In comp.arch.embedded,
The Real Andy <t...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> If you are an engineer and you want to fiddle with everything and run
> outdated software, then Vista is a no go. 

Ok, that's a no go for almost everyone in this group then. ;-)

-- 
Stef    (remove caps, dashes and .invalid from e-mail address to reply by mail)

The Real Andy wrote:
> OK, many myths in this thread. Vista is fine so long as you dont have
> software that directly addresses hardware. It will run fine on 1gb of
> memory. There is no performance loss, in fact there are increases in
> certain areas. It does index everything which can slow down file
> operations occasionaly, but this can be disabled. I have been using
> Vista since it was released and I am yet to have any problems. I did
> upgrade my memory at one stage, but this was only so I could run
> several instances of virtual pc, as you would also have to do with xp
> 
> If you are an engineer and you want to fiddle with everything and run
> outdated software, then Vista is a no go. If you want something that
> works out of the box on a new pc then vista is fantastic. IF you want
> to install vista on old hardware, then I would probably give it a
> miss.

And if you need Vista to work with old hardware, also give it a miss ?

Many embedded designs have long version control time-lines, and need to
work with fixed software versions.
Of course, this market is so small, Microsoft do not care.

-jg

Stef wrote:
> In comp.arch.embedded,
> The Real Andy <t...@nospam.com> wrote:
> 
>>If you are an engineer and you want to fiddle with everything and run
>>outdated software, then Vista is a no go. 
> 
> 
> Ok, that's a no go for almost everyone in this group then. ;-)

Yes - With the 'want to run outdated software', changed to 'need to run 
outdated software' - version control often removes
option/luxury of 'want' ;)

-jg

Jim Granville wrote:
> Stef wrote:
>> In comp.arch.embedded,
>> The Real Andy <t...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>> If you are an engineer and you want to fiddle with everything and run
>>> outdated software, then Vista is a no go. 
>>
>>
>> Ok, that's a no go for almost everyone in this group then. ;-)
> 
> Yes - With the 'want to run outdated software', changed to 'need to run 
> outdated software' - version control often removes
> option/luxury of 'want' ;)
> 

Exactly. But it's not just engineers. Many businesses run legacy MRP 
systems and a change can be extremely expensive. MS used to have an ok 
attitude towards backward compatibility. That seems to have noticeably 
changed with Vista, to the point where they might discover that they 
just shot themselves in the foot.

Yesterday during the dog walk we met a friend who owns a business and 
just bought a round of new PCs. His comments about this new stuff 
consisted mostly of words like "stinks, pain in the neck, sluggish, 
resource hog" and so on.

-- 
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.

//chop
>> What experiences have people had with Vista?
//chop
> 
> Vista is OK performance wise but it is incompatible with older
> programs like Visual C++ 6.0.

I believe Visual C++ 6 WILL work on Vista.  Microsoft does not support 
it perhaps, but it works as far as I can tell.

Cheers,
Jody

CBFalconer wrote:
> I think you are mistaken.  The future is Linux, possibly Ubuntu.
Debian maybe, but come on... Ubuntu is to Debian what Vista is to Win2K
(or so).

ygtroll

On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 22:14:11 +1200, Jim Granville
<n...@designtools.maps.co.nz> wrote:

>The Real Andy wrote:
>> OK, many myths in this thread. Vista is fine so long as you dont have
>> software that directly addresses hardware. It will run fine on 1gb of
>> memory. There is no performance loss, in fact there are increases in
>> certain areas. It does index everything which can slow down file
>> operations occasionaly, but this can be disabled. I have been using
>> Vista since it was released and I am yet to have any problems. I did
>> upgrade my memory at one stage, but this was only so I could run
>> several instances of virtual pc, as you would also have to do with xp
>> 
>> If you are an engineer and you want to fiddle with everything and run
>> outdated software, then Vista is a no go. If you want something that
>> works out of the box on a new pc then vista is fantastic. IF you want
>> to install vista on old hardware, then I would probably give it a
>> miss.
>
>And if you need Vista to work with old hardware, also give it a miss ?
>
>Many embedded designs have long version control time-lines, and need to
>work with fixed software versions.
>Of course, this market is so small, Microsoft do not care.
>
>-jg

I know, this is why the linux engineers cant make me a build
environment for the 5 year old hardware I have, but the CE stuff will
still compile using a vista box. I guess ms does not care.

On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 11:12:54 +0200, "Boudewijn Dijkstra"
<b...@indes.com> wrote:

>Op Thu, 19 Jun 2008 10:40:42 +0200 schreef The Real Andy  
><t...@nospam.com>:
>> On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 17:53:29 -0700 (PDT), rickman <g...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I have been looking to buy a new computer for a bit and I had just
>>> about decided on a Windows XP based system from Dell.  Today I called
>>> them and found that not only are they not going to sell XP machines
>>> after tomorrow, but the orders are flooding in!  It seems pretty crazy
>>> to me that if XP is still that popular, they would stop selling it.
>>> Is this something mandated by MicroSoft?
>>>
>>> So the question is, is Vista ready for prime time?  I have heard
>>> nothing but bad about it and I know that a lot of software vendors
>>> have yet to support it... at least the last time I looked.  Are the
>>> rumors true of Vista being a PITA or just plain incompatible?  Is it
>>> time to switch to Linux?
>>>
>>> What experiences have people had with Vista?
>>
>>
>> OK, many myths in this thread. Vista is fine so long as you dont have
>> software that directly addresses hardware.
>
>Like device drivers, that have to be signed by MS?

Why do I not have any problems?

>
>> It will run fine on 1gb of
>> memory. There is no performance loss, in fact there are increases in
>> certain areas. It does index everything which can slow down file
>> operations occasionaly, but this can be disabled. I have been using
>> Vista since it was released and I am yet to have any problems. I did
>> upgrade my memory at one stage, but this was only so I could run
>> several instances of virtual pc, as you would also have to do with xp
>>
>> If you are an engineer and you want to fiddle with everything and run
>> outdated software, then Vista is a no go. If you want something that
>> works out of the box on a new pc then vista is fantastic. IF you want
>> to install vista on old hardware, then I would probably give it a
>> miss.
>
>If you need more expensive and power-hungry hardware to be able to perform  
>mostly the same tasks, then I cannot possibly consider it an "upgrade".   
>And if you really need eye-candy to prevent you from becoming depressed,  
>then there are IMHO better ways to spend your money.
>
>So how can you say that Vista is fine?
 
Sigh..... The hardware is cheaper, your microwave draws more power...

On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 08:40:23 -0700, Joerg
<n...@removethispacbell.net> wrote:

>Jim Granville wrote:
>> Stef wrote:
>>> In comp.arch.embedded,
>>> The Real Andy <t...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> If you are an engineer and you want to fiddle with everything and run
>>>> outdated software, then Vista is a no go. 
>>>
>>>
>>> Ok, that's a no go for almost everyone in this group then. ;-)
>> 
>> Yes - With the 'want to run outdated software', changed to 'need to run 
>> outdated software' - version control often removes
>> option/luxury of 'want' ;)
>> 
>
>Exactly. But it's not just engineers. Many businesses run legacy MRP 
>systems and a change can be extremely expensive. MS used to have an ok 
>attitude towards backward compatibility. That seems to have noticeably 
>changed with Vista, to the point where they might discover that they 
>just shot themselves in the foot.
>
>Yesterday during the dog walk we met a friend who owns a business and 
>just bought a round of new PCs. His comments about this new stuff 
>consisted mostly of words like "stinks, pain in the neck, sluggish, 
>resource hog" and so on.

If you think this is restricted to MS then you are all fools. If I try
and run mac software from 10 years ago I am going to have greif. If I
try and run linux software from 10 years ago I am going to have greif.
Why is MS so different? I deal with all this shit everyday, not just
MS. Why cant the software designed to run on redhat 6 that I currently
have not run on the current version of redhat? IT will if its
upgraded, just like the NT4 software I have.

What is the latest news on WinFS?  Assuming it will only be available for
Vista, that would the major enhancement that would make Vista a worthwhile
upgrade.