Vista 64 bit or 32 bit on New Computer?

  • Thread starter Thread starter patetc
  • Start date Start date
Hey Todd,
The largest complaint I get is the application
incompatibility: buy a new version or spend hours
on the phone with some guy in India.
Click to expand...

Oh dear, that's never fun, especially as they can't understand a word
you are saying or have any technical experience on the products.
I have had one customer write in 4 inch letters
on a paper across her new Vista computer's
screen: "I HATE VISTA". As it transpires,
UPS World Ship does not run on Vista and she
lives or dies by shipping product. (Which
was her fault for not asking me before she
bought her new computer.)
Click to expand...

Yeah that's not good, of course you could blame the software developers
for that. I almost guarantee it's down to writing files in stupid places,
as opposed to creating per user/secure applications that don't litter your
machine with files in stupid places. Ultimately (I know it might not seem
like it now), but it will improve software in the long run.
I can not tell you the problems Vista has caused
with Quick Books, which you can fix by upgrading
to the latest version and downloading the latest
service packs (version 2008 - 2009 is suppose to
work out of the box).

My customer's experience with Vista has been nothing
but pain.
Click to expand...

:( That's a shame, again these are all 3rd party issues though, and not
Microsofts (technically speaking). In order to create a new operating
system, you can't maintain all backward compatability, otherwise it just be
the same sh1t but in a different box and with a different theme applied to
it. I know that doesn't help you and your clients, but get onto the case of
the devs creating the software you use and tell them to get it working in
the latest version of Windows *before* it is released. For companies to
wait it's just plain laziness and they deserve to lese business by not
keeping their finger on the pulse imo.
And the public has noticed this too. Microsoft is
laying off and loosing money like crazy. And it is all
in the OS (Vista) division. See:
http://www.infoworld.com/article/09/01/22/Windows_culprit_in_microsoft_layoffs_1.html
Note that Vista-ish Windows 2008 server is even
making a profit. It is just Vista that is getting
clobbered.
Click to expand...

I don't deny that Vista has done Microsoft's reputation some damage, but
that whole layoff thing? Come on, Microsoft are renowned for doing that,
employ loads of staff, run a few projects, sack a load of staff, hire some
more staff and repeat. Big companies always do that. You've also got to
take in for account the current state of the economy, everyone has lost
money, including Microsoft.
As for your correct assumption that benchmarks can
be manipulated (I do not see this one as having been),
all I can say is that it is also my and my customer's
experience that Vista is a slow hog.

Vista does have some pretty new features and the
sound effects are nice. If your applications
work with it and you like all the new and exciting
eye candy (which drives me nuts) and your applications
run just fine at half speed, go for it.
Click to expand...

lol! I wouldn't even say it's explicitly half the speed, benchmarks
don't show real world performance, neither do stress tests. But yeah, it is
"slower", mainly down to the higher demand for ram. Which Windows 7 seems
to be improving from what I've experienced of it so far, running in a VPC
it's allot faster than its predecessor, although still not prime candidate
for using in a VPC.
I really hope Microsoft pulling itself out of
the fire with W7. If Microsoft goes out of
business it will hurt us all. On the good
new front, I have heard it rumored that W7
has gotten a lot better. (Now if I could
only download the stinking beta without
have to sign up for that annoying One Live
thing ... I have a virtual machine ready
and awaiting -- be fun to compare it with
my virtual Vista, Edsel edition.)
Click to expand...

I'm sure it will be better, they do listen and have taken allot of the
critisism. Remember XP when it was released? It was a pile of sh1t, and
blue screened for me continually until I got a few updates. All software
has bugs, yup, that includes Linux and Mac software. I know it's not good
being the guinee pig at times with these things, but sometimes that's the
only way, real world users can find problems that professional testers never
touch ;)

Go on, grab yourself an account, you know you want to! lol!

Nick.
 
Huh? Linux is 50% faster that XP on the same hardware
as XP. Probably 100% faster that Vista. And, Linux
is tons and tons more secure than any Windows product.
You do not have to cripple a product to make it more
secure. Yes Microsoft did put some nice things into
Vista, but it is not worth the bloat.
Click to expand...

Who said anything about Linux? Linux is a different kettle of fish imo.
Horses for courses... I personally don't like Linux as it's installed
seamlessly for me and i'm not a Linux geek to be able to resolve the torrade
of problems in getting it up and running. That's just through my experience
of trying out new distributions from time to time.
To get Vista accepted by the public, it should have
at a minimum:
1) made it faster than XP
2) made it 100% compatible with all existing XP
software
Click to expand...

That compatability thing is a red herring though, you can't make a new
operating system that functions in a new way and maintain compatability,
otherwise the changes are lost and it's no different from the original
operating system. I can only presume that you aren't aware of some of the
major technical changes to Vista which has broken compatability?
It didn't. Instead, Microsoft decided to diss its
user base big time. Windows is not a "nice" operating
system. It never has been. It "spectacular" success
has always been is application base. There are
at least 4 or more applications for anything you
want to run. There is tons of choice. Not so
with Linux or Apple. Diss'ing the application
base was a bad move, really bad move.
Click to expand...

Anti MS.... bla bla
I really hope W7 fixes this. I hate to hear
any company having to lay off people because
of a bad decision. But, Ford survived the
Edsel, so should Microsoft survive Vista.
Click to expand...

I think you need to read up on the state of the economy too, that's a
big factor in those layoffs.

Nick.
 
That is simply untrue. 99% of existing 32 bit apps will run just fine in
64 bit Vista. The only exceptions are those that require some sort of
device driver AND there is no 64 bit driver available.
Click to expand...

That's not the biggest killer though imo, it's really fundamental
software design issues by the application developers. Too many programs
writing files to folders they shouldn't, such as the program files folder
the app sites in, that one security change that requires admin priviledges
as broken loads of applications. I mean how many programs are truely multi
user compliant? and I mean down to Microsoft specification. Hardly any
because the developers can't be bothered to check for compliancy.

Then again if a user isn't bothered about the security benefits of
Vista, they should disable the UAC and get a virus, leave them to it! lol!

I hate the way Microsoft secure their software, it stops unsecure
software from functioning (via logic) and Microsoft get the blame! Well
f*ck me! There were pre-releases of Vista available long before it was
released so they have no excuse why they didn't check for compatability
before that time. Laziness!

Nick.
 
nak said:
I'm sure it will be better, they do listen and have taken allot of
the critisism. Remember XP when it was released? It was a pile of
sh1t, and blue screened for me continually until I got a few updates.
All software has bugs, yup, that includes Linux and Mac software.
Click to expand...

Some day I should tell you about the time I tried to cut a data DVD
on Linux and got my entire file system hosed. You are correct, they
all have bugs. The ones with peer review have far less, but when
then do go off, the results can be spectacular.
I
know it's not good being the guinee pig at times with these things, but
sometimes that's the only way, real world users can find problems that
professional testers never touch ;)

Go on, grab yourself an account, you know you want to! lol!

Nick.
Click to expand...

Hi Nick,

Only a year or so ago, a technical conversation like
our would have degraded into a lot of third parties
slinging insults and worse. I thoroughly enjoyed
your comments. I do hope this kind of civility
continues. Maybe it has to do with the rise of
virtual machine: you get to see each OS's strengths
and weaknesses.

Virus removal is one of my specialties (I actually
get a blast out of defeating someone who is trying
to hurt and innocent victim.) I am no seeing Vista
as any less immune to the bad guys as XP ever was.
I do know there are a few out there that XP is
specifically open to, but the majority are
equal opportunity infectors. Lately, the big
issue has been those targeted at IE. And,
Vista or W7 can not do a lot to help that as
long as Microsoft insists that Windows Explorer
and Internet Explorer be so closely linked.
The biggest security improvement I would have
liked to see Microsoft make would to have been separating
the two. Make IE just a browser, like Firefox.
Much better than the UAC. Compromise IE and
you have compromised the file system. ActiveX
being a bad guys playground does not help either.

Bearing in mind, I only get called when things go wrong,
I am just not seeing a security improvement from
the UAC. It just comes off as annoying. (I don't
turn it off, just in case I may be wrong.) I would
love it if Microsoft took a page from both Linux
and Apple on their installers: they just pop up
with a request for the root (administrator's) password.
Gets the user's attention, instead of annoying him
to the point where he "ignores" all the UAC messages.
(My customers do not even read them -- they just
blast past them. A real bad idea.)

-T
 
Bob said:
Yep. That is *exactly* how UAC is supposed to work. The people who
complain about it simply do not understand, or haven't left it on long
enough. Yes, right after installing Vista it comes up all the time,
but quickly settles down.

I leave it on and would never turn it off.
Click to expand...

An interesting article:
http://www.infoworld.com/article/08/04/14/Vista-security-is-annoying-by-design_1.html

... where David Cross, Microsoft's product unit manager
for Windows security, discussed the company's security
directions post-Vista. "The reason we put UAC into the
platform was to annoy users. I'm serious," Cross is
quoted as saying.

"annoy users" ?!?!? Really!

-T
 
ToddAndMargo said:
Huh? Linux is 50% faster that XP on the same hardware
as XP. Probably 100% faster that Vista. And, Linux
is tons and tons more secure than any Windows product.
You do not have to cripple a product to make it more
secure. Yes Microsoft did put some nice things into
Vista, but it is not worth the bloat.

To get Vista accepted by the public, it should have
at a minimum:
1) made it faster than XP
2) made it 100% compatible with all existing XP
software
Click to expand...

& make it 100% compatible with Win98, Win95, Win3.1 software as well,
hell me should have keep Dos......
 
Gary said:
& make it 100% compatible with Win98, Win95, Win3.1 software as well,
hell me should have keep Dos......
Click to expand...

Gary, you are missing the point. You need to put yourself
into your customers shoes.

1) You have a perfectly functioning computer that
you make a living off of. It has perfectly good
software that you have build countess thousands
of dollars of intellectual property into. You
feed your family with this thing.

2) You need to replace the computer for some
reason -- for some reason only their tech guy understands

3) You buy a new computer. You buy it with
an Microsoft operating system because you have no reason
not to trust Microsoft, as they have done well in the
past.

4) Suddenly, almost everything you have struggled
to build up over the years does not work.
If it is even available, you have to purchase
new software to replace what was working perfectly in
before. The new software is different to the
point you have to stop everything and relearn it.
And/or spend endless hours on the phone with someone
who barely speaks your language. Vista has just
cost this customer hundreds and possibly up to
millions of dollars. What does work, now runs
at a crawl.

Why? Because of some mumbo jumbo the customer
does not under stand and never will care to?

The Bottom line is Vista just hurt this customer
and he do not care why. THEY DO NOT CARE WHY!
Only that Vista hurt them. (They get in
my face over it and I didn't even write the
damn thing!) And the mumbo jumbo is taken
VERY BITTERLY as an EXCUSE for causing damage
to their company.

And all the good will Microsoft has build up with them
over the years is now gone.

Bottom line. Don't worry about 4 bit code compatibility,
just make it compatible with what he has (XP).
Make a "compatibility box" for it if you have to.
Just do not harm your customers.

And, the bad guys have long figured out how to get
around Vista's meager jabs at improved security.
So, do not use security as an excuse. If Microsoft was
ever serious about security they would have dropped
ActiveX and fixed the hundreds and hundreds of
security flaws in IE (or better yet, just dropped
IE all together). Vista and malware are rock
and roll good times. No improvement made.

All the above seems backward and closed minded to
the programmers. I would even venture
to say extremely frustrating. But it is the seeds
you sow when you ignore the affect you have on
your customers.

No one and I mean no one would expect this to happen
to them if they brought there car in for a simple
repair and got Vista back. They would sue the
repair shop into the next century. Yes, Vista is
far more than a simple repair, but the customer
does not see it that way.

You can write me back a 200 page scholarly
explanation as to why all this had to be done.
You could win a Pulitzer prize for it. To the
customer it is mumbo jumbo and you just hurt him.

-T
 
Back
Top