Have existed for some time now
And are supported by XP
Discussion on:
View:
Show:
But an argument can be made that soft off (That?s when the OS sends the turn off the power command) will control wireless power in the way you suggest
Most peoples says Windows Vista doesn't support dual-boot, but it can. I myself is using two OS. Windows XP & Vista. Both works great. Best solution for this is you must have two partitions. You can even have three OS on single system. Windows Vista, XP & Linux.
With the Linux, that is. I've been hearing reports of a Vista install destroying Linux or at least parts of it.
Does your Vista need to be the Prime OS? -d
Does your Vista need to be the Prime OS? -d
Just install the older version of OS first. See this link.
http://www.apcstart.com/5046/how_to_dual_boot_vista_with_linux_vista_installed_first
http://www.apcstart.com/5045/how_to_dual_boot_vista_with_linux
http://www.apcstart.com/5046/how_to_dual_boot_vista_with_linux_vista_installed_first
http://www.apcstart.com/5045/how_to_dual_boot_vista_with_linux
Or, install each OS to a completely separate HD as I did. Eliminate any chance of problems that way, too, with the different drive tables/formats used with the different OSs. I've got 6 OSs on 4 drives, and the booter works fine with them.
If anyone is having trouble with this I suggest they check out a utility called "Vista BOOT Pro"
so, a dual core system will still function properly, using both cores.
THE TASKBAR AT THE BOTTOM SLIPS TO THE LEFT, OPEN PROGRAMS PILE UP ON EACH OTHER, I LOSE ALL MY RIGHT HAND SHORTCUTS, CANT ACCESS A PROGRAM, CANT WHEN I ENTER THE START PROGRAM LOAD ANY NEW PROGRAMS,
ITS A TRAIN WRECK...I HAVENT EVEN STARTED ROLLING YET, AND THIS IS A BRAND NEW DELL DIM 9200 DUAL PENTIUM E6600 WITH 2 GIG OF DRAM AND NVIDIA 256 CARD.
I FEELING ALOT LIKE LINUX THESE DAYS, FOR THE LEARNING CURVE (I HAVE NEVER USED IT) AT LEAST ILL END UP WITH SOMETHING I WANT
GOOD LUCK GUYS - VISTA USERS NEED IT
ITS A TRAIN WRECK...I HAVENT EVEN STARTED ROLLING YET, AND THIS IS A BRAND NEW DELL DIM 9200 DUAL PENTIUM E6600 WITH 2 GIG OF DRAM AND NVIDIA 256 CARD.
I FEELING ALOT LIKE LINUX THESE DAYS, FOR THE LEARNING CURVE (I HAVE NEVER USED IT) AT LEAST ILL END UP WITH SOMETHING I WANT
GOOD LUCK GUYS - VISTA USERS NEED IT
Where's the beef in this article or in the comments. Since I know I will be using Vista at work before too long, (Boss's choice, not mine) I am trying to get a jump on what to expect.
Bloatware: Software bloat is usually the result of creeping-featurism, sloppy coding and poorly designed APIs. Any feature, however pretty or nice is bloat if you never use it. The power users should have the option of removing the features they find useless. Unfortunately, this is often not allowed on Windows.
As for security, Windows has a bad track record in the past. We will see if Vista changes that.
Many posters seemed to be intent on uninformed attacks on the Linux, MacOSX and Windows. Seeing a comment from an obvious proponent of Microsoft accussing the Linux camp of "FUD"ing Vista was a somewhat amusing attempt of FUD in its on right.
The word "myth" in it's denotative meaning simply refers to a story that is part of a belief system. The connotation of the word "myth" is that the story is untrue due to a lack of understanding of the "true" belief system.
All said, the article seemed more or less a defensive diatribe for Microsoft, and only a very few of the comments were enlightening.
I thought the comment calling Linux on a PII laptop was especially silly. I once used linux on a 66 Mhz 486 laptop just to run a browser and mail client, for checking email and webbrowsing from the hotel room while on out-of town trips It worked very well. I had $15 invested in the laptop and when it was accidentally destroyed, I didn't care.
Bloatware: Software bloat is usually the result of creeping-featurism, sloppy coding and poorly designed APIs. Any feature, however pretty or nice is bloat if you never use it. The power users should have the option of removing the features they find useless. Unfortunately, this is often not allowed on Windows.
As for security, Windows has a bad track record in the past. We will see if Vista changes that.
Many posters seemed to be intent on uninformed attacks on the Linux, MacOSX and Windows. Seeing a comment from an obvious proponent of Microsoft accussing the Linux camp of "FUD"ing Vista was a somewhat amusing attempt of FUD in its on right.
The word "myth" in it's denotative meaning simply refers to a story that is part of a belief system. The connotation of the word "myth" is that the story is untrue due to a lack of understanding of the "true" belief system.
All said, the article seemed more or less a defensive diatribe for Microsoft, and only a very few of the comments were enlightening.
I thought the comment calling Linux on a PII laptop was especially silly. I once used linux on a 66 Mhz 486 laptop just to run a browser and mail client, for checking email and webbrowsing from the hotel room while on out-of town trips It worked very well. I had $15 invested in the laptop and when it was accidentally destroyed, I didn't care.
No, not as bad as you have been told, but still a build on
build on build on a platform that needs to die! In a world
where Apple lives it takes a lot more than Vista to Wow the
intelligent.
build on build on a platform that needs to die! In a world
where Apple lives it takes a lot more than Vista to Wow the
intelligent.
... most Apple users I know are not very interested in how their OS does what it does so beautifully. They are just happy that it does it. Now I'm not saying that they are UNintelligent, but many of them aren't applying their intelligence to what makes their OS tick.
Linux users do it because they want to know. Windows users find out what makes their OS tick so that they can "customise" it - which is winspeak for "try to make it actually work nicely".
MacOS users were lucky that it worked. OSX users can do the Linux thing if they want, and do the Windows thing if they decide that Apple hasn't done exactly what meets their needs.
Surely the bad thing about the Mac and its OSes is the cost? Pretty much everything else has been addressed over the years. It was the nicest to use platform 10 years ago and it still is, but if Windows disappeared tomorrow they still couldn't challenge the Linux / Unix market, which is ironic, given that OSX is Unix based.
Windows I can defend - it's a very good and very versatile OS for the user that knows it well - but Vista, despite the fact that I was not expecting too much, is disappointing for many of the reasons that the Vista-ites may like to dismiss as "myth".
At the moment, if I was buying new hardware for my home, I might buy something with Vista on it and load Suse (which I love, by the way) or really push the boat out and go for a lovely MacBook Pro.
Linux users do it because they want to know. Windows users find out what makes their OS tick so that they can "customise" it - which is winspeak for "try to make it actually work nicely".
MacOS users were lucky that it worked. OSX users can do the Linux thing if they want, and do the Windows thing if they decide that Apple hasn't done exactly what meets their needs.
Surely the bad thing about the Mac and its OSes is the cost? Pretty much everything else has been addressed over the years. It was the nicest to use platform 10 years ago and it still is, but if Windows disappeared tomorrow they still couldn't challenge the Linux / Unix market, which is ironic, given that OSX is Unix based.
Windows I can defend - it's a very good and very versatile OS for the user that knows it well - but Vista, despite the fact that I was not expecting too much, is disappointing for many of the reasons that the Vista-ites may like to dismiss as "myth".
At the moment, if I was buying new hardware for my home, I might buy something with Vista on it and load Suse (which I love, by the way) or really push the boat out and go for a lovely MacBook Pro.
It is a dream, that machine, but not one I am willing to pay
for, staying with my PowerBook G4 which serves nicely.
After working as my wife's technical shop on a very good
and fast piece of hardware running Windows last iteration,
I convinced her that a 20" iMac would do very nicely for
her computer. Downtime has been non-existent since the
change and using Parallels to run one program that she
uses for work.
As to wanting to understand the Microsift OS and "fine-
tune" my computer, aka making the damn thing function
most of the time without a blue screen, it interested me
for a time but I feel there are too many things in life that
are more interesting and to which I prefer to devote time.
My Prius is a very nice car and functions well. I do not
want to tweak it and do not care to understand it beyond
the primitive level I do. A matter of choices, I suppose.
For the non-geek, I guess, the challenge loses its appeal
when the sun is out and the tennis court is available.
for, staying with my PowerBook G4 which serves nicely.
After working as my wife's technical shop on a very good
and fast piece of hardware running Windows last iteration,
I convinced her that a 20" iMac would do very nicely for
her computer. Downtime has been non-existent since the
change and using Parallels to run one program that she
uses for work.
As to wanting to understand the Microsift OS and "fine-
tune" my computer, aka making the damn thing function
most of the time without a blue screen, it interested me
for a time but I feel there are too many things in life that
are more interesting and to which I prefer to devote time.
My Prius is a very nice car and functions well. I do not
want to tweak it and do not care to understand it beyond
the primitive level I do. A matter of choices, I suppose.
For the non-geek, I guess, the challenge loses its appeal
when the sun is out and the tennis court is available.
It's not just Windows that can benefit from customisation, any OS can. There are some sites and forums that feature fixes for Mac bugs and glitches (yes, Mac users face problems too!). I've just found that most (not all) of the guys I know that run Macs send them back first time they run up against a problem. The same can be said for the majority of Windows users, but some of us like to be self sufficient. If you're actually good at it, you'll still have plenty of time for tennis, or whatever your favourite pastime is...
Linux, OSX, Windows [XP/2k/Vista] - it really makes no difference to me. I have a thing for them all, they all have their uses, and after a little adjustment they'll all behave themselves. The people that say Linux is hard work obviously have no idea what hard work really is. Those that say that Windows is unstable are probably causing the problem themselves, truth be told and the people that say that OSX is too obfuscated or difficult to get apps for etc. are obviously not looking in the right places. They all coexist in peace and harmony.
Let's just all try to get along, for the children
Linux, OSX, Windows [XP/2k/Vista] - it really makes no difference to me. I have a thing for them all, they all have their uses, and after a little adjustment they'll all behave themselves. The people that say Linux is hard work obviously have no idea what hard work really is. Those that say that Windows is unstable are probably causing the problem themselves, truth be told and the people that say that OSX is too obfuscated or difficult to get apps for etc. are obviously not looking in the right places. They all coexist in peace and harmony.
Let's just all try to get along, for the children
"The people that say Linux is hard work obviously have no idea what hard work really is."
It's not so much that, but for those of us that wear so many hats (Windows desktops, Office, servers, Exchange, SharePoint, SQL, AD, Cisco, etc), to be honest, I don't have the time to learn a new OS.
I know that excluding OSX or Linux from my talent pool limits me, but the reality of it is I don't have the time (even though I do periodically play around with Linux).
From a career perspective, it is my opinion that my time is better spent perfecting my current skills as opposed to broadening the scope of them without much depth in the new.
I already work 50 hours a week, have a home business, a wife and 4 kids (two of which were just born...twins and 2 months premature), as well as a consulting stint with Burger King doing some Flash animations.
Where is the time?
It's not so much that, but for those of us that wear so many hats (Windows desktops, Office, servers, Exchange, SharePoint, SQL, AD, Cisco, etc), to be honest, I don't have the time to learn a new OS.
I know that excluding OSX or Linux from my talent pool limits me, but the reality of it is I don't have the time (even though I do periodically play around with Linux).
From a career perspective, it is my opinion that my time is better spent perfecting my current skills as opposed to broadening the scope of them without much depth in the new.
I already work 50 hours a week, have a home business, a wife and 4 kids (two of which were just born...twins and 2 months premature), as well as a consulting stint with Burger King doing some Flash animations.
Where is the time?
and inform them that due to economic circumstances, one of them has to be laid off.
where is the time? thats what God made insomnia for...the productive hours from 12 to 4 am. its the only way i can keep my head above water.
where is the time? thats what God made insomnia for...the productive hours from 12 to 4 am. its the only way i can keep my head above water.
Two month old twins that have spent 7 out of the first 9 weeks of their life in the hospital.
Sorry, I've done plenty of after hours work, plenty of staying up late at night.
I believe in quality and not quantity. I'd rather be the best administrator in MS products ever than some wanna be administrator who knows a little bit about everything but not a lot about anything.
That's what's wrong with the IT industry nowadays anyways. Folks who have some knowledge on all OS's, fluffed up resumes, but a complete lack of experience and depth in everyday, hard core skills.
You know the type. The ones that will ***** out their skills just to try to compete with the half ass support one gets from India.
Besides, so far my head is still above water AND I have a healthy, happy family in the process.
I have a career not a job and I control my life instead of the other way around.
Sorry, I've done plenty of after hours work, plenty of staying up late at night.
I believe in quality and not quantity. I'd rather be the best administrator in MS products ever than some wanna be administrator who knows a little bit about everything but not a lot about anything.
That's what's wrong with the IT industry nowadays anyways. Folks who have some knowledge on all OS's, fluffed up resumes, but a complete lack of experience and depth in everyday, hard core skills.
You know the type. The ones that will ***** out their skills just to try to compete with the half ass support one gets from India.
Besides, so far my head is still above water AND I have a healthy, happy family in the process.
I have a career not a job and I control my life instead of the other way around.
Dear Rick,
What could you have been thinking? Someone once called
that kind of life The Treadmill to Oblivion. If you and your
others are all very happy, please give me a clue.
What could you have been thinking? Someone once called
that kind of life The Treadmill to Oblivion. If you and your
others are all very happy, please give me a clue.
I don't think I suggested anywhere that there was any need to be an expert in every major current OS. If your job requires you to be an expert in one particular OS (or family of OSes), then that's what you have to focus on. I was merely stating that all OSes have their uses and that Linux really isn't hard work compared to other OSes.
It irks me when people get stuck on one OS and get the idea into their head that its the best at everything. The rabid Windows or OSX or Linux faithful that hold their OS above all others and denegrate the rest are wrong. There have been a few people that commented on this thread and that comment was aimed at them. Windows is not so insecure, OSX is not perfect and Linux is not so hard when you get down to it.
This doesn't mean that I'm a jack-of-all-trades or that I think there's anything much to be gained from being one. I am a user of Windows, Linux, AIX, OS2 and OSX. I would consider myself a 'power user' in Windows and Linux and OS2. I have admin level skills in Linux (I've had to blood myself over the last year or so when I took on the responsibility of administrating a Linux server in my job - made easier thanks to the wonderful YaST2). However, I'm only really at expert level in Windows. That suits my current role well enough, but that could easily change and I'm glad I've been getting stronger in Linux recently because I'll never know when I'll have to make that switch. I suppose you have to strike a balance between gaining more and more expertise in your chosen OS and being 'agile' and capable of change. It can all depend on the choices your company (or client) makes - you might just find that your hand is forced somewhere down the line.
As for not having time to learn a new OS, surely this would apply to Vista too if you were a Linux expert completely out of touch with Windows?
It irks me when people get stuck on one OS and get the idea into their head that its the best at everything. The rabid Windows or OSX or Linux faithful that hold their OS above all others and denegrate the rest are wrong. There have been a few people that commented on this thread and that comment was aimed at them. Windows is not so insecure, OSX is not perfect and Linux is not so hard when you get down to it.
This doesn't mean that I'm a jack-of-all-trades or that I think there's anything much to be gained from being one. I am a user of Windows, Linux, AIX, OS2 and OSX. I would consider myself a 'power user' in Windows and Linux and OS2. I have admin level skills in Linux (I've had to blood myself over the last year or so when I took on the responsibility of administrating a Linux server in my job - made easier thanks to the wonderful YaST2). However, I'm only really at expert level in Windows. That suits my current role well enough, but that could easily change and I'm glad I've been getting stronger in Linux recently because I'll never know when I'll have to make that switch. I suppose you have to strike a balance between gaining more and more expertise in your chosen OS and being 'agile' and capable of change. It can all depend on the choices your company (or client) makes - you might just find that your hand is forced somewhere down the line.
As for not having time to learn a new OS, surely this would apply to Vista too if you were a Linux expert completely out of touch with Windows?
Hi,
I have Ultimate running on a 'Bodged' up
machine, and as one would expect from that, Vista is unstable, it crashes at least 3 times a day(usually BSOD 1000008e)!!
What is annoying is that the Vista diagnostic
system has no real idea why the system has
crashed! It is not much better than Windows 3.1 was at diagnostics. It sometimes tells me that the 'Hardware is bad', but it doesn't know what, could be RAM, Graphics, or MoBo??? or, The Graphics drivers need updating, or that I need to reduce the grahics acceleration. I would have
thought by now that if MS were serious about
OS's, they would be working to make tham as
stable a Linux? I Have had Kubuntu running on
another 'cobbled' up PC and it hasn't crashed
since I installed it 3 Months ago, it just works!
If Vista was as good as MS say it is then it
should be 'self healing' and be virtually
uncrashable??
An operating system which has been 'Built from the ground up' as MS say Vista has,
should not crash because of 'iffy' hardware,
It should be able to identify the failing
bit and either fix it (if it's caused by firmware or drivers) or disable the element that is failing, then report this to the user, who can then take appropriate action.
BSODs with esoteric explanations and abbreviations and strings of numbers is just
not acceptable in this day and age!!
I have Ultimate running on a 'Bodged' up
machine, and as one would expect from that, Vista is unstable, it crashes at least 3 times a day(usually BSOD 1000008e)!!
What is annoying is that the Vista diagnostic
system has no real idea why the system has
crashed! It is not much better than Windows 3.1 was at diagnostics. It sometimes tells me that the 'Hardware is bad', but it doesn't know what, could be RAM, Graphics, or MoBo??? or, The Graphics drivers need updating, or that I need to reduce the grahics acceleration. I would have
thought by now that if MS were serious about
OS's, they would be working to make tham as
stable a Linux? I Have had Kubuntu running on
another 'cobbled' up PC and it hasn't crashed
since I installed it 3 Months ago, it just works!
If Vista was as good as MS say it is then it
should be 'self healing' and be virtually
uncrashable??
An operating system which has been 'Built from the ground up' as MS say Vista has,
should not crash because of 'iffy' hardware,
It should be able to identify the failing
bit and either fix it (if it's caused by firmware or drivers) or disable the element that is failing, then report this to the user, who can then take appropriate action.
BSODs with esoteric explanations and abbreviations and strings of numbers is just
not acceptable in this day and age!!
Has it ever been brought out that MS may have used their new and improved Visual Basic.net, drag and drop application builder to create Vista?
The Visual Basic program is being executed in XP environment with drag and drop ease...Hence you have big bloated bugs.
Anyone who has used Visual Basic to create a simple window with, "Hello World" displayed, can tell you that the compilation version creates 6 meg+ of bloated EXE file.
MS/Ballmer try hard to make the greatest OS in history with bloated bugs to start. Bugs are bound to be even more bloated by the time they drag and drop it out to you. Why do we sit around wasting time talking about it. Everyone should know by now what is going on is a joke. Why not simply support what works for you and quit giving money and time to bloated bugs?
The Visual Basic program is being executed in XP environment with drag and drop ease...Hence you have big bloated bugs.
Anyone who has used Visual Basic to create a simple window with, "Hello World" displayed, can tell you that the compilation version creates 6 meg+ of bloated EXE file.
MS/Ballmer try hard to make the greatest OS in history with bloated bugs to start. Bugs are bound to be even more bloated by the time they drag and drop it out to you. Why do we sit around wasting time talking about it. Everyone should know by now what is going on is a joke. Why not simply support what works for you and quit giving money and time to bloated bugs?
I have to disagree with some if not most of these 10 items, but the on that i do want to expand on is the software compatibility.
As a pre-tester and now an owner of Vista, 90% of all my applications and games, does not run on Vista, thats why i also use the dual booting for Vista and XP.even running it in compatibility mode, it still refuses to run it. therefore i am waiting a full 2 years before i completetly switch over to Vista, by then a SP1 at leats would have to be released.
secondly, the statements they made about dual booting, they considered the fact, that you working of one HDD and Vista was installed first on the system. without a vast knowledge of computers, the everyday end user wont be able to install a second OS as in the old days, where it was a lot easier. (end users generally don't know about partitioning a HDD and so forth)
As a pre-tester and now an owner of Vista, 90% of all my applications and games, does not run on Vista, thats why i also use the dual booting for Vista and XP.even running it in compatibility mode, it still refuses to run it. therefore i am waiting a full 2 years before i completetly switch over to Vista, by then a SP1 at leats would have to be released.
secondly, the statements they made about dual booting, they considered the fact, that you working of one HDD and Vista was installed first on the system. without a vast knowledge of computers, the everyday end user wont be able to install a second OS as in the old days, where it was a lot easier. (end users generally don't know about partitioning a HDD and so forth)
Man, I'm not going to TOUCH Vista. Micro$oft has released one inferior, buggy OS after another since it bought QDOS from Seattle Computer Products in 1980.
XP SP2 is the best thing they've ever developed, and I'm not going to ask my poor, confused userbase to upgrade until M$ gets Vista working to the same level that XP SP2 does currently (85% or so).
And $399 is highway robbery for an OS, no matter what it does. For $399, it had better bear my children instead of merely 'looking cool'.
XP SP2 is the best thing they've ever developed, and I'm not going to ask my poor, confused userbase to upgrade until M$ gets Vista working to the same level that XP SP2 does currently (85% or so).
And $399 is highway robbery for an OS, no matter what it does. For $399, it had better bear my children instead of merely 'looking cool'.
Well, I've got Vista running on my Laptop and my Desktop, I also have an iMac G5, but I don't see the reason to put any Softee OS, with the exception of apps such as Office 2004 for Mac. I've found Vista very stable with more features, including the Eye Candy, than XP Pro SP2. Of course I'm using the Ultimate vesion, and it does cost $399, but Home editions are cheaper, Your post doesn't seem to mention these. Be accurate if you send out a post. It helps, and misinformation such as you have, ala $399, doesn't mention Upgrade editions, Home editions, all under the $399 you post. Certainly XP OS2 is good, but Vista is better. I have a feeling you've never used Vista and have a biased opinion based on information that's not right. Get a Home edition or get the upgrade version.
Be careful....he did specifically mention recommending the product to clients which implies (though not strongly) business users.
Home Edition is not for commercial use and if you want all of the new media features AND the ability to log into a domain (which is pretty much a given if you're a business user), Ultimate or Enterprise are really your only decent choices. Business edition doesn't have all of the Media capabilities that everyone is so excited about. I agree that it's probably not $399 for most customers. But it's considerably more than the Home Edition upgrade price.
The rest of this post is responding to the overall thread and not to you, personally, opensource. So please don't take offense. You just provided a hook into the thread.
As a user of both Vista and XP-SP2, I would have to say that XP SP2 is a much more mature and stable product. Vista is a good first release, but it's not quite there with legacy hardware support or full compatibility with third-party application software. Out of the box, it's an outstanding achievement. But Microsoft didn't exactly play nicely with *some* third-parties to ensure that everything was well tested and stable for the launch. So, yes, Vista is great....all praise Vista. But tread cautiously if you aren't using Vista Certified hardware or if you run any non-Microsoft applications or utilities.
As with any new release...before using it for anything business critical; test, test, test and then test again. If you can't take the time to do it, wait for others to do the work and for the appropriate fixes and patches to be released.
As for bias, I strongly suspect that the bias works both ways. People that use Vista on certified hardware for very specific tasks are finding it to be remarkably stable and functional. Others who use a wide variety of third party tools, have legacy hardware or who find themselves trying to interface with clients that haven't upgraded may have an entirely different experience. Watching the two communities argue with one another claiming that the other is biased is really kind of sad. Having had both experiences with different hardware and software, I can definitely see the validity of both sides of the argument.
Home Edition is not for commercial use and if you want all of the new media features AND the ability to log into a domain (which is pretty much a given if you're a business user), Ultimate or Enterprise are really your only decent choices. Business edition doesn't have all of the Media capabilities that everyone is so excited about. I agree that it's probably not $399 for most customers. But it's considerably more than the Home Edition upgrade price.
The rest of this post is responding to the overall thread and not to you, personally, opensource. So please don't take offense. You just provided a hook into the thread.
As a user of both Vista and XP-SP2, I would have to say that XP SP2 is a much more mature and stable product. Vista is a good first release, but it's not quite there with legacy hardware support or full compatibility with third-party application software. Out of the box, it's an outstanding achievement. But Microsoft didn't exactly play nicely with *some* third-parties to ensure that everything was well tested and stable for the launch. So, yes, Vista is great....all praise Vista. But tread cautiously if you aren't using Vista Certified hardware or if you run any non-Microsoft applications or utilities.
As with any new release...before using it for anything business critical; test, test, test and then test again. If you can't take the time to do it, wait for others to do the work and for the appropriate fixes and patches to be released.
As for bias, I strongly suspect that the bias works both ways. People that use Vista on certified hardware for very specific tasks are finding it to be remarkably stable and functional. Others who use a wide variety of third party tools, have legacy hardware or who find themselves trying to interface with clients that haven't upgraded may have an entirely different experience. Watching the two communities argue with one another claiming that the other is biased is really kind of sad. Having had both experiences with different hardware and software, I can definitely see the validity of both sides of the argument.
What's this about dual core processors? I read in this article that Vista Home premium uses only one of the processors in a dual core chip. I bought a new computer with a dual core chip and Vista Home premium installed. Does this mean my machine is not working at full capacity?
Paul
Paul
That's exactly what it means -- assuming these statements are accurate. I haven't personally looked into the capabilities of the Home line of Vista, so I cannot either confirm or deny it, but I have no reason to doubt the article.
The article states that according to the MS License agreement, "multiple processors" did NOT mean multi-core, (as in a dual-core processor). Since a "Dual Core" processor, such as an Intel Core 2 Duo, acts with the idea of "2 processor cores in 1" then your computer -is- working at full capacity.
Sorry if my explanation was not thorough or partially inaccurate. I hold no warranty.
Sorry if my explanation was not thorough or partially inaccurate. I hold no warranty.
Reeves! What is this no warranty jibber-jabber? I bought an extended warranty for your advice at Best Buy. Hey, its only 6.95/year!
I misread this line from the article:
"In fact, all versions of Vista will run on a machine with multiple processors installed--but Home Basic and Premium will recognize and use only one of the processors."
"In fact, all versions of Vista will run on a machine with multiple processors installed--but Home Basic and Premium will recognize and use only one of the processors."
im sticking with Xp till a newer version of Windows OS comes out, screw Vista XD
- Keyboard Shortcuts:
- Prev
- Next
- Toggle
