RC2 vs RTM

  • Thread starter Thread starter Marty Felker
  • Start date Start date
M

Marty Felker

Given all the problems with the Vista RTM I've seen on this list.

1) Does it make sense to buy a downloaded version of Vista before the
Ultimate Beta times out next year.

2) Exactly what problems were solved between RC2 and RTM? Probably there
is a performance boost?

Should I wait for Vista Service Pack 1 (looks like it will be before the end
of 2007 - if not earlier)?
 
Marty said:
Given all the problems with the Vista RTM I've seen on this list.
Click to expand...

Now as much as I've been moaning about this and that, I need to make the
point here that you shouldn't judge an operating system purely based on its
technical support forum. To re-use an old analogy of mine, imagine if aliens
landed in the carpark of your local hospital and walked into the emergency
room. Would the impression of humans gained from a room full of sick moaning
people be fair to the human race as a whole?
1) Does it make sense to buy a downloaded version of Vista before the
Ultimate Beta times out next year.
Click to expand...

If you're not in a rush, wait for a while. Let someone else find the
immediate and worst bugs.
2) Exactly what problems were solved between RC2 and RTM? Probably
there is a performance boost?
Click to expand...

Performance has been worked on quite a bit, yeah.
Should I wait for Vista Service Pack 1 (looks like it will be before
the end of 2007 - if not earlier)?
Click to expand...

Can't give you an ETA but again, if there is nothing you need Vista for,
then why rush.
 
These are all judgments only you can make. As far as waiting for SP1, why
not wait for SP2?...er, no, SP3 might be even better...er...Oh, heck, Vienna
will be just around the corner....no, wait, Vienna SP1 might have all the
bugs worked out......

I guess the time to buy is when you perceive Vista to be more useful to you
than what you are using now. Or when you decide that you just want it.

I don't know where you might be able to buy a downloadable version. I have
heard no announcement that there will be any downloadable retail sku's.
Perhaps someone else has.

Good luck with your decision.
 
I think I will wait. I do expect Service Pack 1 to come out when enough
people scream alot about this and that (sometimes does work in the ER -
though not many I agree).

For the time being I can read/write to Vista from Linux using the throughly
tested (no compalints or problems) ntfs-3g drivers. Also I was lucky enough
to get and burn RC2 (both 32-bit run under VMware and 64 bit on "real
machine".

Dual boot with Windows XP x64 using Vista Bootloader. At one point XP
didn't see Vista - I liked that because of possible file corruption.
However now Vista shows up as Drive H -I would like to find a way to hide
device icon since I can no longer remove the drive letterl using Disk
Management. Windows XP x64 shows up as Drive D: in Vista - this is good.
Vista BootPro 3.1 does a great job simplifying BCD.
 
A heads up: You will get files losses in Vista everytime you boot into XP
unless you use a third party boot manager to hide Vista from XP. Using
BitLocker on the Vista volume will also prevent this. Otherwise such things
as your Vista System Restore Points, etc. are toast once you boot XP.
 
And Microsoft is going to release Vista to the public like this? This HAS to
be A SHOWSTOPPER bug even with RTM!!! Someone has to call BILL GATES and
tell him to DELAY VISTA AT ALL COSTS ASAP. If Vista is Deleting files after
you dual boot into XP than that is not good at all. The general public won't
know about the work around and when they go to boot back into Vista they
will be pissed that it won't work.
 
michael said:
And Microsoft is going to release Vista to the public like this? This
HAS to be A SHOWSTOPPER bug even with RTM!!! Someone has to call
BILL GATES and tell him to DELAY VISTA AT ALL COSTS ASAP. If Vista is
Deleting files after you dual boot into XP than that is not good at
all. The general public won't know about the work around and when
they go to boot back into Vista they will be pissed that it won't
work.
Click to expand...

The "general public" will think you're talking about Zorro's footwear the
moment you mention "duel boot" and the conversation won't improve from
there.
 
It was well discussed over the past two years and that was the decision. I
hate it too. But like I said, at least use a boot manager capable of hiding
partitions. What I think they should have done is refined the Vista
bootloader so that you could hide partitions without a third party solution.

Of course the impact is not what you would first think. No IT department in
any bank or insurance company, etc. is going to allow dual boot machines on
the floor. Only a fraction of one percent of consumers are ever going to do
it either. Given the relatively small numbers of people who ever dual boot,
I can see why MS has made the decision that they do.

Dual booting is a developer and technology enthusiast (aka geek) phenomenon
and with virtualization isn't as necessary for us as it used to be. The
reason it is so much discussed here is that we are...well...pretty much
geeks. (Let the flaming begin)

I run nothing prior to XP SP2 on metal anymore. I run everything from DOS
6.22 to Win 2000 in virtual machines. All kinds of Linux distros as well.
But that's just me. Sure gets rid of old hardware, though.
 
Colin said:
It was well discussed over the past two years and that was the decision. I
hate it too. But like I said, at least use a boot manager capable of hiding
partitions. What I think they should have done is refined the Vista
bootloader so that you could hide partitions without a third party solution.
FACK


Of course the impact is not what you would first think. No IT department in
any bank or insurance company, etc. is going to allow dual boot machines on
the floor. Only a fraction of one percent of consumers are ever going to do
it either. Given the relatively small numbers of people who ever dual boot,
I can see why MS has made the decision that they do.
Click to expand...

Nevertheless it is most important to make this 'feature' of dual
booting the new flagship with the 'legacy' one well known!
To all 'geeks' in cyberspace;-)
Dual booting is a developer and technology enthusiast (aka geek) phenomenon
and with virtualization isn't as necessary for us as it used to be. The
reason it is so much discussed here is that we are...well...pretty much
geeks. (Let the flaming begin)
Click to expand...

No flaming... it's facts and figures we need:-)
I run nothing prior to XP SP2 on metal anymore. I run everything from DOS
6.22 to Win 2000 in virtual machines. All kinds of Linux distros as well.
But that's just me. Sure gets rid of old hardware, though.
Click to expand...

I can't imagine that you do that for other purposes than just for fun!

Nevertheless I like the idea of a Museum of Computer Operating Systems
(MOCOS (tm)) - a musée vivant, indeed!
(Which is an element of a comprehensive Computer Museum which is part
of a Museum of Science and Technology...)

rOy cOOrne
 
Colin said:
A heads up: You will get files losses in Vista everytime you boot into XP
unless you use a third party boot manager to hide Vista from XP. Using
BitLocker on the Vista volume will also prevent this. Otherwise such things
as your Vista System Restore Points, etc. are toast once you boot XP.
Click to expand...

Is this true the other way round, too - i.e. will booting into Vista
lead to file losses in XP?

Roy
 
I can't imagine that you do that for other purposes than just for fun!

How so? IT folks are running virtual server farms this way (using Virtual
Server). People are doing mission-critical work from virtual machines
(VPC).

Since I have software that cannot run on anything later than DOS 6.22/Win95,
how else to do it? Not only do I not have room for a ten year old computer,
why should I spend money to maintain it?

My Win95 vm starts up in seven or eight seconds. It performs at orders of
magnitude faster than it ever could on the hardware of its time. I use
virtual hard drives with capacities not dreamt of when Win95 was current.
Not only that, if I need another Win95 machine for some reason (like
connectivity testing) I just make another copy, change the SID or something,
and just run it too.

It is fun having a library of legacy computers all stored in the space of an
external hard drive but think of the money and space saved by not keeping
old hardware around just for testing stuff or just to have as reference when
helping others troubleshoot their legacy OS problems.
 
No. Vista is XP-aware throughout. After all XP already existed. No
problems for XP in a dual boot scenario. Just for Vista.

btw, since the Volume Shadowcopy Services driver is one of those that do not
run when you start in Safe Mode, booting into XP in Safe Mode does not harm
the Vista files in question.

In case you ever wondered why you could restore to a system restore point in
Safe Mode but not set a new srp, this is why. VSS takes the snapshot SR
needs to make a new srp.
 
Colin said:
No. Vista is XP-aware throughout. After all XP already existed. No
problems for XP in a dual boot scenario. Just for Vista.
...
Click to expand...

THX for this important clarification!


rOy
 
Back
Top