Vista Sp2. What's your thoughts on it?

[h3%5kr3w]

Well I just got the email from M$ saying I can now download SP2 for Vista... This kinda sucks to get it now though because I just reloaded with 7rc, leaving only a few gigs for linux, and I really don't feel like repartitioning and reloading right now. I know there are a few minor things, but my question is data transfer and copying. It's totally horrible to copy even a 500mb file in vista because for some odd and unknown reason the transfer rate (even copying from one folder to another on the same hdd) BLOWS!!! I have experienced this with my desktop and my laptop with both being sata3, and in XP, Linux, and 7 respectively the transfer rate is just as it should be.

My question is, is anyone else having that problem, and if so, does this SP fix it?

[messsy]

i run sp1 on a dual core 3gig on my laptop and its exactly the same, as with desktop and partners laptop

it sucks

[beakmyn]

Try TeraCopy for file copying.

http://www.codesector.com/teracopy.php

Oh, letting Windows update grab the SP now. My machines aren't 'good' enough to run Vista ultimate (SiS chipset) but I've found Vista Business to be very stable,speedy and modestly prices ($99 @buy.com), and it's got Aero.

[taiyed14]

AWESOME!

[Swathe]

TBH I cant see why anyone would use vista over windows 7

[messsy]

some info on the subject

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fasterfor...l?hpid=sec-tech

[VaKo]

There are a few things I can't get working under Windows 7 yet, but these are things like the vSphere client and and old version of SAP. But then again I just use an XP VM for these.

Vista SP2 is kinda like XP SP3, a patch roundup and a couple of minor improvements. Nothing more.

[Chalito]

Well I just loaded SP2 on my vista machine at work and besides the long install and configure period it seems fine. I haven't really had any issues with it other than the general Vista suck problems. Seems like they did a lot of behind the scenes kinda stuff.

[h3%5kr3w]

TBH, Vista has been great on my machine, I mean I have not had hardly ANY problems with it, matter of fact, since this last install (due to myself putting a bunch of crap on my machine... when I get tired of my desktop I go freeware crazy on it, and usually I end up crapping on it [not literally]) It has performed perfectly, besides the downloading issue. Disk read performance is killer, and so is writing, as long as a program is doing it and not just copying files.

The reason why I kept Vista over 7 the first time is because A. I did not know if it was going to be good or not when I first installed it, and B. I did have quite a few issues with it the first go around.

But with 7RC installed.. shit.. I did not have to install ONE driver, and I am running Far Cry 2 perfectly with the nvidia driver 7 downloaded. How is that for sick?

Bad part is.. If Linux does not tighten up and start hounding Nvidia and Macromedia on Linux support, well... I could see Linux falling back to where they were before.

[VaKo]

Windows 7 will be a huge problem for Ubuntu et al, because Microsoft listened to the complaints about Vista and pulled there thumb out. It just works. It has all the cool bits of Vista, and a lot more, and will run on a Netbook. The security problems that plagued XP are largely dealt with, and its just as pretty as OSX. I've not had an issue with stability on Windows for a long time now, and the problems I have had can be traced to bad drivers or shitty applications.

What does desktop linux have to offer at this point, yes its free but 95% of people use the OS that comes pre-installed. And the people who buy it don't usually buy the boxed editions with the huge sticker prices, only idiots do. A 6 month release cycle? Who cares? The strengths linux have only really plays to geeks as it is (and thats why us geeks like linux), but for Joe Shmo is access to the source code that important?

[psydT0ne]

I think the development of Linux as a usable operating system for Joe Shmo is important, if for no other reason that it will give people a choice.

I can see linux reaching a day where it will just "work" for everyday people just like windows does.

The way I see it, it doesn't really come down to a debate on what's the better OS.

It comes down to who wants to use it....and what their application is.

I mean how many businesses are currently using windows for real world applications (and i don't mean software), such as ATM's, critical medical systems etc that just shouldn't be.

I know from experience that a lot of particularly business people feel that they don't have a lot of choice but to use windows in these situations, whether it be because of the specialised software they're using or the support options they have when things go wrong.

Ultimately though windows for these sytems (examples mentioned above) are simply the wrong choice.

RTOS of course are what should be used, however these applications should have other options for a backbone OS such as linux available to them , which is why ongoing development and properganda for linux to become part of the mainstream is so important.

I agree that most people use the OS that comes embedded with the machine they bought.

I tend to think however that gaming is often one of the main issues that linux is facing when it comes to having a large slice of the mainstream user market. Probably the same way that pc gaming is now faced with issues with consoles.....it just works.

Well i hope i haven't ranted on too much.

[VaKo]

The reason that Windows is used in a lot of these devices over linux is simple, if something does go wrong with it with a form of Windows or other proprietary OS such as VxWorks then you can call them up for support. I know that if you have paid for it, Microsoft will stay on the phone until the problem has been solved. I've seen this happen for 7 hours, the call started at about 1700 on a Saturday.

With Linux, who exactly do you call if you have a problem? Who is responsible if you have a problem with Ubuntu that comes from upstream code? The closest you can get is using RedHat, but its not cheap. If your mission critical application is broken by changes made to one of its dependencies which was written by a single guy on the far side of the planet who did it in his spare time for fun, are you going to be able to get them on the phone to solve the problem? The open source nature of this means that while you do have access to the source code, you will need to pay for a programmer capable of forking the code and maintaining this fork.

Don't get me wrong, Linux is a good fit for a lot of applications, but for a far larger amount its just an unsupported Fischer Price UNIX clone. Linux in its current form is just not ready for usage by people who aren't geeks. Its come a long way but its got much further to go yet, and to get there it will have to change massively, like Ubuntu is trying to do (and they get flak for this). At the moment, if you want to use a non-Windows OS you are far better off using OSX which a lot of DoD, medical and scientific projects and similar are looking at these days.

[h3%5kr3w]

I agree with Vako. If it is a server per say that is using all Ubuntu installed packages that is one thing *for just like a web;ftp;sql database* because you can pay for support and call Canonical, and they will support it and will help you out however they can, BUT for specialty serving ala specialized apps, the total opposite is true, because like Vako said, you just cant track down some dude who programed that server daemon 6 months ago who probably has gone on to other projects and cant even remember the first byte of code from it, if you can get a hold of him at all.

Linux IS stable... least in it's purest form, but it can be as unstable as anything else depending on the hardware you have, how good that hardware is supported from the drivers available and the programs/daemons that you are running.

This is also the reason why Unix has always been so expensive. Because you get top notch backing by whomever package it came from (i.e. compaq, dell, or IBM). So while Linux IS free, your on your own for the most part.

As far as being a mainstream desktop, yah, linux can do it if you have the right hardware installed. Also as far as client serving, until someone comes up with an easy way to manage linux workstations on a network in a fashion similar to Active Directory, your just not going to have the simplicity to manage large scale networks.

BTW, yes you can just create a script to make a bunch of users, and stuff like that in Linux, but at that same time, you have to create all the groups, assign the groups, etc.etc.etc. and even though distros like Ubuntu are on the right track, the diversity in simplicity is just not there yet. They need to really eye what makes active directory so easy to manage, and then come up with a complete package that does the same exact thing, but better, and folks... do you have 800 hardcore linux code guru's in one place in an organized producing environment? Neither do I.

As far as the Apple side of things are, I don't even know if Apple offers enterprise class Server hardware (i.e. 40+ proc servers/blade servers/etc. etc. etc.) but they are stable and since in essence it is Linux/Unix compatible software (no i didnt say it was linux :P) you COULD get a fully backed server daemon or two that can be utilized in a production network.

Personally I think the Linux community should back up a step or two, put off server projects for awhile, and focus on the desktop. Once they have got that code rocking hard, THEN try to compete hardcore in the server market.

-btw (damn it.. ok this is the last edit to this post... hopefully) Linux DOES have it's place though all over the world, in the form of smart products. i.e. Cellphones, netbooks, routers, mp3/media players, etc.etc. or any device that runs the OS code from ROM, and mainly because you can program linux easily to be as small or as big as you want and change or create the U.I. to whatever you want it to be and it will be rock solid stable. But mainly it's not because of it being linux, but because it is cheap (or free) for the originating code to be burned AND in turn you have less to spend on the RnD of that code because of it being so versatile. It's no secret that if you sandbox linux to whatever you want it to be, it will run until the hardware burns out, but unfortunately that's if it is sandboxed *well as a synonym anyways*.

Also the unfortunate thing about this is how many people use linux and have no idea they are using it. If you stuck a sticker on everything that uses linux that says *Linux Enabled Device* then it would pretty much become a household name... nobody will know WTF it is, but they will know the name Linux when they hear it.

[psydT0ne]

I'd agree that the promise of full support for a system running windows when it shits itself is a very enticing and attractive marketing point. But honestly (and i'm probably going a little off topic here) do you really want a system like windows sitting behind your banks atm?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/06/03/atm_trojans/

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/03/17/tr...s_diebold_atms/

or your hospital machinery when yourself or a loved one is dependent upon it?

http://www.smarthealthcare.com/sheffield-conficker

I understand that linux doesn't have a support system like windows....but does it really need one?...maybe in the future when it becomes mainstream....

As for fischer price gui's ...simplicity appeals i guess, which is why xp is still so popular.

Your arguements are definitely valid in some respects, but lets not rule out our options, is all i'm saying :)

[metatron]

Linux is very much ready for the public in some uses, Netbooks being that use. Its a device which has limited use and is marketed as such, web, email and office applications on the go. The reason Netbook based distro's work is they don't have CD/DVD drives and the general public tend not to buy USB ones, this means they don't get pissed off trying to get their printer/scanner/web cam/ whatever working. I think a Netbook is seen more like a mobile phone, just more usable when it comes to web browsing and and working on files. You can also get support from the manufactures.

On the desktop or real laptop, its not ready. You can not walk into a computer shop and pick up any piece of random tech or software and expect it to work under Linux and there is not really a big understandable market place for Linux software like you do with Windows and Apple. Someone can not walk into a PC shop and say I need some OCR software for my Linux PC. The software is about on the web and sure you can download some but most normal people want to walk into a shop, hand over some money and walk away with a CD that works.

Linux on the server is better than Windows on a number of common tasks, the only one that comes to mind is as a web server. I have to say Exchange is a lot easier in ways than Sendmail and Postfix and does just as good a job for most company email tasks. Microsoft SharePoint is really a key feature now a days.

Mac hardware is too expensive when it comes to servers and OSX really does not have a proven history when it comes to a server OS so will not become a server OS for mission critical tasks for DoD, medical and scientific projects where its more important that it works than risking it if it does not. UNIX is still flooring about in those markets but its a lot of old hardware a lot of stuff is moving servers over to Linux although only really Red Hat in any real numbers and desktops over to MacOS (it has a proven history as a desktop OS).

Windows will remain the the OS of the people for a very long time with MacOS increasing its market share for the bulk of people in the World, I really don't see a time when Linux will ever become a real option for anything other than servers and hardware where you not planning to change a great deal.

On a side note Windows, Linux and OSX should never be used on embeded hardware, QNX and VxWorks is where its at. I could list more but those are the key two.