Anyone here rushed out to get the latest and greatest from Windas?.
How disappointed were you?.
I've heard a lot of hard luck stories from people around town here that couldn't get the thing to work properly, mainly due to lack of RAM on thier computers.
Any one heard of anyone that is doing OK with it?.

I am still running W/98SE here and never found a compelling need to switch. The more I see XP the happier I am about the decision. You certainly have to stop swapping hardware around when you start using these DRM releases and I am a hardware hacker. I understand Vista is even more specific about the hardware configuration it was installed on

Does Vista have the capabilities to drive Intel's latest and greatest CPUs?

I can't remember if it was the "Core Duo" or another Processor, but in order for that CPU to fully function, the Operating System needed to have capability.
Seems like it [ the CPU ]was able to work as a 64 Bit CPU under compatible Operating Systems, or run kind of like "Standard Mode" under non compatible OS's.

Sounds a lot like the 80386 scenario, with Windows 3.1 / 3.11 WFW and the "Virtual 386 Mode"

Remember how the 80286 could run in "Enhanced Mode" (or was that "Extended Mode"?), or in "Real Mode" - but a full reset was required to switch modes?

Anyhow, is Vista a 64 Bit OS - or capable for a 64 Bit Intel CPU?

Nevertheless, I am satisfied with XP Pro.
So far, it is the most stable + workable OS from Redmond Washington based personnel (Microsoft) I have dealt with.

"Old Windows" (3.0, 3.1 and 3.11 Windows For Workgroups) running on top of MS DOS 5.0, 6.0, 6.2 and 6.22 were "OK" - if frequent hangs were not a bother.

Running Real-Mode + DPMI Applications under MS DOS was the most stable during those earlier years (1990-1995).

When Windows '95 came out, I waited until mid 1996 to go that route.
Built a brand new Pentium P5 166 Mhz based machine, and installed Win 95 on it.
Absolutely LOVED WIN 95!!! It was like coming out of the Stone Age to the Industrial Age!

Windows 98 was so extremely buggy, I waited until like 2002 to even think of using it for an OS.
When I finally obtained a stable version of Win 98, it was "OK"

Then came XP Pro (version 2.5xxx from one update and patch kit).
So far my favorite!

When XP first came out, I had all kinds of trouble calls from friends + family (XP Home first release), so everyone get ready to hear from those distant relatives and friends who only call when Haley's Comet nears the Earth - because here comes Vista!!!


Maybe after 18 Months of "Delta Testing" for Vista, and a new machine to run it on, it may find its way on the drive as an optional Operating System.

Scott

Vista does come in a 64 bit version. BUT: I watched a video online that shows how every side of the box it says 64 bit compliant, once you attempt to load it, you will have to go to Microsoft web site and pay another 10 dollars for the DVD-ROM with the 64 bit software. The only indication on the box was in very small print on the bottom edge of the box saying something like 'link to 64 bit accesss included'.

I'm not a great fan of any version of Windows, but I do have 98SE on this system I'm using at the moment.

I don't like XP one bit. One client has it on his main system, and I've found it to be an absolute pain trying to port DOS applications to it. I've wasted hours trying to fine-tune settings to get the display correct and to let the application access printers etc. without XP "getting in the way." Same goes for ME.

I've yet to see Vista, but by all accounts I've seen so far it's all window dressing (no pun intended!) and little actual substance. Time will tell, I suppose.

I see no point in upgrading to something just for the sake of it, and will quite happily use old versions of an O/S or package if it does all that's required of it.

Another place I maintain the computers/software for is using custom software that I wrote with Turbo Pascal 5, under DOS 4.01 O/S. It's quick, reliable, and doesn't use a gazillion bytes of disk or RAM to do its job.

Back in the olden days when DOS was a mainframe operating system, competing with it's big brother "OS/360" there was a cartoon floating around that summed it up. OS was represented as a fat giant in a loincloth with a big ugly club and DOS was a small muscular guy in a superman suit.
In 1964 DOS was a true multitasking OS that ran in 16k of storage with up to 3 partitions of applications running concurrently.
Microsoft didn't get that going until W/95

Which O/S are you talking about here? PC/MS-DOS 1.0 was introduced in 1981 with the original IBM PC, taking some of its features from CP/M, with Unix adding a little influence too.

Spot on with the general idea though. Mainframe systems were happily running multi-tasking efficiently and reliably in the 1960s and Windows still can't get it right.

System 360 DOS, long before Bill Gates, Altair or CPM.
Computers were still the size of a van

Ah, the old IBM 360, gotcha!

I grew up spending a lot of time playing around with software under the RSTS O/S on an old PDP-11/40.

Yes, I have. Or rather my school has. The computer lab at my school just got 35 new Dells w/ Vista.


Very. Couldn't access anything without a security error popping up. Even when the lab teacher booted it from the "un-ITed around with" partition on the drive.


These Dells had 512MB of RAM, but older 64MB AGP cards. They ran Vista Business, so the graphics were choppy, at best.



As I said in the "Punish PC thread," my neighbors up the street had an eMachines, that had 1GB RAM, and a 128MB AGP card, w/ Vista Home Basic. They threw it to the curb since it was slow and had a bad NIC and PCI slots. As that post also said, it failed its flight test, after I tried it out 'Offline.'

Ian A.

In 1969 IBM thought teaching hardware guys some software was a good idea. I got started with 360 assembler just as a hobby in the course. IBM abandoned the idea but I stayed interested in asembler. dBase scripts, PC Basic and PC assembler are not all that different. It is amazing how blaoated the software has become when you can do, basically everything we are doing here tonight in about 30k of code but we are all lugging around somewhere between 200meg and a gig of bloatware to do the same thing.

My feelings exactly Greg. As Ian's post emphasizes, we have vast hardware resources now at unbelievably low prices compared to what memory and disk space used to cost, and yet the bloated modern O/S and applications still have problems carrying out tasks which a 30-year-old system could have done simply and efficiently in a fraction of the space.

Linux=Wigwam: No windows, no gates, apache inside.

LOL Gloria.

Found on the Net:

Never had any problems with MS. I just learn the foibles and use it like any other tool.
I'll probably upgrade to Vista when the time comes.

Alan

Alan, nice signature

IA