Windows

General discussion

Locked

Vista, is it really worth it?

By Dave the Computer Guy ·
Ok so I have to say I?ve been reading all the articles on Vista. I see all the visual improvement and hear about all the security enhancements and I have to ask myself is it really worth it?

First off there are these really cool new window effects. Ok I have to say they look very cool. But from what I?ve been reading I?ll need a 256 Meg video card just to use them. Then if this is the case how are my games going to react? If I need a 256 Meg video card for a game I?m trying to play do I then need a 512 card to accommodate both my game and windows? Or am I going to have to drop my windows display into a lower mode every time I want to do something graphical?

Then there are all these comments about how secure Vista will be. I?m sorry it?s a Microsoft operating system and I don?t care how secure they make it some one is going to crack it. Then I read about how the new Windows Defender will help block Spyware and prevent viruses. Well I have a Antivirus / Firewall / Spyware removal software that works just fine for that now.

Finally what version of the new Windows will I buy? There are seven to choose from and the question then becomes how expensive is this venture going to be?

Don?t get me wrong, I?m not going to just ship to Linux (though I thought about it). I like windows; I just wish Microsoft would take the time and produce something original. Even the new Windows effects look just like a combination of the new Mac OS and an OS by Sun called project looking glass.

I guess I?d like to hear other people?s opinions on Vista and see if I'm just a radical or if others agree.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

2038 and Debian

by apotheon In reply to My home Debian file serve ...

I'm running Debian Etch/Testing, which still has the 2038 Unix Time Bug. I've got a Perl script here that counts the last two seconds before and first two seconds after the Unix Era, so I don't have to change clock settings to test for the bug. On Debian, it rolls over to Fri Dec 13 20:45:52 1901.

Collapse -

Actually I do re boot now

by Michael L Hereid Sr In reply to *sigh* Again

several times a week-esp when I'm checking out the Vista 32/64 bit versions-when not beta testing-I usually re boot 2 x a month but only for updates to windows or drivers only.
You may want to read these
http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2004Feb/gee20040217023885.htm

http://businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_45/b3907083_mz054.htm

http://www.silicon.com/research/specialreports/opensource/0,3800004943,3**52061,00.htm

Collapse -

A Gartner Group story?

by nighthawk808 In reply to Actually I do re boot now

Surely you can't take that seriously! I'd read the National Inquirer for IT news before I'd read their pulp. They are the Art Bell of technology coverage. No, wait, I take that back--I wouldn't want to insult Mr. Bell like that. At least some of the things he had on his show made sense occasionally.

From the first story: "It has also been revealed that the Open Source software bid was actually 51% more expensive than the proposal made by Microsoft, as Microsoft had heavily discounted its proposal in an attempt to keep the German customer." That's like a heroin dealer on a street corner complaining that the methadone clinic is more expensive, so obviously staying hooked on heroin is a more attractive proposition. And, of course, he would never jack up the price after you got your first hit in your system. No, that would be unethical, and Microsoft is a fine, upstanding corporate citizen. If you don't believe me, just ask Steve "As-laid-back-as-John-Lennon-on-Valium" Ballmer.

Also from the first story: LiMux project manager Peter Hofman says, "Right now we are proceeding as planned, and we have no hints ... that the city council is regretting ... their decision to move to Linux." Did I miss something, or did that mean that they're NOT unhappy about the transition?

As for the second story, I have a hard time taking it seriously when there is a Microsoft ad running down the right side of the webpage. Call me crazy.

Collapse -

Let's compare notes:

by apotheon In reply to Actually I do re boot now

http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http://www.microsoft.com

Microsoft's website. As of today, last rebooted sixteen days ago. OS: Windows Server 2003 with IIS 6.0, of course.

http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http://www.linux.com

"The Enterprise Linux Resource". As of today, last rebooted thirty days ago. OS: Linux with Apache 1.3.x, of course.

That thirty days doesn't sound too impressive, but then you have a look at the graph:
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=www.linux.com

Thirty days ago, Linux.com hit 497 days of uptime. The uptime counter in Linux (unlike the one for Windows) rolls over to zero every 497 days. Hmm. So, the total is actually 527 days of uptime. Before that, there was a break in uptime that was at less than 497 days: it was, in fact, about 400 days, greater than the highest uptime figure on the Microsoft.com graph by a factor of about 3.5 (that's 3.5 times the uptime, for the lowest peak on Linux.com's graph, as for the highest on the Microsoft.com graph). That was in late 2004. I suspect they upgraded the kernels on their servers or replaced hardware. They certainly aren't rebooting every two weeks, like you do.

Well. Yeah. The legendary stability of Windows.

Collapse -

How did what happen?

by nighthawk808 In reply to Let's compare notes:

The big blue line that shows Apache dominating the stats?

Or are you referring to GoDaddy's decision to put all its parked websites on IIS? After Slashdot got done with that one, it looked like it went through a food processor:
http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/03/23/008229

BTW, GoDaddy is also the company that is so technically incompetent it can't even tell when it is broken, so while you're there, you might find this interesting:
http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/08/236246&tid=177

Have you been out of the loop for the last few years? The study you cited in the second story has long been known to have been bought-and-paid-for by Microsoft and intentionally put the Linux box at a disadvantage.

Collapse -

Schizophrenic much?

by apotheon In reply to Let's compare notes:

I thought we were talking about uptime and stability. What does that have to do with market share and performance?

Regardless, you obviously aren't checking your own source material:

1. As the news item at Netcraft indicates, the relative increase in market share for Windows and relative decrease in market share for Linux is entirely accounted for by the fact that a single business made some kind of mass licensing deal with Windows and chose to migrate 4.4 million servers. One company switching platforms isn't exactly a ringing endorsement so much as a fluke of the business world. You might also have bothered to scroll down a little bit and notice the graphs, which show that the market share drop for Apache and jump for IIS, due to GoDaddy's business deal, isn't much of a measure of market success. As I'm known to say over and over again, market share (relative numbers) isn't as important a measure of success as absolute numbers. The absolute numbers for Apache have been climing at an incredible rate -- so much so that GoDaddy's migration of millions of systems from Linux to Windows doesn't even show in the absolute numbers graph. Hint: the blue line is Apache.

2. I just lost all my bookmarks yesterday, so I'm afraid I don't have the articles handy, but nighthawk808 is right: industry and tech analysts tore that "Windows Wins" crap, sponsored by Microsoft, a new bunghole. Also, it's out of date, to say nothing of the fact that SMB isn't a standard protocol for Linux. If you want a network filesystem for Linux, you should be looking at protocols designed for Unix, rather than the protocol that is primarily in the Windows bailiwick these days. Frankly, I'm disinclined to put much faith in any study that isn't performed entirely independently.

Comparing the two for fileserver performance and forcing RedHat Linux servers to use CIFS rather than letting it use something better suited to unix is a bit like checking to see whether a right-handed person or a left-handed person is a faster writer with his right hand. If you'd let the left-handed person use his left hand, he'd do a heck of a lot better.

Collapse -

Windows Server 2003

by nighthawk808 In reply to Now Jim there you made a ...

was originally named Windows XP Server. They changed the name since it took so long to get to market.

Collapse -

I'll start

by jmgarvin In reply to I wonder what the rant is ...

A) Sponsored by MS
B) Untrue, just check out sans.org and/or cert.org for clarification
C) Just look at the mess of IE, IIS, and their ilk...

Security IS NOT what MS does. While they have improved, they sure haven't produced a secure product.

They are just turd polishing.

Related Discussions

Related Forums