Windows Vista now or wait?

[contoursvt]

Hmm well in 2002 I had a Pentium 4 2.0Ghz with 1 Gig of DDR 266 memory and a Geforce 4 ti4200 128mb card. I remember when I built my system, 2.4 and 2.6Ghz CPU's were out as well but I didnt want to spend the $$ on them.

Honestly, the above computer would have absolutely no problem running vista. I've also got vista running on a PIII 550, 40gig drive, 768mb ram and a radeon 7500 video card and its actually not bad. The box is a compaq and it initially didnt come with that video card. I think the original was some kind of matrox card so I dont know if that would have worked but vista on a PIII 550 is pretty impressive. I'd have to say it was not that much slower than XP. Due to the fact that the radeon 7500 is not very strong, some advanced video options are disabled but it all still works great.

While people were uneasy to try out Mac OS X, Apple did a much better job hardware compatibility wise. Older Mac hardware runs Tiger just fine.

To give you one example, I am running Tiger on a PM933 which was purchased in 2002. It still boots into Mac OS 9 (not Classic) and will run Tiger just fine.

I have not upgraded the Video card or CPU.

Now how many PCs built in 2002 (5 years ago) can run Vista without significant upgrading?

In other words, if I was still running Mac OS 9 and wanted to try out Tiger, I could purchase Tiger for less than $100 and try it out. If I don't like it, I am only out less than $100.


Only HD failures!

 

[RaMaz]

Microsoft usually gets their OS correct on the second try/upgrades:

- Win 95 SR2
- Win 98 SE
- Win 2K SP4
- Win XP SP2

I would wait until...

...Vista SP2.

But that's just me since XP works fine for what I need.

haha that made my day

But 2GBs is fine for me, and i run Ultimate x86

So try 2GBs on a x86

 

[sushi]

Hmm well in 2002 I had a Pentium 4 2.0Ghz with 1 Gig of DDR 266 memory and a Geforce 4 ti4200 128mb card.

At the time, that was a fairly well equipped PC if memory serves.

Heck my PM933 video card was a GeForce4 MX and came with 64MB of VRAM.

Not many mainstream PCs of just a few years ago can upgrade to Vista (and it's full features) without upgrading the hardware. Seen a lot of 2-4 year old government computers going to the bone pile recently. Easier and cheaper for the most part to get new computers to run Vista.

Anyhow, glad that you are enjoying Vista.

 

[anti-microsoft]

I don't want to comment on this you can see why. but just move to mac!
(If you do already have a Mac, rock on! But if not please switch. Do it for the mac community. I had a PC at first I discoverd the Mac and I was like ! If you do like PC-ing then ok thats not of my likeing but if you like it fine. I'm not trying to sell you a mac or anything but there just better!

Thats all, hope I didn't bore you.

AMS

 

[skinnylegs]

I don't want to comment on this you can see why. but just move to mac!
(If you do already have a Mac, rock on! But if not please switch. Do it for the mac community. I had a PC at first I discoverd the Mac and I was like ! If you do like PC-ing then ok thats not of my likeing but if you like it fine. I'm not trying to sell you a mac or anything but there just better!

Thats all, hope I didn't bore you.

AMS

.....you are a prophet!

 

[anti-microsoft]

.....you are a prophet!

Early bird catches the worm!

 

[cube]

Vista == massive DRM lockdown

 

[cokersa]

Vista won't display correctly on the Mac Pro with only 1gb of ram. 7300/1900 doesn't make a difference. the 5000 series chipset on the motherboard/logic board doesn't have enough memory resources when running vista with only 1gb and your display will be 800x600 at 4bit color. not pretty.

you can go into the hardware manager and disable the x16 slot which will get vista to vga, but sllloooooowwww safemode like graphics.

either get more memory, or run xp. period.

I can confirm this from my own (painful) experience. Don't even think about running Vista on a Mac Pro without 2GB of RAM. I did an upgrade of XP SP2 to Vista Ultimate 32bit on 1GB of RAM, and at 4 bit 800X600 it is unusable. I ordered 2GB (2x1GB) of additional memory and installed it to get video working okay. Then I had all sorts of issues with stability of applications (Outlook 2007 and even IE would routinely crash). So I'd skip the upgrade to Vista from XP.

I did a clean install of Vista Ultimate 64-bit, and that has been rock solid. None of the Bootcamp drivers will work (they are all 32-bit, so there is no point in trying to even load them at all), but almost everything will work during the install without any extra effort. The only thing I had to do was manually install the latest audio drivers from RealTek (available on their web site).

That said, there are some issues. 1) because of the lack of 64-bit drivers from Apple, you won't get any of their specific hardware to work (bluetooth being the issue on my system, so I'm forced to use a USB keyboard and a USB mouse instead). 2) the system time is off when booting between MacOS and Vista (this is a known issue because of the way each handle time). Under XP and 32-bit Vista a program called "AppleTimeSrv.exe" is supposed to address that, but in spite of trying to manually force the program to run (registry hack and forcing it to run as administrator), I haven't been successful in getting that problem resolved - so I have to manually reset the time or wait for the OS to do a time check. If anyone has any suggestions on that, I'd be happy to hear it.

As to the "religeous" debate going on, I'm relatively new to MacOS but am a long time Windows administrator (MSCE and the like). I bought the Mac Pro because I knew it could dual-boot. Are people having issues with Vista? Sure. Are plenty of folks avoiding upgrading to Vista because they don't want to run any new MS product until SP1? Absolutely. That said, there are some nice features of Vista to go along with the risk. Its not as bad as some folks would like to believe, and its not as good as others claim. That said, as painful as it was to get to it, I'm glad I'm running Vista Ultimate 64 bit. In my experience, it offers more features and is more stable (as long as you aren't running the kind of applications that simply don't work under 64 bit Vista).

So, the long and short of it, if you have at least 2GB of RAM and you don't mind dealing with the bluetooth driver limitations and other minor issues (like the time), don't be scared away from running Vista 64 bit. If those things just aren't something you want to deal with, then either run 32 bit Vista (still need 2GB of RAM for the video to be usable), or just wait until (if) Apple provides updated 64 bit drivers to deal with it and stick with XP.

 

[jasdelta]

Because Windows XP is so boring! I like the flip and the Aero effect of Windows Vista. Though I own a Mac Pro I use Windows a lot, so I want it to look good. Vista got the similar eyes candy feel of Mac OS X.

Tangerine, are you running a Mac Pro now and running Windows? If so do you use Boot Camp or Virtual PC? I am considering buying a Mac Pro so I can still run numerous Windows apps that I like, some of them games. Your thoughts would be very appreciated.

Many thanks,

 

[jasdelta]

I can confirm this from my own (painful) experience. Don't even think about running Vista on a Mac Pro without 2GB of RAM. I did an upgrade of XP SP2 to Vista Ultimate 32bit on 1GB of RAM, and at 4 bit 800X600 it is unusable. I ordered 2GB (2x1GB) of additional memory and installed it to get video working okay. Then I had all sorts of issues with stability of applications (Outlook 2007 and even IE would routinely crash). So I'd skip the upgrade to Vista from XP.

I did a clean install of Vista Ultimate 64-bit, and that has been rock solid. None of the Bootcamp drivers will work (they are all 32-bit, so there is no point in trying to even load them at all), but almost everything will work during the install without any extra effort. The only thing I had to do was manually install the latest audio drivers from RealTek (available on their web site).

That said, there are some issues. 1) because of the lack of 64-bit drivers from Apple, you won't get any of their specific hardware to work (bluetooth being the issue on my system, so I'm forced to use a USB keyboard and a USB mouse instead). 2) the system time is off when booting between MacOS and Vista (this is a known issue because of the way each handle time). Under XP and 32-bit Vista a program called "AppleTimeSrv.exe" is supposed to address that, but in spite of trying to manually force the program to run (registry hack and forcing it to run as administrator), I haven't been successful in getting that problem resolved - so I have to manually reset the time or wait for the OS to do a time check. If anyone has any suggestions on that, I'd be happy to hear it.

As to the "religeous" debate going on, I'm relatively new to MacOS but am a long time Windows administrator (MSCE and the like). I bought the Mac Pro because I knew it could dual-boot. Are people having issues with Vista? Sure. Are plenty of folks avoiding upgrading to Vista because they don't want to run any new MS product until SP1? Absolutely. That said, there are some nice features of Vista to go along with the risk. Its not as bad as some folks would like to believe, and its not as good as others claim. That said, as painful as it was to get to it, I'm glad I'm running Vista Ultimate 64 bit. In my experience, it offers more features and is more stable (as long as you aren't running the kind of applications that simply don't work under 64 bit Vista).

So, the long and short of it, if you have at least 2GB of RAM and you don't mind dealing with the bluetooth driver limitations and other minor issues (like the time), don't be scared away from running Vista 64 bit. If those things just aren't something you want to deal with, then either run 32 bit Vista (still need 2GB of RAM for the video to be usable), or just wait until (if) Apple provides updated 64 bit drivers to deal with it and stick with XP.

Cokersa,

Sounds like you are doing what I'd like to do, that is have the best of both worlds Mac and PC. I am considering buying a Mac Pro, but would like to know of your experiences in running games using BootCamp and Vista? Will using BootCamp actually use all of the existing available Mac system ram and video card ram, with decent graphics results and system performance speeds?
Many thanks for any feedback you can provide.

 

[nathanbuchanan]

vista? naw.

here are some interesting facts about Vista you may want to know before you buy it. Good read:

http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html

 

[jasdelta]

here are some interesting facts about Vista you may want to know before you buy it. Good read:

Nathan,
Thanks for the interesting read. I notice that you are a newbie, like me. Do you currently run XP on a Mac? If so what kind of configuration are you running it on? Do you use Boot Camp or Parallels?

Many thanks for the feedback.

Jim

 

[Cheffy Dave]

Just a Newbie for now

here are some interesting facts about Vista you may want to know before you buy it. Good read:

Nathan,
Thanks for the interesting read. I notice that you are a newbie, like me. Do you currently run XP on a Mac? If so what kind of configuration are you running it on? Do you use Boot Camp or Parallels?

Many thanks for the feedback.

Jim

I'm a PC guy,with 3 XP Pro machines, all built by your's truely. I await my first Mac,(Mac Book) and I await Leopard, Santa Rosa, and if imminent, LED screens. I am learning about Mac's through Mac Forums,Mac World and Mac Life. Been in Win-Doze since 3.1 and had all flavors of the MS OS with the exception of Windows ME.(total crap) . My fav was NT 4.0. I draw the line at Vista,(sorry no) and the countless patches and security fixes that bog these three machines down I will use Parallels IF I choose to run Windows, which I think I will just leave behind, at least on the Mac Book. I look forward to Aperture and Leopard, as well as learning something new.
So, whatcha got for your Newbie Mac?

Cheffy Dave

 

[jasdelta]

I'm a PC guy,with 3 XP Pro machines, all built by your's truely. I await my first Mac,(Mac Book) and I await Leopard, Santa Rosa, and if imminent, LED screens. I am learning about Mac's through Mac Forums,Mac World and Mac Life. Been in Win-Doze since 3.1 and had all flavors of the MS OS with the exception of Windows ME.(total crap) . My fav was NT 4.0. I draw the line at Vista,(sorry no) and the countless patches and security fixes that bog these three machines down I will use Parallels IF I choose to run Windows, which I think I will just leave behind, at least on the Mac Book. I look forward to Aperture and Leopard, as well as learning something new.
So, whatcha got for your Newbie Mac?

Hello Cheffy Dave,

I hope to learn a lot from the folks on this forum as well, particularly, what type of Mac equipment the Windows OS is being run, on, which versions, XP or Vista and what type of performance results are being achieved. I have owned PC's for years coming over from Mac's years ago ,due to the lack of software written for Macs. Now that Apple is using Intel processors, I'm hopeful that more software will be written for the Mac and in the meantime, plan to run a dual boot system, using Boot Camp beta and Leopard when its released in Oct.

My dilema at the moment is I'm unsure as to what Mac to buy, either an IMAC or Mac Pro, as I will stick with a desktop version. I want to be able to have enough processing power to adequetly run both Tiger or Leopard and either XP or Vista when MS gets all the bugs out of it. At the moment I am leaning towards a Mac Pro with dual 3.0 Ghz Xenon processors, at least 4Gig of ram and at least 2 possibly 3 Nvidia Ge Force 7300 video cards. So for now I am still in the research stage hoping to get some good ideas from folks here on the forum.

Jim

 

[skinnylegs]

I have an iMac and I run occasional Windows apps. via Parallels and the apps. run quite well.

 

[jones14]

My Vista Experience

Well, heres my Vista experience so far of installing Ultimate on my 2.0ghz CD MacBook with 512mb RAM and the famous GMA950.

I popped in the CD and held option and it went into the Vista installer, where it had me reformat my FAT32 Partition from my previous Windows XP installation and after that I clicked install and everything went perfect (A little long, but still without a hitch).

Then I got to the first boot up and I was assuming since I didn't meet the requirements I wouldn't be allowed to even try Aero and end up stuck with Windows Classic, and then I got scared when it came to the desktop. It was ol' Classic. Then the little welcome screen popped up and it had the personalize option, so I went there and Aero was in my list of options for appearance and so I clicked it and wasn't expecting it to run well. Boy was I wrong. I see absolutely no slowdown in Aero at all. I don't really do much in Windows, except for some Halo multiplayer, so I haven't really done much intensive stuff, just basicaly IE with Media Player 11 in the backround. Then I was using the OS quite a bit for a couple days but then I pressed the eject key with no programs running and I was frightened by a blue screen, I seen it wasn't the normal BSOD but I couldn't read much of it before the computer shut itself off. Then a couple days after I sat the computer on my nightstand with the lid open and went to get something to drink and when I came back the computer restarted and was starting to boot into Mac, but after that I haven't had any more problems.

So, my experience hasn't been too awfully bad so far, and this is coming from a serious Mac Fan that has grown up on Macs.

The performance is alot better than I expected, especially being on less than the minimum requirements. Also, with the Vista Ultimate special downloads you get Texas Hold 'Em, which is about my favorite part of the OS, but thats just my opinion.

On Vista my computer rates like a 2.4 or something but I'm still able to play some games that are for 3-4 rating on decent settings.

 

[RCElectricFlyer]

I'm running Vista Business and Office 2007 on a C2D MacBook with 2GB RAM and I have had very few problems. Vista runs quite smoothly with the Aero stuff.

I converted a large document to PDF using Word 2007 and it took about 30 seconds. That is about 60X (yes, 60X!) faster than an old 1.6GHz P4 desktop with 512MB RAM.

Half an hour to half a minute - the additional RAM must be making a big difference...

Rob

 

[jasdelta]

]I'm running Vista Business and Office 2007 on a C2D MacBook with 2GB RAM and I have had very few problems. Vista runs quite smoothly with the Aero stuff.


Rob,

Thanks to you for the feedback as well as others. Are you running Vista using Parallels or Boot Camp? How big is your HD?

Thanks again,

Jim

 

[RCElectricFlyer]

Jim.

Sorry for the slow reply.

I'm using Bootcamp. The HDD is a 160GB with about 48GB for the Windows partition. I boot into Vista at work and boot into OSX at home, although I sometimes boot into Vista at home to do work and boot into OSX at work to satisfy the curious.

I've held off on Parallels for several reasons. Most importantly, I plan to upgrade to Leopard so I'll use what is free for now. I've read that Vista is more of a pig than XP when running in virtual mode. I'm not sure if Parallels will be the virualization software of choice later in the year.

I have a 1.5GHz Pentium M in my ThinkPad and this MacBook runs Vista mucho faster than the ThinkPad runs XP. I recently did a clean reinstall of XP on the ThinkPad so the comparison is fair. The HDD in the MacBook must also be quite a bit faster. I got lucky and received the Hitachi drive which has faster seek times than the Seagate of the same size.

Rob

 

[ryaxnb]

You should go with vista but Home Premium is a decent release.
Not x64. Plan on upgrading to 2GB sometime in the future... Vista and Leopard will really work it.

 

[dgdosen]

Whoa! Slow down there big guy! It's not "Mac Fanboys" who are having problems with Vista 'cause us "fanboys" use OS X exclusively. It doesn't take much Googling to see that there are *many* people having issues with Vista. Why do you think Dell is giving 'peeps the option of installing other OS's?

If Vista is working fine for you.....great! Consider yourself one of the lucky.

I'd say there's a perponderance of fanboys - it's OK to admit it. I use both Macs and PC's - and I've said this before - I really like Mac hardware and a Microsoft OS - Vista included. I'm running Ultimate on my MBP and it works great - and that's with the Bootcamp drivers still in beta!

MacOSx is great for browsing, email, chat, iLife - and I'm happy to use it for that. I think it's great I can hook up my Yamaha keyboard to my mac and use Garage Band with it. Piece of cake, and I can't do that in Windows.

Windows/Vista is great for application development. Visual Studio with .Net/IIS/SQL Server is a pretty tough combination to beat, and that stack is only getting more powerful - and after playing with XCode and Eclipse with Java - It's sure easier to do end-to-end application development on the MS platform.

Vista is a hog - and you need good harware to run it. A MB or MBP on Intel is not only good, it's great hardware. Much better than the Toshiba laptop or Dell workstation I use at work.

my .02

 

[jasdelta]

Rob,

Many thanks for your additional feedback. It's been very helpful.

Jim

 

[dgdosen]

Gee whiz! ...

So.....where is that compelling reason to upgrade?

I like both OS - but here's what I like about Vista:

- New Graphics subsystem - Building rich client apps ontop of Vista with VS and XAML is pretty powerful right now, and gives a developer an opportunity to develop some great User Experiences - all 3D. Sure it's a hog but it's the next big thing.

- Built in Media Center - that wasn't the case with XP, and now I can connect to my Vista machine through my XBox 360 as a Media Center Extender.. Pretty cool...

- Aero - does look cool

- EFS

Do you need all that? nope. Only get it if you want it. Same thing should be said for Leopard...

What I really want is a new 12" MPB with LED and no boot times - I think that's something we can all agree on...

 

[jasdelta]

"New Graphics subsystem - Building rich client apps ontop of Vista with VS and XAML is pretty powerful right now, and gives a developer an opportunity to develop some great User Experiences - all 3D. Sure it's a hog but it's the next big thing."

Louden,

Have you tried running any game applications yet using Vista on your MBP?

I'm looking at a Mac Pro with dual 3.0Ghz Xeon processors coupled with either an ATI 512MB or 2 Nvidia 256MB video cards and would like to be able to run seemlessly, some PC games such as TGW PGA Tour 2007 and FSX Flight Simulator.

Your thoughts or those of any other users would be appreciated.

Jim

 

[72930]

Do you need all that? nope. Only get it if you want it. Same thing should be said for Leopard...

The difference is that when eye-candy is added to OSX, it has a purpose, instead of just slowing down the system like Aero...

I agree with you on Media Center, but Leopard will have Time Machine (really important, and not just a useless extra) and hopefully other useful apps that people will feel they need