> On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 20:11:07 +0800, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
>
>> On Nov 30, 2007 7:45 PM, Apptech <
EraseMEapptech
paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I hear (what would I know) that Vista is substantially slower on the
>>> same box as XP in most instances and that the "best" XP variant is
>>> about twice as fast as the best Vista on a comparable machine. 2:1
>>> seems rather too much to believe.
>>>
>>> I also read a few days ago that XP SP3 now in Beta, when tested by
>>> industry based testers (ie not by uSoft) added about 10% speed to XP on
>>> average (how long is a piece of benchmark). This result was not
>>> something that the testers were expecting.
>>>
>>> Sounds like Win XP Pro SP3 may be hot property for a while yet.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> XP will be around for a while but Vista will take over gradually.
>> Win2k+Office2k beats Windows XP+Office XP in terms of performance.
>> However XP soon takes over because of better hardware support.
>>
>
> I'm still using Win2K for all (7) of the workstations and servers in our
> office here. Office97 Pro was the last version of Office we bought and use.
> We are using it less and less and migrating towards OpenOffice.org. We
> don't use any Microsoft browsers (except where forced to), no Microsoft
> email programs or firewalls. We have had no serious security or virus
> issues. In fact, real-time antivirus is turned off on all the machines. It
> simply isn't needed.
>
> I was a bit concerned about drivers too but I've found that the Win2K and
> XP drivers are so similar that anyone that develops XP drivers also
> develops Win2K drivers. Many times they are exactly the same driver. Once
> (if) that situation changes then I will consider another OS. It won't be
> Vista though.
>
> We also use Win2K for all of our production test sets. It's simply been
> extremely reliable on all our production computers as well as office
> computers. The machine I'm typing this email on has not been re-booted in
> almost 4 months.
>
>
>> Windows XP SP2 is one of the most successful OS for Microsoft (Windows
>> 98SE is another one). But Vista SP2 will be very good as well.
>>
>
> You have a lot more confidence in Microsoft than I have. ;-)
>
> Microsoft is not about doing anything well or being "best in class". They
> are about whatever they can get people to pay for, be it by forced
> upgrades, scaring corporate IT people ("no one ever got fired for buying
> [IBM][Microsoft]") or forcing OEMs to pre-install Microsoft's chosen OS
> flavor of the month. What the end user wants is pretty much irrelevant
> -- "You'll take what we give you and like it!".
>
> Name me a single end user that *wanted* product activation, DRM, and the
> like. Other than these things plus a little prettier (in some people's
> opinions) user interface that is essentially all that was changed in WinXP
> from Win2K.
>
>
>> Vista is supposed to be more about security than performance.
>>
>
> This is another thing I have a hard time agreeing with. So far it appears
> that Vista is not all that much more secure than most of the previous 32-
> bit Windows versions but it certainly is a lot slower and resource
> intensive. I don't believe that making more secure software has to be
> (significantly) slower if good software design and programming techniques
> are used.
>
> I believe that Vista is just one more in the chain of OSs from Microsoft
> that came into existence primarily because they needed something new to
> satisfy the investment community. (WinXP with security enhancements would
> be boring... yawn... and of course wouldn't force end users/OEMs/corporate
> IT to upgrade to a new OS).
>
> Lest I sound too cynical, I really don't hate Microsoft's OSs. I am not a
> big fan of their business practices and how they affect which "features"
> are included in the OS and how they choose to release/distribute/price
> them.
>
