[beats]

MagicAndre1981, on Jun 12 2009, 05:35 PM, said:

Vista performs well and all required and must have fixes are not included, so I'll skip Win7

Hmm, a simple task like copying files is still dang slow with both Win7 and Vista compared to Win2K and WinXP.

[5eraph]

And that is the primary reason I have not migrated to Vista. I am constantly working with files on my system. Microsoft seriously bungled simple file operations with Vista. Search for strings within files... not with Vista. Fast file copy/moves... not with Vista. Network transfers... you're joking, right?

I won't be impressed by turd polish until Microsoft can fix basic operations.

[clueless_furball]

Right now I am using Windows 2k. I'll probably upgrade to Windows 7 when it matures (Probably 5-7 years from now) Microsoft has this annoying tendency to turn out really bad software packages and then fix them in a service pack.

So I usually hold back and wait until they work out the bugs. Windows XP (before SP1) Was awful. So was every single initial release of a Windows operating system (Never saw the initial release of 2k, though I'm sure it's just as awful as the other initial MS OS's before they worked out the bugs).

Windows Vista is almost to the point it's usable. Though I'll probably wait another couple years to upgrade to it (I'll have to soon, since I need to get a new PC to use Office 2007)

This post has been edited by clueless_furball: 20 June 2009 - 11:05 AM

[MagicAndre1981]

5eraph, on Jun 20 2009, 04:39 PM, said:

Network transfers... you're joking, right?

network is outstanding with Vista/Win7. Do you know what SMB2 is?

[5eraph]

Yes, I do. Are you aware that it is fully proprietary and not backward compatible? It is useless to me when running a blended network with older machines.

[MagicAndre1981]

that's why NT6.x uses the old SMB1.0 too. If you have 2 RAM modules (1 DDR2 800 and 1 DDR2 533) the fast module will run with the speed of the slower module. So this is the same. You are slowing down the possible speed to be compatible

[Zenskas]

clueless_furball, on Jun 21 2009, 03:04 AM, said:

Right now I am using Windows 2k. I'll probably upgrade to Windows 7 when it matures (Probably 5-7 years from now) Microsoft has this annoying tendency to turn out really bad software packages and then fix them in a service pack.

So I usually hold back and wait until they work out the bugs. Windows XP (before SP1) Was awful. So was every single initial release of a Windows operating system (Never saw the initial release of 2k, though I'm sure it's just as awful as the other initial MS OS's before they worked out the bugs).

Windows Vista is almost to the point it's usable. Though I'll probably wait another couple years to upgrade to it (I'll have to soon, since I need to get a new PC to use Office 2007)

5-7 years is maturing to you? You would be lucky if anyone knows what windows 7 is by then
XP SP1 did not take that long and the very mature SP2 came out way less than 5 years after XP's initial release. I would not advise waiting another few years to upgrade to windows vista. Since win 7 was built off vista (and backwards compatible with it) then in a few years win 7 will have a SP1 and be plenty ready for use with everyone. So skipping windows vista and going to windows 7 sounds a lot better than waiting longer for windows vista then even more time to then go to windows 7.

This post has been edited by Zenskas: 23 June 2009 - 05:36 AM

[Sp0iLedBrAt]

Yes, from XPSP3 x86, although not still sure which version to use.

[cluberti]

5eraph, on Jun 20 2009, 10:39 AM, said:

Fast file copy/moves... not with Vista.

It takes no longer with Vista to copy files than it did with, say, Win2K (unless your network drivers are awful). It's just that it's no longer lying to you and telling you "hey, I'm done!!!" when it's still copying files from cache to disk (or the network). WinXP, for instance, would close the file copy dialog once everything was either in cache or at the intended destination - note the distinction. Vista only closes the copy dialog once everything is *actually* written to disk.

5eraph, on Jun 20 2009, 10:39 AM, said:

Network transfers... you're joking, right?

Works great here, even faster than XP (and yes, that's to a 2003 file server, so still SMB 1.0). If your network transfer speeds are that slow, don't blame Vista, because it's probably not Vista's fault. And yes, SMB2.0 really is that much faster than 1.0, but you'd of course need a 2008 server or another Vista/Win7 client at the other end of the file copy.

As to SMB2.0 vs 1.0, If the Vista machine finds the remote machine uses 1.0 rather than 2.0, it'll fall back to 1.0 - and considering the protocol is slow, complex, and designed long before the advent of fast networks, I'd say moving on isn't necessarily a bad thing in this case.

[Zenskas]

cluberti, on Jun 27 2009, 12:57 AM, said:

5eraph, on Jun 20 2009, 10:39 AM, said:

Network transfers... you're joking, right?

Works great here, even faster than XP (and yes, that's to a 2003 file server, so still SMB 1.0). If your network transfer speeds are that slow, don't blame Vista, because it's probably not Vista's fault. And yes, SMB2.0 really is that much faster than 1.0, but you'd of course need a 2008 server or another Vista/Win7 client at the other end of the file copy.

Yes I just read an article on tom's hardware which found out it is the computers HDDs that are the bottleneck for network transfers. Gigabit ethernet is much faster transferring data than many HDD's can keep up with (135 megabytes per second or 1000 megabits per second). Transferring data from the system RAM to another PC's RAM got speeds of up to 111 megabytes per second, much faster than most HDDs.

[adrian2055]

No, I won't upgrade when it comes out. I'm gonna wait awhile. Vista runs very fast on my brand new laptop. I have no issues with it. The only thing I liked about Windows 7 is the theme. That's not worth the cost of upgrading when I just paid nearly $800 for a new laptop less than 4 months ago. Plus vista sp2 meets all my needs. No reason to waste money on the latest stuff to end up with the same results. I went from 98se to xp the day it was released and the performance was about the same which is what I'm getting with vista and windows 7. No difference performance wise. I will save my money and wait.

This post has been edited by adrian2055: 27 June 2009 - 05:03 AM

[5eraph]

cluberti, on Jun 26 2009, 10:57 AM, said:

It takes no longer with Vista to copy files than it did with, say, Win2K [...] Vista only closes the copy dialog once everything is *actually* written to disk.

That's not my experience, but I'll concede that the last time I evaluated Vista was before the release of SP1 and performance may have drastically improved.

cluberti, on Jun 26 2009, 10:57 AM, said:

[Network transfers work] great here, even faster than XP (and yes, that's to a 2003 file server, so still SMB 1.0). If your network transfer speeds are that slow, don't blame Vista, because it's probably not Vista's fault.

All computers have gigabit ethernet adapters connected with CAT6 cabling and jacks through a gigabit switch. Speed wasn't necessarily the issue, but reliability certainly was. Again, I evaluated pre-SP1 code, so things may have changed considerably since then.

cluberti, on Jun 26 2009, 10:57 AM, said:

And yes, SMB2.0 really is that much faster than 1.0, but you'd of course need a 2008 server or another Vista/Win7 client at the other end of the file copy.

As to SMB2.0 vs 1.0, If the Vista machine finds the remote machine uses 1.0 rather than 2.0, it'll fall back to 1.0 - and considering the protocol is slow, complex, and designed long before the advent of fast networks, I'd say moving on isn't necessarily a bad thing in this case.

I was under the impression that if any machine in the workgroup used SMB1.0 then Vista reverted to SMB1.0 for all network communication. I don't recall where I read that, but it makes sense to me. When I evaluated it, I had Vista x64 running on only one machine with XP x86 SP2, XP x64 SP2 and Ubuntu 7.10 x86 Home on the others. In my case I had no other Vista machines, so what you say may indeed be true. I cannot say.

Other issues still prevent me from using Vista, such as broken file search as mentioned previously, but your observations so far are compelling.

This post has been edited by 5eraph: 27 June 2009 - 07:56 AM

[-X-]

Searching for strings in files in XP is not great either. Try finding a string in a registry file. It wont find it. Even the much touted Locate32 wont. Agent Ransack to the rescue.

At least XP search, though slow, seems a zillion times quicker than Windows 7 and I would presume Vista.

This post has been edited by -X-: 29 June 2009 - 09:22 PM

[cluberti]

5eraph, on Jun 27 2009, 09:40 AM, said:

Again, I evaluated pre-SP1 code, so things may have changed considerably since then.

Comparing Vista RTM and Vista SP1 are almost two separate OSes. Vista SP1 was the "real" RTM release of Vista (regardless of what Microsoft says), so you should at least consider it. However, with Win7 looming, I'm not sure it's worth it anyway.

[Zxian]

I've already got the Win7 RC on my netbook and it's fantastic. One of these days, when I find the time, I'll be upgrading my desktop system to Win7 as well. Yes, I will be purchasing Win7 licenses for all my systems when it hits RTM.

As for all the talk about Vista/Win7 being slow and bringing nothing to the table - I'll give you my anectodal experience with my Netbook. This is an ASUS EEE 1000HA - 1.6Ghz Atom, 2GB DDR2-533, 320GB 7200RPM drive (upgraded from the stock drive - 160GB 5400RPM). By no means is this a top-performing set of hardware compared to what's readily available for a desktop or full-sized laptop, and in terms of actual crunching power, it's probably about 2 years behind the times (at least). I haven't noticed any slowdowns compared to running XP on this system, and the layout of the OS makes things far easier than they ever were with XP. The condensed buttons in the superbar, Libraries, instant search (that's still surprisingly responsive for a comparably sluggish machine). Applications load up faster here than they did in XP, likely due to the aggressive pre-caching done by superfetch. Anyone who says that this "wastes memory" - memory is meant to be used. Empty memory is wasted memory.

Vista/Win7 network transfers are most definitely faster than XP and earlier. Vista/2008 has brought back the disk caching of file transfers (as cluberti mentioned), and it's not uncommon for me to see "file copy" speeds of 115-120MB/s when transferring large files from one system to the other. Pre-SP2 installation, the transfers would be topping out at whatever the write speed of the disks was (~60MB/s on my media center, ~90MB/s on my desktop, etc). Not to sound overly rude, but many of the problems with Vista are a case of PEBKAC. I was in this boat as well when I first made the switch from XP to Vista, and again from Vista to Win7, but if you sit down and use the OS before running back to the familiar world of the old, you'll see that the grass is definitely greener on this side.

[-X-]

Zxian, on Jun 29 2009, 12:48 PM, said:

but if you sit down and use the OS before running back to the familiar world of the old, you'll see that the grass is definitely greener on this side.

I use Windows 7 on a daily basis and while I like some things that were added that XP does not have, the negatives far outweigh the positives. Everyone is different. We all have different needs and likes/dislikes. Just look at the 9x forums here.

To give you one example of my negatives, I can't stand the new Windows Explorer. It's very cluttered compared to XP. I like things as simple as possible while still retaining functionality.

At this stage I wont upgrade until I am forced to due to lack of support/compatibility. It was the same with W2K. I prefer it over XP but finally had to ditch it due to some anomalies in certain programs.

[Zxian]

-X-, on Jun 29 2009, 07:39 PM, said:

To give you one example of my negatives, I can't stand the new Windows Explorer. It's very cluttered compared to XP. I like things as simple as possible while still retaining functionality.

Fair enough - the Vista/Win7 explorer layouts show a lot more information by default than WinXP's did. However...

As you can see, I can remove the extra panes very easily. It's a simple matter of going into Organize->Layout and selecting/unselecting the elements you don't want.

[-X-]

I need both panes showing to move things around quickly. It's the extra stuff in the left hand pane - homegroup, user, favorites, libraries, etc.

This post has been edited by -X-: 30 June 2009 - 12:10 AM

[Thunderbolt 2864]

Yes, I will be upgrading, been using XP forever and Vista sucks balls. I was quite impressed when I downloaded the RC so yeah 7 is the way to go.

[Gray__Fox]

not until I absolutely have to! I can't even get the RC to work correctly so...

This post has been edited by Gray__Fox: 30 June 2009 - 01:33 PM