My main box, self built in 2005 is still running XP because it just "works".
I never intended it to last more than four years but there has been no good reason to replace it yet. The end of XP security updates will probably lead me to replace it next year. If it ain't broke...
Interesting. You can run W7 programs and browse the 'net, but the OS does make or break one's computing experience IMO I used Vista a few times and I found it really slow and it crashed a lot. I didn't see much difference between it and XP apart from the Aero interface and a few other minor changes here and there. Windows 7 is what Vista should have been and seems similar to XP except more modern. I've used it on my Mac or playing games and I can see why it was a success.
Interesting. You can run W7 programs and browse the 'net, but the OS does make or break one's computing experience IMO I used Vista a few times and I found it really slow and it crashed a lot. I didn't see much difference between it and XP apart from the Aero interface and a few other minor changes here and there. Windows 7 is what Vista should have been and seems similar to XP except more modern. I've used it on my Mac or playing games and I can see why it was a success.
Don't you have any studying to do, rather than churn out the same old clichés?
Windows Vista was fine once it hit SP2 (which is the baseline for W7), pre SP2 there were just too many basic things it did poorly compared to its predecessor. Copying files was slower for example, and for us at work accessing some file shares was painfully slow on both no SP and SP1, a SP2 install is fine and have no complaints really, but by that point its too late its name is tarnished because to be fair it was awful to start with.
Vista in the end after the upgrades was fine so long as you had a PC capable of running it. Far too many 'Vista Ready' labels stuck on machines that were simply not up to the job.
I had Vista on an old laptop but took the opertunity to put Windows 8 on it in January for £20 (or whatever the MS offer was). It is like a different machine, much faster. Of course I am using startisback.
It's not my download speed as i get 10meg, it's the way microsoft set how vista gets the downloads and about 8 restarts some with just one update then a restart again :rolleyes:
Thats nothing, when I worked for the council, one of the machines used Windows NT (guessing about 1989 release). Although it "had" to because the database had been built on that machine and because they never bothered to update it, no way it was a smooth move to windows 7 (which is what was new at the time).
Sometimes when something works and does the job its meant to, no reason for a pointless upgrade (much like how all the council computers had GPUs, something that using office and browsing for cheap holidays is pointless. But thats the councils IT department all over, pointless haha)
Ive never like XP, I liked 98se, However I preferred Vista to XP as it did not have the look of a tonka toybox, it may have performed now and again like one, but ultimately I found vista more stable to run programs on the XP
no reason for a pointless upgrade (much like how all the council computers had GPUs, something that using office and browsing for cheap holidays is pointless.
There are plenty of non-gaming uses for including a dedicated GPU (which I presume is what you meant). The most obvious one would be users who utilise multiple displays. This has only recently been an option with integrated GPUs on office systems. We also have a number of users who utilise apps that benefit from or in some cases require GPU acceleration. Just because you only saw people using MS Office does not mean that is the way the thousands of others do their jobs. In our case if they only require Office they get a thin client rather than a PC.
Also bear in mind that the cards you are talking about are generally bottom of the range ATI cards so only cost like £30 or so and is easily absorbed by having a standard configuration for as many users as possible.
A day to get all updates in for a start :rolleyes:
Windows 7 from scratch has numerous updates and a service pack and restarting and takes all day to do, the only difference with Vista is it has two service packs, 7 is Vista with a service pack, then of course you have 8 which is a totally different ball game altogether.
There are plenty of non-gaming uses for including a dedicated GPU (which I presume is what you meant). The most obvious one would be users who utilise multiple displays. This has only recently been an option with integrated GPUs on office systems. We also have a number of users who utilise apps that benefit from or in some cases require GPU acceleration. Just because you only saw people using MS Office does not mean that is the way the thousands of others do their jobs. In our case if they only require Office they get a thin client rather than a PC.
Also bear in mind that the cards you are talking about are generally bottom of the range ATI cards so only cost like £30 or so and is easily absorbed by having a standard configuration for as many users as possible.
No they had stuck in 8800 gts's, and yes I am well aware a GPU can be used for other reasons. But considering they were just secretaries using them for emails and browsing, I hardly see a reason to use such a high end card (well mid range when they were installed, at the dawn of the 200 series). Trust me mate, the council has to spend an amount of money each year or it doesnt get it the next, so they always over spend in order to maintain the income. Each computer had its own printer as well, pretty decent ones. I suggested getting a proper office one and having them netowrked as it would have been cheaper, but the guy in charge was a "know it all". Kinda made me wonder why he hired us when he just wanted to spend spend spend.
(they also had the computers set up in the most bizarre ways I have ever seen, all similar set ups, but some used vista, some xp, a few still had 98 and that one computer with NT on it.
Thats nothing, when I worked for the council, one of the machines used Windows NT (guessing about 1989 release). Although it "had" to because the database had been built on that machine and because they never bothered to update it, no way it was a smooth move to windows 7 (which is what was new at the time).
Sometimes when something works and does the job its meant to, no reason for a pointless upgrade (much like how all the council computers had GPUs, something that using office and browsing for cheap holidays is pointless. But thats the councils IT department all over, pointless haha)
Windows NT came out in the early 90s. The first version (NT 3.51) came out in 1993 and then NT4 came out in 1996. Did the computer at the council have a Windows 3.1 or Windows 95 UI (did it have Program Manager or the Start menu)?
Trust me mate, the council has to spend an amount of money each year or it doesnt get it the next, so they always over spend in order to maintain the income. Each computer had its own printer as well, pretty decent ones. I suggested getting a proper office one and having them netowrked as it would have been cheaper, but the guy in charge was a "know it all".Kinda made me wonder why he hired us when he just wanted to spend spend spend..
That sounds more like the particular department you were based in has management issues to be honest. My workplace have banned printers altogether with exceptions only given to the few that have a legitimate business case. The desktop PCs are a standard configuration with negotiated pricing but if the user's applications can be delivered through TS/Citrix/Hyper-V/ they generally get a thin client where possible.
Re: spending the money before it is taken off them. Yes this is correct but the budget for the PC would have come from the service area rather than the ICT department. You can't blame your ex-boss for that one i'm afraid.
Windows 98 is still very usable, even for internet browsing (opera), and certainly for general computery things, video watching, music playing and many older, classic games. I wouldn't do internet banking or the like on such a machine though, I have no idea how vulnerable it is.
My experience with vista was poor, it had some ridiculous bugs. I went back to XP quite quickly, now running 7, which is somewhat better than windows 98/XP/Vista...not interested in windows 8...or 9...:P
Comments
LOL
I'm not s sheep and I didn't like Vista even on a decent PC...I did like ME though!
I never intended it to last more than four years but there has been no good reason to replace it yet. The end of XP security updates will probably lead me to replace it next year. If it ain't broke...
You liked Win ME?!? If you liked ME, if you'd tried Windows 2000 on a decent machine then (128MB RAM) you'd have been in heaven!
What's right with it?
Interesting. You can run W7 programs and browse the 'net, but the OS does make or break one's computing experience IMO I used Vista a few times and I found it really slow and it crashed a lot. I didn't see much difference between it and XP apart from the Aero interface and a few other minor changes here and there. Windows 7 is what Vista should have been and seems similar to XP except more modern. I've used it on my Mac or playing games and I can see why it was a success.
I do and I'll be going to do it soon. Everyone I know says the same thing about Windows 7 though. Vista was and still is banned in my house.
You have a slow internet connection then?
It's not my download speed as i get 10meg, it's the way microsoft set how vista gets the downloads and about 8 restarts some with just one update then a restart again :rolleyes:
Sometimes when something works and does the job its meant to, no reason for a pointless upgrade (much like how all the council computers had GPUs, something that using office and browsing for cheap holidays is pointless. But thats the councils IT department all over, pointless haha)
Also bear in mind that the cards you are talking about are generally bottom of the range ATI cards so only cost like £30 or so and is easily absorbed by having a standard configuration for as many users as possible.
Windows 7 from scratch has numerous updates and a service pack and restarting and takes all day to do, the only difference with Vista is it has two service packs, 7 is Vista with a service pack, then of course you have 8 which is a totally different ball game altogether.
No they had stuck in 8800 gts's, and yes I am well aware a GPU can be used for other reasons. But considering they were just secretaries using them for emails and browsing, I hardly see a reason to use such a high end card (well mid range when they were installed, at the dawn of the 200 series). Trust me mate, the council has to spend an amount of money each year or it doesnt get it the next, so they always over spend in order to maintain the income. Each computer had its own printer as well, pretty decent ones. I suggested getting a proper office one and having them netowrked as it would have been cheaper, but the guy in charge was a "know it all". Kinda made me wonder why he hired us when he just wanted to spend spend spend.
(they also had the computers set up in the most bizarre ways I have ever seen, all similar set ups, but some used vista, some xp, a few still had 98 and that one computer with NT on it.
Windows NT came out in the early 90s. The first version (NT 3.51) came out in 1993 and then NT4 came out in 1996. Did the computer at the council have a Windows 3.1 or Windows 95 UI (did it have Program Manager or the Start menu)?
Re: spending the money before it is taken off them. Yes this is correct but the budget for the PC would have come from the service area rather than the ICT department. You can't blame your ex-boss for that one i'm afraid.
My experience with vista was poor, it had some ridiculous bugs. I went back to XP quite quickly, now running 7, which is somewhat better than windows 98/XP/Vista...not interested in windows 8...or 9...:P