[AccessD] Interesting Laptop / Vista commentary

Charlotte Foust cfoust at infostatsystems.com
Mon Dec 3 10:24:21 CST 2007


A dual-core processor helps with ANY operating system that can use it,
Bobby.  I know that from experience.

Charlotte Foust 

-----Original Message-----
From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
[mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Bobby Heid
Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2007 6:56 PM
To: 'Access Developers discussion and problem solving'
Subject: Re: [AccessD] Interesting Laptop / Vista commentary

Hi John,

I think that one of the main things that Vista brings to the table is
security.  There are lots of things that have been changed for the
better that most people will never see or hear about.  I do not have any
specific links, but I have read several articles/blogs that point out
some of the "under the covers" stuff, of which I thought a lot of it was
pretty impressive.  If I come across any of them again, I'll post the
links.

I don't think you have to have a dual-core processor, but I think it
helps with Vista.  I think that is because Vista is more multi-threaded
friendly, therefore it benefits more from a multi-core system.

I don't use the sidebar, the firewall is better than it was in XP, I
think most DRM sucks, and the UAC feature needs tweaking.

You mentioned earlier about 4GB RAM, I only have 2GB, which is what I
had when I ran XP Pro.  I develop software on this system using VS 2005
(and soon VS2008), SQL server, Access, and some other stuff.  I run VMs
under VMWare that can use the extra RAM.  One thing I always hear people
complaining about Vista is how much RAM it uses.  I don't think it uses
much more RAM than when I ran XP.  With all of the stuff that I run
regularly (SQL Server, VMWare, BeyondTV, etc.), XP used up about
600-700MB RAM.  One thing about Vista is it seems to use a lot of RAM as
cache unless it is needed.  With nothing extra running, Process Explorer
shows about 1.6GB of commit history, but, it says that about 1.27GB of
RAM is available.

Stability wise, I have not had any problems.  My system stays up just as
long with Vista as it did with XP (usually 2-3 weeks at a time before I
do something that makes me have to reboot).  One issue I have with Vista
is that I have a directory with a lot of mpg files and have issues when
deleting files.  I do not know if is the size of the files or maybe the
type of files, but many times, when I delete a file or files, it acts
like it is deleting the file, but if you press F5 to refresh or open
that directory up later, the file still appears in the listing.  This
happens maybe 30% of the time.  If I reboot, the files will disappear as
they are supposed to.  I hope this is corrected in SP1.

I do not know about versions below the business version, but that friend
that I helped buy a pc has the home version and it runs great on 2GB.

Note that I am not trying to get people to use Vista, I just want people
to know that there are many people that do like Vista and do not have
any major issues with running it.  As a matter of fact, I think that a
lot of the problems people have had over the years have to do with
backwards compatibility between OSes.  I also think that a lot of the
problems that people have with Vista are driver issues where the vendors
either have or will not create Vista drivers for legacy equipment or
they have implemented them poorly.

And like you, I am not a Linux proponent.  I have played with various
flavors of Linux for years, either dual booting or running them in a VM.
I do not think grandma or the regular Joe user is ready for Linux yet.
I think most of us on this list could handle it though.

I like the way that Vista can and will use the graphics processor for
desktop stuff if it meets certain requirements.  Windows Presentation
Foundation (WPF) is more capable on Vista than on XP.

Anyway, I am running on here.  I just wanted to let you know that there
are people who do like Vista.  Sure, there are some problems with it,
some of Microsoft's making, some of other vendors' making.  But XP, and
I don't remember, but probably 2000, 98, etc., all had problems when
they came out.
I know, Vista has been out for a while now.  But I think that SP1 will
make a big difference in Vista.

Bobby


-----Original Message-----
From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
[mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of jwcolby
Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2007 12:14 PM
To: 'Access Developers discussion and problem solving'
Subject: Re: [AccessD] Interesting Laptop / Vista commentary
4
Bobby,

Don't get me wrong, I am not about "the good old days".  I loved Windows
XP because it was based on Windows 2K which was Microsoft's "server
grade"
system.  Remember that Windows 98 was a HUGE step up from Windows 95 in
terms of stability.  When XP came out people were running Windows 98 on
the desktop, and likewise Windows XP was a HUGE step up from Windows 98
on a lot of fronts, stability first off, but also security.  We finally
got away from the DOS underpinnings.

I am not reading anything that indicates that Vista is a step up at all,
at least until you do get to the Business edition.  All the good stuff
is left out of the version that is sold for the home desktop.  And it
runs like a pig.

I am not one of those "let's all run to Linux" people.  I was reading
just yesterday the experience of a real "techie" tech editor trying to
install three of the most popular Linuxes on a laptop and what a joke
that was.  The built-in pad pointer wasn't supported, the wireless
wasn't supported, he was going all over hell trying to find drivers.
Windows XP will "just install".
Vista MAY "just install".

Here is something I found when googling "advantages of Vista over
Windows XP".

http://www.notebookreview.com/default.asp?newsID=3529

A very interesting read.  Admittedly it was written in February but it
was "top of the Google list" for that particular search.  Having read
this I certainly wouldn't rush to buy Vista.

And finally I admit, I don't own Vista (or it's not installed anyway).
But I have to say these things.  

1) In XP I explicitly TURN OFF the eye candy in order to make the
interface as snappy as possible.  Eye candy is for people who don't use
their computers; I have work for my processor cycles to do.  It makes no
damned difference to me if a control is square and solid or round and
looks like glass.  It makes no difference to me if they use a color
pallet of 64K or 64 bajillion colors.  Beyond a certain point it simply
doesn't matter any more.
Shadows and light sources?  C'mon!  In a game yea, but on the desktop?
2) XP is stable.  I use Pro and will until it is replaced with something
legitimately better.
3) DRM sucks (Even in XP I have run smack dab into that wall already
with purchased music downloads) and I don't want it embedded in my
computer.
4) The built in Windows firewall and other "security" crap that comes
with XP is junk, promptly replaced with real protection.  Given the
"junk" status of the XP variety I see no reason to expect better from
the Vista variety.
5) I LOVE new stuff, but it needs to be BETTER stuff.  I buy processor
upgrades, video upgrades, program upgrades and even OS upgrades WHEN
THEY MAKE SENSE.  Vista just makes no sense to me.  Believe me I had
high hopes (I LIKE new BETTER stuff), but in the end it just makes no
sense to me.

I am quite certain that in a few years I will be forced, kicking and
screaming, to upgrade to Vista.  MS will somehow manage to make XP
non-maintainable any more and I will go.  My fervent hope is that Vista
actually works when I am dragged there and that I will be able to not
install or get rid of the eye candy and DRM crap, and that I will get at
least a tiny value for the pound of flesh Microsoft extorts from me.  In
the meantime... Give me XP or give me death!

;-)

John W. Colby
Colby Consulting
www.ColbyConsulting.com
-----Original Message-----
From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
[mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of jwcolby
Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2007 10:44 AM
To: 'Access Developers discussion and problem solving'
Subject: Re: [AccessD] Interesting Laptop / Vista commentary

I guess I have to ask what Vista brings to the table that makes it worth
having to buy a dual processor with 4 gigs just to run the system?  It
damn well better have a built in space shuttle if it is going to require
those kinds of specs.

So give us a list of what it does that XP doesn't (other than eye
candy). 


John W. Colby
Colby Consulting
www.ColbyConsulting.com
-----Original Message-----
From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
[mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Bobby Heid
Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2007 9:55 AM
To: 'Access Developers discussion and problem solving'
Subject: Re: [AccessD] Interesting Laptop / Vista commentary

I have Vista Business on my pc and I love it.  I have a P4-3.0GHz, 2GB
RAM, and a 7800GS AGP video card.  Sure, there are some things that I
think could be better that I hope will be addressed in SP1.  I ran XP
Pro for years, so I am able to compare the two.  Don't forget that a lot
of people really complained about XP before SP1/SP2 came out.

I helped a friend buy a desktop with a Core 2 Duo processor and 2 gigs
of RAM and Vista is much more snappy on that machine than mine.  I think
it has to do with the dual processors.

Bobby

--
AccessD mailing list
AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com


-- 
AccessD mailing list
AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com




More information about the AccessD mailing list