I tried to refrain from knocking Vista, but today...

Ed B said:

Spiked, do you work for Microsoft?

I never said that Vista was developed for the purpose of screwing us
or that Microsoft sat around and tried to give us an inferior
product. But that, in a nut shell, is what happened.

When a company develops a newer/better product they usually try to
target a high percentage of users and develope improvements that will
appeal to these users.

What features in Vista are an improvement over XP?

What benifit does a system that hogs ram have over XP?

I fell sorry for the average person who buys a new computer that has
something like 80 GB hard drive and 1MB of ram and is installed with
Vista Home Premium. Now with XP that system would be "low end" but
would work fine for most applications, however with Vista that system
will cause these people nothing but grief and they will have to
upgrade their new computer to have a computer that actually works
well.

The computer I have has 4MB of ram installed but for some reason
Vista only recognizes 3MB and even then when I try to download PDF
files Vista will give me an error code saying that I've run out of
memory.

Click to expand...

Ed, I am certain that you meant Gb instead of MB regarding Ram.

Ed B said:

I've been told by two different sources and have received response on
the Vista forum that this is a known issue with Vista and it should
be fixed with the impending service pack.

My contention is that Microsoft should have fixed these type problems
during their Beta testing and should not have sold us, or forced upon
us, an operating system with these problems.

Naturally, the bottom line is money. The longer Vista sat on the
development tables the more money it was costing Microsoft.

Answer. Give the public an inferior product. People like you will
"suck it up" and be satisfied. People like me will feel like they've
been taken advantage of (screwed).

Click to expand...

--
Vernon...

Ed B said:

Spiked, do you work for Microsoft?
What features in Vista are an improvement over XP?

Click to expand...

Instant Search, greatly improved security, updated UI, updated inbox Apps, better support for mobile devices, better power management & standby mode, etc.

Ed B said:

What benifit does a system that hogs ram have over XP?

Click to expand...

More features. You don't get indexing, automation backup (Previous Versions), 3D graphics, etc completely for free. Where XP was ok with 512MB, Vista prefers 1 GB, and flies with 2GB.

Ed B said:

I fell sorry for the average person who buys a new computer that has
something like 80 GB hard drive and 1MB of ram and is installed with
Vista Home Premium. Now with XP that system would be "low end" but
would work fine for most applications, however with Vista that system
will cause these people nothing but grief and they will have to
upgrade their new computer to have a computer that actually works
well.

Click to expand...

MOST people get a new OS like Vista with a NEW Computer. Very few upgrade. Upgrading and old PC is never optimal.

Ed B said:

The computer I have has 4MB of ram installed but for some reason
Vista only recognizes 3MB and even then when I try to download PDF
files Vista will give me an error code saying that I've run out of
memory.

Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with Vista. There are HARDWARE limitations that effect 32OSes and the ability to address 4+ GB of ram. XP has the same issues. Moving to a 64bit OS is the only way to resolve this. Fortunately, Vista 64 works great. I am sure in the next couple of years this will be come the default setup from the major PC vendors.

Ed B said:

I've been told by two different sources and have received response on
the Vista forum that this is a known issue with Vista and it should
be fixed with the impending service pack.

Click to expand...

Only partly correct. There is a change in SP1 to report the amount of memory INSTALLED in the system. It does not impact how much memory is available to the OS. Monitoring tools like Task Manager will still show the available memory. It is only a UI change to avoid confusing folks who don't understand why the 4GB they paid for don't show up.

Ed B said:

My contention is that Microsoft should have fixed these type problems
during their Beta testing and should not have sold us, or forced upon
us, an operating system with these problems.

Naturally, the bottom line is money. The longer Vista sat on the
development tables the more money it was costing Microsoft.

Answer. Give the public an inferior product. People like you will
"suck it up" and be satisfied. People like me will feel like they've
been taken advantage of (screwed).

Click to expand...

This happens with every Windows upgrade cycle. Some old apps and devices have problems. Device makers are slow to update their drivers. Applications need to be updated to take advantage of the new OS. Things continue to get investigate and fixed by Microsoft, and after a year or so everything magically seems to be work a lot more smoothly. If you think this did not happen in the XP or earlier cycles you are just forgetting the past.

We create images for our clients all the time (hence the Windows interface; still boots to PCDOS to actually create the image) for internal storage as well as recovery. Just more convenient for us to do this as opposed to booting from CD. I just wish my Boss would have purchased Ghost 11 instead of 12 (believe it still worked with .gho files), but my boss thought newer is better (won't go there; lol).

--

I've had more problems with later versions of Ghost barfing on XP partitions than all the Vista bashing here multiplied by two.

If you are doing Windows images and restores from within the OS, then the problem is with the technician. Ghost is a great tool - if you are imaging and restoring from a boot disk. Plus, I build my own boot diskettes with dedicated packet drivers for the NIC cards, etc. They work, unlike Symantec's which often don't.

Paragon and Acronis are the only ones I trust with in state imaging.

J'ever hear of PXE booting, TFTP servers, etc.? That's pretty much the standard for imaging now.

Blaming Microsoft for a compatibility problem with a 2003 version of a Symantec product is like blaming city hall that your trailer park has declining property values..

No Text...
--
Vernon...

Scott Eaton said:

I've had more problems with later versions of Ghost barfing on XP
partitions than all the Vista bashing here multiplied by two.

If you are doing Windows images and restores from within the OS,
then the problem is with the technician. Ghost is a great tool - if
you are imaging and restoring from a boot disk. Plus, I build my own
boot diskettes with dedicated packet drivers for the NIC cards, etc.
They work, unlike Symantec's which often don't.

Paragon and Acronis are the only ones I trust with in state imaging.

J'ever hear of PXE booting, TFTP servers, etc.? That's pretty much
the standard for imaging now.

Blaming Microsoft for a compatibility problem with a 2003 version of
a Symantec product is like blaming city hall that your trailer park
has declining property values..

Click to expand...

Scott, I have mentioned this so many times that it seems like a "Broken Record".

I have been using Ghost 2003 for over 4 years and I "ALWAYS" use my Ghost 2003 Floppy Boot Disk or a Ghost 2003 Boot CD. I NEVER use the Windows interface for my Backups.

Also, I do "DRIVE" (a complete drive box) backup to Image file(s) and always run an integrity check.
I have made several (actually many) Restores with very good success.
--
Vernon...

Vernon, you're right. Guess I was typing faster than I could think and the terrible truth is that I don't type all that fast.

...like I'm blaming. It just surprised me that, even though Vista uses NTFS, that I couldn't back up an external (customers) HD with an image and hope to re-image the drive on another HD using the version of Ghost that has served me quite well. I really have no opinion overall with Vista other then we have not seen to many of them (either Vista is that good, or the OS is slow to being adopted by the masses). We are finally seeing more Vista machines come in the shop, so I need to get a handle on all the caveates that I will be expecting to see with this OS. I do like the eyecandy (I am, by hobby, a retoucher), so I do not see that as being a negative. I am a little conservative and was (several months ago) surprised to find that Vista set up placeholders in the directory structure and redid the common data structure model which perturbed me a little; did not see any reason to have done this. Still, Vista, as someone already stated, is the future. It wasn't too long ago that XP had its naysayers, so I'm still reserving my opinion until Vista gets to SP2. I stated this before, but almost every Microsoft OS blossomed after it reached SP2 (Win98 SE, and XP SP2 being prime examples).

--

So it's Vista's fault that Ghost 2003 doesn't work with it.......

.....ooooooookaayyy

Hobgoblin said:

So it's Vista's fault that Ghost 2003 doesn't work with it.......

.....ooooooookaayyy

Click to expand...

I can't verify if Ghost 2003 works or doesn't with Vista -- but, a few minutes ago I emailed lylejk information regarding a person using Ghost 2003 with Vista and the details as to how it works for him.

Certainly you would know that Ghost 2003 is no longer "actively" supported by Symantec -- regarding any downloads, updates, etc.

I also sent lylejk information for "work around" that handles (for me) the lack of these updates and downloads for use with installing Ghost 2003 on my new XP SP2c computer a couple Months ago that will replace my older (6 year +) computer
--
Vernon...

Just replied too. That probably explains why I can use USB devices in 2.0 mode (for laptop HDs; I just do these updates overnight; lol). Still (see email) pretty much gave up on using Ghost 2003 for Vista on future PCs; will use Ghost 12.

--