Deadude
Member
Registered: 30th Jun 07
Location: Spondon, Derby
User status: Offline
|
i used vista while it was in beta seemed good my 5.1 didnt work back then which i couldnt live without so went back to XP also 1gb ram couldnt cut it for me so mb when i get a bit more ill stick it on agen
|
cunningham
Member
Registered: 25th May 05
Location: Lochore, Fife
User status: Offline
|
what better things are offerd using vista over xp pro
[Edited on 15-11-2007 by cunningham]
|
drax
Member
Registered: 5th Feb 05
Location: Sittingbourne, Kent
User status: Offline
|
Just to let you guys know, 4GB of DDr2 OCZ ram = £70 on overclockers 
|
andy1868
Member
Registered: 22nd Jun 06
Location: Burscough, Lancashire
User status: Offline
|
can get it cheaper 
edit: although, with VAT, not much 
[Edited on 15-11-2007 by andy1868]
|
Neo
Member
Registered: 20th Feb 07
Location: Essex
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by John
Why
Full stop
John, to answer your question...
I work as a technical engineer on a network fully running vista (500 machines), except 3 pc's in my office ! The only thing that is "better" than XP in Vista is the look.
The indexing function is available in XP, networking is easier in XP, Installing using Group Policy is easier in XP.....For what i do with computers, i wouldn't recommend Vista.
For those saying its old fashioned to wait till SP1 of vista, i don't understand where your coming from. We have to download 6/7 Updates a day for compatability, and each day a new problem arrises due to one of these updates.
For home use, on a very powerful PC that you only intend to run internet and music then wicked, nothing to do apart from let it update when it asks, however if you use a PC for gaming, or graphic design, or PCDJ'ing...then get XP.
Just what i think 
|
Steve
Premium Member
Registered: 30th Mar 02
Location: Worcestershire Drives: Defender
User status: Offline
|
when we start recommending vista to our clients I can see it being a right pain in the ass trying to work out where various bits and bobs of users profile data needs to go copied from there old xp machine.
|
Richie
Member
Registered: 3rd Dec 02
Location: Newport, Wales
User status: Offline
|
User state migration tool does it all Steve.......
And the application compatabilty toolkit assesses all the users working stuff for 5-7 days and assists with the migration.
I'm in the process of doing a deployment for 5000+ machines in the UK and NL
|
Steve
Premium Member
Registered: 30th Mar 02
Location: Worcestershire Drives: Defender
User status: Offline
|
no time for any of that crap
|
Richie
Member
Registered: 3rd Dec 02
Location: Newport, Wales
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Neo
quote:
Originally posted by John
Why
Full stop
John, to answer your question...
I work as a technical engineer on a network fully running vista (500 machines), except 3 pc's in my office ! The only thing that is "better" than XP in Vista is the look.
Not sure where on earth you are coming from there. Your missing the added security benefits, machine utilisation and the fact that the HAL no longer exists........
The indexing function is available in XP, networking is easier in XP, Installing using Group Policy is easier in XP.....For what i do with computers, i wouldn't recommend Vista.
You are talking about nothing than it being easier? You are neglecting all the benefits and features. Group policy in Vista combined with SMS or SCCM does away with a shitload of logon KIX scripts which make up for alot of group policy stuff that cannot be done in XP.
You are also forgetting that because Vista no longer has a HAL.... you can create a unified DVD ISO image using BDD 2007 which will fully work on any piece of target company hardware.... meaning there is only one image that has to be maintained and updated instead of an image per hardware type. The cost saving in this is worth it alone... especially in a company my size.
[Edited on 15-11-2007 by Richie]
|
Richie
Member
Registered: 3rd Dec 02
Location: Newport, Wales
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Steve
no time for any of that crap
Then your a fool and wouldnt have you involved in my IT department?
The statement you just threw in implies that:
A) you perform no risk assessment or
B) you would rather deal with the heaps of shit and possible downtime afterwards, costing the business a considerable amount depending how their IT function integrates with the business.
|
Steve
Premium Member
Registered: 30th Mar 02
Location: Worcestershire Drives: Defender
User status: Offline
|
thanks for the assumption, you have o idea of our timescale or the clients, or indeed client setups and systems we install and replace.
fyi i have been in a full time technician role for 8+ years so would consider myself worthy enough to make such a statement
|
Richie
Member
Registered: 3rd Dec 02
Location: Newport, Wales
User status: Offline
|
Well I would disagree with it until the end.......
I've done IT for Transport for London (12,000+ client machines and nearly 100 bespoke applications) and I wouldnt even consider doing anything to their infrastructure without a major risk assessment and real time monitoring of users day to day activity.
|
John
Member
Registered: 30th Jun 03
User status: Offline
|
I work for a company with tens of thousands of employees and we're rolling over to vista soon.
|
Richie
Member
Registered: 3rd Dec 02
Location: Newport, Wales
User status: Offline
|
And its a very good move to take and any company would reap the benefits if done correctly.
John.... has your company taken advantage of a DDPS session with Microsoft? You get 15 days of their consultants on site as part of the enterprise agreement for Vista.
|
John
Member
Registered: 30th Jun 03
User status: Offline
|
I don't know tbh.
We are a microsoft whatever partner and i'm sure they have very high level agreements with MS.
End users won't notice any difference however.
|
Steve
Premium Member
Registered: 30th Mar 02
Location: Worcestershire Drives: Defender
User status: Offline
|
thats looking after one system,which regardless of how many clients is easier than looking after 500 different sites,each with there own network with on average 100 or so clients at each.
we dont have to do risk assessment, as the software they use is pre approved by the company who makes it.
my point is that i can see it causing headaches in installations, in that stuff is going to be in different places, plus theres so much crap to turn off like uac etc.
then theres problems if a pc crashes. Normally we'd get the hdd copy the data and rebuild. Now we're not gonna know where certain files are, for instance the .dbx files in application data that stores the users mail and settings in outlook express.
your probably managing your site[s] with group policies, that is impossible with us as a lot of sites are still on peer to peer workgroups
|
John
Member
Registered: 30th Jun 03
User status: Offline
|
The virtual folder thing pisses me off on my pc.
|
Steve
Premium Member
Registered: 30th Mar 02
Location: Worcestershire Drives: Defender
User status: Offline
|
yeah doesn't vista store stuff in folders that aren't actually there, or where they appear to be?
|
John
Member
Registered: 30th Jun 03
User status: Offline
|
Yip, not bothered finding a way around it yet.
|
cunningham
Member
Registered: 25th May 05
Location: Lochore, Fife
User status: Offline
|
so theres no benfits over xp for home use?
|
Steve
Premium Member
Registered: 30th Mar 02
Location: Worcestershire Drives: Defender
User status: Offline
|
ipv6 is also going to be a pain when thats becomes widespread
|
Richie
Member
Registered: 3rd Dec 02
Location: Newport, Wales
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Steve
thats looking after one system,which regardless of how many clients is easier than looking after 500 different sites,each with there own network with on average 100 or so clients at each.
Any right minded consultant would take the client away form such solutions? Our company globally consists of 40,000 employees. We have one domain, and one unified network. The cost saving is unreal....
Yes TFL was one client.... and i worked on over 90 different clients.... its all part of the deal
we dont have to do risk assessment, as the software they use is pre approved by the company who makes it.
thats just crazy. How can you be sure that an app from one company wont conflict with another? You cant without prior testing in a model office or a quality assurance model.
my point is that i can see it causing headaches in installations, in that stuff is going to be in different places, plus theres so much crap to turn off like uac etc.
then theres problems if a pc crashes. Normally we'd get the hdd copy the data and rebuild. Now we're not gonna know where certain files are, for instance the .dbx files in application data that stores the users mail and settings in outlook express.
thats all taken care of with USMT and BDD, even on HDD's with a dead OS. On your next EA with Microsoft, take them up on a free DDPS session.
your probably managing your site[s] with group policies, that is impossible with us as a lot of sites are still on peer to peer workgroups
yes it is impossible, thats why as a consultant you make them see all the benefits including cost.
[Edited on 15-11-2007 by Richie]
|
Richie
Member
Registered: 3rd Dec 02
Location: Newport, Wales
User status: Offline
|
Btw I'm talking clients as per company, not per machine.
|
Steve
Premium Member
Registered: 30th Mar 02
Location: Worcestershire Drives: Defender
User status: Offline
|
we can only advise, we aren't employees of our clients, they are funded by central govt. so have limited funds,so are generally reluctant to get the latest it equipment.
tbh you sound like know it all idiots we meet with quite often, throwing in random accronyms to make it sound like your hip an' happening in the IT world
i bet you drive around with a coat hanger and shirt in the back window too.
[Edited on 16-11-2007 by Steve]
|
Richie
Member
Registered: 3rd Dec 02
Location: Newport, Wales
User status: Offline
|
Far from it im afraid
My car is full of cans of Relentless and greggs wrappers
|
