vista?

[adam]

i've put this in general chat rather than the pc section as i feel its something we all have to deal with at some point
to intoduce myself in context i've messed around with pcs in depth for about 10years now and am definately an above average capability user of windows based programs. i love xp it does every thing i want it too but i'm trying vista again
ive tried vista maybe 4 times since beta and hated it everytime but because i try so many programs and never turn off the pc my xp has become so slow i'm trying vista again. i've stopped just about every process to make it usable and its running ok but i'm left with 1 main question and 1 main gripe.
the question is what av/firewall is best to use - i used kaspersky on xp but towards the end it was so system intensive i couldnt use the pc during a scan so i never let it scan, kinda reducing the point of it.
the gripe is that i plug in my xp hard disk, which of course works perfectly and has all my important information on it but vista tells me it needs to be fixed. it doesnt tell me what the problem is or what it will do to fix it (urgo how badly it will destroy my data) how the hell am i supposed to trust such a lying operating system?

 

[Manse]

i get the "need to be fixed " message if i plug in my usb flash drive with out disconnecting it by the taskbar you know the the little green tick lol but fine next time if you do it the right way.
just let it scan it usualy only takes a second on a 4gb drive and says all ok

running eset smart security 3.0.6 on vista lappy and runs sweet with it

 

[maggot]

yeah its not a major issue its not going to remove any files or anything like that, all anti viruses slow down your machine other than surpriseingly enough the microsoft one as for firewalls take your pick there 10 a penny

In my opinion home users dont need anti virus unless there constantly download dodgy files from the likes piratebay or whereever

windows firewall is plenty good enough so why add more software when its already there ??

as for vista i run it and it is sh*t its the same every few years i remember when xp came out everyone was like oh i hate this its crap i dont like how it looks it crashes and anything else they could think of saying and its the same with vista like it or not a year or so from now oohhh i love vista its amazing windows 7 is a few years off yet so thats not an option but there are all the linux distros you could try ubuntu for instance all free and who makes viruses to break into linux no one

anyway im off to play with backtrack 3 happy days

 

[ManofScience]

Windows 7 has been brought forward a year due to the slow business take up of vista.

personally, Vista 64 with 4Gb memory seems to be about the best platform - running ok for me

 

[karym6]

The release date for Windows 7 is still H2 2009, it hasnt changed.

If you read about the development of Windows, you will notice that Vista was only meant to be a stop gap release to span new technologies. It doesnt look like MS wanted it to dominate the world for so long in the way that XP did, but instead act as a conduit for a new type of Windows.

 

[Firemouth]

The release date for Windows 7 is still H2 2009, it hasnt changed.

If you read about the development of Windows, you will notice that Vista was only meant to be a stop gap release to span new technologies. It doesnt look like MS wanted it to dominate the world for so long in the way that XP did, but instead act as a conduit for a new type of Windows.

that's odd, if you look around virtually all sites give the original release date as h1 2010, even in interviews with MS executives.

i have not found any comment on Vista being a stop gap. could you provide a link to this, its an interesting thought, bull shit, but interesting. though it is, as always, a small step towards an OS, that actually works.

 

[karym6]

Actually, you are wrong also. MS is very good at confusing people when it comes to release dates. H2 2009 is the release date for Windows 7, if you recall the XP and Vista releases, they were done in two stages. First releases went out to all the MS subscribers, buesiness etc, then the next release was to the consumer. This is pretty much how all major software gets released on media for the last couple of year.

As to providing a link, I would love to answer all of your demands etc but as I previously mentioned, if you have read about the development of Windows you would be able to find this little nugget. Given that the Internet has a bountiful supply of information and that Windows is by no means a small application, it shouldnt take you long to figure out how to search for it via google - after all, you naturally tried this out to determine information on the release date.

Now, if you can put your unnatural obession with my posts to one side, maybe the OP can get some useful feedback on the query.

 

[little_pob]

The release date for Windows7 is still officially '3 years from general availability' of Vista or H1 2010 (as Vista went retail Jan 07). Dates of June 09 and H2 2009 are, at the moment, just rumours. But could concievably be 'gold'/RTM and/or MSDN release dates. The situation certainly isn't helped by MS's standard 'no comment on future releases' stance.

People think Win7 is being rushed out when its XP that's the anomaly...
3.1 to 95 ~3 years
95 to 98 ~2.5 years
98 to Me ~2.5 years
Me to XP 13 months(!)
XP to Vista ~5 years
Vista to 7 ?3 years
(source: Microsoft Windows - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Many reasons are given for the Vista delay; the anti-trust case, the need to improve security of XP, the absorbtion of many of the features intended for 'Blackcomb' (now Win7)....

Anyway to answer the OP: Either let vista scan and fix or boot from the XP drive open command and type chkdsk volume:/r - where volume is the drive letter of the XP drive. More on fdisk command: How to perform disk error checking in Windows XP

 

[karym6]

I think part of the confusion is down to the way MS will start to release this to business. Normally, they take the approach of releasing software to the enterprise first, so all those subscribers will automatically get the install media through the post once it is ready.

When Vista was released, the company I was working for had recieved the business SKUs inadvance of the consumer release by some degree. However, as Little_Pob has pointed out, Windows 7 is absorbing many of the features that were not included in Vista as well as introducing some that have not been seen in Vista etc. One key thing to notice is that MS never releases a server OS with a minor release - such as with Vista.

We should also not forget that even though MS is releasing a milestone OS, there is nothing to say they will not also tinker with Vista at the same time - there were numerous releases of Windows 95 and Windows 98.

 

[stevemac40]

Back to the thread.

I use Avast which doesn't seem to be too bad on resources.

However what I would say, in my experience vista has slowed down for me over the year in the same way as XP did and it starts at an already much more resource hungry OS. If resources are a problem for you under XP, then I would recommend staying with XP because Vista is only likely to compound your resource issues.

 

[Purity]

Vista was definately a stop gap release. There was loads of stuff they removed from it to get it on the shelves. For example, the XML based registry and the new filesystem.

You can tell it was rushed. Even SP1 has not fixed half the bugs its got. I also have issues with USB pens. But copying large data files has got to be the biggy for me! And it's hit and miss. Sometimes it works great, other times it locks my machine up.

My company is a major test site for Vista. We had copies of the OS miles before anywhere else with a plan to roll it out onto at least 500 machines. I think we managed 50 due to the lack of tools that came with it.

So my advice, based on the thread is stick with XP if you can, and stick with Vista on machines that come with Vista pre-installed - especially laptops