3x had. Every OS that comes out is likely to have higher requirements than the OS before it. But honestly, Vista's hardware requirements aren't crazy high. As I mentioned before, I'm running it at home on a Pentium D processor— which is a very modest CPU by today's standards. Vista works just fine with it. The biggest issue with the hardware vendors, as seen in the ZDNet piece, is the crapware installed at the factory. The author of the article got the Sony laptop working perfectly with Vista without changing the hardware at all. Really ... I have a Pentium D, 3GHz, 2M RAM. You think if I bumped the RAM to 4G that Vista would be OK with it? I mostly use this PC for photoediting (Photoshop CS3), and video editing (which in my case is converting PAL to NTSC, or making a DVD out of AVI files, using Nero 7). Feel free to reply offlist John Hornbuckle MIS Department Taylor County School District 318 North Clark Street Perry, FL 32347 www.taylor.k12.fl.us From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 3:35 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Ken Schaefer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 05/11/2008 03:58:17 AM: If a vendor sells an underpowered machine, then perhaps the vendor should take some blame. I believe the point is that the hardware is not underpowered for Xp, but is underpowered for Vista. Especially if the vendor isn't (or can't ... ) offer XP on that hardware. -- Carbon credits are a bit like beating someone up on this side of the world and sponsoring one of those poor starving kids on the other side of the world to make up for the fact that you're a complete shit at home. ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~
RE: Why XP is doomed
Nothing wrong with that, either. I remember when XP came out... It was Windows 2000 (Which is, in my opinion, Microsoft's greatest OS release) which was being praised then. Most people could not find enough things in XP to warrant the upgrade. Also, there were some XP drivers as well. Finally, when SP2 came out, people started to move over (although I remember all the ranting about the built-in firewall causing problems as well). So, now that we're all used to XP, moving to vista seems unnecessary. But, it will end up happening, I'm sure. It has been what history dictates we do, so we probably will. As for my Oh yes we can comment, it was meant to be tongue-in-cheek. --Matt Ross - Original Message - From: Christopher J. Bosak [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: NT System Admin Issues [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sun, 11 May 2008 20:25:56 -0700 Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed What's wrong with blaming the people who can't program a decent driver in the first place? From: Matthew W. Ross [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2008 02:44 hrs. To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Hold on there... If an OS requires new drivers and more horsepower... we can't blame the new OS? Oh yes we can. --Matt ross _ From: John Hornbuckle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Vista wasn't perfect out of the gate, but it's not the piece of junk people think it is, either. A huge reason Vista has a negative image is that the hardware OEMs have been releasing buggy drivers for it--if they released drivers for it at all--and have been shipping Vista computers that either don't have enough horsepower or are bloated with crapware or bad drivers (or all three). It all adds up to a bad experience for users, and the OS gets the blame. ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~ ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~
Re: Why XP is doomed
I agree. 5400 RPM is just doggedly slow in this day and age. On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 10:48 AM, Sam Cayze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I never buy any laptops with 5400 RPM disks. That's so 1980's. I throw 7200 in all our laptops, heat has never been a problem. Now, on an ultra-portable or tablet, I could see how it could be... But then again, there are many 7200 RPM drives that claim they are just as cool as 5400 rpm drives... From: Bill Lambert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 9:04 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Doesn't putting in a 7200 spin disk increase the heat factor? I always thought that was the reason some laptops come with 5400 spin drives to keep the heat down. Bill Lambert Concuity 847-941-9206 From: Ken Schaefer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2008 6:46 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed My wife has a top of the line Sony SZ48 series Vaio. Fantastic machine – carbon fibre case, weighs next to nothing, two GPUs. Performance out of the box is abysmal. I replaced the drive with a 7200 RPM disk, upped the RAM, and tried to remove as much Sony crapware as possible (it even comes with its own copy of SQL Server to manage your media – because WMP obviously can't do that). Runs a lot better now, but I suspect it'll run a lot better with a clean install. Cheers Ken From: John Hornbuckle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, 11 May 2008 9:22 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Check out this story: http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=429 It's a perfect example of a manufacturer shipping a Vista machine with unacceptable performance. This resulted in a black eye for the manufacturer (Sony in this case, but they're not the only ones to do this) and a lost customer for the manufacturer and Microsoft alike. I didn't participate in the Vista beta, but I did grab it as soon as it RTM'd. I installed it on my home desktop, which is a modest box (Pentium D CPU w/ 2 GB of RAM) I built myself a good year before Vista was released. It ran great. Still does. Now, if I could run Vista fine on a machine that I built from parts that were never designed to work with Vista, why is it that PC manufacturers can't ship brand new machines that work as well? John From: Matthew W. Ross [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2008 3:44 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Hold on there... If an OS requires new drivers and more horsepower... we can't blame the new OS? Oh yes we can. --Matt ross From: John Hornbuckle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Vista wasn't perfect out of the gate, but it's not the piece of junk people think it is, either. A huge reason Vista has a negative image is that the hardware OEMs have been releasing buggy drivers for it--if they released drivers for it at all--and have been shipping Vista computers that either don't have enough horsepower or are bloated with crapware or bad drivers (or all three). It all adds up to a bad experience for users, and the OS gets the blame. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.23.15/1426 - Release Date: 5/10/2008 11:12 AM -- ME2 ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~
Re: Why XP is doomed
In many cases yes - but not all On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 3:39 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Hornbuckle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 05/11/2008 01:28:13 PM: I like the extra security Vista provides. I also like that when my techs work on users' machines, they can do things that require admin rights without logging in with an admin account. It speeds up certain tasks considerably. That could be helpful. Can you not do a lot of the same things by doing a runas cmd, then doing the install or whatever from the resulting command environment)? -- Michael Leone Network Administrator, ISM Philadelphia Housing Authority 2500 Jackson St Philadelphia, PA 19145 Tel: 215-684-4180 Cell: 215-252-0143 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- ME2 ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~
Re: Why XP is doomed
We use Panasonic Toughbooks and the 5400 RPM drives handle shock--vibe testing (and real life) much better than the 7200s - so much so that you cannot order a Toughbook with a 7200! Jeff Showen Systems Engineer Team TACLAN On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 10:03 AM, Bill Lambert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Doesn't putting in a 7200 spin disk increase the heat factor? I always thought that was the reason some laptops come with 5400 spin drives to keep the heat down. Bill Lambert Concuity 847-941-9206 From: Ken Schaefer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2008 6:46 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed My wife has a top of the line Sony SZ48 series Vaio. Fantastic machine – carbon fibre case, weighs next to nothing, two GPUs. Performance out of the box is abysmal. I replaced the drive with a 7200 RPM disk, upped the RAM, and tried to remove as much Sony crapware as possible (it even comes with its own copy of SQL Server to manage your media – because WMP obviously can't do that). Runs a lot better now, but I suspect it'll run a lot better with a clean install. Cheers Ken From: John Hornbuckle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, 11 May 2008 9:22 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Sent: Sunday, 11 May 2008 9:22 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Check out this story: http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=429 It's a perfect example of a manufacturer shipping a Vista machine with unacceptable performance. This resulted in a black eye for the manufacturer (Sony in this case, but they're not the only ones to do this) and a lost customer for the manufacturer and Microsoft alike. I didn't participate in the Vista beta, but I did grab it as soon as it RTM'd. I installed it on my home desktop, which is a modest box (Pentium D CPU w/ 2 GB of RAM) I built myself a good year before Vista was released. It ran great. Still does. Now, if I could run Vista fine on a machine that I built from parts that were never designed to work with Vista, why is it that PC manufacturers can't ship brand new machines that work as well? John From: Matthew W. Ross [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2008 3:44 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Hold on there... If an OS requires new drivers and more horsepower... we can't blame the new OS? Oh yes we can. --Matt ross From: John Hornbuckle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Vista wasn't perfect out of the gate, but it's not the piece of junk people think it is, either. A huge reason Vista has a negative image is that the hardware OEMs have been releasing buggy drivers for it--if they released drivers for it at all--and have been shipping Vista computers that either don't have enough horsepower or are bloated with crapware or bad drivers (or all three). It all adds up to a bad experience for users, and the OS gets the blame. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.23.15/1426 - Release Date: 5/10/2008 11:12 AM ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~
RE: Why XP is doomed
My rule(s) of thumb for minimum RAM to get the job done: Light/casual user: XP 512MB Vista 1GB Average user: XP 1GB Vista 2GB Power user: XP 2GB Vista 3+ GB Myself, 90% of the time I'm only an average user. Vista @ 2GB is just fine. And I don't notice much drag for 5400 rpm drives in the laptop either. That can happen when half of the 2GB RAM is given to cache. I suspect I could reduce disk dependency further with a ReadyBoost drive, much lower power than the watts needed for 7200 vs. 5400. Carl From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 4:00 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Really ... I have a Pentium D, 3GHz, 2M RAM. You think if I bumped the RAM to 4G that Vista would be OK with it? I mostly use this PC for photoediting (Photoshop CS3), and video editing (which in my case is converting PAL to NTSC, or making a DVD out of AVI files, using Nero 7). Feel free to reply offlist ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~
RE: Why XP is doomed
My Pentium D is only 2.8 GHz, so you've got me beat there. I've also got just 2 GB of RAM. I use Photoshop, but not working with huge images and no video editing. I don't think you can do 4 GB without going 64-bit, right? My system rates 4.7 on the Windows Experience Index, with the lowest subscore being on the processor. John From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 4:00 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Really ... I have a Pentium D, 3GHz, 2M RAM. You think if I bumped the RAM to 4G that Vista would be OK with it? I mostly use this PC for photoediting (Photoshop CS3), and video editing (which in my case is converting PAL to NTSC, or making a DVD out of AVI files, using Nero 7). Feel free to reply offlist ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~
RE: Why XP is doomed
If your organization doesn't need things like increased security, improved ease of management, and better performance with offline files and folders, then no-Vista probably wouldn't be of use to you. Ditto for improved sleep/hibernate and increased speed through ReadyBoost and SuperFetch. For my organization, these new features bring benefits over XP. In fact, most organizations benefit from improved speed, security, and reliability. But if yours doesn't, that's okay. John From: Murray Freeman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 7:31 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Now let me understand this. I should spend the money to acquire a new FASTER computer so that I can run Vista which runs at the very SAME speed that an older slower computer did running XP, but Vista really has little if any to offer in the way of benefits. Now I get it! I'm loving this thread, because so far I don't hear any good reasons to upgrade to Vista. I've been in IT for nearly 44 years. During that time I've seen a lot of changes, and in most cases more productivity for smaller amounts of financial investment. But I just have a real problem with spending MORE to get virtually nothing for my investment..other than I can tell people that I have VISTA!!! I want to thank everyone for reaffirming the decision I had already made for my organization. Murray From: Graeme Carstairs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 3:29 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Why XP is doomed I have 2.2 GHZ Centrino Duo laptop with 2GB of RAM and Vista works as fast as my previous XP Machine which was a 1.8GHX Centrino Duo and 2GB RAM. So your Pentium D 3 Ghz should be fine and dandy with or without the 4gb obviously 4gb would be better but then that goes for xp too. Graeme On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 8:59 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Hornbuckle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 05/12/2008 03:53:29 PM: Well, it's moot that a crappy system being sold by a vendor is good enough to run XP. It's also good enough to run Windows for Workgroups and DOS-but that's not the point. Yes, Vista has higher hardware requirements. Just like XP has higher requirements than Win9x had, and just like Win9x had higher requirements than Win3x had. Every OS that comes out is likely to have higher requirements than the OS before it. But honestly, Vista's hardware requirements aren't crazy high. As I mentioned before, I'm running it at home on a Pentium D processor- which is a very modest CPU by today's standards. Vista works just fine with it. The biggest issue with the hardware vendors, as seen in the ZDNet piece, is the crapware installed at the factory. The author of the article got the Sony laptop working perfectly with Vista without changing the hardware at all. Really ... I have a Pentium D, 3GHz, 2M RAM. You think if I bumped the RAM to 4G that Vista would be OK with it? I mostly use this PC for photoediting (Photoshop CS3), and video editing (which in my case is converting PAL to NTSC, or making a DVD out of AVI files, using Nero 7). Feel free to reply offlist John Hornbuckle MIS Department Taylor County School District 318 North Clark Street Perry, FL 32347 www.taylor.k12.fl.us From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 3:35 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Ken Schaefer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 05/11/2008 03:58:17 AM: If a vendor sells an underpowered machine, then perhaps the vendor should take some blame. I believe the point is that the hardware is not underpowered for Xp, but is underpowered for Vista. Especially if the vendor isn't (or can't ... ) offer XP on that hardware. -- Carbon credits are a bit like beating someone up on this side of the world and sponsoring one of those poor starving kids on the other side of the world to make up for the fact that you're a complete shit at home. ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~
RE: Why XP is doomed
There wasn't any significant reason to leave Windows 2000 Pro for XP at the time. In fact the slower hardware of the time caused many to turn off new XP features effectively making it Windows 2000 with a new color scheme. One thing nobody's mentioned that I like about Vista, the volume mixer. Instead of one volume for everything, you can set the volume for each application separately, so if one thing is too loud while another is too quiet, you can fix that. Yeah this alone isn't much, but it adds to the pot. Also like the snipping tool. I'm not saying anyone should upgrade existing hardware to Vista, just that if you happen to be buying new hardware, and you're buying 2+ GB of RAM and dual core CPUs, might as well go for Vista*. Sooner or later (unless you are very protected from users in the backoffice) you're going to have to help somebody with a Vista-specific issue. Sure, postpone the change for the organization if you must, but get your feet wet now before you're under the gun. Carl From: Murray Freeman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 7:31 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Now let me understand this. I should spend the money to acquire a new FASTER computer so that I can run Vista which runs at the very SAME speed that an older slower computer did running XP, but Vista really has little if any to offer in the way of benefits. Now I get it! I'm loving this thread, because so far I don't hear any good reasons to upgrade to Vista. I've been in IT for nearly 44 years. During that time I've seen a lot of changes, and in most cases more productivity for smaller amounts of financial investment. But I just have a real problem with spending MORE to get virtually nothing for my investment..other than I can tell people that I have VISTA!!! I want to thank everyone for reaffirming the decision I had already made for my organization. Murray _ From: Graeme Carstairs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 3:29 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Why XP is doomed I have 2.2 GHZ Centrino Duo laptop with 2GB of RAM and Vista works as fast as my previous XP Machine which was a 1.8GHX Centrino Duo and 2GB RAM. So your Pentium D 3 Ghz should be fine and dandy with or without the 4gb obviously 4gb would be better but then that goes for xp too. Graeme On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 8:59 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Hornbuckle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 05/12/2008 03:53:29 PM: Well, it's moot that a crappy system being sold by a vendor is good enough to run XP. It's also good enough to run Windows for Workgroups and DOS-but that's not the point. Yes, Vista has higher hardware requirements. Just like XP has higher requirements than Win9x had, and just like Win9x had higher requirements than Win3x had. Every OS that comes out is likely to have higher requirements than the OS before it. But honestly, Vista's hardware requirements aren't crazy high. As I mentioned before, I'm running it at home on a Pentium D processor- which is a very modest CPU by today's standards. Vista works just fine with it. The biggest issue with the hardware vendors, as seen in the ZDNet piece, is the crapware installed at the factory. The author of the article got the Sony laptop working perfectly with Vista without changing the hardware at all. Really ... I have a Pentium D, 3GHz, 2M RAM. You think if I bumped the RAM to 4G that Vista would be OK with it? I mostly use this PC for photoediting (Photoshop CS3), and video editing (which in my case is converting PAL to NTSC, or making a DVD out of AVI files, using Nero 7). Feel free to reply offlist John Hornbuckle MIS Department Taylor County School District 318 North Clark Street Perry, FL 32347 www.taylor.k12.fl.us From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 3:35 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Ken Schaefer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 05/11/2008 03:58:17 AM: If a vendor sells an underpowered machine, then perhaps the vendor should take some blame. I believe the point is that the hardware is not underpowered for Xp, but is underpowered for Vista. Especially if the vendor isn't (or can't ... ) offer XP on that hardware. ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~
RE: Why XP is doomed
You can install 4GB in 32-bit Vista but you'll probably only get to use 3GB or slightly more. That's why you see a lot of machines being sold with 3GB lately. They might in fact have 4GB physically installed, don't know about that. Carl From: John Hornbuckle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 8:29 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed My Pentium D is only 2.8 GHz, so you've got me beat there. I've also got just 2 GB of RAM. I use Photoshop, but not working with huge images and no video editing. I don't think you can do 4 GB without going 64-bit, right? My system rates 4.7 on the Windows Experience Index, with the lowest subscore being on the processor. John From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 4:00 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Really ... I have a Pentium D, 3GHz, 2M RAM. You think if I bumped the RAM to 4G that Vista would be OK with it? I mostly use this PC for photoediting (Photoshop CS3), and video editing (which in my case is converting PAL to NTSC, or making a DVD out of AVI files, using Nero 7). Feel free to reply offlist ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~
RE: Why XP is doomed
There are lots of laptop models that have 7200 RPM as an option. All of our new Latitudes are coming with 7200 RPM disks (probably a couple of thousand this year). Over at MSFT, their IBM Thinkpads are defaulting to 7200 RPM, and I expect their other vendors will be going that way too. It's now only on the cheaper models, or the ultralights, where 7200 RPM isn't being offered. 7200 RPM still does have a price premium over 5400 RPM (as well as reduced space). Cheers Ken From: HELP_PC [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, 13 May 2008 2:29 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: R: Why XP is doomed 15k for SAS were until a couple of monthes ago only for SAS 3.5'' .Now they are out also for SAS 2.5'. Manufacturers started now to ship some models of laptops with 2.5'' 7200 rpm GuidoElia HELPPC Da: Sam Cayze [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Inviato: lunedì 12 maggio 2008 17.21 A: NT System Admin Issues Oggetto: RE: Why XP is doomed Ok, maybe the 80's was a stretch, I was kidding. But 72000 RPM 2.5 disks have been out for a few years I would imagine. At least three years I would imagine, since I have been working with laptops. Usually you have to buy them separately, as the manufacturer does not ship them. Even 10,000 RPM 2.5 drives are out now. SAS and SATA. I just got a 15K RPM in my workstation now. From: HELP_PC [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 10:12 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed You are wrong . On laptops 7200rpm disks are new! Some brands started now to distribute them on laptops and for workstations 1 rpm SATA GuidoElia HELPPC Da: Sam Cayze [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Inviato: lunedì 12 maggio 2008 16.48 A: NT System Admin Issues Oggetto: RE: Why XP is doomed I never buy any laptops with 5400 RPM disks. That's so 1980's. I throw 7200 in all our laptops, heat has never been a problem. Now, on an ultra-portable or tablet, I could see how it could be... But then again, there are many 7200 RPM drives that claim they are just as cool as 5400 rpm drives... From: Bill Lambert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 9:04 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Doesn't putting in a 7200 spin disk increase the heat factor? I always thought that was the reason some laptops come with 5400 spin drives to keep the heat down. Bill Lambert Concuity 847-941-9206 From: Ken Schaefer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2008 6:46 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed My wife has a top of the line Sony SZ48 series Vaio. Fantastic machine - carbon fibre case, weighs next to nothing, two GPUs. Performance out of the box is abysmal. I replaced the drive with a 7200 RPM disk, upped the RAM, and tried to remove as much Sony crapware as possible (it even comes with its own copy of SQL Server to manage your media - because WMP obviously can't do that). Runs a lot better now, but I suspect it'll run a lot better with a clean install. Cheers Ken From: John Hornbuckle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, 11 May 2008 9:22 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Check out this story: http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=429 It's a perfect example of a manufacturer shipping a Vista machine with unacceptable performance. This resulted in a black eye for the manufacturer (Sony in this case, but they're not the only ones to do this) and a lost customer for the manufacturer and Microsoft alike. I didn't participate in the Vista beta, but I did grab it as soon as it RTM'd. I installed it on my home desktop, which is a modest box (Pentium D CPU w/ 2 GB of RAM) I built myself a good year before Vista was released. It ran great. Still does. Now, if I could run Vista fine on a machine that I built from parts that were never designed to work with Vista, why is it that PC manufacturers can't ship brand new machines that work as well? John From: Matthew W. Ross [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2008 3:44 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Hold on there... If an OS requires new drivers and more horsepower... we can't blame the new OS? Oh yes we can. --Matt ross From: John Hornbuckle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Vista wasn't perfect out of the gate, but it's not the piece of junk people think it is, either. A huge reason Vista has a negative image is that the hardware OEMs have been releasing buggy drivers for it--if they released drivers for it at all--and have been shipping Vista computers that either don't have enough horsepower or are bloated with crapware or bad drivers (or all three). It all adds up to a bad experience for users, and the OS gets the blame. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.23.15/1426 - Release Date: 5/10/2008 11:12 AM
Re: Why XP is doomed
Ken, Running VMs off a laptop would pretty much immediately put you into the ³more of a power user² camp. I¹m fairly certain VMs are going to be primarily I/O bound unless you¹re trying something truly processor or graphics intensive. On 5/12/08 6:30 PM, Ken Schaefer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Readyboost won¹t help you with the significant disk I/O that can occur with (a) indexing and (b) AV scanning and (c) Outlook PST files. Once the drive is spinning, I doubt there is much additional power draw I suspect that there isn¹t that much drag. The main power draw in laptops these days (as I understand it) are screens and GPUs. Maybe I¹m more of a power user, but I can physically see the difference in running VMs off a 5400 RPM drive vs. A 7200 RPM drive (identically configured Dell Latitude D830s with a couple of VMs on the modular bay drive). The 5400 RPM drives are slower to start the VMs, and when running through a set of test cases take longer to complete (you can see this just by watching the two machines side by side). Cheers Ken From: Carl Houseman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, 13 May 2008 10:24 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed My rule(s) of thumb for minimum RAM to get the job done: Light/casual user: XP 512MB Vista 1GB Average user: XP 1GB Vista 2GB Power user: XP 2GB Vista 3+ GB Myself, 90% of the time I¹m only an average user. Vista @ 2GB is just fine. And I don't notice much drag for 5400 rpm drives in the laptop either. That can happen when half of the 2GB RAM is given to cache. I suspect I could reduce disk dependency further with a ReadyBoost drive, much lower power than the watts needed for 7200 vs. 5400. Carl From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 4:00 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Really ... I have a Pentium D, 3GHz, 2M RAM. You think if I bumped the RAM to 4G that Vista would be OK with it? I mostly use this PC for photoediting (Photoshop CS3), and video editing (which in my case is converting PAL to NTSC, or making a DVD out of AVI files, using Nero 7). Feel free to reply offlist --- Salvador Manzo [ 620 W. 35th St - Los Angeles, CA 90089 e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Auxiliary Services IT, Datacenter University of Southern California 818-612-5112 In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock. Thomas Jefferson ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~
RE: Why XP is doomed
Whether or not Vista offers any benefits to you, is something only you can decide. But can we have enough of the Vista has no benefits or Vista is the bee's knees posts? This has been *done to death* on the list already. If people want to share *why* they are moving to Vista, or why they aren't (e.g. a technical issue with app compat or something) then that's useful information. But the below is worth nothing. You've already posted this before, there's no need to post it again. Cheers Ken From: Murray Freeman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, 13 May 2008 9:31 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Now let me understand this. I should spend the money to acquire a new FASTER computer so that I can run Vista which runs at the very SAME speed that an older slower computer did running XP, but Vista really has little if any to offer in the way of benefits. Now I get it! I'm loving this thread, because so far I don't hear any good reasons to upgrade to Vista. I've been in IT for nearly 44 years. During that time I've seen a lot of changes, and in most cases more productivity for smaller amounts of financial investment. But I just have a real problem with spending MORE to get virtually nothing for my investment..other than I can tell people that I have VISTA!!! I want to thank everyone for reaffirming the decision I had already made for my organization. Murray From: Graeme Carstairs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 3:29 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Why XP is doomed I have 2.2 GHZ Centrino Duo laptop with 2GB of RAM and Vista works as fast as my previous XP Machine which was a 1.8GHX Centrino Duo and 2GB RAM. So your Pentium D 3 Ghz should be fine and dandy with or without the 4gb obviously 4gb would be better but then that goes for xp too. Graeme ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~
RE: Why XP is doomed
Hold on there... If an OS requires new drivers and more horsepower... we can't blame the new OS? Oh yes we can. --Matt ross _ From: John Hornbuckle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Vista wasn't perfect out of the gate, but it's not the piece of junk people think it is, either. A huge reason Vista has a negative image is that the hardware OEMs have been releasing buggy drivers for it--if they released drivers for it at all--and have been shipping Vista computers that either don't have enough horsepower or are bloated with crapware or bad drivers (or all three). It all adds up to a bad experience for users, and the OS gets the blame. ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~
RE: Why XP is doomed
If a vendor sells an underpowered machine, then perhaps the vendor should take some blame. If an ISV writes a buggy driver, then I'm pretty sure that's the ISV's fault. Cheers Ken From: Matthew W. Ross [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, 11 May 2008 5:44 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Hold on there... If an OS requires new drivers and more horsepower... we can't blame the new OS? Oh yes we can. --Matt ross From: John Hornbuckle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Vista wasn't perfect out of the gate, but it's not the piece of junk people think it is, either. A huge reason Vista has a negative image is that the hardware OEMs have been releasing buggy drivers for it--if they released drivers for it at all--and have been shipping Vista computers that either don't have enough horsepower or are bloated with crapware or bad drivers (or all three). It all adds up to a bad experience for users, and the OS gets the blame. ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~
RE: Why XP is doomed
Check out this story: http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=429 It's a perfect example of a manufacturer shipping a Vista machine with unacceptable performance. This resulted in a black eye for the manufacturer (Sony in this case, but they're not the only ones to do this) and a lost customer for the manufacturer and Microsoft alike. I didn't participate in the Vista beta, but I did grab it as soon as it RTM'd. I installed it on my home desktop, which is a modest box (Pentium D CPU w/ 2 GB of RAM) I built myself a good year before Vista was released. It ran great. Still does. Now, if I could run Vista fine on a machine that I built from parts that were never designed to work with Vista, why is it that PC manufacturers can't ship brand new machines that work as well? John From: Matthew W. Ross [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2008 3:44 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Hold on there... If an OS requires new drivers and more horsepower... we can't blame the new OS? Oh yes we can. --Matt ross From: John Hornbuckle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Vista wasn't perfect out of the gate, but it's not the piece of junk people think it is, either. A huge reason Vista has a negative image is that the hardware OEMs have been releasing buggy drivers for it--if they released drivers for it at all--and have been shipping Vista computers that either don't have enough horsepower or are bloated with crapware or bad drivers (or all three). It all adds up to a bad experience for users, and the OS gets the blame. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.23.15/1426 - Release Date: 5/10/2008 11:12 AM ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~
RE: Why XP is doomed
My wife has a top of the line Sony SZ48 series Vaio. Fantastic machine - carbon fibre case, weighs next to nothing, two GPUs. Performance out of the box is abysmal. I replaced the drive with a 7200 RPM disk, upped the RAM, and tried to remove as much Sony crapware as possible (it even comes with its own copy of SQL Server to manage your media - because WMP obviously can't do that). Runs a lot better now, but I suspect it'll run a lot better with a clean install. Cheers Ken From: John Hornbuckle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, 11 May 2008 9:22 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Check out this story: http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=429 It's a perfect example of a manufacturer shipping a Vista machine with unacceptable performance. This resulted in a black eye for the manufacturer (Sony in this case, but they're not the only ones to do this) and a lost customer for the manufacturer and Microsoft alike. I didn't participate in the Vista beta, but I did grab it as soon as it RTM'd. I installed it on my home desktop, which is a modest box (Pentium D CPU w/ 2 GB of RAM) I built myself a good year before Vista was released. It ran great. Still does. Now, if I could run Vista fine on a machine that I built from parts that were never designed to work with Vista, why is it that PC manufacturers can't ship brand new machines that work as well? John From: Matthew W. Ross [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2008 3:44 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Hold on there... If an OS requires new drivers and more horsepower... we can't blame the new OS? Oh yes we can. --Matt ross From: John Hornbuckle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Vista wasn't perfect out of the gate, but it's not the piece of junk people think it is, either. A huge reason Vista has a negative image is that the hardware OEMs have been releasing buggy drivers for it--if they released drivers for it at all--and have been shipping Vista computers that either don't have enough horsepower or are bloated with crapware or bad drivers (or all three). It all adds up to a bad experience for users, and the OS gets the blame. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.23.15/1426 - Release Date: 5/10/2008 11:12 AM ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~
Re: Why XP is doomed
Yeah, I suspect so - I have a Thinkpad T60p with a Vista Experience score of 4.6 that was running like crap after having used it with the OEM install for about six months and throwing about five different VPN clients at it. After picking up a new Dell Vostro 300 with a minimal config (Vista Experience = 3.5), doing a clean install of Vista SP1 integrated on it, and seeing how it *flew* compared to the laptop, I redid the laptop, and now it performs fine. The desktop still seems subjectively a bit faster for everyday use, though, which is odd as the scores are so divergent. -- Durf On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 7:45 AM, Ken Schaefer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My wife has a top of the line Sony SZ48 series Vaio. Fantastic machine – carbon fibre case, weighs next to nothing, two GPUs. Performance out of the box is abysmal. I replaced the drive with a 7200 RPM disk, upped the RAM, and tried to remove as much Sony crapware as possible (it even comes with its own copy of SQL Server to manage your media – because WMP obviously can't do that). Runs a lot better now, but I suspect it'll run a lot better with a clean install. Cheers Ken *From:* John Hornbuckle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *Sent:* Sunday, 11 May 2008 9:22 PM *To:* NT System Admin Issues *Subject:* RE: Why XP is doomed Check out this story: http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=429 It's a perfect example of a manufacturer shipping a Vista machine with unacceptable performance. This resulted in a black eye for the manufacturer (Sony in this case, but they're not the only ones to do this) and a lost customer for the manufacturer and Microsoft alike. I didn't participate in the Vista beta, but I did grab it as soon as it RTM'd. I installed it on my home desktop, which is a modest box (Pentium D CPU w/ 2 GB of RAM) I built myself a good year before Vista was released. It ran great. Still does. Now, if I could run Vista fine on a machine that I built from parts that were never designed to work with Vista, why is it that PC manufacturers can't ship brand new machines that work as well? John *From:* Matthew W. Ross [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *Sent:* Sunday, May 11, 2008 3:44 AM *To:* NT System Admin Issues *Subject:* RE: Why XP is doomed Hold on there... If an OS requires new drivers and more horsepower... we can't blame the new OS? Oh yes we can. --Matt ross -- *From:* John Hornbuckle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Vista wasn't perfect out of the gate, but it's not the piece of junk people think it is, either. A huge reason Vista has a negative image is that the hardware OEMs have been releasing buggy drivers for it--if they released drivers for it at all--and have been shipping Vista computers that either don't have enough horsepower or are bloated with crapware or bad drivers (or all three). It all adds up to a bad experience for users, and the OS gets the blame. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.23.15/1426 - Release Date: 5/10/2008 11:12 AM -- -- Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Give a fish a man, and he'll eat for weeks! ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~
Re: Why XP is doomed
The OS is just hosting the applications that I use to get my job done. XP is good enough for this task. No reason whatsoever to upgrade. Michael B. Smith wrote: Hah. I blogged on this just yesterday: http://theessentialexchange.com/blogs/michael/archive/2008/05/09/just-fluff- on-vista.aspx And no, I didn't read Cringely... I think it was something Paul Thurrott wrote that was the straw/camel's back for me. I dunno, I read too many things every day. Granted, I'm not the average user. Not even the average power user. I've got physical machines that run XP, that run Vista, that run Server 2008, that run Server 2003 - and believe it or not, one that runs Linux. And probably twice as many virtuals as I've got physicals. The market can't have it every way. Since XP was released, Microsoft has been absolutely PUMMELLED by spam, by viruses, by worms, by lack of hardware capabilities, by lack of software capabilities, etc. etc. etc. Microsoft responded to what the market demanded, and Vista is the answer. Graphically, Vista is gorgeous - if you have the graphics horsepower to make it happen. Vista provides software support for technologies that weren't even conceived of when XP was released. The hardware support that Vista provides makes it MUCH easier for the OS to NOT crash when there are driver bugs. Or bugs in any add-on product. And on and on and on. All of those things come at a cost - in memory and in processor. If you want a minimal version of Vista - go install Server 2008. See how lean and mean it is. And how little it can do in the base configuration. Then, start adding the features and roles you require in order to get to a workable desktop machine, and see how those changes impact performance. In some ways, a desktop machine has to be more powerful than a server. It certainly has to have more fluff. I'm not a Microsoft rah rah man. However, I'm well aware of where I make my money - and that's based on Microsoft products. I criticize the Microsoft machine on a daily basis - and I do it in public forums, such as this one, on my blog; and I do it in private forums, for betas (and even alphas) of certain software that I take a particular interest in. Vista _IS_ sucky in some ways. And I've bugged those that affect me. For example, even after SP1, wireless doesn't just work like it did in XP. Many users have to reboot when switching wireless connections. For me, I'm tech savvy enough to open a command prompt and do an ipconfig /renew. It's irritating. But does that mean that Vista is going away? Don't be silly. Even if you hate Vista, it introduces many technologies that are part of the future of computing. You need to learn it. It's the stepping stone to what comes next. Microsoft isn't abandoning Vista. They've made that clear too. Many people have taken the fact that there is so much talk about Windows 7 already to mean that Microsoft is abandoning Vista. The only reason that they can make THAT claim is because they choose to ignore that Microsoft has also stated that never again will there be 5+ years between operating system releases. It was simply too long, and Microsoft heard that message too. You don't have to get with the program. But you should. Time marches on. And so does software - and hardware - and Microsoft. Regards, Michael B. Smith MCSE/Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2008 10:44 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed MS's earnings were disappointing? Welcome to 2008. They can stand in line with the other 80% of companies with the same problems. As for support, XP has been around since 2001 and mainstream support goes until Apr. 2009. That's a damn long life cycle for any software maker. This is the same whining that went on with Windows 98 and Windows 2000. I don't remember the world ending in either case. Think about what other software was released in 2001 and if it's still support. I wonder if Adobe still supports Photoshop 6.0? I'll bet Apple still supports OSX 10.0.0, but Apple seems to be living the rock star life these days. Now Ill also say I'm still a HUGE XP fan. I use XP at home on all my machines. My work machine is Vista and while I don't really dislike it, it really doesn't do much for me either. But eventually the time will come to upgrade, and I'm sure my world won't end either. The Vista sucks thing has certainly taken on a life of its own. I would venture to guess that a very large percentage of the people who say it sucks have never tried it. It doesn't totally suck, it's justslightly sucky. Frankly if they could just get it to perform better, it would be great. -Original Message- From: Angus Scott-Fleming [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2008 7:20 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Why XP is doomed Interesting analysis from Cringely. As always, follow the money
RE: Why XP is doomed
Yea, the Lenovo stuff weighs Vista down hard. Its buggy too. Strip it out and Vista runs fine. From: Durf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2008 6:50 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Why XP is doomed Yeah, I suspect so - I have a Thinkpad T60p with a Vista Experience score of 4.6 that was running like crap after having used it with the OEM install for about six months and throwing about five different VPN clients at it. After picking up a new Dell Vostro 300 with a minimal config (Vista Experience = 3.5), doing a clean install of Vista SP1 integrated on it, and seeing how it *flew* compared to the laptop, I redid the laptop, and now it performs fine. The desktop still seems subjectively a bit faster for everyday use, though, which is odd as the scores are so divergent. -- Durf On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 7:45 AM, Ken Schaefer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My wife has a top of the line Sony SZ48 series Vaio. Fantastic machine - carbon fibre case, weighs next to nothing, two GPUs. Performance out of the box is abysmal. I replaced the drive with a 7200 RPM disk, upped the RAM, and tried to remove as much Sony crapware as possible (it even comes with its own copy of SQL Server to manage your media - because WMP obviously can't do that). Runs a lot better now, but I suspect it'll run a lot better with a clean install. Cheers Ken From: John Hornbuckle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, 11 May 2008 9:22 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Check out this story: http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=429 It's a perfect example of a manufacturer shipping a Vista machine with unacceptable performance. This resulted in a black eye for the manufacturer (Sony in this case, but they're not the only ones to do this) and a lost customer for the manufacturer and Microsoft alike. I didn't participate in the Vista beta, but I did grab it as soon as it RTM'd. I installed it on my home desktop, which is a modest box (Pentium D CPU w/ 2 GB of RAM) I built myself a good year before Vista was released. It ran great. Still does. Now, if I could run Vista fine on a machine that I built from parts that were never designed to work with Vista, why is it that PC manufacturers can't ship brand new machines that work as well? John From: Matthew W. Ross [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2008 3:44 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Hold on there... If an OS requires new drivers and more horsepower... we can't blame the new OS? Oh yes we can. --Matt ross _ From: John Hornbuckle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Vista wasn't perfect out of the gate, but it's not the piece of junk people think it is, either. A huge reason Vista has a negative image is that the hardware OEMs have been releasing buggy drivers for it--if they released drivers for it at all--and have been shipping Vista computers that either don't have enough horsepower or are bloated with crapware or bad drivers (or all three). It all adds up to a bad experience for users, and the OS gets the blame. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.23.15/1426 - Release Date: 5/10/2008 11:12 AM -- -- Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Give a fish a man, and he'll eat for weeks! ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~
RE: Why XP is doomed
Check out the disk rotational speed. Most of the tiny disks that go in laptops are 5,400 RPM and most desktop class disks are 7,200 RPM. Regards, Michael B. Smith MCSE/Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com From: Durf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2008 9:50 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Why XP is doomed Yeah, I suspect so - I have a Thinkpad T60p with a Vista Experience score of 4.6 that was running like crap after having used it with the OEM install for about six months and throwing about five different VPN clients at it. After picking up a new Dell Vostro 300 with a minimal config (Vista Experience = 3.5), doing a clean install of Vista SP1 integrated on it, and seeing how it *flew* compared to the laptop, I redid the laptop, and now it performs fine. The desktop still seems subjectively a bit faster for everyday use, though, which is odd as the scores are so divergent. -- Durf On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 7:45 AM, Ken Schaefer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My wife has a top of the line Sony SZ48 series Vaio. Fantastic machine - carbon fibre case, weighs next to nothing, two GPUs. Performance out of the box is abysmal. I replaced the drive with a 7200 RPM disk, upped the RAM, and tried to remove as much Sony crapware as possible (it even comes with its own copy of SQL Server to manage your media - because WMP obviously can't do that). Runs a lot better now, but I suspect it'll run a lot better with a clean install. Cheers Ken From: John Hornbuckle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, 11 May 2008 9:22 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Check out this story: http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=429 It's a perfect example of a manufacturer shipping a Vista machine with unacceptable performance. This resulted in a black eye for the manufacturer (Sony in this case, but they're not the only ones to do this) and a lost customer for the manufacturer and Microsoft alike. I didn't participate in the Vista beta, but I did grab it as soon as it RTM'd. I installed it on my home desktop, which is a modest box (Pentium D CPU w/ 2 GB of RAM) I built myself a good year before Vista was released. It ran great. Still does. Now, if I could run Vista fine on a machine that I built from parts that were never designed to work with Vista, why is it that PC manufacturers can't ship brand new machines that work as well? John From: Matthew W. Ross [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2008 3:44 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed Hold on there... If an OS requires new drivers and more horsepower... we can't blame the new OS? Oh yes we can. --Matt ross _ From: John Hornbuckle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Vista wasn't perfect out of the gate, but it's not the piece of junk people think it is, either. A huge reason Vista has a negative image is that the hardware OEMs have been releasing buggy drivers for it--if they released drivers for it at all--and have been shipping Vista computers that either don't have enough horsepower or are bloated with crapware or bad drivers (or all three). It all adds up to a bad experience for users, and the OS gets the blame. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.23.15/1426 - Release Date: 5/10/2008 11:12 AM -- -- Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Give a fish a man, and he'll eat for weeks! ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~
RE: Why XP is doomed
I like the extra security Vista provides. I also like that when my techs work on users' machines, they can do things that require admin rights without logging in with an admin account. It speeds up certain tasks considerably. -Original Message- From: Phillip Partipilo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2008 10:32 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Why XP is doomed The OS is just hosting the applications that I use to get my job done. XP is good enough for this task. No reason whatsoever to upgrade. Michael B. Smith wrote: Hah. I blogged on this just yesterday: http://theessentialexchange.com/blogs/michael/archive/2008/05/09/just-fl uff- on-vista.aspx And no, I didn't read Cringely... I think it was something Paul Thurrott wrote that was the straw/camel's back for me. I dunno, I read too many things every day. Granted, I'm not the average user. Not even the average power user. I've got physical machines that run XP, that run Vista, that run Server 2008, that run Server 2003 - and believe it or not, one that runs Linux. And probably twice as many virtuals as I've got physicals. The market can't have it every way. Since XP was released, Microsoft has been absolutely PUMMELLED by spam, by viruses, by worms, by lack of hardware capabilities, by lack of software capabilities, etc. etc. etc. Microsoft responded to what the market demanded, and Vista is the answer. Graphically, Vista is gorgeous - if you have the graphics horsepower to make it happen. Vista provides software support for technologies that weren't even conceived of when XP was released. The hardware support that Vista provides makes it MUCH easier for the OS to NOT crash when there are driver bugs. Or bugs in any add-on product. And on and on and on. All of those things come at a cost - in memory and in processor. If you want a minimal version of Vista - go install Server 2008. See how lean and mean it is. And how little it can do in the base configuration. Then, start adding the features and roles you require in order to get to a workable desktop machine, and see how those changes impact performance. In some ways, a desktop machine has to be more powerful than a server. It certainly has to have more fluff. I'm not a Microsoft rah rah man. However, I'm well aware of where I make my money - and that's based on Microsoft products. I criticize the Microsoft machine on a daily basis - and I do it in public forums, such as this one, on my blog; and I do it in private forums, for betas (and even alphas) of certain software that I take a particular interest in. Vista _IS_ sucky in some ways. And I've bugged those that affect me. For example, even after SP1, wireless doesn't just work like it did in XP. Many users have to reboot when switching wireless connections. For me, I'm tech savvy enough to open a command prompt and do an ipconfig /renew. It's irritating. But does that mean that Vista is going away? Don't be silly. Even if you hate Vista, it introduces many technologies that are part of the future of computing. You need to learn it. It's the stepping stone to what comes next. Microsoft isn't abandoning Vista. They've made that clear too. Many people have taken the fact that there is so much talk about Windows 7 already to mean that Microsoft is abandoning Vista. The only reason that they can make THAT claim is because they choose to ignore that Microsoft has also stated that never again will there be 5+ years between operating system releases. It was simply too long, and Microsoft heard that message too. You don't have to get with the program. But you should. Time marches on. And so does software - and hardware - and Microsoft. Regards, Michael B. Smith MCSE/Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2008 10:44 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed MS's earnings were disappointing? Welcome to 2008. They can stand in line with the other 80% of companies with the same problems. As for support, XP has been around since 2001 and mainstream support goes until Apr. 2009. That's a damn long life cycle for any software maker. This is the same whining that went on with Windows 98 and Windows 2000. I don't remember the world ending in either case. Think about what other software was released in 2001 and if it's still support. I wonder if Adobe still supports Photoshop 6.0? I'll bet Apple still supports OSX 10.0.0, but Apple seems to be living the rock star life these days. Now Ill also say I'm still a HUGE XP fan. I use XP at home on all my machines. My work machine is Vista and while I don't really dislike it, it really doesn't do much for me either. But eventually the time will come to upgrade, and I'm sure my world won't end either. The Vista sucks thing has certainly taken on a life of its own. I would
RE: Why XP is doomed
MS's earnings were disappointing? Welcome to 2008. They can stand in line with the other 80% of companies with the same problems. As for support, XP has been around since 2001 and mainstream support goes until Apr. 2009. That's a damn long life cycle for any software maker. This is the same whining that went on with Windows 98 and Windows 2000. I don't remember the world ending in either case. Think about what other software was released in 2001 and if it's still support. I wonder if Adobe still supports Photoshop 6.0? I'll bet Apple still supports OSX 10.0.0, but Apple seems to be living the rock star life these days. Now Ill also say I'm still a HUGE XP fan. I use XP at home on all my machines. My work machine is Vista and while I don't really dislike it, it really doesn't do much for me either. But eventually the time will come to upgrade, and I'm sure my world won't end either. The Vista sucks thing has certainly taken on a life of its own. I would venture to guess that a very large percentage of the people who say it sucks have never tried it. It doesn't totally suck, it's justslightly sucky. Frankly if they could just get it to perform better, it would be great. -Original Message- From: Angus Scott-Fleming [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2008 7:20 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Why XP is doomed Interesting analysis from Cringely. As always, follow the money ... --- Included Stuff Follows --- I, Cringely . The Pulpit . Wimpy | PBS ... Several readers are concerned about Microsoft's decision to stop selling Windows XP and -- most importantly -- end security updates for the venerable operating system. This has everything to do with business and nothing at all to do with technology. Wearing my business reporter's fedora, then, I'll point you back a week or so to Microsoft's most recent earnings announcement, which disappointed Wall Street. This is significant because it is hard to find a Wall Street analyst who remembers the last time Microsoft's earnings were disappointing. It simply doesn't happen. That's because Microsoft has a myriad of tools for adjusting the numbers to look just right. Because Microsoft has so many tools for fine-tuning its financials (primarily the management of expenses, by the way -- Microsoft makes so much money that it tunes the numbers by throwing cash away), the fact that this last set of numbers disappointed suggests to me that they, too, could have been avoided. Microsoft probably decided to deliberately take an earnings hit precisely so they could play the we have to get the earnings up card to justify the final death of XP. Microsoft has been under huge pressure from its hardware OEMs to dump XP, thus forcing millions of customers who have been avoiding Vista and Vista's inevitable hardware upgrade to finally buy new computers. Dumping XP will help Dell and HP AND Microsoft, big-time. It won't do anything for you or me, though, since Vista still sucks, but we obviously don't matter. Those customers who think they'll keep XP going on their own will probably be out of luck, too. With Microsoft abandoning security upgrades, hackers will eat holes in the old OS practically overnight. And if one or more of the security companies like Symantec or McAfee think they can make a business out of defending XP, I simply doubt that customers will pay. - Included Stuff Ends - Other topics also discussed in his column here: http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2008/pulpit_20080509_004880.html ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~ ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~
RE: Why XP is doomed
Hah. I blogged on this just yesterday: http://theessentialexchange.com/blogs/michael/archive/2008/05/09/just-fluff- on-vista.aspx And no, I didn't read Cringely... I think it was something Paul Thurrott wrote that was the straw/camel's back for me. I dunno, I read too many things every day. Granted, I'm not the average user. Not even the average power user. I've got physical machines that run XP, that run Vista, that run Server 2008, that run Server 2003 - and believe it or not, one that runs Linux. And probably twice as many virtuals as I've got physicals. The market can't have it every way. Since XP was released, Microsoft has been absolutely PUMMELLED by spam, by viruses, by worms, by lack of hardware capabilities, by lack of software capabilities, etc. etc. etc. Microsoft responded to what the market demanded, and Vista is the answer. Graphically, Vista is gorgeous - if you have the graphics horsepower to make it happen. Vista provides software support for technologies that weren't even conceived of when XP was released. The hardware support that Vista provides makes it MUCH easier for the OS to NOT crash when there are driver bugs. Or bugs in any add-on product. And on and on and on. All of those things come at a cost - in memory and in processor. If you want a minimal version of Vista - go install Server 2008. See how lean and mean it is. And how little it can do in the base configuration. Then, start adding the features and roles you require in order to get to a workable desktop machine, and see how those changes impact performance. In some ways, a desktop machine has to be more powerful than a server. It certainly has to have more fluff. I'm not a Microsoft rah rah man. However, I'm well aware of where I make my money - and that's based on Microsoft products. I criticize the Microsoft machine on a daily basis - and I do it in public forums, such as this one, on my blog; and I do it in private forums, for betas (and even alphas) of certain software that I take a particular interest in. Vista _IS_ sucky in some ways. And I've bugged those that affect me. For example, even after SP1, wireless doesn't just work like it did in XP. Many users have to reboot when switching wireless connections. For me, I'm tech savvy enough to open a command prompt and do an ipconfig /renew. It's irritating. But does that mean that Vista is going away? Don't be silly. Even if you hate Vista, it introduces many technologies that are part of the future of computing. You need to learn it. It's the stepping stone to what comes next. Microsoft isn't abandoning Vista. They've made that clear too. Many people have taken the fact that there is so much talk about Windows 7 already to mean that Microsoft is abandoning Vista. The only reason that they can make THAT claim is because they choose to ignore that Microsoft has also stated that never again will there be 5+ years between operating system releases. It was simply too long, and Microsoft heard that message too. You don't have to get with the program. But you should. Time marches on. And so does software - and hardware - and Microsoft. Regards, Michael B. Smith MCSE/Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2008 10:44 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed MS's earnings were disappointing? Welcome to 2008. They can stand in line with the other 80% of companies with the same problems. As for support, XP has been around since 2001 and mainstream support goes until Apr. 2009. That's a damn long life cycle for any software maker. This is the same whining that went on with Windows 98 and Windows 2000. I don't remember the world ending in either case. Think about what other software was released in 2001 and if it's still support. I wonder if Adobe still supports Photoshop 6.0? I'll bet Apple still supports OSX 10.0.0, but Apple seems to be living the rock star life these days. Now Ill also say I'm still a HUGE XP fan. I use XP at home on all my machines. My work machine is Vista and while I don't really dislike it, it really doesn't do much for me either. But eventually the time will come to upgrade, and I'm sure my world won't end either. The Vista sucks thing has certainly taken on a life of its own. I would venture to guess that a very large percentage of the people who say it sucks have never tried it. It doesn't totally suck, it's justslightly sucky. Frankly if they could just get it to perform better, it would be great. -Original Message- From: Angus Scott-Fleming [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2008 7:20 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Why XP is doomed Interesting analysis from Cringely. As always, follow the money ... --- Included Stuff Follows --- I, Cringely . The Pulpit . Wimpy | PBS ... Several readers are concerned about Microsoft's decision to stop selling
RE: Why XP is doomed
Same here, I just deployed 120 HP dc5800 with Core 2Duo E8400 3.0Ghz Processor and 2Gb of Ram, Vista and Office 2007 and my users are very happy, much better performance than P4 with 3.4Ghz and XP! __ Stefan Jafs -Original Message- From: HELP_PC [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: May-10-08 11:50 To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: R: Why XP is doomed I think you are right . Windows Xp was sucking a lot on a PentiumIII 1ghz machine with 256MB RAM, where Win 98 was really fast. I am now deploying Q6600 or T9300 machines with Vista and 4GB RAM and I am quite satisfied. GuidoElia HELPPC -Messaggio originale- Da: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Inviato: sabato 10 maggio 2008 16.44 A: NT System Admin Issues Oggetto: RE: Why XP is doomed MS's earnings were disappointing? Welcome to 2008. They can stand in line with the other 80% of companies with the same problems. As for support, XP has been around since 2001 and mainstream support goes until Apr. 2009. That's a damn long life cycle for any software maker. This is the same whining that went on with Windows 98 and Windows 2000. I don't remember the world ending in either case. Think about what other software was released in 2001 and if it's still support. I wonder if Adobe still supports Photoshop 6.0? I'll bet Apple still supports OSX 10.0.0, but Apple seems to be living the rock star life these days. Now Ill also say I'm still a HUGE XP fan. I use XP at home on all my machines. My work machine is Vista and while I don't really dislike it, it really doesn't do much for me either. But eventually the time will come to upgrade, and I'm sure my world won't end either. The Vista sucks thing has certainly taken on a life of its own. I would venture to guess that a very large percentage of the people who say it sucks have never tried it. It doesn't totally suck, it's justslightly sucky. Frankly if they could just get it to perform better, it would be great. -Original Message- From: Angus Scott-Fleming [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2008 7:20 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Why XP is doomed Interesting analysis from Cringely. As always, follow the money ... --- Included Stuff Follows --- I, Cringely . The Pulpit . Wimpy | PBS ... Several readers are concerned about Microsoft's decision to stop selling Windows XP and -- most importantly -- end security updates for the venerable operating system. This has everything to do with business and nothing at all to do with technology. Wearing my business reporter's fedora, then, I'll point you back a week or so to Microsoft's most recent earnings announcement, which disappointed Wall Street. This is significant because it is hard to find a Wall Street analyst who remembers the last time Microsoft's earnings were disappointing. It simply doesn't happen. That's because Microsoft has a myriad of tools for adjusting the numbers to look just right. Because Microsoft has so many tools for fine-tuning its financials (primarily the management of expenses, by the way -- Microsoft makes so much money that it tunes the numbers by throwing cash away), the fact that this last set of numbers disappointed suggests to me that they, too, could have been avoided. Microsoft probably decided to deliberately take an earnings hit precisely so they could play the we have to get the earnings up card to justify the final death of XP. Microsoft has been under huge pressure from its hardware OEMs to dump XP, thus forcing millions of customers who have been avoiding Vista and Vista's inevitable hardware upgrade to finally buy new computers. Dumping XP will help Dell and HP AND Microsoft, big-time. It won't do anything for you or me, though, since Vista still sucks, but we obviously don't matter. Those customers who think they'll keep XP going on their own will probably be out of luck, too. With Microsoft abandoning security upgrades, hackers will eat holes in the old OS practically overnight. And if one or more of the security companies like Symantec or McAfee think they can make a business out of defending XP, I simply doubt that customers will pay. - Included Stuff Ends - Other topics also discussed in his column here: http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2008/pulpit_20080509_004880.html ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~ ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~ ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!~ ~ http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm ~ This email and any attached files are confidential and intended solely for the intended recipient
