MCDST useless in 2-3 years?

Oh man! Ad-blocking software has been detected! :'(

This website is run by the community, for the community... and it needs advertisements in order to keep running. Blocking our ads means your killing our stats!
Please disable your ad-block, or become a premium member to hide all advertisements and this notice.

I wouldn't call a 10% reduction in performance "chugging". I ran Vista with 1GB just fine.

You are correct in that Vista is not flopping like Me (Me, not ME) did. Those who supported it know that there's no comparison between the two: Vista works.

Not "everyone" - that's being a bit overdramatic. Home users don't really care too much, to be honest... they use Vista just fine. Businesses, on the other hand, are quite a different story, and with good reason.

 

Oh man! Ad-blocking software has been detected! :'(

This website is run by the community, for the community... and it needs advertisements in order to keep running. Blocking our ads means your killing our stats!
Please disable your ad-block, or become a premium member to hide all advertisements and this notice.

So what is this Windows 7........iv never heard of this

 

Indeed I was refering to businesses. I don't know anyone who would get their MCDST for home support. Aren't we all here for corporate/business?

I have a dual boot config with XP PRO x64 and Vista Ultimate x64, 2.4 core 2 quad with 2GB of RAM. PRO 64 blows Vista out of the water on my config.

I also run Vista Business edition on my work laptop... a Lenovo T60P with 2GB of RAM

IMO XP is much faster right now, more than just 10%.

 

Some businesses do exactly that: support for home users. So, although we might all work for (or want to work for) a company, some of us do support home users.

On the same system, Vista has been benchmarked to be about 10% slower than XP. You're certainly entitled to your opinion about how much faster XP is... but benchmarks are data; I didn't pull the 10% number out of my... hat.

 

Vista has a lot more stuff in it than XP. I would expect a newer OS to need more system resources. Look at the Sony Playstation, a resource hungry PS3 game will never run on a PS1.... to use your logic with Windows, Win95 must absolutely fly on your rig and run much quicker than XP.

 

The point I was trying to make was the MCDST will not be useless in 2 to 3 years because the standard workstation specs that you would find in most companies, have not quite caught up to Vista as of yet.

You proved my point.. Vista requires more resources therefore businesses won't be upgrading for a while.
Thank you.

Never was I trying to say that Vista Shouldn't require more resources, or that it Should fly on current spec.

I won't even respond to your Win95 comment.

 

Also incorrect. Companies could upgrade to Vista, if they wanted to. I ran it quite successfully on an old P4 2.4 with a gig of RAM... a computer built 6 years ago.

That's not why businesses don't upgrade. Businesses don't usually upgrade because it's not cost effective to do so. They typically buy new computers with the OS installed, and keep that OS until the computer is retired from service.

Additionally, many businesses are not moving to Vista because many line-of-business apps are not yet compatible with Windows Vista... the app vendors simply aren't supporting the newer OS yet. Has nothing to do with Vista being slower... it all has to do with compatibility.

 

I stated compatibility in a previous post as well.
I also know a lot of companies purchase new machines with Vista along with a downgrade CD to stay on XP for the time being.
I'm done with this topic. I'm sure the originator has lost interest as well.
Bottom line is that the MCDST will still be usefull 2 to 3 years from now.

 

That's what I mean.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_7

 

Im afraid we have been all through this argument before, when XP was released I remember the uproar it caused because of the required system specs to run it, and people complaining how slow it was. As the cylons say "all this has happened before and all this will happen again".

my main pc runs vista ultimate fine and also runs 2x server 2003 os's and 1x xp pro within vpc, with all vista pretty bits still enabled on an amd 64 3800x2 and 2gb ddr ram. no complaints from me!

 

there is a bit of a difference,xp did not need much to run it in the first place,the specifications are tiny,even 128mb memory and a pentium 2 is useable with xp.
I've tried running it with 128mb memory and a pentium 2 or 3.It was slow,but there were no problems.
I used xp from the first day of release,and problems for me were few and far between,i only remember 2 problems,the first of which was sorted with service pack 1 [the messenger pop up]
They didn't have nvidia graphics cards issues,which plague vista at this moment in time,is the 30% nvidia complaints about vista true?
To have issues with nvidia is poor foresight in my opinion,why release an operating system that is going to have issues with nvidia cards?
A huge amount of users use nvidia for graphics,there is little in the way of choice,nvidia and ATI are the biggest graphic card makers.
The vista users that are happy are the ones with the new pcs by the looks of it.
I've used nviida for around 9 years and won't change to ATI just to use vista.
Vistas use of hardware and needing massive amounts of memory just to run the thing is also questionable,anything i want to do on xp 1gb of memory is fine,my programmes open within seconds, i don't need to cache them,which appears to be a vista feature and a bit of a waste if you ask me.
If something is working reliably and well why fix it?,windows 2000 will be around for quite a while yet,as too will xp.
I don't really know if vista will catch on or not,they need to sort out all the nvidia problems to have a chance of making it more respected.

 

What extreme technology do you believe Vista requires?

Rubbish. If that were true, there'd be a *lot* more screaming going on, considering nVidia's presence in the market.

Certainly there are issues with SOME nVidia drivers with SOME nVidia hardware with CERTAIN hardware configurations on Vista... but that's not Microsoft's fault.

Microsoft is *not* responsible for creating nVidia's drivers. That's nVidia's problem: link

Microsoft creates the OS, and nVidia creates drivers that work with the OS. It doesn't work the other way around - Microsoft doesn't create an OS to match nVidia's driver model.

You should always be open to using the best technology at the time. Sometimes it's nVidia, sometimes it's ATI... sometimes it's Intel, sometimes it's AMD.

That said, you don't have to abandon nVidia to use Vista.

Again, what do you think you need?

Dude... app caching has been going on for decades, including on Windows OSes. They may have changed how it caches in Vista... but this change is no different than the dozens of other caching changes that have happened over the years.

So you're saying we should all be on Windows 3.1, right?

No... nVidia needs to sort out all the nVidia problems.

 

there should not be any issues at all with nvidia and microsoft,the basics are wrong to start with,if you can't write an operating system which covers the basics of being able to display the image on the screen i don't see the point.

30% is the reported problem figure at the moment.

Nvidia write their own drivers as you say,it would have been worth microsoft and nvidia combining their effort on the basics,displaying the image on the screen,if they can't get that part right what is the point?
xp and nvidia works well,and did so from the start.
There will be plenty who defend vista,part of that is financial i feel,and they want the product to work after spending money on it,but to me it's early days are worse than the first days of windows xp,which i remember well.
There were complaints about xp too,but the dislike and despair about this operating system wasn't as strong as what i've noticed with vista.

 

my mate has Vista home premium on his PC its 2.8GHz Pentium 4 with 1GB ram, he also has an Nvidia graphics card a 6800 I believe he says he has never had a problem although it takes a couple of minutes to boot but it does what he needs it to.

 

I built my desktop to run Vista as it conflicted with the ATI graphics card in my laptop.... I have an Nvidia card in the desktop and never had a problem with the display.

 

You're not following the logic at all, are you?

 

So you are saying that Ford should change their car production line so that some bling bling wheel manufactorer can deliver?