Alternative Strategy that works
Try it I have. It's x3 performance boost, x5 stability x10 security and you're conscience will be clear. Take control of your life and your hard-earned money.
Microsoft has published an article on speeding up Vista, aimed at general users. It's not too bad. Here's the summary: Delete programs you never use Limit how many programs load at startup Defragment your hard drive Clean up your hard disk Run fewer programs at the same time Turn off visual effects Restart regularly …
1. format your harddrive
2. Grab your Windows XP installation discs (or demand them from your supplier, screw forced upgrades)
3. Install it, get it patched
4. Get some fancy window-dressing program to emulate the pretty looks of Vista
Moore's Law tells us computing power doubles every 12-18 months.
The Redmond Corollary therefore states that in the same timespan, software must become twice as slow and a magnitude more painful to use ...
There's no IT angle - we're talking Windows ....
This post has been deleted by its author
I gave up on Vista Ultimate two weeks ago, reformatted and went back to XP Pro and installed SP3.
THAT's how to speed up Vista!
All these MS suggestions date back to Windows 95/98 era.
Now, my homebuilt PC (2.667 ghz Core 2 Duo with 4 gigs DDR2, P35 Chipset, NV8600GT and all SATA II drives) seems like a real computer instead of a Windows 95 box on a PII.
In fact I built the dang pc to be at the high end of the "Vista Experience" range (5.4 out of 6).
Boot time on Vista was 60 seconds just to the login, now around 20 seconds (including all programs) w/ XP Pro.
Nag time with UAC on was infinite. Turned UAC & "Offender" off and then got an "automatic update" that fried folder permissions system wide (Mr. Gates, the Documents folder is MINE and I don't need your frikkin permission to open it!!)
My drives churned the whole time the PC was on. Tried all the suggestions made in your article and they did nothing to speed up operation or boot. Okay maybe turning off indexing helped a very little.
Windows update (on Vista) cannot be prevented from installing stuff you did not ask or give permission for. In fact, as long as you have a connection to the internet, it will use your internet connection before you have finished setting up the OS. Now that is scary.
Even worse was the continuous scanning of all files and folders for copyrighted material and the phoning home to Mother MS of what was found. (Too many outgoing packets on a clean install to be anything else)
Driver support sucks for last years hardware even with all updates and hotfixes applied. Intel chipset and SATA AHCI drivers overridden by Microsofts crud at every turn. Damn, I could have sworn I had a dual core processor! (Which I did, but Vista could not figure out at setup)
Driver & program protection is way too tough for it's own good! System refused to recognize AVG Free, Zone Alarm Free & Spybot S&D as allowable programs.
God forbid you should want to use Windows Explorer to look in any of your file folders. I still see "You do not have permission" burned into my retina's. I tried logging on as Admin with Ctrl + F1 to no avail, then found a reg file called "Take Ownership" and tried that which worked to some extent. Do I really need to "Run as Admin" when I AM the frikkin ADMIN?!?!
I should not need to jump through hoops to have "permission" to print documents or edit my printers settings (took 2 evenings to find which permissions needed fixed)
All in all, there were things I liked in Vista, particularly the installation and drive partitioning during setup, but the rest just sucked beyond belief.
The very last straw was trying to load Service Pack 1 for Office 2007 and getting the message that I did not have permission to access the required network resource whatever that meant.
FWIW, Office 2007 and Outlook 2007 works just fine in XP Pro. Programs just snap open
The uninstalling programs when not used is because vista has that habit of preloading programs you frequently use into memory. but if you do a lot of testing and use a program alot for a few days and then drop off, it can still be loaded into the memory I guess. just my analysis of how it works I could be wrong how it actually works but i know that vista does this.
Is a tool that gives users a simple selection when they log in (Performance, General, Full, Media Centre, Gaming) that determines how Vista runs. This could be set for different users, or changed during a session if the user wants to, say, change from surfing to gaming.
If the tool was smart enough it could be linked to user defined software.
Why is it that the tips basically boil down to "don't use it and it will go faster" instead of real performance improvements?
All of the Microsoft points are applicable to most operating systems. Plus you can add in another point for "throw faster hardware at the OS" as another "improvement."
Face up to it: there is no real way to speed up Vista. Its a dog, and its going to stay that way.
I haven't been using winslows for quite a while, however I thought we were in 2008? Surely Microsoft can make a system run efficiently without having to publish articles like this on modern multi core, massive ram computers? Also why does it seem suprising that a windows machine has stayed up for more than a few months? Is it different decade, same problems?
Isn't the point of these latest zoomy multicore CPUs to allow you to run more and more apps simultaneously? So isn't the advice to do exactly the opposite like well a step backwards?!
To me Vista sounds much too much like a classic example of the OS getting IN THE WAY of you working, ie. eating up processing that should be really leaving well alone for you to do useful stuff with!
... Vista, and use Linusk with an Aero look.
Sorry but M$' piece of advice is as useful as an ashtray on a motorbike.
-Delete programs you never use
Get M$ to stop loading gazillions of services that may cause security issues on top of guzzling memory & CPU
-Limit how many programs load at startup
ditto see above.
-Defragment your hard drive
plx M$ stop littering the HDD with $temp files for uninstall purposes that never work.
-Clean up your hard disk
copy linux and create a dedicated swap partition so the swap file is clean.
-Run fewer programs at the same time
Shan't M$ start applying its own advice and stop running Annoyware.
-Turn off visual effects
Yeeah a M$ Win version that can be used entirely from the command line.
Shouldn't be too much of an issue, BSOD happens to me a lot
-Add more memory
which is based on the fact that M$ knows how to handle it ... has to be proven.
-Check for viruses and spyware
thought Vista was immune ...
-Disable services you don't need
that may send back to square one ...
One kernel panix on me Macintel since Jan 2006 a couple BSOD every week on Vista ... go ahead M$boys. Jobs may be a pompous arrogant ... but Gates is one too and sells shitware. And don't start on the money thing.
Apple 20" 2Gb 320Gb ATI HD2400-128Mb = $1248
Dell XPS 20" 2Gb 320Gb ATI HD2400-256Mb VistaUltimate = $1268 (1368 - $100 instant saving)
* Delete programs you never use
If I never use it, why is it taking up system resources beyond the diskspace?
* Limit how many programs load at startup
Most of the stuff that loads on startup are interdependent system processes with functions I cannot begin to guess at. Which ones are superfluous and why are they there in the first place?
* Defragment your hard drive
* Clean up your hard disk
Fair points (Damn, this is supposed to be a rant!)
* Run fewer programs at the same time
So this is not a multi-tasking OS? Why is it advertised as such?
* Turn off visual effects
Look at our shiny new interface! Now switch it off!!!
* Restart regularly
Once a week? Once a day? Once an hour?
* Add more memory
Typical MS solution, ever increasing hardware requirements, just to stay still.
* Check for viruses and spyware
Why not fix the holes in the code?
* Disable services you don't need
Why are all these services enabled by default?
I cant believe they released this statement, must be a joke somewhere..
Restart regularly ???
Run fewer programs at the same time ??? HAHHAHAA
Turn off Visual ?? So whats the point of Vista without Aero ?
Defrag your HDD ? meant what ? Vista creates/delete files all the time ?
Disable services you dont use ??? This statement were aiming for the average home users, you think they have a clue how to ??
All I can say is nothing because I am too busy LMAO
" adding memory beyond 3GB is pretty much wasted on 32-bit Vista, since the system can only address 3GB, and the BIOS will likely use a lot of the fourth gigabyte address space "
A professional "IT writer" really ought to be just a little better informed on the difference between the per-process virtual memory layout and the physical memory present in the system.
So, 5 years of development and one of the 'top tips' to keep your PC fast is to restart at least once a week? Quite frankly, that is pathetic.
OK here I go, launch Terminal on my Mac
uptime: 19 days 23 hours 17 minutes
And it is still as fast as it was when it was turned on.
Vista is a turd.
paris, cause she'd be dumb enough to believe Vista was better than 95, 98, XP & ME.
I've been doing all of the advice in the report since I started using Vista back in march 2007. Does that make me some sort of genius? Nope, just makes me a long term windows user who knows to never trust windows fresh out of the box.
I only feel sorry for those who are new to computing who bought a brand spanking new unit with vista installed, and all the toys on. I can only imagine how slow some of those systems will remain until a competent tech gets his/her hand on it.
Some naive and obvious recomendations and a few that could really randomize your PC. Degragmenting is good, and programs like Diskeeper do a better job that Microsoft's default. If you don't have enough ram, adding more will make a big difference. Disabling services or deleting arbitrary things with msconfig are a good way to screw up your machine.
Of course, some zealot has to tell you to run Linux. Even if you only use your computer to do email and web browsing (and that's about all you can do with Linux), you're better off with a more advanced OS like Windows.
Claims like 3x performance or 10x security are absurd and not based on any facts or benchmarks. Server benchmarking is generally neck-and-neck among various operating systems, and they are always followed by wild claims of fraud from whoever didn't finish first.
Security is hard to quantify. In terms of CERT advisories, Windows and Linux have always been about the same. Windows is constantly being attacked and patched, which has certainly toughened it up in ways that Linux has never been. I believe if LInux on the desktop ever gets big enough for anyone to care, hackers will have a field day with it.
> system can only address 3GB, and the
This is a typo. Vista can address 4GB. However if you install 4GB then in many cases the BIOS will not present that much RAM to the OS. This was exactly the case on an Intel board I have just swapped out - 4GB installed, 3GB visible to Vista. A better-designed board can remap the memory to overcome this problem.
Use PerfectDisk for disk defragmentation, Microsoft's defragmenter is crap
Turn off System Restore it doesnt work half the time anyway - especially when you need it most
Preferably boot from a Windows XP CD and format your Vista installation - install Windows XP..... usually works for me ;-)
So many "witty" quips and "omg M$ suxx" comments whose points are already covered by the original guide.
This article makes a poor attempt to show how the bullet points can be ridiculed when taken out of context.
And the "can't use more than 3GB anyway" remark (pitched yet again to appear as a Windows-specific issue instead of a hardware limitation)... erm...PAE & memory remapping, anyone?
I've always found repartitioning and reformatting to be the ultimate Windows speedup measure. So nice to see that nothing's really changed.
@ Don Mitchell
> you're better off with a more advanced OS like Windows.
Er - so advanced that users are recommended to restart regularly and run fewer concurrent programs? Yeah, right.
> [security] Windows and Linux have always been about the same.
Only when resorting to simplistic vulnerability counts and ignoring any detail.
> if LInux on the desktop ever gets big enough for anyone to care, hackers will have a field day with it.
Balls. The source code is and always has been freely available so it ought to have been hacked to bits by now. Quite unlike the closed-source Windows model which <kof> remains as secure as it ever was.
(Actually I've been surprised. I was expecting lots of "Speed up Vista by moving to Linux/Mac OS" comments, but almost everyone here seems to advocate XP. How curious... anyway.)
"Is a tool that gives users a simple selection when they log in (Performance, General, Full, Media Centre, Gaming) that determines how Vista runs. This could be set for different users, or changed during a session if the user wants to, say, change from surfing to gaming."
That already exists in XP and probably in Vista too - it's called Hardware Profiles. The only thing it can't currently do is change during a session; it must be loaded during start-up, and that's always put me off, although I would consider it for the laptop (usually it goes on for a single purpose - work, games, or internet - and then goes off again later. Also handy for disabling devices at startup for power-saving (eg network adapters, etc). Plenty of stuff, just search for it on Google (not "Google it" - I'm sorry, but I still don't believe in or accept corporate verbs).
I think the best way to speed it up is by 9.8 meters per second per second. After just a minute your Vista box will by flying faster than you've ever seen a computer (unless you're an astronaut or professional pilot).
What disturbed me about people punting Mac OS as an alternative is that Mac OS software is inextricably linked with Apple Mac hardware, if only in the public mind.
I'm not sure why I don't like the idea of software and hardware manufacturer's being the same person. Maybe its because if Apple gets any market power they'll be even worse than Microsoft.
As soon as Ubuntu gets stable on my hardware config I'm swapping over.
I love Vista, I don't use it personally (and I hope to be able to skip ato the next version of windows) but more and more of my customers have made the 'choice' to buy it so I'm making a fortune from tech support, configuration and XP installation jobs.
I'm going to have a lovely holiday this year and there's this 40 inch Sony telly I've got my eye on, have to check I can get it home in the new BMW, long live Bill.
re: "Windows Vista promotes the use of sleep as the default off state"
It may be me.. but i seem to have an issue with "Sleep". If my vista pc ever goes to sleep. i seem to be unable to wake it up. I have tried every button on the pc. every button on the keyboard. every button (all two-and-a-half of them) on my mouse.
i resorted to pulling the power plug out.
This isn't just on my machine - the missus had the same issue "why wont my machine power on"
So far, "Sleep" seems a little "Big Sleep" to me.
These are machines bought with vista pre-installed (poor me, i know..) as i failed to find any of my other 4 machines that i could install vista on (anyone wanna buy a box set of Vista Pro Upgrade?)
"Of course, some zealot has to tell you to run Linux. Even if you only use your computer to do email and web browsing (and that's about all you can do with Linux), you're better off with a more advanced OS like Windows."
Truly spoken like someone who has never used Linux.
About the only reason to run Windows is for gaming (because the games companies don't write for Linux).
So get back to your WoW me lad and let the grown-ups talk.
Who is yet to see any of these problems with Vista?
I was given the job of evaluating it for work, and while I can't justify the cost for us to upgrade just yet I still have it as my primary desktop 8 months later.
No slowdown, No network copy issues, No driver issues, using Aero and all my software runs. It was a bit heavy on disk access at first, but trim down the indexing feature so it doesn't scan as much and it runs better than my copy of XP did on the same machine. So far not a single system crash!
It may have something to do with the fact I did a clean install and it hasn't been burdened with all the unnessary bloatware OEMS seem to feel is essential. Just a guess, but I am happy with it so far it was just a bit of a learning curve as it's different.
Athlon X2 5000, 1GB DDR2, 150GB Sata 300 disk and Nvidia 256mb Geforce 7300GS running Vista Business x64 in case anyone was wondering
None of their suggestions really improves base performance. I really don't know wtf Vista is doing. I just bought a new quad core machine, all high spec. I have both XP and Vista installed on it now so I can do side-by-side comparisons, and there simply isnt any competition. XP trounces Vista in every area. XP's response time on a modern high-spec machine is really nice now. Its almost instant on, and runs like a dream. In short, it runs the way I'd want. Vista by comparison... I may as well have bought a cheap £200 machine from PC World.
Whats amazing is both OSs are doing the same task - being an OS. I really have to wonder wtf is going on inside Vista. Why does it take 2 minutes to boot when XP now starts in 5 seconds? Why are my Vista menus sluggish (and I have all that b*llshit eye-candy off) when XP's feel so snappy?
Vista is today's Millenium Edition. I'd really like to see Linux make some in-roads into the average person's home. Not because I want to use it personally, but because I think some commercial pressure on Microsoft to actually deliver what customers want is whats needed now.
Personally I'd be more then happy to use Linux (free? secure? stable? yes please!) but for me, and a *lot* of people like me, a PC is now a high spec games machine, and sadly very VERY few games bother to support Linux (this isnt Linux' fault).
I disagree completely with your statement about uninstalling programs being only for freeing up hard drive space.
Compare a relatively new machine with one that's been chugging for a while, now it doesn't matter how clean the chuggers' been kept, it's still going to run like a tractor after a while unless the registry is properly cleaned from time to time, and I don't mean with one of those general registry cleaners either, you actually need to look through the results of those, including some and removing others from the delete list. This my friend goes hand in hand with uninstalling crud :)
.. I thought it was sopse to be the best (wow indeed).haveing used Vista/ XP and Mac OSX (since 10.3) i think i may stick to my Mac its curent uptime is 26 days 14 hours and a copple of minutes in change, Vista uptime was 7 hours before its last restart, and it BSOD seven times since i got it in june last year, OSX has done it 3 times so far.
As others have said.
Format hard drive and then install your choice of Windows 2000 / XP / Linux (I do suspect that being forced to use Vista will create several hundred thousand linux users)
I for one will never ever pay for Vista. It is over bloated rubbish with enormous memory and cpu requirements just to get the desktop up.
Who actually decided that they wanted an operating system that uses twice as much memory and runs twice as slow as XP? What benefit does this overpriced piece of software offer to the user?
Personally I use windows 2000 (mainly) still, which works with every single driver disk or piece of software I have ever tried to install, uses hardly any memory and runs fast. There is not one single benefit for me to upgrade to Vista (XP I can accept that I may have to upgrade to - and thats ok)
All this new wave of Vista laptop users. I am sick of people asking me how to install their old software that comes up with a dialog box telling them that it is not compatible with Vista .... grrrrr
Strange that XP&windows server std can only use 4gb and vista less. I also recall all these measures in the past, needing restarting 5 times a day with windows 95 (solved with Win98).
The removal of services suggestion - imagine a VistaHome Edn user being ok to fix these things?
So I am sticking to using WinXP or Windows 2003.
As much as I would like to use IIS7, it is impossible due to the damage of VISTA.
I recall with each Windows upgrade (98/2000/xp/vista) you have to double the resources just to stand still.
Sadly MS seems to have lost the plot with Vista in its search to be 'just like mac' rather than focusing on what it is good at.
If I wanted a Mac I would have bought one, and the mac Air at that.
So I will be sticking with XP64 till it is beyond not supported. Windows2003/2008 might be more viable than vista.
MS is giving vista away for free as a pre-installed system but you have to pay to have something performant on your pc or laptop.
The big contrast of course is to put Vista and then Ubuntu on the same spec laptop and then bench mark it then see what Vista is really worth.
...admittedly I know not to install half the internet on it and all the spyware under the sun...
...ok, there are some foibles, but on the whole it does what i want to do for work, gaming, image and video editing, media centre etc. Yeah I could faff around with red hat for this, unbuntu for that but Windows does (usually) make life easy.
Horses for courses. Oh, and for those that are wondering why XP runs so great compared to Vista, I remember the number of machines I was forced to sell still running 98 when XP came out 6 years ago - "It's so slow and clunky and Fisher Price Teletubby" they all cried... six years worth of hardware advances and suddenly XP the sperm of the devil is XP the second coming of Paris Hilton...
In 18 months we'll all wonder what the fuss was about. And why Windows Backcomb is crap...
Get a Mac!
After my son got one, I got a Macbook & then his girlfriend got one and my daughter wants one...
its amazing & supremely fast, comparing it with a Vista laptop is comical, the two are poles apart, like a Porsche911 & an old bicycle.
So when my XP desktop that Microsoft wont validate the COA thats stuck to the side of it packs in that will be replaced with a Mac Pro.
If I need windows theres plenty of Windows 2000 Pro discs on e-bay which I can run in VMWare.
So bye bye Microsoft
I have a similar spec PC - AMD Athlon64x2 4600, 4GB DDR2, 256MB 7600GT, 2x 320GB SATA. It also runs Vista Business 64bit very nicely thankyou.
I previously tried the 32bit version but had loads of problems including blue screens after auto-updates. The 64bit version seems to be much better sorted and despite my original scepticism (I'm an XP devotte too) I'm keeping Vista64.
And, for all you Linux zealots - I've previously run Fedora Core6, Ubuntu etc, and while marginally - marginally - faster than Vista64, I found that Vista is the more enjoyable and easier to live with. Configure your firewall correctly and Vista is as secure as Linux.
Now, where did I leave that asbestos suit - I just KNOW I'll need it very soon...
I know its taboo to knock Ubuntu but **** it. While it may be fashionable to say "Switch to Linux" its a little disingenuous to claim it will be a silver bullet to performance issues.
I've been running Ubuntu 7.10 side by side with Vista for a while (6 months) now and much as I hate to admit it, I've ended up back with Vista. Why?
Firstly, note I'm a laptop user and that I run with Compiz enabled.
- Firefox is slower under Compiz than Vista due to crappy text AA implementation.
- Power management on Ubuntu sucks donkey gonads. 3 hibernates and I have to reboot.
- Wireless Networking is so damned unreliable, and Ive seen this with a range of wireless cards.
- Office software. Between numerous crashes and bugs in both Open Office and KOffice I was almost at the point of digging out a 1990s version of Wordperfect Office and running it under Wine.
- Having to recompile video drivers every time X was updated (yeah yeah, I know theres a binary version but it takes a while before its the latest version).
- So many little niggles such as Compiz/Emerald segfaulting every few sessions; it running hotter than Vista; sudo/root password requirements *sometimes* being as bad as UAC;buggy keyring etc etc.
So while Ubuntu might perform better in some senses, I actually found my *productivity* far higher with Vista. SAD but true
All the above said though Ive been VERY happy with 7.04 for my HTPC and am running 7.10 server on a few machines without complaint but for the desktop....theres still no replacement for XP.
Being a software developer and running a tech support company I installed Vista as an upgrade to XP Pro to "see what all the fuss was about" and to find out what issues I'd be facing.
What did I discover?
No slow downs, no network copy issues, much faster booting and significantly better performance all-around. One or two of my older apps have the odd "quirk" (mainly re-drawing issues) but the latest versions are all fixed.
So I did a clean install and blow me, it's even faster....go figure! Shock horror, and clean install of an OS is faster than an upgrade! Someone should write a paper about this!!1lols!
The response in this thread is the same in any other Windows thread.
Mac fanbois don't need any genuine reason to scream "buy a Mac" at every opportunity, Linux people are mainly techno-communists that think corporations are evil (and they might be right) but Windows is only hacked so much (by Linux fans too I might add) because they have the market share and therefore more chance of it getting noticed.
Hacking Linux (and OSX to a lesser extent) would be like painting graffitti on the inside wall of a condemned house no-one would ever look at... a bit pointless.
If it ever did get seriously hacked they'd be screwed as 2,000 versions of various fixes are all simultaneously published bringing 1,200 new bugs and security holes with them.
Linux is great if you're a code monkey or tech-savvy user.
Mac is great if you're a vapid fashionista with a superiority complex.
Windows is great if you're everyone else.
So they admit that their 5 billion dollar OS will slow up over time!
Hello - Microsoft - it's an OS - my DVD player does not slow up - my fridge does not stop cooling, my mobile phone still works at the same speed as when I bought it.
And here's something for you - my wife's 8 year old Mac works at exactly the same speed as when we bought it.
It's normally difficult to explain to Windows sufferers that the OS is fundementally borked and their £1000 PC will be almost unusable in a few months. Now at least we have a link to point them to!
This truly is the result of a soviet style monopoly - a crap product - and the manufacturer does not give a seem to realise or care. It's like the East German's being proud of the 2-stroke joke tin shed of a car called the Trabant - not realising that over the wall they have BMW's, Mercedes, Porsches, Audi's etc etc etc
The truly scary thing is that even MS seem unaware of just how bad their OS's are compared to others.
If you still don't get it - just try out ubuntu - I dare you - just try it - what are you afraid of?
You better get used to it MS - you now have competition - and it makes your vista look like a joke.
'Hello - Microsoft - it's an OS - my DVD player does not slow up - my fridge does not stop cooling, my mobile phone still works at the same speed as when I bought it.
And here's something for you - my wife's 8 year old Mac works at exactly the same speed as when we bought it.'
No, DVD players start to stutter as the laser dies but you may find access times are slower over time if the chips start to degrade before the laser, your fridge has to work harder to provide the same amount of cooling (you may even find that you have to turn the dial up), mobile phones do run slower the older they get as memory only has a limited number of rewrites and it gets slower as it degrades.
And my old G4 which was awesome when I first bought it now runs like a dog. Where exactly are your benchmarks from 8 years ago as proof?
NO electronic device works as good as new forever. If you are going to criticise something at least do it properly instead of sounding like an idiot
I quote "NO electronic device works as good as new forever"
I have a watch that I wore every day for around 10 years as an engineer in the propulsion department of a nuclear submarine, not the friendliest of environments & its now 20 years old & still keeps very good time.
I also have a mac cube thats several years old and still runs like new & does useful work with Tiger, where as I dont have any PCs of similar age that are even remotely capable of doing anything useful.
Nothing lasts forever, but some are created more equal than others.
If those are the only solutions for poor performance that are offered then I really fail to see what the point is in using Vista. Any superfluous programs are good candidates for removal/disabling, controlling the number of running processes is a good idea even for XP and running fewer programs simultaneously is common sense for RAM management. I thought that the eye-candy was one of the big selling points and if maxing out memory is a must then what's the point? All of those things are either routine maintenance or operations issues.
I use several different linux distros (Ubuntu, Fedora and PCLinux) and don't have the defrag issues (except over protracted periods of time), the GUI eye candy isn't that resource intesive with Compiz-Beryl and the indexing functions aren't either. What makes Vista so slow is plain poor memory and process management. There's no real excuse to require 3-4 GB of memory just to get a machine to perform unless you're doing something like video editing or high-performance gaming. Even audio editing with Audacity isn't that difficult. Hopefully, Windows 7 will mark a return to rational, manageable computing.
I love vista. I have never had a single problem with it. Of course, I've never used it. having ditched all Microsoft products from my house in 1998 and have moved on to a much more robust, flexible, stable, powerful and secure operating system, namely Linux.
Vista is so bad from what I hear, that it makes my life easy when I show people having problems with vista, just how easy and powerful Linux really is. Uptime in Linux is measured in years, not minutes, like windows. Vista is helping to improve the economy here in the USA because of all the computer tech companies that have sprung up in order to support it because of how bad it is.
Vista is converting more people to Linux than any other thing that Microsoft has ever done.
Anyone that I know that has tried Vista has had MAJOR problems with it, which makes me look like a hero when I put a LiveCD of Linux in their computer and show them how great it is or how I save their data from their windoze computer.
Because of the silly hardware requirements of running Vista, I've managed to acquire many computer that are in very good shape and work extremely well when I wipe the disk and put Linux on it. My 8yo daughter has thanked me many times for finally giving her a computer with Linux on it that she can really do things on and not have to be constantly worrying about losing data, constantly having to 'save' anything she works on, and not having to worry about viruses. My 12yo son got a new computer for Christmas. He spent 3 days installing drivers and other applications, but couldn't connect to our home network. I spent 3 entire days 'trying' to get it connected to our home network, which I never was able to do since I think the stack was corrupt or had some other internal bug. I put in a Linux LiveCD and it automatically connected to not only our network, but automatically identified all other computers and printers on the network and configured his computer automatically.
Once he saw that, he converted to Linux.
So, I'm a hero to not only my family, but to everyone that has ever tried Vista.
Like I said, I love Vista.
I found that by redefining uptime for windows to "time between
reinstalls", it's usually in the same ballpark as any *nix.
Funny - if you replace "reinstalls" with "major OS upgrades" or even "total repurposing of the hardware", then that's how I define uptime on my Linux systems: my mail server's been up for 384 days, and the web server for 385 days.
Unfortunately I just upgraded my desktop machine so it's only been up for a couple of days - before that it was several months...
To balance things out, there's a Windows NT4 server here that's been up since the last power outage big enough to run the UPS down (3 years? 4? dunno!), and a couple of Windows 2000 servers that have been running happily since the last time they moved around the building (again, maybe a year?)
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021