Windows Vista Premium

[koaftder]

I installed vista awhile back and it's fine with me. It boots a lot faster than XP did on that machine. I turned off Aero and switched to classic view, which is what I do on XP anyway.  It wasn't that Aero was bogging the machine, it was just ugly as hell and kind of pointless.

Control panes and stuff are changed around, but thats no big deal, just switch to classic view on those as well if you want. All my programs run just fine on Vista save for a few poorly written ones, and to get those to install I simply kicked off a CLI with system priv and ran the installer for the app and it worked just fine.

Over all a very positive experience. It is kind of pointless to go out and buy a Vista upgrade though. Just wait until you get a new machine that comes with it.

[koaftder]

In previous versions of windows, people {bleep}ed about the lack of security while they mindlessly droned on logged in under their administrator account. Microsoft comes up with a new security model in windows and guess what? People {bleep} about it.

Half the time when I have to install an app on my mac I get to type in a password. When i change prefs, password. On the CLI, I often have to run sudo, all the time. Nobody {bleep}es about that. Nobody {bleep}es about having to type in the password on Ubuntu.

Got an app on Vista that pops up the UAC and you are tired of that, just right click and select a checkbox, blam, no more having to put in that password.

[koaftder]

amigaksi wrote:
>Technically what is wrong with it? Please just do not say it >sucks.
>Thanks.
>
>Edit: 17:05 ***********
>I guess that there are as many opinions as there are hardware >manufacturers.

If you are asking from hardware point of view, it would depend on the hardware you install Vista, XP or any other OS on.  Why settle for opinions, when you can benchmark the hardware I/O for yourself.  Here's results I got with running a peripheral simulation task that uses I/O transfers more than non I/O 80x86 instructions (mainly LPT port):

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=320189144289

Compaq Armada 1120 w/16MB running Windows 3.11: 1.2MB/second
Toshiba 460CDT w/32MB running Windows 3.11: 1.5MB/second
Toshiba 460CDT w/32MB running Win98SE: 1.1MB/second
Tecra 8000-366Mhz w/128MB running Windows 3.11: 1MB/second
Tecra 8000-366Mhz w/128MB running Windows 98SE: 960KB/second
Tecra 8000-366Mhz w/128MB running Windows XP: 930KB/second
Tecra 8000-366Mhz w/128MB running Vista (can't install it-- not enough memory-- probably does not support 366Mhz)
HP Ze1000 1.3Ghz w/512MB running WinXP: 560KB/second

The more software layers/drivers/protection you put on top of the hardware, the worse the performance.

Without analysis of the methods used to communicate with the para port in this software which you ran on two completely different operating systems makes this benchmark a waste of time and the results irrelevant.