Quirks and Tips For Upgrading To Vista

jcatcw writes "Computerworld's Scot Finnie has some advice for those considering an upgrade to Vista. He praises the work Microsoft has done on the installation program, but thinks it still presents problems for those who wish to upgrade. He recommends the free Windows Vista Upgrade Adviser. Then, be sure to pick the best edition for your use." From the article: "Don't bother wiping your hard disk. Just run the in-place upgrade from your previous installation. You'll be given the option to perform either an Upgrade or Custom (advanced) installation. Opt for the Custom install to clean-install Vista, and Windows Vista Setup does something smart: It creates a folder called Windows.old in your root directory that contains your old Documents and Settings, Program Files and Windows folders. (Note that on my test machine, this added step used an additional 7GB of disk storage.)"

Comments

Why install Vista?

[Anonymous Coward]

why would anyone disable a perfectly good computer?

Re:Why install Vista?

[cshark]

well said. The whole problem with upgrading to vista is well, living with vista. The only operating system that's ever made me want to throw a perfectly good laptop out the window.

c'mon

[Anonymous Coward]

259 bucks for an upgrade (other than for the crippled versions) is a bit steep.

Re:c'mon

[Drawsalot]

My 6600 PCI-E card works perfectly with the Windows driver, my biggest issue has been with nVidia's nForce 4 chipset and USB support in Vista. So far, the only workaround has been to disable USB 1+2.0 and use just 1.1 instead. Of course this makes external hard drives useless for the most part. Overall, I found Vista drivers easily and didn't have a big headache installing the upgrade- although I did choose to do a clean install.

Re:c'mon

[TheNetAvenger]

GeForce MX 5500, it would crash every 15 minutes with an infinite loop driver

Ok, did you happen to read the drivers? the 100.xx NVidia drivers DO NOT YET have support for any card lower than the 6000 series of Geforce cards.

Use the non-OpenGL ICD MS drivers in the box, or find the 97.xx or 98.xx series of drivers for the 5xxx series of NVidia cards. If not, the drivers usually lock up, just as you describe.

Re:c'mon

[SyncNine]

I run dual-7800 GT OC's (SLI) with the latest rev on Vista Business Premium (yeah, it was free from work, wanna fight about it?) and haven't had any problems what-so-ever.

I actually had many more problems on my HP ZD8000 laptop with it's ATI x600 Mobility and non-native 1440x900 panel and ATI's inability to stretch the display on anything that isn't 1440x900 without completely locking the gfx card.

Nice.

Upgrade advisor

[mastershake_phd]

The upgrade adviser requires .NET to download both .NET and the upgrade adviser is about 28 MB. Twice the size of a Windows 3.1 install just to scan your hardware and tell you if its up to spec.

Excuse me

[agent dero]

I think one of those infamous /. editors messed up the title again ...

Oh wait, are we still calling Vista an upgr...OOOHH PRETTAY.

Re:Excuse me

[TheMeuge]

Don't bother wiping your hard disk. You'll have to do it a few days after installing Vista anyway.

Re:Excuse me

[acidosmosis]

Of course you will. If your toddler mistakes your hard disk for a slinky... That's probably the best credible excuse you will ever have for screwing up a Vista install.

Re:Excuse me

[SeanMon]

Yeah, that's what I keep on hearing, that Vista causes diarrhea in many older computers.

my EUR 0.02:

[nietsch]

download.ubuntu.org
Maybe you could get some spare change for that piece of paper with a holy number on it if you sell it on ebay.

Re:my EUR 0.02:

[MSFanBoi2]

Um, this is upgrading to Vista from XP. Not to Linux.

Can Unbutu simply upgrade an XP box and migrate files and allow 99% of all the applications that were running under XP to run?

Didn't think so. Mind you I'm not saying Unbutu is worse than Vista (or better for that matter), I'm only saying that jumping up and yelling "Install Unbutu" has nothing to do with this article in any way. For the majority of people Linux solves no problems nor gives any benefit over Windows.

Re:my EUR 0.02:

[Fyre2012]

Steps to upgrade:

• Insert Ubuntu disk
• click next a few times
• reboot
• ?????
• profit!

Re:my EUR 0.02:

[morcego]

For the majority of people Linux solves no problems nor gives any benefit over Windows.

For the majority of people, having a computer solves no problems nor gives any benefits.

Re:my EUR 0.02:

[Samah]

I know what the ????? step is:

"Grub error 21"
Repeat steps 1 to 3 twenty times with various hacks found on the ubuntu forums before finally giving up.

See https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Core_2_Duo_Support for more information.

I'll install Ubuntu when it works on my 80gb PATA drive. If XP and Vista install perfectly to a JMicron controller, why can't Linux?

In one word

[Anonymous Coward]

Advice for those considering upgrading to Vista: DON'T!

You'll get it soon enough with a new machine. Why put yourself through hell now?

Re:In one word

[Dr. Manhattan]

You'll get it soon enough with a new machine.

And you won't want it. Got the cheapest possible Dell desktop last week, except I bumped it up to 1GB RAM. It runs Vista Home Basic.

Holy crap what a pig! It's visibly sluggish - w/1GB of RAM. I'm seriously thinking about wiping it and installing XP. Apparently 4GB really is the sweet spot. Or at least, 1GB really really isn't.

Re:In one word

[acidosmosis]

Possibly due to the fact that some of us actually know how to install an operating system without screwing up that rather easy process. If you can't install Vista without issue, I would strongly suggest that you work at the local Burger King and turn in your drivers license so you don't kill anyone. Or perhaps at least don't eat the product you sale while doing so. You need the working brain cells that you do have concentrating on the road.

Vista runs like a charm for the majority of people with at least the common sense of a zoo animal.

It boggles my mind how anyone that has issues with Windows manages to so much as install Ubuntu, much less Fedora or heaven forbid, Gentoo.

Re:In one word

[Kelbear]

Bah, "There are plenty of other reasons to *not* want Vista".

Re:In one word

[Cedric Tsui]

There was a review a while back saying the latency on the menus is worst in Vista than in Xp (which is supposedly worst than that on Mac OS)

Considering I use the start menu a few hundred times per day, the fact that it lags by a quarter or an eighth of a second gets really annoying.

I'll switch to Vista the instant that XP can't run something that I need to use.

Re:In one word

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll switch to Vista the instant that XP can't run something that I need to use. Translation: "I'm eagerly awaiting those revolutionary DirectX 10 games."

Re:In one word

[Drawsalot]

The word "Dell" is the key here- uninstall all of the garbage that they force on you and it will run as it should. Buy another gig of RAM and it will be even better. But you shouldn't have bought the cheapest available either. Upgraded video in Vista goes a long way. Ask Dell for the disk- not the restore crap on the drive and then do a fresh install. Life will improve.

Re:In one word

[flowsnake]

Start menu latency in Vista was appalling - it would lock for several seconds on a 1.6GHz 1.5GB machine when opening a submenu with only one item within. However, if you disable 'Highlight newly installed programs' this latency appears to disappear. No idea why, but it seems to work.

Re:In one word

[lundqvist]

I wont even consider buying a new machine with Vista bundled, its not worth the hassle. If I want Windows at all then patched 2000 or XP will do fine. Otherwise*BSD or Linux from scratch.

Re:In one word

[acidosmosis]

>>As much as I hate to admit it, windows XP took me 8 hours to install the other day due to a continuous series of absolutely absurd events (any of which would have completely stumped 99.9% of the public).

It sounds to me like it completely stumped you too, if it took 8 hours to install XP. As long as XP has been available and as many systems I've installed it on, I don't believe it's ever taken longer than 45 minutes to an hour and more typically about 30 minutes.

:-)

Print version

[PIPBoy3000]

Here's the relatively ad-free all-in-one-page print version.

Re:Print version

[T-Bone-T]

I always look for the Print Article button. Thanks for finding it for me.

Quick Tip: Wait?

[digitaldc]

Some Vista Vs. XP info:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-vs-vista /page11.html#conclusion_ko_for_windows_vista

"Overall, applications performed as expected, or executed slightly slower than under Windows XP."

Re:Quick Tip: Wait?

[brunascle]

Maximum PC got the same results an issue or two ago: you'll take a performance hit if you move from XP to Vista. they said the story might change when newer drives come out, though.

Re:Quick Tip: Wait?

[bobcat7677]

So let me get this straight...you are trying to tell me that you can make Vista run faster then XP by throwing more hardware at it? How is that a reason to get Vista? Just put that upgraded hardware on XP and let Vista wallow in it's bloatedness.

Re:Quick Tip: Wait?

[brunascle]

drivers, not drives. sry.

Not this time

[dnoyeb]

I have a strong feeling I will never upgrade to windows Vista. Only thing I need windows for is playing Eve-online. If they force me, i will let them know their game is costing me $200+ which will piss me off.

I can't believe 'home' editions can not fax or scan. must be a misprint. Surely since MS is trying to be all 'lifestyles' like everyone else these days. and scan is no different from camera.

Re:Not this time

[Seumas]

I'm sure I'll upgrade my one Windows box some time. Probably next time I build a new box (which I usually do once or twice a year). That way I'll get the OEM discount, too. Most people will eventually migrate to Windows Vista for gaming, because the experience offered by DirectX10 is stunning. I hate doing it, but until there is a viable gaming platform on PCs that do not require Microsoft's OS, that's the price we have to pay.

And for what that's worth, I understand that CCP is going to upgrade the Eve-Online engine in the future and actually plan to pump in DirectX10 support (though DirectX9 will still be supported). I don't know about you, but the idea of a well-built Eve-Online using all sorts of tasty DirectX10 goodness gets me excited.

Re:Not this time

[tero]

Hey, in that case you can soon dump your Windows.
CCP announced they'll be releasing EVE clients for Linux and Mac soon (though they're done with co-op with TransGaming, so probably Wine based instead of native, but getting a fully supported Linux client is always something).

Re:Not this time

[gEvil (beta)]

I can't believe 'home' editions can not fax or scan. must be a misprint. Surely since MS is trying to be all 'lifestyles' like everyone else these days. and scan is no different from camera.

I'm assuming they're referring to using the built-in Windows Image Acquisition service for scanning and whatever the appropriate fax service is. In which case, I won't miss it. Chances are your scanner or fax/modem has drivers and/or software which handles all of this without using the less-functional built-in Windows abilities...

Re:Not this time

[grub]

You fucking rule.

Re:Not this time

[HolyCrapSCOsux]

Eve works fine for me under Cedega.
Fedora Core 5.

Re:Not this time

[Anonymous Coward]

Never. DX10 requires the new Vista video driver support. The good news is, since Vista adoption is slow and hardware support is still lacking, it may be a long time before any games require DX10. Our company (won't say which) will be sticking with DX9, and is even considering switching to OpenGL. DX10 (and Vista in general) looks like a huge mistake.

Re:Not this time

[jagspecx]

Chances are your scanner or fax/modem has drivers and/or software which handles all of this

Chances are your scanner or fax/modem doesn't have Vista-ready drivers and/or software which handle all of this

There, fixed that for ya...

Re:Not this time

[webheaded]

Well if your fax/modem doesn't have any drivers, this is all a rather moot argument isn't it? If you can't install the hardware, it doesn't matter if Windows won't let you use it's software. Basically, you're either looking at driver support from the vendor with software or no driver support.

Re:Not this time

[Lord_Dweomer]

You bring up a good point though. I'm a gamer and now that I'm considering buying a new computer it looks like I will be forced to get Vista on it. And since graphics are somewhat important to me, if I want DX10, I need Vista (thanks a ton MS). So what version do people recommend? I should mention I also use my computer to connect to my HDTV and play pirated videos on it. Want to make sure that that function still works and not sure how Vista's DRM will affect divx torrents I download.

Re:Not this time

[jonwil]

I don't know anything much about DirectX10 but if you can build a somewhat functional DX9->OpenGL translation layer (see Wine, WineX/Cdega) then in theory it should be possible to build either a DX10->DX9 translation layer or (more likely) a DX10->OpenGL translation layer.

Re:Not this time

[Macthorpe]

I went for Home Premium and it seems to work fine for me. Also, Vista will only degrade performance on videos with DRM on them. As long as they haven't (and if you're torrenting them there's no reason why there should be), it won't touch them.

Since I've had mine I've been watching Scrubs pretty much non-stop on a similar set-up with video files I personally ripped off DVD, and I've had no issues.

Re:Not this time

[Technician]

I can't believe 'home' editions can not fax or scan. must be a misprint.

Skip the home version. Go to Ubuntu instead. It works just fine with my Cannon scanner. I haven't tried to send a fax yet, but photocoping and scanning are simple. The range of save options is much greater in the Gimp than anything I have ever seen in any Windows application.

Re:Not this time

[blahplusplus]

"I'm assuming they're referring to using the built-in Windows Image Acquisition service for scanning and whatever the appropriate fax service is. In which case, I won't miss it. Chances are your scanner or fax/modem has drivers and/or software which handles all of this without using the less-functional built-in Windows abilities..."

The truth is many scanners still exist who's drivers are not updated anymore and Windows image acquisition service was the only way to scan things. I thought itwas a godsend for me, I have a perfectly usable scanner for OCR and other grunt work who's native software is no longer updated nor supported by it's parent company. I wish there was a law for discontinued products forcing companies to open source all software and related drivers, since it's a royal PITA to have stuff just stop working because an upgrade has made it "incompatible" or introduced show-stopper bugs. I speak from experience, I have an older scanner that does not work properly (i.e. the software works and then literally stops working) on windows XP because the scanner was released before XP came out.

Re:Not this time

[mikehilly]

I can confirm at least that scanning works with the lower end versions. I recently setup a new laptop from Best Buy (had to get it quick for a tax person as their PC crashed) that had the Vista Home Premium OS on it. We plugged in the OfficeJet 6110 all in one unit he had and it picked up the driver for printing and scanning right away. To scan you have to open the image viewer program and import image from scanner. Actually works pretty nicely. Even the ADF worked without a hitch.

Now the HP LaserJet 1000 he had was another problem. From HP: "Sorry, but we suck. Drivers for this won't be out until at least July. We are doing this for quality reasons and want to fully test the drivers. Once again, we suck. That is all."

So it may not be how you are used to scanning, but the functionality is there and working fine.

Their ar speeling and gammer errar's in this psot.

Re:Not this time

[Grishnakh]

I have an older Canon scanner (N670U); I don't know if their scanners work in Vista (probably not), but the scanner works just fine in Linux.

I have a feeling Vista is going to cause a huge amount of perfectly usable hardware to be sold on Ebay dirt cheap.

Re:Not this time

[Monkey]

Fuck yeah! You tell him!

abridged version

[nuzak]

"Don't bother

Works for me

Re:abridged version

[Anonymous Monkey]

I thought it was "Don't bother...switch"

I recommend...

[Steve--Balllmer]

buying the most expensive, costliest version there is. In fact, buy 2 or 3. Vista is just that good. Regards, Steve Bal... uh I mean, Eve Kalmer (damn... forgot to log in as AC.)

Re:I recommend...

[beset]

You must be new here...

Re:I recommend...

[Technician]

Um Steve Bal.. um Eve,

I may get modded informative, but you don't have to log in as AC to post AC.

See the little checkbox right over the Preview and Submit buttons?
Try checking the one marked "Post Anonymously"

Quick!

[jeevesbond]

Tag this 'slownewsday'

What is this pro-Microsoft peice doing on Slashdot?! There's nothing slamming Vista, nothing on DRM, there isn't even a flying chair or mention of upgrading to Ubuntu instead. I'm disgusted!

From the artice:

I tested Microsoft's way of handling that exact situation, and it works fine.

What?! 'Works fine', isn't this sort of language explicitly disallowed by the Slashdot terms of service? I also did a search of the article and there's not a single instance of the string: 'Linux'.

Re:Quick!

[Hoi Polloi]

Waiting for someone to mod you "troll". 1...2...3...

Re:Quick!

[Technician]

What is this pro-Microsoft peice doing on Slashdot?! There's nothing slamming Vista, nothing on DRM, there isn't even a flying chair or mention of upgrading to Ubuntu instead. I'm disgusted!

Maybe it is not in the article, but for your enjoyment most of it is in the comments here.

Downgrade Advisor

[Anonymous Coward]

I need a downgrade advisor. Like most of America, I do not need 80% of the functionality of Vista, but I do need its enhanced reliability.

How can I uninstall 80% of Vista after I have installed it on my 128-megabyte Pentium-II system?

I am 63 years young, and I use my computer only for e-mail and Yahoo! chat.

Re:Downgrade Advisor

[Anonymous Coward]

but I do need its enhanced reliability

what makes you think Vista is more reliable? all trolling aside, you cant guage the reliability of anything until it's been on the market for a while.

Re:Downgrade Advisor

[Ramble]

Actually if you use vLite to trim the Vista install CD you can cut out quite a lot of the stuff (plus fit it onto a 700MB CD). vLite

Re:Downgrade Advisor

[Yoooder]

If you are serious that you only use your computer for chat and email, then you _really_ should consider Ubuntu Linux. At least give it a try from the CD (you don't need to even touch your harddrive contents until you decide that you really want to install it). Booting from the CD gives you the entire OS, you can add/remove applications and use it like a normal OS. The only downside is running from a CD is inheritly slow--but seriously, save yourself several hundreds of dollars (or even into the thousand+ range considering hardware upgrades/office 2007) and give it a whirl.

Re:Downgrade Advisor

[CastrTroy]

Why are people so obsessed with Ubuntu? I've tried it out many times, and every time I'm disappointed. I like Mandriva much better. Using EasyURPMI you can install just about any application available for Linux at the click of a mouse. It's also dead easy to install and works with a wide variety of software. I really don't get what people see in Ubuntu. Please tell me what it is.

Re:Downgrade Advisor

[COMON$]

must be a hundred posts exactly like yours a day. Let me simplify the argument so you don't start one again.

I don't know why people use (insert distro here) I use (insert distro here) and it works great for anyone because (insert distro here) is so easy to use why would anyone use anything else?

To which you will get flaming littleman replies and people will hurl insults left and right as if you insulted their mom.

This argument is carried on with Chevy vs Ford, Catholics vs Protestant, Athiest vs Gnostic, Crunchy vs smooth peanut butter and on and on.

People have opinions, they like to stick to them like a religion, get used to it.

Re:Downgrade Advisor

[Moofie]

"but I do need its enhanced reliability."

And you're contemplating upgrading to Vista...why?

Re:Downgrade Advisor

[VertigoAce]

It's funny that you should mention this, since Vista includes a new Reliability Monitor that helps you visualize the reliability of your system. It keeps track of the success/failure of installs, application crashes, hardware problems, and Windows crashes.

For example, my computer has not had any serious reliability issues since Vista RTM was installed in mid-January. Furthermore, the application crashes includes programs you write yourself, so developers will have to pay more attention to the details than the chart.

This combined with a few other diagnostic improvements should make it easier to help family and friends that complain of computer problems but can't describe what is happening.

Re:Downgrade Advisor

[cheater512]

How do you know the Reliability Monitor is reliable?

Re:Downgrade Advisor

[neomunk]

That's very true. In my 1 1/2 months of owning Vista (preinstalled Vista at that, so I didn't boff the install) it has crashed (reboot required) more times than my XP box has in the 3 years I've had the current one.

Seriously, the thing goes down at least once a week. Mind you, I -DO- use my computer for more than e-mail and web browsing, but I do the same things on my (significantly less capable) XP box without the system taking a shit on me.

I am so completely unimpressed with Vista it hurts. It -IS- quite pretty tho, I guess that counts for something. It doesn't make the crashes piss me off less, but I suppose if you desire aesthetics over functionality, it's the best of the microsoft family of OS offerings.

Seriously though, if you're looking for a stable Windows machine, stick with XP, at LEAST until Vista's first Service Pack.

Re:Downgrade Advisor

[Anonymous Coward]

Well it has the word "reliability" right in its name... it must be reliable.

Re:Downgrade Advisor

[rucs_hack]

Buy a Mac.

Seriously, sounds like that's more what you need.

Re:Downgrade Advisor

[TheNetAvenger]

How can I uninstall 80% of Vista after I have installed it on my 128-megabyte Pentium-II system?

I am 63 years young, and I use my computer only for e-mail and Yahoo! chat.


Wow you must be really talented, as Vista is locked to not install with only 128mb of RAM.

I guess MS decided they didn't want 1000s of support calls like yours.

Re:Downgrade Advisor

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be Korean.

Re:Downgrade Advisor

[Kangburra]

Chevy vs Ford

That should be Holden v Ford.

I don't know many distros that sacked their founder. http://trends.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=06/03/1 5/208240&tid=138&tid=2/

Re:Downgrade Advisor

[seaturnip]

You use the Reliability Monitor Monitor, of course.

Re:Downgrade Advisor

[rtb61]

People currently like Ubuntu, because they currently like Ubuntu. I like Ubuntu at this time, I am still running two different versions of Suse on other computers.

If I was running a server and wanted to contract out the admin, I would probably go with Red Hat, because you can currently in Australia get a larger range of contractors with the skills to properly administer it.

Believe it or not it is all penguin cool, freedom of choice and all that stuff. So Ubuntu, is currently winning in the Linux desktop stakes, and from their web page "Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'Humanity to others', or 'I am what I am because of who we all are'. The Ubuntu distribution brings the spirit of Ubuntu to the software world", makes it a bit more fun and a bit more in spirit.

Not that you need to use it, so feel free to mentally substitute the distribution of your choice where ever you see the words, Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Edubuntu or Xbuntun be that Red Hat, Suse, Debian Gnu Linux etc. please go here if I left your preferred version out http://distrowatch.com/dwres.php?resource=major and many apologise for being a bit 'slack~ware' and not writing down every Linux distribution available today.

Re:Downgrade Advisor

[sasdrtx]

Where did you get the idea that Vista has "enhanced reliability"?

You are a perfect candidate for Linux. With which you can measure uptime in months, not hours.

Re:Downgrade Advisor

[gfreeman]

And how do you ...

Oh, never mind.

upgrading is easy

[stim]

avoid the vista 'upgrade' rush! step one: browse to distrowatch. step two: download flavor-of-choice step three: enjoy!

On the other hand

[Z00L00K]

By doing a clean install of an operating system you will get rid of all junk files and junk data that tends to accumulate over time and degrade the performance of the system.

Personally I allocate a partition that's purely dedicated to operating system and software. So in case the OS does a real *uck-up* I won't lose all data and I only have to re-install. The only thing that I'm annoyed with is the "Documents and Settings" directory that is allocated on the OS partition, and I really would like to have the option of reallocating that beast to a different partition.

But of course - you can do it the M$ way and allocate everything in a huge partition and when shit happens you aren't up shit creek, you are up the mother of all shit rivers instead...

A yearly re-installation of Windows seems to be the frequency for me to keep things stable and performing.

Re:On the other hand

[geekoid]

Here at work all the document and setting duirectories are mapped to the network .

"If you right click and hold it while dragging the folder onto the second hard drives Icon, when you let go of the button a menu should pop up with a few options on it. One of these options is [i]MOVE HERE[/i]. When you click that option it will move all previous content and all future content to the second hard drive."

Re:On the other hand

[DarthChris]

The only thing that I'm annoyed with is the "Documents and Settings" directory that is allocated on the OS partition, and I really would like to have the option of reallocating that beast to a different partition.

There's a registry setting somewhere that allows you to change this. It's hidden well, but it does exist. A quick google reveals an even simpler method here.

Re:On the other hand

[crabpeople]

And if he was talking about vista, it's even easier. This took me 4 minutes to find with the google.

http://www.edbott.com/weblog/?p=1371

Re:On the other hand

[danpsmith]

Personally I allocate a partition that's purely dedicated to operating system and software. So in case the OS does a real *uck-up* I won't lose all data and I only have to re-install. The only thing that I'm annoyed with is the "Documents and Settings" directory that is allocated on the OS partition, and I really would like to have the option of reallocating that beast to a different partition.

Yep, I used to too, and you are right. This USED to work great. That's until I bought a new Windows box with Windows Media Center. I tried Vista, didn't like it, wanted to go back. I found out that my "windows" disc does some kind of weirdo complete imaging instead of just installing the OS, deleting all my partitions including my data while just saying it would format C:. I had to buy an external USB disk and get a copy of ERD to get my data back and now the data is just staying there. I guess this smart approach doesn't even apply when you don't actually own windows anymore, you license it.

Reaction: I was just a little bit pissed. Conclusion: I'm moving to linux with all new hardware components. I know I won't have this problem there.

Re:On the other hand

[acidosmosis]

You CAN "reallocate that beast" to another partition. It takes a simple right click on your My Documents folder to direct it another location.

I have to ask. What exactly should Microsoft have done? Automatically locate the My Documents folder on another partition? When the majority of people have a hard time understanding how to right-click the mouse or locate files on their computer, you don't want to go screwing with their hard drive adding new drive letters.

Re:On the other hand

[vux984]

The only thing that I'm annoyed with is the "Documents and Settings" directory that is allocated on the OS partition, and I really would like to have the option of reallocating that beast to a different partition.

There are actually a couple ways of do this. In a server environment you can have roaming profiles. You can also achieve most of the effect with folder redirection (enough to move 'my documents', and 'application data', and 'desktop') which are the big ones.
You can even move the whole documents and settings folder structure but its a more involved 'registry hack'.

All 3 work like a charm, in that they do exactly what you expect, and windows runs just fine like that. The only problems tend to come from software where the locations of these folders are 'hard-coded' instead of querying the OS for their proper locations.

Re:On the other hand

[gad_zuki!]

Not only can you move it or change the default paths for desktop, my docs, etc you *should* be doing backups of your stuff. Blaming MS for not out of the box letting you put a profile folder on a different partition is being really really lazy in the FUD department. Not to mention I hope you arent going to put everything on a different partition on the same disk. What happens if that disk dies and you still dont have backups?

Re:On the other hand

[Source Quench]

Google "Winnt.sif"...

You can specify most "special" folder locations at installation time, plus you can automate most of it (in fact you can even set it up to use a specific product-key). All I do is insert the floppy, boot off the CD and come back an hour later and voilà!

Have fun.

Re:On the other hand

[Blakey Rat]

Although Windows certainly isn't perfect, shame on you for installing an OS with no backup in place!

Backup your data! Backup! Backup! Back! Up!

Especially before doing anything involving disk partitions (like installing an OS).

Re:On the other hand

[jawtheshark]

This is not reserved to Vista. XP does this too....

Re:On the other hand

[dbIII]

By doing a clean install of an operating system you will get rid of all junk files and junk data that tends to accumulate over time and degrade the performance of the system.

It appears to be unique to Microsoft operating systems and in my opinion it is a function of the registry more than anything else. It is true that on other systems you can get sometimes get better performance by copying the files off and then copying them back on to a volume to completely get rid of the effect of file fragmentation but I don't know if many people bother to do this unless they are moving to a different disk.

As for MS Windows there are products like deep freeze or just keeping a disk image around on backup media so you can restore it to a known good state or have it return to a known good state on reboot.

I can attest to the upgrade behavior

[casualsax3]

This also happened to me when I went from RC2 to Vista Business Final - it made a backup directory which I found nice and incredibly helpful. It really takes a lot of the worry about reinstalling.

Windows Vista Upgrade Instructions

[Mykroughpsyoughpht]

It is easy to Upgrade Windows Vista, Just Follow these Steps: HERE. If your hardware doesn't support that configuration, try This Procedure. Otherwise, Just Switch. http://distrowatch.com/

For gamers, it's all about the video card

[Nukenbar2]

If you are a gamer at all, your biggest concern has to be your video card drivers. If you have and Nvidia card, check here. You will read many stories of video corruption or SLI failing to work.

Obviously this would be a concern for anyone upgrading to Vista, but there doesn't seem to be too much trouble for just basic 2D and Aero functionality...

Be careful with in-place upgrade

[duffbeer703]

While alot of things get moved to Windows.old, other things don't. Make sure you backup your stuff!

For example, Firefox bookmarks in are stored an application data folder, which doesn't get moved.

Re:Be careful with in-place upgrade

[hawaiian717]

So it's like Mac OS X's Archive and Install, which we've had since 2002, except it doesn't work as well?

Re:Be careful with in-place upgrade

[crabpeople]

FUD or ignorance. It moves everything from my documents, program files and %systemroot% into windows.old. This includes "C:\Windows.old\Documents and Settings\USERNAME\Application Data\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\default.v4c" which is where your bookmarks are stored. I didnt even have to reinstall any plugins. You do have to copy the folder manually, but your post makes it sound like windows just deletes it which it assuredly does not.

Re:Be careful with in-place upgrade

[benad]

I remember doing a "clean install" , which kept the original System Folder, since System 7.1. I'm surprised it took this long for Microsoft to "copy" that feature...

Re:Be careful with in-place upgrade

[peepleperson]

You do have to copy the folder manually... Which is kinda the point.
My in-laws get their Vista upgrade disk in the post. It has "Microsoft Vista New Lovely Wow" written all over it, and they've heard me mention Vista (only in a "the shop said you're gonna get an update disk" way). They attempt to install, and bork, their (almost) brand-new computer. My point is, a lot of people who bought PCs in the last six months were sold/promised a Vista upgrade. A lot of these people have NEVER installed or upgraded an OS. Ever. Here's where I get modded troll. Vista is a horribly bloated nightmare of building on legacy code (forever), kernel fudges and (yep) DRM. Been said before, but Microsoft would do a lot better starting from scratch for the next "Windows". One last point. Those people who "need" Vista for DX10 and gaming... buy a PS3 or xbox and f*&@... erm, go away

Re:Be careful with in-place upgrade

[duffbeer703]

That wasn't what happened when I did it.

Maybe I hit some sort of bug... who knows.

Re:Be careful with in-place upgrade

[3choTh1s]

Gah it's like I have to say this every single time... I DON'T care who did it first. As long as the functionality is there in the system I am currently using. And since it does work as well as Archive and Install(look on other posts for the FUD destruction) this system works just fine.

Re:Be careful with in-place upgrade

[hawaiian717]

I don't remember exactly how Apple's implementation works as it's been a while since I've done it -- ask me again after Leopard ships :) -- but what business does an operating system upgrade have messing around in C:\Documents and Settings, /Users, or /home in the first place?

Re:Be careful with in-place upgrade

[3choTh1s]

Yeah... it has no place messing around with C:\Documents and Settings, /Users or /home, if and only if it was a normal OS upgrade(such as going from OSX 10.2 to 10.4). Vista isn't just an upgrade to XP(ie. its not like it's SP3 or something.) Since it is a new operating system, and does it's user directory differently(it's in /Users) then it's gotta move the old directory to someplace where it's understandable that that is where all the old stuff is. And since moving files on a drive both simple and non destructible, this is a fairly safe process.

some people have to bother

[crabpeople]

This seems to be the popular sentiment, but you will have to eventually. The CIO of my company decides to install vista on his machine. I am responsible for backing up, virus scanning, etc. I took a look at vista and was completely lost. At that moment I knew that if I didnt want to play the fool, I'd better learn this shit. Its an alien feeling to me to sit infront of a machine at work and not instantly know how to do everything. I didn't like that feeling.

I didnt do anything crazy like install it at home (2k 4ever), but I did install it on my main work pc. To tell you the truth, aside from the fact that there are no drivers and many programs no longer work, its not that different from xp. You have to turn all the crap off, change the folders back to classic, etc. After that it pretty much operates like winxp and win2k. Is it worth upgrading a working XP copy? Hell no! Is it worth learning about so that your comfortable? Hell yes.

If you had asked me a month ago if I planned to move to vista I would have laughed circles around you. Well m$ wins again i suppose. Its not all bad though. I rather enjoy "windows mail" the OE replacement. They have moved away from database based (pst/dbx) mail stores and now just dump raw EML files in directories (THANK YOU!!). Its also quite a bit faster than oe and sending and recieving mail. Infact if there was a standalone version, I would probably consider running it on my home machine. It even has a calander so I could finaly move people away from outlook. There is no way we would deploy it across the organization, but its nice to know in 5 years we wont have to have outlook on the machines.

If you fix computers, you will have to learn it eventually. Theres no use delaying the inevitable.

Re:some people have to bother

[Hoi Polloi]

Go tell your boss that. Then start working on your resume.

Re:some people have to bother

[Kelbear]

Did you know that support for Hotmail was discarded in Windows Mail? I had a good laugh at that. My various hotmail accounts are what I give out online to receive all the spam from web-registration.

I upgraded to Vista with a similar intent. It was just 10 bucks for shipping to use the Dell upgrade coupon on my laptop and I wanted to take a look at Vista for myself, I'm probably going to have to confront it sooner or later. It's working pretty much just like XP right now, just a different path to get where I'm going. Aside from not being able to use Outlook to get at my spamboxes, it's pretty much the same(and I use Gmail for the mail that's important to me anyway).

Re:some people have to bother

[COMON$]

(2k 4ever),

Ahhh one of THOSE techs. remember all the win98 4ever geeks....sigh good times.

I installed it (Vista) here at work just yesterday, sure enough some things broke, but on my machine (only a year old) I have only had to install one driver. My AD management tools were fixed with a quick script, Trillian was fixed after I adjusted the quicktime settings, couple printer issues (print server only had NT4 &2K drivers). I am up and running now, only took me one working day roughly. I had a little experience with beta testing but I am working well now and am enjoying many of the features. I use outlook 2007 and love that as well (new office is heads and feet above the 2003 version). Still like my Fedora box at home. XP 2K and NT4 are my forte Desktop environments by far windows wise but vista doesnt have that tough of a learning curve and the features are definately worth it! I have scooted through Windows secrets (halfway through the book in a couple hours) but winXP and vista are not that far apart.

So in answer to your post, it takes some tweaking, not as much as my fedora box, but a little patience and everything works fantastic. Is it worth upgrading a working winXP box? Depends on what you are doing, if I had $200 sitting at home for ultimate I would upgrade in a heartbeat. The added functions, security, (awe heck it I will say it) the prettyness is great.

However if you are one of those "Why can't we go back to windows 98 or 2000 where I felt all warm and fuzzy" well you are just absolutely going to hate this, hate hate hate it.

Re:some people have to bother

[COMON$]

Ummm if my CIO decided to turn his machine into a fish tank you better believe I will be in there fixing the leaks before the next slashdot post hits your computer. Then when I am your boss and you are still a self absorbed tech earning $13 bucks an hour I can take great joy in firing your ass for being an arrogant AC :)

Re:some people have to bother

[MightyMartian]

To tell you the truth, aside from the fact that there are no drivers and many programs no longer work, its not that different from xp

So let me get this straight. Other than the fact that at least some of your hardware and your apps won't work, it's just like XP. Uh no, it's not like XP, because by staying with XP all the software and hardware I've installed will still work, and I won't have to go change to classic views, and I won't have to spend the months until SP1 comes out chewing my fingernails wondering if my legacy software and hardware won't crap out in some new and no doubt horrific way.

Microsoft released the goddamn thing too early. It's still clearly in beta. If I wanted to run my Windows apps badly and with annoying incompatibilities I could do it for free with Wine.

Re:some people have to bother

[drsmithy]

I didnt do anything crazy like install it at home (2k 4ever), but I did install it on my main work pc.

Yeah, I remember luddites like you from the 80s (DOS 4ever !) and 90s (Windows 3.1 4ever!). You're the guys whose first act on an XP system is to turn off the new-style Start Menu, despite it being superior in basically every way to the "Classic" Start Menu. Terrified of anything different.

To tell you the truth, aside from the fact that there are no drivers and many programs no longer work, its not that different from xp. You have to turn all the crap off, change the folders back to classic, etc. After that it pretty much operates like winxp and win2k.

So if you turn off all the visible stuff that makes it different from XP and Windows 2000, it acts just like Windows 2000 ? NO WAY !

I do have to wonder why you'd bother, however, if you weren't going to actually _use_ any of the new features...

Re:some people have to bother

[rtb61]

Now you have a real problem, M$ have categorically stated that they will upgrade windows and office every two years. Why would you waste time learning Vista if you are just going to be forced to learn the new MS OS in two years time. Surely it makes sence to try and skip as many upgrades as possible and save yourself the lost time of learning new stuff just to profit M$ or throwing away money for an OS that will only last two years.

Win2kpro still runs everything (7 years and counting), in fact more than XP and far more than Vista, (to install you will likely need a floppy and hdisk drivers), so what a are you really trying to achieve except lining M$ pockets at your own expense, and burdening yourself with the costs of hardware and software incompatibility issues as well as being yet again a free bug tester.

You gain nothing and will only be repeating the exact same exercise in 2009, 2011, 2013, etc. ad nauseum or until you finally give up and switch to a different OS rather than paying for the same OS over and over again.

Re:some people have to bother

[Technician]

Is it worth upgrading a working XP copy? Hell no! Is it worth learning about so that your comfortable? Hell yes.

This was my arguement exactly for upgrading to Ubuntu. The XP machine is still an XP machine, but the Windows 98 machines and 2000 machine are converted.

If you had asked me a month ago if I planned to move to vista I would have laughed circles around you.
If you had asked me 6 months ago if I planned to move to Ubuntu I would have laughed circles around you.

I rather enjoy "windows mail" the OE replacement.
I rather enjoy Evolution the Outlook replacement
It even has a calander so I could finaly move people away from outlook.
It even has a calander so I could finaly move people away from outlook.
If you fix computers, you will have to learn it eventually. Theres no use delaying the inevitable.
If you fix computers, you will have to learn it eventually. Theres no use delaying the inevitable.

Sorry, I couldn't help my self.. ;-)

Re:some people have to bother

[3choTh1s]

There is a major difference between making Vista look like Win XP or 2000, and what is in Vista's underlying program structure. I know most people can't tell the difference, but as a person who understands that you can't just stand still and expect some sort of progress, I've been most accommodating to Vista's new interface. I wouldn't go back to the old start menu if it was forced down my throat.

I know some people are just used to using one type of interface and are tied to it because again that's just what they know. But I'd rather learn something that makes my life better. I don't really care if I have to learn something else 2 years down the line as long as it's legitimately better than what I was doing. Vista is that. Just because some people can't get around the smallish differences doesn't mean new users wouldn't find it immediately comfortable.

Re:Reasons I won't upgrade...

[h2_plus_O]

If part of the value of my PC is in this software, shouldn't my "Free Upgrade" include some sort of guarantee that I will not lose the value of my PC? Of course, the stories of driver issues and performance issues, didn't make me any quicker to change.

This is why the Upgrade Advisor might be valuable to you- you can run it beforehand and it'll flag known issues (like 'this sound card doesn't have vista drivers' or 'that app will not work') before you've made any commitment. I've migrated several machines (mostly OEM boxen, many of them Dell- it's what we've got) to Vista as part of my testing and I haven't found any issues that the 'Upgrade Advisor' missed. YMMV tho.

Re:No going back afterward!

[east coast]

what the heck are you supposed to do with your system (as mine) when you depend on it, and a complex configuration you've spend a long time building?

Image it first? That's my guess.

Not to slight you but anytime you're doing an operation of this magnitude on a system that you truely value the information on you should take steps to create some type of backup of said system in case of any number of failures. In your case you stepped into an unproven product (and no, I'm not MS bashing by saying that) on what you make seem like a critical system. Anything could have happened, be thankful it went as well as it did. You seriously risked total data loss.

Bad Microsoft. I don't *care* if there was an option for having Windows.old - it's still bad practice to *not* explain and make this obvious.

Again, not to slight you but anyone with any significant time using PCs can tell you that installs of this nature normally aren't very easy to roll back if it's an option at all. Not to say that MS has put out a good product and probably didn't fumble the ball in some aspect (again, not MS bashing, I simply haven't used Vista) but normally MS is fairly good at pointing out to users that OS upgrades and service packs may (as in probably will) cause system changes that simply can not be undone.

OSs aren't meant to do everything except wipe. Users need to be aware of the potential data loss/system failures they face without having their hands held through the process. Unless you're a "n00b" you should have known better than to simply "flick the switch" and hope for the best.

Hopefully making images of such a vital PC will become a practice in your future instead of another hindsight regret.

Can we tag as "appledidit"?

[Kadin2048]

I figured this was just here, because it's been a feature of Mac OS in virtually every version since 10.2, released 2002 IIRC.

It's called "Archive and Install," and it did exactly what's being described. It moved the old system into a folder and then installed a fresh copy on the root level of the HD.

To be honest, I'm rather surprised if this is the first time Windows has offered such a feature. Given the seeming regularity with which Windows seems to like being reinstalled it seems like a no-brainer. How many focus groups did it take them to come up with this?

Re:Can we tag as "appledidit"?

[swillden]

I figured this was just here, because it's been a feature of Mac OS in virtually every version since 10.2, released 2002 IIRC.

And, of course, Debian Linux (and perhaps others) has done one step better for a decade -- why move all your documents and files into an "old stuff" folder? Debian just leaves all your files in place and upgrades the system components.

Re:Can we tag as "appledidit"?

[Darktan]

In Mac OS classic it was called "Clean install", and I remember performing this on Mac OS 7 in 1995. But I'm glad that MS is catching up. Maybe a reinstall can take less than a full day now.

Re:Can we tag as "appledidit"?

[0100010001010011]

OS X has both. They have an 'upgrade' path where it will leave all your files in place and upgrade system components. They also have an "Archive and Install" which is somewhere in between an upgrade and a full clean install.

I usually do the "Archive and Install" just so that everything gets wiped. However maybe I'll forget to backup my httpd.conf or some other small config file. I usually run for a month and then delete the "Archived" folder. All the programs I installed but never used, everything goes and I find I usually gain a few gigs.

Re:Can we tag as "appledidit"?

[marcello_dl]

Old MacOs let you keep how many versions you liked in the same partition, as each resided in a separate system folder. You could run the same app keeping the same prefs on different versions. For years installing or moving apps was simple as moving it, or its folder, around. Almost any app could use multiple profiles because opening a preference file, residing anywhere, launched the app with the chosen prefs.

no wonder first time i saw win98 installing on the hd he saw fit without asking me to choose, and requiring 3 reboots i laughed thinking some people had the nerve to diss the mac because it didn't have preemptive multitasking.

Re:Can we tag as "appledidit"?

[sparkz]

I'm not exactly the biggest MS Fanboy going, but I'm sure that Win95 did this when you reinstalled it on top of itself (or upgraded 95 to 98, later on).

So - big up to MS for a feature they wrote at least 12 years ago!

Upgrade To... Windows 2000

[Anonymous Coward]

Given the complete and utter riduculousness that is Windows Activation, your best bet is to upgrade to Windows 2000. It seems like Windows downgrades with every release aside from slicker graphics. Windows Activation is also a total insult to the consumer. Think about it - they expect consumers to call in and explain themselves whenever they upgrade or try to (legally!) move their license to another computer. And watch out for the OEM scams where you don't actually get a license to Windows with your new machine, just a license to run Windows on that particular machine and, if it breaks down or whatever, oh well, tough luck for you.

If the software industry goes the Window Activation route, soon, with the same frequency as personal firewall confirm/deny messages, you'll be getting messages on your screen: "This piece of software has detected something anamalous with your usage pattern. Call xxx-xxx-xxxx and explain yourself immediately."

Re:Upgrade To... Windows 2000

[Technician]

Given the complete and utter riduculousness that is Windows Activation, your best bet is to upgrade to Windows 2000.

I had given that a thought, but hardware support turned out to be an issue. I had a Windows 2K system. Much new transportable hardware is not directly supported and needs driver installs just to use things like thumb drives and presentation remotes. Using your laptop on the road and a client says, take a look at this file.. Plugging the thumb drive brings up Windows is searching for a driver for USB Mass Storage Device. You are away from your network connection. Your client is away from his office. How do you find a driver in the field in the next 3 minutes? XP and Ubuntu don't have that problem. Displaying photos, Documents, Spreadsheets just work from a thumb drive or iPod.

Typo

[SnarfQuest]

There's a typo in the original article. Should read:

Don't bother wiping your hard disk. Just run the in-place upgrade from your previous infestation.

Re:Yes but

[h2_plus_O]

As long as I'm being modded troll here, I might as well be an informative one: Per technet:

Transfer files and setting using a network
Start Windows Easy Transfer on the computer from which you wish to migrate settings and files by browsing to the removable media or network drive containing the wizard files, and then double clicking migwiz.exe.
If you have any programs open, you will be prompted to close them. You can opt to save your work in each program, and then close them individually, or you can click Close All in Windows Easy Transfer to close all running programs at once. Click Next.
Determine the transfer method to use. Click Through a network.
Note Both computers must support the transfer method you choose. For example, both computers must be connected to the same network.
Click Connect directly via network to begin the transfer. Alternately, click Save to network location if you want to store the files and settings in a file to be loaded later. If you choose to store the data in a network location, you will be prompted to provide the path.
Click Everything - all user accounts, files, and program settings (recommended) to transfer all files and settings. You can also choose to determine exactly which files should be migrated by clicking either Only my user account, files, and program settings, or Custom.
Review the list of files and settings to be transferred, and then click Start to begin the transfer. Click Customize if you want to add or remove files or settings.

Note that you can ad-hoc a network over a firewire cable.

Re:No going back afterward!

[crabpeople]

"what the heck are you supposed to do with your system (as mine) when you depend on it, and a complex configuration you've spend a long time building?"

Um, don't upgrade it?

What a ridiculous thing to say. Blaming m$ is cool and all, but you cant blame them for your lack of upgrade planning/testing/FORESIGHT. M$ bashing is getting pretty sad if that's the best you can come up with.

Easier said then done...

[msimm]

I mean eventually you'll want a new game maybe. I think their big card-up-the-sleeve is Direct X. If I recall new versions will not be supported on XP/et al. Combine that with the fact that 99.9% of all new PC's are already bundled to, meaning the user base will increase as people purchase shiny new hardware, and game publishers suddenly need to support it (like it or not). There you have it.

I mean you could keep using XP (which, at least so far, I like *a lot* better). But most people will just bite the bullet and they're really only worried about most people. It's a dog IMHO though. I'm curious if they'll be able to make it better or if they've simply made a mandatory ME.

best tip

[Anonymous Coward]

The best tip for upgrading to Vista is "Dont" upgrade to Vista.

Blech

[kitsunewarlock]

If you don't have a harddrive to spare, don't install it. If you do, and find out you'd prefer XP or Linux or something, it's a royal bitch to knock windows out of their. Heck, even harddrives connected to Vista (i.e. secondaries) tend to bugger sometimes too and you'll get the ubiquious "cannot install another OS, you have Vista."

Re:Just say NO to upgrades

[nizo]

But if you do decide to upgrade, don't forget the most important upgrade tool: a cheese grater. Before you start, run it across your tongue for two minutes; after that, no matter how painful the upgrade process is, it won't feel worse than those first two minutes.

Don't bother

[HomelessInLaJolla]

As I was reading TFA I followed this link to an article about the new GUI complete with screenshots.

After viewing the screenshots I've determined that most of the new features in Vista are a rehash of the same graphical tools that sysadmins have been using for years--except now they're brushed up with Apple polish and included on mass market consumer m0dels. The vast majority of the population won't ever care about or use them. The desktop seems to be the MS edition of Sun's Looking Glass whose capabilities have come to fruition in the free software realm through Gnome, Enlightenment, Beryl, and KDE.

The question I have is: what is really new and improved in Vista?

The progression from Win95, through 98, through 2k, through ME, through XP, to Vista is like reading a flame war between two contestants who never give up: each revision expands on the previous base to produce a progressively larger work. To be fair current GNU/Linux offerings seem to be inheriting the same progressive bloat though not to the same extent. Unlike flame war contestants, though, OS designers are supposed to look for ways to streamline the final product and deliver top performance with maximum efficiency. While Vista has (by screenshots) top performance it isn't much further ahead of free software for the millions which MS has spent preparing it.

In conclusion I'll definitely agree: Don't bother.

Why would you put yourself through this?

[HangingChad]

I'm not going to dig on Vista or MSFT. I don't use their products at home or at work, if I can avoid doing so, but that's not a good reason to rip on them or people wanting to try Vista. I'm guessing that the majority of those attempting a Vista upgrade already are aware they have the option to go with Apple or Linux and have a reason for not going that route.

I'm curious about why those of you doing are putting yourself through the exercise? What's compelling you to try Vista now? As opposed to waiting a few months until the compatibility issues are sorted out or it comes with a new PC? I'm not sure Vista will ever support every video, sound or ethernet card from the beginning of computer time and I'm not sure it's a good use of MSFT's resources to attempt that kind of massive hardware reach back.

So why now? Is there some feature you really want? Are there games that are Vista only? Or is just techno-lust at this stage? Wanting to be technically proficient in MSFT's latest and greatest? There's no right answer here, I'm really wondering.

Or did I miss the big rally where everyone filed by the podium where some guy hit you in the forehead while yelling, "The power of Ballmer compels you!" ;)

Re:Why would you put yourself through this?

[Pengo]

Your question seems sincere (unlike most of the 'wtf why would you buy this' trolls).

I believe there is a psychology behind people who like to 'Early Adopt'. They are risk takers, and people who understand perfectly that the technology won't perform exactly as expected or hoped. These people are more apt to take chances than maybe what other people could be comfortable with. Just because you might have a miserable experience playing with untested and unrefined software, other people get a thrill of being the first to adapt and enjoy the self education of trying something new.

Here is an interesting article on the 'psychology of desire'.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=5 &objectid=10426888

Re:Why would you put yourself through this?

[HangingChad]

Just because you might have a miserable experience playing with untested and unrefined software, other people get a thrill of being the first to adapt and enjoy the self education of trying something new.

On the contrary, I write some of that miserable untested software that provides that unrefined experience for a lot of users. :)

I'm really wondering what's driving the early adopters this time. It just seems like there are going to be so many short-term changes, many driver compatibility issues and so few compelling reasons to switch right now, I can't see why anyone would put themselves through the bother for anything other than curiosity. Which is really okay. I'm curious, but I'll wait. I won't look at Vista compatibility for any of my customer systems until next year at the earliest.

If there are compelling features, apart from modest improvements in security and the UI, I'm not aware of them. Perhaps a question for a /. poll. Why are you switching to Vista now instead of a year from now?

Re:Why would you put yourself through this?

[svendsen]

Well new laptop for my fiance comes with Vista home prof. (or premium, whatever) if she hates it then on goes XP. she played around with Vista and liked the look and the scroll through all the open windows feature.

Now to be fair the software she uses is Adobe Cs, End note, firefox (she loves that btw), office, itunes and thats about it. so I am not too concerned about software issues creeping up. The only thing which needs to run is Adobe Cs, if it doesnt then back to XP. That's the deal breaker.

Re:Why would you put yourself through this?

[Stevecrox]

My motivations?

I ran the beta 2 and RC1 and RC2, I enjoyed using vista it was fun to use and while my creative driver sucked but the creative promised a complete driver for jan 30th. Since Everything else installed from the box without me doing anything there really wern't any compatibility issues from my point of view. I tried going back to XP. Somehow it wasnt the easy pleasing expearence it had been. I tried switching to Ubunutu but after a few days I had a strange need to hit the next linux enthusaist I met which lead me to putting in my preorder for Vista.

Since getting it on the 23rd of Jan (thank you Overclockers.co.uk) I've gone back to enjoying my PC interface again. February 16th saw the (re)release of drivers for my Creative Audigy and so far my compatibility issues are:

Visual Studio 2003.net's smartphone assembler won't work (2005 is fine even without the service pack)

Sony Erricsons starter code/program for the rok101008 (Bluetooth chip)refuses to install, to be fair the code/program was designed for win98/2000 and crashes in 98, while the driver dies in 2000, in Xp it will lock up the comm/usb port in question. I wasn't really expecting it to work, but its still a pain.

Creative, their driver means WMP won't play DVD audio I have to load PowerDVD XP in XP compatibility mode (set up automatically now) to be able to listen to my DVD's in 5.1

Every game wants to install itself in program files, this is a no no, so you have to delete the "Program Files\" out of all those install wizards.

A 4fps drop in my non frame limited games, In Myst Online: Uru Live I have an identical expearence however there seems to be a loss of 4fps in HL2 and HL2:Episode 1 (according to fraps) Since my frame rate was above 70 already, is still about 70 and my LCD refreshes at 70hz I'm not really fussed.

Vista's seems to be similar to Office 2007, Xp and 2003 both got everything you needed and yet Vista/2007 order them in a way that makes you feel more powerful, seems slightly mre logical and just feels like a good evolution of XP. I'll admit I'm a bit of a "OMG new and shiney PS3/PSP/Vista" person the beta/RC's had given me a few features which I began to use quite heavily which don't exist in XP.

Oh I'm a 4.3 on the Windows Expearence index what are you? (Only microsoft could simply things so non techies could brag as well!)

BTW the rally was actually ran by Gates telling us of the dangerous that Linus *cough* Lucifer had brought to the world and how we needed to support God umm I mean Microsoft to keep his evil threat at bay.

Re:Why would you put yourself through this?

[peepleperson]

Just because you might have a miserable experience playing with untested and unrefined software,

Untested and unrefined? Are you kidding? You know how much beta testing they did?

BTW, how much should I pay for this "untested and unrefined software"?

Really?

Is Windows ready for the desktop?

[the_womble]

Do you really expect grannys(or Joe sixpack/whatever we are calling typical users this week) to be able to cope with this. How can they cope with picking from mutiple versions (the comparison grid in the article has 27 rows!), downloading software to check that there hardware is compatible and then the install itself.

After all this (again according to the article), they may find that the Windows XP software they buy (or already have) will not work on it. They just want to be able to go to a shop, buy software, and know it will work.

Windows is find for geeks who know it, but the average users is better off with something that works out of the box like MacOS or Ubuntu.

Re:Is Windows ready for the desktop?

[Technician]

This has to be one of the most ridiculous statements I have ever read. Did you even read the article? Are you just a moron?

Do you recognise Humor? Have you seen this arguement used before for another operating system? This is a returning to haunt parody on MS.

Re:Is Windows ready for the desktop?

[3choTh1s]

Really basic users wouldn't even bother thinking about it. Vista's advertisements haven't been that hardcore and I wouldn't think that anyone fitting this category would give it another thought. Those that are a little computer literate would not look at all the different versions. There is Vista Home Basic and Home Premium... Both aptly named and immediately comfortable to pick out of the crowd. You're not going to find 50 versions of Vista at Walmart.

As for actually using Vista... It has been great for me and most programs should work(they do for me), but if you are used to using certain programs just make sure they should work under Vista before upgrading.

Re:Yes but

[MSFanBoi2]

If I'm not mistaken ad-hoc over firewire was removed due to lack of interest and use

Keep it up

[HomelessInLaJolla]

Keep up the good work. The world needs to know that there are people like you on the internet: people who have nothing better to do than to harass a homeless and unemployed man (for whatever reason) behind the veil of network anonymity.

Re:Keep it up

[ResidntGeek]

Being homeless and unemployed doesn't exempt you from criticism. In your case, it is in fact the very reason you _should_ be harassed. I've read your posts, and I can say without reservation that you are what is wrong with the world. You're arrogant and confrontational, which wouldn't be a problem if you weren't so stupid and ignorant. Since you piss away your life at a library, maybe you should read a book or two occasionally instead of calling people childish names on slashdot. You might learn something, and become slightly less ignorant. Wouldn't that be nice?

vendors and vista

[svendsen]

Vendors are being dicks about vista. Fiance needed a new laptop, got a fully loaded insperion 1505 (she really likes them). Does dell include an Os cd? no, a "restore" cd that has all the dell shit in it that will be reinstalled. Can you get a true Os from dell? no.

Dont worry I am going somewhere with this :-). I ask the dell rep well if I hate vista and install xp do I void my warranty? Answer: sorta. Dell will not provide and support for the laptop unless it has the original Os. You know it makes some sense so they dont support an unknown system. But come on Xp sp2?

so i ask dell ok I want this machine with Xp installed. sorry you can only get it with vista. Good thing I have access to vista ultimate for free. ;-)

Re:Yes but

[h2_plus_O]

You're not mistaken. My mistake, thanks.

Re:". . .used an additional 7GB of of disk storage

[Asmandeus]

That must of been a lot of midget porn then, because of the smaller file size... *ducks*

Insensitive Clod!

[SuluSulu]

What is this pro-Microsoft peice doing on Slashdot?!

For the jokes you insensitive clod!

Re:No going back afterward!

[daigu]

Sure, you can image the drive. However, why is it that Microsoft get a free pass? If their product borks my system, they are off the hook simply because they told me their product might be defective and break it? It's one thing to take practical steps to make sure you don't lose your work. It's another to say that its okay for a company to sell defective "upgrades".

Re:Yes but

[h2_plus_O]

now the question is, why doesn't anybody do this?

Perhaps because in the past all such offerings from Microsoft have been crap and not worth using?
If I recall correctly, this feature only became usable in the XP timeframe, meaning Vista is the only upgrade cycle for which it's been viable. Given that widespread vista rollouts are waiting on SP1 or on just new hardware, it may be that nobody's had a real clear case to do so yet.

Good work!

[HomelessInLaJolla]

a life choice you made for yourself You have no credibility unless you're a hiring manager with a job opportunity.

A new fan!

[HomelessInLaJolla]

You're arrogant and confrontational If you are unable to tell that this was brought out by the trolls (including yourself), then you're a dumbass.

you weren't so stupid and ignorant...Since you away your life You're a bore. Did you have anything productive to say?

instead of calling people childish names Flamebait. Cite one example where I've lashed at someone in any context other than reaction. If you are unable to tell that this was brought out by the trolls (including yourself), then you're a dumbass.

Wouldn't that be nice? You have no credibility unless you're offering something productive.

If you're going to act like a fan club member then the least you could do is pay membership dues.

Re:A new fan!

[ResidntGeek]

"Brought out by the trolls"? Damn, I've heard some retarded defenses in my time, but... damn. That's one of the worst excuses I've ever heard. Because you were responding to criticism, it doesn't mean you're arrogant and call people childish names? Let me know how that one works out. By the way, for an unemployed man who spends his time waiting for jobs to seek him, you use the word "productive" rather a lot.

Re:A new fan!

[HomelessInLaJolla]

That's one of the worst excuses I've ever heard All is fair in love and war.

you're arrogant and call people childish names Cite one flame war which I have started.

you use the word "productive" rather a lot Did you have anything productive to add? No?

If you're going to act like a fan club member then the least you could do is pay membership dues.

Re:A new fan!

[ResidntGeek]

I am in awe. I have to discontinue this discussion, as your stupidity is impressively vast (even if some of it is affected for the purpose of drawing flames) and I don't see an easy means of penetrating it. I'll end with some advice: go get a job, you useless sack of guts.

My Xperience

[Avatar8]

I just bought a new gaming system a few weeks ago and it arrived last week. I thought I'd give Vista a try.

Specs: Core 2 Duo E6300, 2GB RAM, dual nVidia 8800 GTS 320Mb in SLI config, Seagate 320GB perpendicular storage SATA HD, ASUS P5N32 SLI mobo.

Installation was the best part. It asked a few questions and took off. I came back 30 minutes later to the sign-on screen. It went downhill from there.

I downloaded Vista updates (don't think there were many) which required a reboot. No big deal; reboot is rather quick ( Since I couldn't right click on the desktop to get my display settings, I dug into Control Panel. Looked for Display. Looked for Graphics. Aha, nVidia control panel. Interesting that it installed that. I wanted to extend my desktop to my second monitor. Only the single monitor choice was given. Checked device manager. Both graphics cards detected, but only one monitor. Checked 3D settings. It recognized my PC was SLI capable and recommended enabling it. Sure. "Accept or deny?" Accept. Reboot.

Back into control panel, nVidia panel. Still only one monitor choice even though I see both monitors now listed. I downloaded the 53Mb nVidia driver file. "Accept or deny?" Accept. (Crap, that Mac commercial is 100% true.) I'm on 15Mb fiber. Throughput was only 400KB/s and took this about five minutes. Installed, reboot.

Back into the panels. Still only sees one monitor. THAT'S IT!!! I'm done.

Out comes the XP Pro CD. Wipe the disk. Install.

I downloaded all 67 updates in less than 2 mins. Installed in about 7 mins.

Downloaded nVidia 53Mb driver at 1.7MB/s in less than 30secs. Installed. Reboot.

Right click, properties, settings, extend. Viola! Two 19" LCD monitors working together.

Downloaded Serive Pack 2 in one minute and installed in about 10 minutes.

No mas Vista. Estupido!

Re:My Xperience

[pnattress]

Well at least you persevered...

Seriously, you tried two things and then completely gave up? What are you going to do with your lovely new system when DX10 games start rolling out? Will you spend a bit longer trying to fix it then? I don't get what's with that attitude. If at first you don't succeed...

Re:My Xperience

[svendsen]

maybe he wanted to use his machine to play games and work and not bother with tech support?

not everyone buys a computer so they can trouble shoot, experiment, etc.

Re:My Xperience

[GISGEOLOGYGEEK]

That's hilarious. Troll much? what a crock o shit.

I had troubles installing vista (i posted above if you care) I know it can be a hastle, but you are so full of shit. ... I had absolutely no problem getting my dual monitors to work.

If the UAC system annoys you too much, especially when you've got lots of setup to do ... then TURN IT OFF! ... and turn it back on later when you're just running programs. It's no big deal. You know damn well that the accept / deny's don't happen nearly as often as in the misleading mac commercials.

With Vista, My download speeds are close to theoretical maximum for my connection. I'm getting 1000 to 1100 KB/s out of a possible 1200 KB/s on Shaw Extreme (Vancouver Canada). On the same hardware and connection with Windows XP I never saw over 300 KB/s. I have no clue why.

You're really just a troll aren't you? there's no way you could get XP upto SP2 with all patches in 20 minutes. I dont care what your download speed is ... You'd spend longer than that just on reboots.

So either you're a damn bullshitting troll ... or you really got sucked in to all the anti-vista crap and gave up on the first sign of having to think.

Way to go!

Re:My Xperience

[Bios_Hakr]

I'd suggest you check out NLite.

Copy your WinXP disc to a folder on the hard drive. Download SP2 from the MS site.

Download and extract (using winrar or 7zip) the drivers from NVIDIA. I have NForce mobo and NV graphics, so I need 2 files.

Start Nlite. Let it scan your WinXP CD folder.

Tell it to integrate the service pack.

Tell it to integrate the drivers folder.

Finish applying tweaks as desired.

Burn to CD and install with that. It'll detect your RAID array at install time with no need for a floppy. It'll detect and install the graphics card drivers.

Once you are done, use AutopatcherXP to install critical updates.

Re:My Xperience

[Avatar8]

I'm sorry you fail to believe, but everything I posted is absolutely true.

Some clarification for you:

- as someone pointed out, my dual monitor issue may have been with the nVidia driver. That's the hardware I chose, and if Vista doesn't support it correctly, then I choose to move away from Vista.

- Just as you cannot explain why XP has slow downloads for you, I cannot explain why Vista was slow for me. The one file I noted, latest nVidia 8800 driver, ~53Mb. In Vista with IE7, it capped out at 444KB/s and took several minutes to download. A little while later in XP with Firefox, it hit 1.73MB/s and downloaded in a few seconds. Exact same NIC, cable, router, fiber connection. Only difference was the OS and browser. I've noticed IE7 in XP is also slower, so I'll leave IE6 on XP now though I don't use it.

- I knew I could turn UAC off somehow, but I was much more interested in getting OS, patches and software loaded than having to deal with it. Granted spending 5-10 minutes to find it and turn it off would have saved me the headache of all those prompts. Yes, they did pop up after every other action that either accessed the internet, tried to install something or tried to access some device or part of the OS. The first few occurrences I expected, but after five or so it was tiresome and repetitious.

- I did indeed get UP TO SP2 within 20 minutes. The first wave of 67 patches all come down at once and install at once with a single reboot at the end. This took less than 2 minutes to download and about 10-12 minutes to install. THEN downloading and installing SP2 took a total of about 20 minutes more (I forgot the download or install times as I was doing other things). One more reboot.

I am neither of the things you claim. I was simply sharing my recent experience in relation to the Vista article.

Re:My Xperience

[Avatar8]

I've worked professionally with computers for 23 years. I can tell rather quickly when something is not working, inefficient or simply not meeting expectations. Troubleshooting does not necessarily mean beating your head against the wall.

I worked with it for 1.5 hours. I felt that was sufficient for my goals regarding this PC. UAC, poor downloading speeds and difficulty with my graphics card/monitor: that was enough frustration.

IF (big if) I see any DX10 game come out that interests me enough to try it, I expect by then Vista and driver issues will have been resolved OR there will be a XP DX10 conversion. Either way the bottom line is Vista is not for me at this time. Maybe later.

Re:My Xperience

[Avatar8]

Indeed.

Having worked with PC's for years and building my own systems over the past 6-7 years, I'm growing very tired of building, repairing, tinkering and tweaking my own system after having to do likewise at work. I just want my PC to work and let me do what I want to do when I want to do it. (I just described a Mac, but I couldn't justify the cost of one and I still need a PC for my work.)

This is a gaming system that also does remote server work, desktop publishing, speech and technical writing and some graphics editing. Having no computer for a day or two makes me edgy. I had alloted a certain amount of time to get this transition from the old system to the new one done. I had planned my steps to minimize my downtime. When Vista started giving me issues and exceeding that window of time, the choice was obvious: go back to what works.

I finished loading applications and restoring data last night. My acid test and comparison to the old system had me smiling. I loaded World of Warcraft (windowed) in record time, logged in and went to a highly populated area. 60 frames per second, smooth as glass. On my right screen I had Firefox up and surfed to some notoriously advertisement-laden, FPS draining pages. 58 FPS in WoW. I then opened Excel in under two seconds, as I'd normally do to pull up an enchanting spreadsheet or a raid strategy list. I even watched a YouTube video. 58 FPS.

Overall I'm extremely pleased with the machine, using XP and the combined performance of both.

Re:My Xperience

[lightversusdark]

I similarly had problems with video on Vista.

Tried my luck on a Dell P4 with an ATI Radeon 9550 in there, and in fact the reason I got around to installing Vista is because I had just reformatted this machine to do something under XP and had graphics problems.
XP would only give me 640x480/16cols, and installing ATI's Catalyst drivers munged the system so badly that starting over again was the best option. This was a clean install of XP aside from critical updates, hotfixes & .NET (.NET being required for the ATI driver/apps bundle, I think the Catalyst control panel applet is written in C#).
I figured I'd try Vista, interested to see what the out-of-the-box graphics support was like, and how the card would perform for Aero, etc.

Installed okay (I do like the new image based install - first impression was impressive).
First time boot to the desktop was, like XP, at 640x480/16col. Why can't MS drivers provide at least VESA resolutions?
I had read up that ATI's drivers for Vista weren't ready or out of beta or something (this is about two weeks ago), and after the XP debacle I wasn't prepared to tempt fate. So I opened up the Device Manager, and through "Update Driver", Vista sucked down a new MS ATI graphics update. Rebooted and had all the resolutions supported by my monitor as I would expect, better than XP so far. Ran Windows Update for the first time, and the update list also included an MS ATI graphics update. Although I immediately suspected that Windows Update hadn't picked up that I had "manually" installed the driver update, I still let the Windows Update run (all patches downloaded in under 10 mins FWIW), and of course it fell over on the ATI update installation. "Failed". Cue more headaches. Rollbacks. Crap.

So I'm pretty down on ATI and Windows.
ATI drivers for XP are crap, and MS support for the ATI cards seems to vary (I haven't experienced the same kind of problems on every ATI equipped XP install).
Don't update the drivers under Vista through the Device Manager, get them via Windows Update or else open up a whole new can of worms.

But!
I am getting over 1MB/sec down on a 10Mb/sec line. i.e. "close to theoretical maximum for my connection". Likewise this box under XP and every other XP machine on the network maxes out around 300KB. I can't explain this either, but others who have tried point to the fact that Vista is supposed to have a completely new TCP/IP software stack. I confess that I find it difficult to believe that this is making such a difference, but Occam's razor and all that.

And!
Remote Desktop Connection for Mac OS X, which hasn't been updated since 2004 but runs fine under Rosetta on an Intel Mac, works perfectly with Vista. (I'm a bit worried about drawing attention to this actually ;o)

So I haven't reformatted it yet, but I don't know if I'll be keeping it for up to 120 days. The screen fading in and out to ask "Cancel", or "Allow" is going to give me a seizure. It really is annoying, and Apple have done really well with their ad campaign - even when a machine is better set up, the user is going to see this message and think of Apple at least once or twice an hour.
MS should have plain ripped off the OS X "GUI sudo" process - MS cocked this up on Vista and everybody is going to end up disabling it, Apple's implementation is unobtrusive and intuitive. Sorry, but a feature that could theoretically improve security but really needs to be disabled for usable lightly demanding day-to-day operation is about as useful as SELinux.

It's such a pain to eject removable drives under Windows, I was amazed that they haven't touched the "Eject Hardware" system tray applet. It's just the same as under XP: my mother doesn't know it exists, or that she might need to do anything before pulling out her USB stick; left and right clicks show two different menus (where else in Windows - or any other MS app for that matter - is that the case?), the right click menu contains only a single option, whi

Re:No going back afterward!

[jawtheshark]

I don't want to sound like an Microsoft advocate, but... all Operating System upgrades are considered a "critical operation". All of them. OS X warns you, Debian GNU/Linux warns you, and OpenBSD most certainly warns you. (Just a small subset of operating systems I know) Upgrades can bork, and the people writing operating systems tell you to backup because they know that the upgrade could bork.

So, no Microsoft doesn't get a free pass.... Neither do any other operating system I know: they warn you and for good reason and it is right to do so. Backup... A USB harddisk isn't that expensive anymore.

Re:My experiences with Vista

[h2_plus_O]

* Disable UAC immediately. It's MORE annoying than you think. It really does do crap like "You just double clicked this program. Execute it? [ Allow ] [ Cancel ]" That's right, no joking, it's a worthless piece of crap that's more annoying than Clippy! All it does is train people to click "allow" for everything, which is absolutely terrible for security.

How is this not bad security advice? Disabling UAC will give you the exact same security problem you're saying is a bad thing- if you disable UAC, your entire session executes with elevated privilege, meaning that any successful exploit in your session gives your attacker the privileges of your full security token. Already-elevated processes conveniently don't ask for elevation privileges, because you've effectively bent over and clicked 'yes' to everything.
UAC is a good thing, even if it's annoying to deal with the prompts, simply because it provides defense in depth- it allows you to run your entire session as a least-privileged user, only asserting elevated privilege explicitly, rather than the other way around.
Also note: apart from installing or uninstalling apps, you'll rarely see UAC prompts. Once you've got your box set up, you rarely need that privilege.

Oxymoron Alert!

[mrbluze]

Windows Vista Setup does something smart

Does it require a new hard drive too?

[RalphTheWonderLlama]

It creates a folder called Windows.old in your root directory that contains your old Documents and Settings, Program Files and Windows folders.

Since my My Documents, My Music, My Pictures folders take up over half of my hard drive space, I'm guessing that's a bad idea.

Re:My experiences with Vista

[Drawsalot]

My Hauppauge PVR-150 works quite well with the Vista driver they have on their site. I installed iTunes a couple days ago, and read the known issues with it. I haven't had any problems so far. I don't use Word, and I haven't disabled UAC. Vista is prettier. So far my CPU use hovers around 4 or 5 % using Firefox, it climbs occasionally when launching applications, but hasn't went above 30 or 40 % so far. But then I haven't reinstalled any CPU intensive applications yet. AMD 4200+ X2, 4GB DDR CL 2.5, 500GB Sata, nVidia 6600 Silent, Vista Ultimate

Re:My experiences with Vista

[TheNetAvenger]

Apple was right about iTunes--do NOT install it yet, it will hose the system

Of course iTunes won't work, this is just another example of 'Apple' flexing its market dominance to hurt a competitor. :)

Another option for the technologically impared?

[Plekto]

Windows Vista Setup does something smart: It creates a folder called Windows.old in your root directory that contains your old Documents and Settings, Program Files and Windows folders."

Funny thing...

http://www.xandros.com/products/home/home_edition. html
The premium edition has a very nice utility that imports everything from Windows as well. The price? $40 of that is for CodeWeavers, which is optimized to run Windows apps directly in Linux. It also has free techinical support and a simple as can be upgrade and install application.

It's not Ubuntuu, but it is as close to "Linux for Dummies" as it gets(more hand-holding than even your grandmother would need), and by far the easiest to upgrade and adjust to when moving from Windows that I know of.

A steal at $60(if you look online) - Considering Codeweavers is $40 of that, it's really $20 for the two CDs, tech support and the manual - not too unreasonable for a newbie *ix user.

Re:My experiences with Vista

[VertigoAce]

Also note: apart from installing or uninstalling apps, you'll rarely see UAC prompts. Once you've got your box set up, you rarely need that privilege.

If you're doing a lot of configuration (or even installing a number of applications), start an elevated PowerShell session. Any applications that you launch will be elevated, so msiexec can be used for installing/uninstalling programs, mmc for configuring settings, etc.

Wait - Vista sucks, or nVidia?

[Namarrgon]

Sounds to me like all your problems were due to the current crappy state of nVidia's Vista drivers.

FWIW, I had pretty much the same experience. The difference being, instead of blaming Vista & going back to XP, I took out the nVidia card and put in an ATi card instead. No more problems, both monitors available, and Vista works as expected. I'll wait a few months before putting the nVidia card back in again.

The moral is the same - don't rush to install Vista. But do put the blame where it's due.

Re:Wait - Vista sucks, or nVidia?

[Avatar8]

You may be right about the nVidia drivers.

Switching video cards to stay with Vista is not a feasible solution especially after purchasing these high end cards. Besides my experiences with ATI have been negative, so a complete changeout as you suggested wouldn't happen.

It wasn't just the dual monitor/card issue either. It was the combination of the three issues I listed that made me realize I was wasting my time when I could be up and running on XP within two hours which is exactly what happened.

Bios_hakr posted another viable solution, but again, that's extra work that shouldn't have to be done to "fix" the OS.

Definitely not ready for Vista yet, or Vista isn't ready enough for me. :-)

Simple upgrad huh?

[GISGEOLOGYGEEK]

Funny how simple the upgrade process appears to be isn't it.

I like vista, I'm glad I upgraded ... but it was hell getting it working.

I upgraded from XP SP2 Pro to Vista Ultimate, and at the first reboot in the upgrade procedure I always got a BSOD. Nothing got me around it. I removed all unnecessary hardware, made sure my drivers were upto date including the motherboard drivers and bios ... I fiddled with everything, but I always got the same BSOD.

Searching for the BSOD error message on the internet gave me nothing, the same error code has been around since at least NT. At least I was still able to boot into XP instead of booting in to the Vista BSOD.

After 5 days of this, I ended up getting a new harddrive, my old one was way too small anyways. I did a clean install to the new drive and transferred my settings and files over. I had no driver problems or BSOD's ... a second install, this time as an upgrade using the license key (it was the cheaper upgrade license) and it's running great now.

Re:My experiences with Vista

[TimboJones]

Disable UAC immediately. It's MORE annoying than you think. It really does do crap like...

Here's a fun one: log on to a Vista machine as an administrator. Drag-n-drop a file from a network share (say, on your dev machine) to a subdirectory of Program Files. You get this exciting sequence of dialogs:

1. "These files have the same name", choose "Copy and Replace", "Don't Copy", or "Copy and Rename". Overall, an improvement over XP's dialog -- but HUGE.
2. Since Program Files has very restrictive permissions, "You will need elevated privileges to do this. [Continue] [Cancel]". This dialog is completely extraneous and without merit.
3. "Do you consent to elevate to perform this Administrative operation? [Consent] [Cancel]" If you were logged in as a standard user, you would have to type an administrator's password at this point. An admin user under Vista runs as a standard user until elevation is required, then encounters a slightly different UAC dialog. Logging in as admin just saves typing the password many times.
4. "You can't copy from a network share into Program Files." The operation fails. So copy to your desktop or some other user folder, then to Program Files. Then click through the first three dialogs again.

Vista heralds a wondrous new age of development for Windows. You heard it here first. Possibly also you just heard it here last.

Funny?

[nbucking]

This comment is not funny. The author of the linked article is plainly being taken out of context. He states later in the article that windows versions have *never* reduced overhead with new releases. I would have to disagree with this too because windows 95 had a little bit more overhead than windows 98. But thats just my opinion. If one requires less overhead than one simply requires a more suitable OS. If one likes more preloaded APIs then go for windows.

Flamebait

[HomelessInLaJolla]

your stupidity This is flamebait and can be ignored. You're just as bad as MH42.

Re:My Xperience - regarding downloads

[Douglas Goodall]

I had major trouble downloading Solaris ISO files from the sun site. I got about 80Kb/sec under Windows. I couldn't complete a download without a connection failure. Then I downloaded the stuff on my Mac using the same connectivity. 8Mb/sec, files complete the first time. IE only allows me 3 concurrent downloads, but Safari let me do what I want. I have switched and I am never going back.

Re:No going back afterward!

[east coast]

I know another user already replied with most of my thoughts on this but...

If their product borks my system, they are off the hook simply because they told me their product might be defective and break it?

First off, the GP didn't say that the upgrade fouled up his system at all. He seems to simply not like Vista. So I'm questioning where you got the "defective" part of this. Having something that is defective versus something you just don't like are two very different concepts. Anyway...

And to be honest? Yeah, a warning should be enough among the high and mighty of slashdot. It's odd that we sit in a forum where so many users pat themselves on the back for having such great insight into the world of technology and science but PC Support 101 type issues are too hard for some to grasp? Creating an image of a mission critical PC before an upgrade is a standard where I come from, not an extra step.

As I said in my original post on this; the user got off lucky. His system wasn't damaged. He didn't seem to lose any data. If the situation was different he certainly didn't make it seem that way.

All of the MS bashers out there get a great kick out of telling us how the unwashed masses would save themselves a boatload of problems by "simply switching to Linux and learning the new system". Is this true? If it's worth the efforts it takes to switch to another OS for the sake of security and reliability isn't it worth the "effort" it takes to image a system for the same reasons?