More Vista nonsense

Bozo said:
Another reason not to use Vista. Adobe products won't work.
Click to expand...

That's not quite true. As for many titles, *existing* Adobe products aren't supported on Vista.

You can't expect a company to support their software on an operating system that wasn't out at the time of release. Particularly one that's as hacked-up as Vista.
 
I'm not blaming the companies. The artical says that Adobe will not be making available patches for existing software to run on Vista. You must buy new programs.

Bozo :joker:
 
Microsoft giveth and Microsoft taketh awayeth.

Apparently, while Vista's "time remaining" counters for file move and copy operations are now much more accurate than they've ever been, there's a pretty serious Vista bug that makes it vastly slower for actually copying and moving files.

Linkage. I guess the patch from Technet is really obnoxious to install, too.

For what it's worth, Windows just sucks at copying files to begin with. This might be news to anyone who hasn't tried copying 20GBs of 100kB of JPGs or a 22GB HDDVD image in Linux, but trust me, it's true.

Can I get a "Vista sux" from all the usual suspects?
 
Vista sux.

But I do think it's better for day to day users than XP. Then again...

XP sux.

Having never spent serious time in Linux, I've always known large numbers of small files to take a long time. Copying large files always seems to be disk/network limited to me. :shrug:
 
I've always found that copying from Linux is much faster even if your copying to a Windows box. It's so noticeable that I've had several people ask if there is a version of Samba for Windows...
 
re: Vista Slow Copies

4GB of files from a 100Mbit switched network to a USB2 hard disk: 3 hours and five minutes, actual time.
Vista claimed it would be at most 40 minutes, and even that is unreasonable.
 
More retarded Vistaness.
This time from teh Reg.

I'm actually kind of sad that Dell is going back to loading XP. I was getting a lot more interest in the computers I've been building since folks have been looking brand name PCs and seeing only a Vista option.
 
What a lump of crap. In pure protest I'm not even sure I'd wipe my ass with the included vista brochure. I'd be afraid of a true virus in the bung hole as it paper cuts me in the wrong areas...
 
I'm still not even close to Merc. His S*ony post will long live triumphant in my mind as one of the best posts he has ever made.
 
Are there any incompatibilities between NTFS in XP SP2 and Vista? In other words, if I were to dual boot XP SP2 and Vista, and they wrote to the same NTFS partitions, would there be a problem?

Thanks.
 
FWIW when I tried vista I could read my storage partitions no problem and XP could read vista's drive partition. My existing partitions were created either with XP's utility or partition magic. Vista's partition was created with MS's built in vista utility and worked fine BUT PM would have nothing to do with that drive afterwards with some strange error.

I wiped the drive and set up some basic NTFS partitions and then installed vista on that as is which worked fine also, plus afterwards I didn't have any errors as far as PM was concerned.

So something funky with their partition utility but it all still worked fine.
 
If you use System Restore in XP, Vista will corrupt the files. Vista and XP use two different methods for System Restore, and they don't play nice together.

Bozo :joker:
 
Vista is compatible with XP, but XP is not entirely compatible with Vista. I'd assume this is all one could ask for, considering Vista didn't exist when XP was written.
 
Thanks, all!

Max - very informative. That tip about creating the NTFS partition first with PM and then installing Vista on it is very relevant to me. Thanks.

Bozo, I have never used System Restore and never will. I use an imaging utility when I need to. But thanks for the tip; that could be a real gotcha for someone who does.

Sechs & DD: Not sure if I'm in sync with you, but I didn't make my intention clear in my initial post. Vista and XP will live in separate primary partitions and the partition of the non-active OS will be hidden automagically by a boot mangler. My concern was with sharing the data partitions that are inside an extended partition. I remember when there was an incompatibility in NTFS partitons that led to something (defragmenter ?) not working. I think that was between WinNT and Win2k. I was concerned there might be a similar issue between XP32 and Vista 64, but I guess not.

Thanks!
 
I had no problem with being able to see the other OS partition no matter what OS I was in be it Vista or XP. I was using the regular MS boot manager and I did have two primary partitions, one for each OS plus another drive just for storage. I don't recall ever seeing the non active OS partition being hidden?
 
You'll need a 3rd party boot manager to do it. like V-Systems' System Commander, or BootMagic, or BootIt, etc. These present a menu on boot; when you pick the OS you want, they hide all other primary partitions (there's an option not to hide, of course). I don't have Vista (yet) but have found that though W2k will not see the hidden primary, Defragmenter in W2k will see it and allow you to defrag that hidden partition. I haven't multi-booted XP yet, but suspect the same thing would happen there as well.
 
The potential for boot managers to mess things up has always concerned me. When I need to run multiple OSes I give each a hard drive and use the BIOS to pick which one; or just use VMWare.
 
Perhaps Bozo could clarify. When you use System Restore in XP, how does Vista do anything? If you are running XP, isn't it XP that is messing things up?
 
I don't use system restore either. But during the Beta test there was a lot of dicussion about XP deleting Vista restore points. MS didn't fix the problem.
This link describes a fix though. http://www.lockergnome.com/nexus/bl...stem-restore-to-keep-restore-points-in-vista/

I just wonder over a long period of time, what other problems would pop up. The stupid problems that come and go, and you never really find a cause or cure.
I use removable hard drives for booting multiple operating systems.

Bozo :joker:
 
Can XP & Vista use the same swap file? If not, if individual swap files are defined, does one OS mess the swap file of the other? IF nobody knows, I'll probably post the answers in a few weeks. :-D
 
From the "fix" Bozo pointed to, it seems things just work better if one OS partition can't see the other OS partition. This is basically the same as using a boot manager or removable hard drives. I don't think any of these issues would impact a data drive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top