Reading mode: Light Dark

""We're considering bypassing Vista ..."

Go to last post
GaryM said:
I've read through most of the posts and some things not mentioned...:

1) Many large companies (U.S. Government and Defense Contractors
included) encrypt their desktops/notebooks...Before Vista, the
software to do full disk encryption was/is quite expensive. Vista
Bitlocker takes care of this issue, which explains why most U.S.
Government agencies are moving to Vista with Bitlocker
Click to expand...
The companies that need this already have it. (Note that this is also available in Linux.)
Member said:
2) Most companies, PC Manufacturers, etc. deploy "System Images" to
their desktops/notebooks. Vista introduced several advantages for
this procedure:
a) Vista uses WIM system image format which uses single instance store
b) Vista's images are "HAL independent"
A company can end up with a total of 2 Images, 1 for Vista 32bit and
1 for Vista 64bit...for large companies, this save lot's of money.
Click to expand...
A lot of money? I think that is a stretch.
Member said:
3) Vista's "Sleep" mode (Hibernation) is much better than XP and
through it's use, companies can save quite a lot...in a recent study
performed by the EPA on a "Large" US company, they saved over $2.5
million/yr in energy cost!
Click to expand...
Gary, I keep asking you to provide references for your claims. I would like to also see this one. Ha, ha, I want to know what kind of company lets their computers seat idle that long and then think they are saving money. :D
Member said:
4) Vista networking allows for "seamless" switching from network to
network.
Click to expand...
Oohh, Ahhh.
Member said:
5) Vista natively supports PPPv6 and Layer 2 Tunneling (L2TP/IPv6)
allowing you to tunnel IPv6 traffic across a private IPv4 network or
the Internet...IPv6 is coming!
Click to expand...
There are a lot of things coming, but they are not here yet. (This is available in Linux too.)
Member said:
There are many more and those who actually know/understand Vista
probably already know about them...ReadyBoost, Super Fetch,....

GaryM
Click to expand...
Clap, clap, flap. OK, you have done your MS marketing quota for the day. How much do you get paid for it? Or are you really that enamored with MS?
 
This is not new. I've worked for companies that said the same for XP, 2000 and NT 4.0 when released, if nothing compels them to upgrade why do it.

Unfortunately other factors will force their hands, things like Adobe and other vendors restricting support for XP like what happened with 2000 etc. Hardware vendors not supplying drivers for the older OS and support from MS themselves.

They may upgrade to the next version of Windows or Vista, it all depends on the needs at the time and this can only be evaluated when the particular project begins.
 
Member said:
those who actually know/understand Vista
Click to expand...
'round here there are very, very, very, few of those people (same for true XP knowledge). The rest spend their time searching for links in an attempt to support things they know virtually nothing about (hence the need for all the links). Links are all they have since knowledge is severly lacking...

If they really did know they could formulate their own sentences (all by themselves) with useful information. Then, back it up with technical documents rather than links from every idiot they can find running a tech blog... :-)

Karbo

--
Passing the torch of knowledge is a genetic responsibility.

http://photo.karywall.net/
 
rm2 said:
rm2 said:
There are many more and those who actually know/understand Vista
probably already know about them...ReadyBoost, Super Fetch,....

GaryM
Click to expand...
Clap, clap, flap. OK, you have done your MS marketing quota for the
day. How much do you get paid for it? Or are you really that
enamored with MS?
Click to expand...
IMHO, I think he is saying what I see here so often.. Claims with no substance. I have no bias for what anyone uses, but if one is going trash say "Vista DRM" for example they should read the whitepaper first. And if they can't understand the WP they aren't qualified to make authoritive statements on the subject. eh?

There is a huge list of improvements, but most people here will miss or dismiss every one of them because it would go against the "stance" they have taken which is much more important to them than what really is/isn't under the hood. Saving face is much more important than knowledge here (regardless of which OS they "love")...

Karbo

--
Passing the torch of knowledge is a genetic responsibility.

http://photo.karywall.net/
 
. Vista
rm2 said:
Bitlocker takes care of this issue, which explains why most U.S.
Government agencies are moving to Vista with Bitlocker
Click to expand...
The companies that need this already have it. (Note that this is also available in Linux.)
********

Of Course these companies already have it...I work for one of them and the cost is "extreme"...the cost savings come with bitlocker built-in to Vista. One can stop paying for GuardianEdge/others licenses.
**********
rm2 said:
A company can end up with a total of 2 Images, 1 for Vista 32bit and
1 for Vista 64bit...for large companies, this save lot's of money.
Click to expand...
A lot of money? I think that is a stretch.
******************

If you actually check with large organizations, they do spend a lot. The Department of Veterans Affairs (I'm a disabled VET by the way) claims they will save over $200,000 yearly.
********************
performed by the EPA on a "Large" US company, they saved over $2.5
rm2 said:
million/yr in energy cost!
Click to expand...
Gary, I keep asking you to provide references for your claims. I would like to also see this one. Ha, ha, I want to know what kind of company lets their computers seat idle that long and then think they are saving money. :D
******************

Do you have any idea how much your company spends on energy cost related to Desktops/Notebooks? The reason people don't take full advantage of sleep/hibernate modes with XP is because it really doesn't work. Dock your notebook, let it go into "hibernation", then try to get it out... Oh, and let me guess, your company has over 40,000 notebooks running Linux?? I have nothing against Linux and have used it off/on for many years...we currently have a large EMC/VMWare ESX Server Farm and the Service Consoles for each ESX server runs A variant of RedHat...works really well for what it does. I have a small Linux box in my trunk that emulates a trunk CD changer (PhatBox), and again, it does a specific task really well.
**********************
rm2 said:
4) Vista networking allows for "seamless" switching from network to
network.
Click to expand...
Oohh, Ahhh.
*******************
Ok, you don't work in a large Networking environment and can't appreciate
*******************
rm2 said:
5) Vista natively supports PPPv6 and Layer 2 Tunneling (L2TP/IPv6)
allowing you to tunnel IPv6 traffic across a private IPv4 network or
the Internet...IPv6 is coming!
Click to expand...
There are a lot of things coming, but they are not here yet. (This is available in Linux too.)
*****************

So you expect people to wait until the last minute to switch, rather than plan ahead...to each their own. I'm sure Linux can do this but how many large companies do you expect to switch to Linux just because it can.
****************
rm2 said:
There are many more and those who actually know/understand Vista
probably already know about them...ReadyBoost, Super Fetch,....

GaryM
Click to expand...
Clap, clap, flap. OK, you have done your MS marketing quota for the day. How much do you get paid for it? Or are you really that enamored with MS?
********************

I'm only explaing the facts about Vista...I get paid well to support IBM AIX, Sun Solaris, Microsoft Windows Server, ESX, EMC Storage and others. It just so happens that Microsoft dominates the Desktop and that is the topic at hand. Can someone run Linux on a desktop? sure...can they run PhotoShop? Adobe Acrobat? AutoCad? (do you want me to list the other Thousand applications that you can't run on Linux). When Linux becomes the maiinstream, and starts getting the scutiny of the US Department of Justice, The European Union, etc., then we can see how much Linux really is.
*****************************
 
GaryM said:
********
Of Course these companies already have it...I work for one of them
and the cost is "extreme"...the cost savings come with bitlocker
built-in to Vista. One can stop paying for GuardianEdge/others
licenses.
**********
Click to expand...
And you need encryption for every one of your machines? If that is so, your company is an extremely rare one. Not really representative for the majority of companies in the market.
Member said:
Member said:
A company can end up with a total of 2 Images, 1 for Vista 32bit and
1 for Vista 64bit...for large companies, this save lot's of money.
Click to expand...
A lot of money? I think that is a stretch.
******************
If you actually check with large organizations, they do spend a lot.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (I'm a disabled VET by the way)
claims they will save over $200,000 yearly.
********************
Click to expand...
Saving $200,000 yearly thanks to a reduction in the number of OS images. Wow! I think that department is due for an audit.
Member said:
performed by the EPA on a "Large" US company, they saved over $2.5
Member said:
million/yr in energy cost!
Click to expand...
Gary, I keep asking you to provide references for your claims. I
would like to also see this one. Ha, ha, I want to know what kind of
company lets their computers seat idle that long and then think they
are saving money. :D
******************
Do you have any idea how much your company spends on energy cost
related to Desktops/Notebooks? The reason people don't take full
advantage of sleep/hibernate modes with XP is because it really
doesn't work. Dock your notebook, let it go into "hibernation", then
try to get it out... ...
**********************
Click to expand...
Gary, you still haven't told us which company was it that saved over $2.5 million/yr in energy cost.
Member said:
Member said:
4) Vista networking allows for "seamless" switching from network to
network.
Click to expand...
Oohh, Ahhh.
*******************
Ok, you don't work in a large Networking environment and can't
appreciate
*******************
Click to expand...
I guess I don't. I only switch between maybe 3 or 4 networks a day, max. Admittedly, I do it using Linux. Maybe that is why I am not too impressed.
Member said:
Member said:
5) Vista natively supports PPPv6 and Layer 2 Tunneling (L2TP/IPv6)
allowing you to tunnel IPv6 traffic across a private IPv4 network or
the Internet...IPv6 is coming!
Click to expand...
There are a lot of things coming, but they are not here yet. (This is
available in Linux too.)
*****************
So you expect people to wait until the last minute to switch, rather
than plan ahead...to each their own. I'm sure Linux can do this but
how many large companies do you expect to switch to Linux just
because it can.
****************
Click to expand...
All I am saying is that using IPv6 as a justification for moving to Vista right now is a very weak argument. My references to Linux are just to keep in perspective that Vista is not being all that innovative at all.
Member said:
Member said:
There are many more and those who actually know/understand Vista
probably already know about them...ReadyBoost, Super Fetch,....

GaryM
Click to expand...
Clap, clap, flap. OK, you have done your MS marketing quota for the
day. How much do you get paid for it? Or are you really that enamored
with MS?
********************
I'm only explaing the facts about Vista...I get paid well to support
IBM AIX, Sun Solaris, Microsoft Windows Server, ESX, EMC Storage and
others. It just so happens that Microsoft dominates the Desktop and
that is the topic at hand. Can someone run Linux on a desktop?
sure...can they run PhotoShop? Adobe Acrobat? AutoCad? (do you want
me to list the other Thousand applications that you can't run on
Linux). When Linux becomes the maiinstream, and starts getting the
scutiny of the US Department of Justice, The European Union, etc.,
then we can see how much Linux really is.
*****************************
Click to expand...
First of all, let me apologize for the tone of my last remark. I understand that you are trying to defend Vista from Blackhawk's comments. I think I just got in the middle. Sorry.

But, I would still like to understand your claim that EU sanctions are making Vista more bloated. EU is after MS for hiding important APIs and protocols needed for interoperability (in order to comply with previous sanctions issued to MS for being an anticompetitive monopoly). Linux has nothing to hide. Linux is already a very mainstream OS in the server. How or why would the EU impose, bloat inducing, sanctions on a Linux vendor?
 
Nothing wrong or strange about that.

No need to upgrade to Vista if you have an old computer as it does use more resources and XP is more than good enough for pretty much anything.
 
OK..we are getting close to some sort of understanding...my response in short:

Not all 150K desktop/notebooks at my company require encryption, but if only 50K do, that is still a lot of savings. More and more companies are either being required to implement encryption or are realizing they should.

The $200,000 savings project by the VA isn't really a lot in my opinion (2 persons?). But it is savings...savings you are not getting by sticking with XP.

You will have to ask the EPA...they only say a large US company. I don't doubt the validity of this particular EPA study...I used to work for a large Electric Utility company and that Industry has many studies that document very similar experiences.

I was only listing a "Few" of the advantages of Vista over XP...Native support for transitioning from IPv4 to IPv6 is just one of many...

The key is "Monopoly"...when you are a monopoly (and yes, I used to work for a Monopoly in the Oil Industy...Schlumberger), everything is scrutinized and everyone else is pointing out things. I honestly thought that trying to tie Internet Explorer to the OS like Microsoft did was one of the stupidest things they could have done. They got "called on the carpet" and had to pay. (but if you are a monopoly, do you really have to pay?....cost just gets passed to the consumer)

About bloat...Linus got to start with a clean sheet of paper. Also, I still constantly read about people complaining..."It's using up all my memory..." Vista's Super Fetch preloads commonly run programs into memory...Memory sitting unused doesn't actually accomplish anything.
Anyhooo...
 
GaryM said:
You will have to ask the EPA...they only say a large US company. I
don't doubt the validity of this particular EPA study...I used to
work for a large Electric Utility company and that Industry has many
studies that document very similar experiences.
Click to expand...
Gary, can you provide the link to the study? I really like vista and I am interested in learning more about the energy savings aspect but after a pretty extensive search on both the EPA site and google I couldn't finds a hint of the study you are talking about. I don't doubt your claim given what I did find but I would like to read it myself.

I did find this

http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/144858/is_windows_xp_environmentally_incorrect.html

as well as a guide from the EPA on how to save power with XP.

Thanks
James
 
GaryM said:
I'm still looking but here is one that explains some of the benefits...

http://www.news.com/Vista-flexes-its-power/2100-1016_3-6126287.html

Ahh...at the bottom, it references the EPA's Energy Star Program and
how G.E.
(That's General Electric) saved over $2.5M/yr using sleep mode on
both PC and Monitors.
Click to expand...
Reading the article, I don't get that the $2.5 M/yr in saving GE is seeing is coming from using Vista. It is coming simply from using sleep mode in their desktops and monitors . From reading the article, it may well be the case that GE is using XP on those desktops.

Also, the article had this to say:

"However, the fancy new Aero graphics in Vista are also fairly power-hungry. Testers of the operating system have reported significantly lower battery life while Vista than with XP running on the same machine. Microsoft has said it hopes to have nearly the same battery life with XP by the time Vista launches."

I am not 100% sure about this, but I seem to remember hearing laptop users complain about short battery lives when using Vista over XP. So, yes, MS may be on the right track by pursuing better energy savings on one front, but it is killing the effort on the Aero front. Maybe by the time Windows7 arrives it will all be good. ;)
 
blackhawk13 said:
-- http://www.news.com/8301-13860_3-9943500-56.html?tag=nefd.top

-Fortune favors the bold-
Click to expand...
If you knew half as much about GM as you claim to know about computers you wouldn't post such nonsense like that here... your anti MS stuff is wearing old on me.

Right now GM is more concerned with American Axle strike than what OS they plan on using or not using.
--

Forty Dee paired with the Seventy-Two Hundred IS f4L and the Seventeen-FiftyFive IS f2.8 capped off with B+W MRC UV filters and a few Kaesemann Circular Polarizers... and growing.
All safely wrapped and easily carried in a Kata R102 backpack.
 
rm2 said:
GaryM said:
I'm still looking but here is one that explains some of the benefits...

http://www.news.com/Vista-flexes-its-power/2100-1016_3-6126287.html

Ahh...at the bottom, it references the EPA's Energy Star Program and
how G.E.
(That's General Electric) saved over $2.5M/yr using sleep mode on
both PC and Monitors.
Click to expand...
Reading the article, I don't get that the $2.5 M/yr in saving GE is
seeing is coming from using Vista. It is coming simply from using
sleep mode in their desktops and monitors . From reading the
article, it may well be the case that GE is using XP on those
desktops.

Also, the article had this to say:
"However, the fancy new Aero graphics in Vista are also fairly
power-hungry. Testers of the operating system have reported
significantly lower battery life while Vista than with XP running on
the same machine. Microsoft has said it hopes to have nearly the same
battery life with XP by the time Vista launches."

I am not 100% sure about this, but I seem to remember hearing laptop
users complain about short battery lives when using Vista over XP.
So, yes, MS may be on the right track by pursuing better energy
savings on one front, but it is killing the effort on the Aero front.
Maybe by the time Windows7 arrives it will all be good. ;)
Click to expand...
SP1 adresses that it had to do with refresh rates and accelerated graphics, which is not required to get the key values out of Vista.

I put Vista on a 4 year old Pentium M notebook with no real 3d accelerator so no translucent screens and my battery life increased I think because it managed the CPU clocking better than XP.. so anyone with battery issues.. might see what happens if they turn off the 3D desktop.. they might get a pleasent surprise.

--
------------
Ken - Happy A700 Owner
http://www.cascadephotoworks.com
 
rm2 said:
GaryM said:
I'm still looking but here is one that explains some of the benefits...

http://www.news.com/Vista-flexes-its-power/2100-1016_3-6126287.html

Ahh...at the bottom, it references the EPA's Energy Star Program and
how G.E.
(That's General Electric) saved over $2.5M/yr using sleep mode on
both PC and Monitors.
Click to expand...
Reading the article, I don't get that the $2.5 M/yr in saving GE is
seeing is coming from using Vista. It is coming simply from using
sleep mode in their desktops and monitors . From reading the
article, it may well be the case that GE is using XP on those
desktops.

Also, the article had this to say:
"However, the fancy new Aero graphics in Vista are also fairly
power-hungry. Testers of the operating system have reported
significantly lower battery life while Vista than with XP running on
the same machine. Microsoft has said it hopes to have nearly the same
battery life with XP by the time Vista launches."

I am not 100% sure about this, but I seem to remember hearing laptop
users complain about short battery lives when using Vista over XP.
So, yes, MS may be on the right track by pursuing better energy
savings on one front, but it is killing the effort on the Aero front.
Maybe by the time Windows7 arrives it will all be good. ;)
Click to expand...
Vista's standby feature is kind of similar to a combination of XPs standby and hibernate. During Vista's standby everything but the memory and processor powers off and is completely different than XP's power features. However, when powering everything backup up it is nearly instant. From what I have studied the power savings are quantifiable over XPs.

Karbo

--
Passing the torch of knowledge is a genetic responsibility.

http://photo.karywall.net/
 
Ken_5D said:
SP1 adresses that it had to do with refresh rates and accelerated
graphics, which is not required to get the key values out of Vista.

I put Vista on a 4 year old Pentium M notebook with no real 3d
accelerator so no translucent screens and my battery life increased I
think because it managed the CPU clocking better than XP.. so anyone
with battery issues.. might see what happens if they turn off the 3D
desktop.. they might get a pleasent surprise.
Click to expand...
Or they may not. According to this article, "[SP1] improves battery life on some computers by reducing CPU use and redrawing the screen less frequently".

http://technet2.microsoft.com/WindowsVista/en/library/417467e7-7845-46d4-85f1-dd471fbc0de91033.mspx

That seems to agree with what this article says:

http://www.istartedsomething.com/20080213/vista-sp1-power-efficiency-improvements/

"we’re talking about improvements in the magnitude of only a couple percents. That in the context of 5 hours battery life is a mere additional 6 minutes."

I would ask this forum to post some of their experiences in battery life before and after Vista SP1. Unfortunately, I don't know how much credence to give such opinions when I see so many people blatantly being biased in favor of anything related to MS. It is sad, really.
 
rm2 said:
Ken_5D said:
SP1 adresses that it had to do with refresh rates and accelerated
graphics, which is not required to get the key values out of Vista.

I put Vista on a 4 year old Pentium M notebook with no real 3d
accelerator so no translucent screens and my battery life increased I
think because it managed the CPU clocking better than XP.. so anyone
with battery issues.. might see what happens if they turn off the 3D
desktop.. they might get a pleasent surprise.
Click to expand...
Or they may not. According to this article, "[SP1] improves battery
life on some computers by reducing CPU use and redrawing the screen
less frequently".

http://technet2.microsoft.com/WindowsVista/en/library/417467e7-7845-46d4-85f1-dd471fbc0de91033.mspx

That seems to agree with what this article says:

http://www.istartedsomething.com/20080213/vista-sp1-power-efficiency-improvements/

"we’re talking about improvements in the magnitude of only a couple
percents. That in the context of 5 hours battery life is a mere
additional 6 minutes."

I would ask this forum to post some of their experiences in battery
life before and after Vista SP1. Unfortunately, I don't know how
much credence to give such opinions when I see so many people
blatantly being biased in favor of anything related to MS. It is
sad, really.
Click to expand...
That's just Fudboy talk.. anyone who isn't down on MS or Vista is discounted by the Fudboys as not cool, and anybody who knee jerk hates MS must be honest BS...

I don't know of anyone who is blindly pro MS as much as many here are blindly anti-MS... some of us though enjoy sparing with those whose ability to learn stoped with a bunch of Vista Beta complaints.. etc. and who seem to have forgotten that EVERYTHING being said about Vista now.. was said about XP when it was released.. now XP is Cool and Vista evil.. one had to assume there are just some who don't deal well with change..

I sure as heck didn't expect my old Life book to run that well with Vista.. it just did.. I had to search out drivers for the built in memory card reader from the OEM since there was nothing from Fujisu.. but after I did it ran pretty well .

And I recently posted that it was very annoying to find that the deal breaker for me trying to move to Vista 64 was Microsoft's own software not working on it more than a year after release which is just sad...

I mean why am I not trying to run 100% on Vista 64? Microsoft, not some driver supplier or Adobe etc.. but Microsoft itself..
------------
Ken - Happy A700 Owner
http://www.cascadephotoworks.com
 
Its not a terrible OS.

It just took too long to get out, and when it did, it never got the attention MS wanted it too.

Problem for windows 7 is, will they just bloatware it up again, even more junk slapped in there. I hope not.

I wont be getting vista, and will skip it myself. I dont blame GM, XP will run fine on a lean install with 512mb of ram, vista runs like a complete dog, even 1Gb isnt great.

I know ram is cheap, but tell that to a company that has thousands of pc's, the hardware upgrades and the software too, will not be cheap overall.

--



I am not the 'Ghost Hunter', nor am I the Irish actor in the 'Quiet Man' ;-)
 
Barry Fitzgerald said:
Its not a terrible OS.

It just took too long to get out, and when it did, it never got the
attention MS wanted it too.

Problem for windows 7 is, will they just bloatware it up again, even
more junk slapped in there. I hope not.

I wont be getting vista, and will skip it myself. I dont blame GM, XP
will run fine on a lean install with 512mb of ram, vista runs like a
complete dog, even 1Gb isnt great.

I know ram is cheap, but tell that to a company that has thousands of
pc's, the hardware upgrades and the software too, will not be cheap
overall.
Click to expand...
Don't worry, you are not alone. Even those that love Vista admit that they are only moving their businesses to Vista gradually, as machines are replaced. XP will be around, and supported, for a long time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top