Why vista will suck! [Archive] - Page 3

zambelli

30th September 2007, 04:38

What a shite blog. Nothing new to say. No different than the ramblings from Jan/Feb of this year.
What's strange is that the "Protected Media Path stops you from copying your movies" is such an outrageously false claim, yet incredible easy to disprove - all one has to do is try ripping a DVD to know it still works just the same as on XP... And still, everyone just gulps up his claim like it's an undeniable truth.

I should try blogging too: "The sun is not a star! It's actually just a CGI animation in the sky!". Maybe I'd be hailed as the new astronomy pioneer? :rolleyes:

Revgen

1st October 2007, 03:49

Great? The guy barely checked his facts. I had a sneaky feeling that blog post would end up on this thread. It's full of inaccuracies and FUD, but this one was my favorite:

Before I point out how that entire paragraph is one giant lie, let's do a quick show of hands instead:

How many of you have been blocked from ripping DVDs by Vista's Protected Media Path?

I wasn't interested in that part. The part that I concurred with was how expensive the OS is and how little it adds compared to Windows XP to be worth what they are charging for it. With Windows XP, people at least were attracted to the NT environment that was more stable and less prone to crashing compared to Windows 98 despite the activation crap they had to go through.

JohnnyMalaria

1st October 2007, 13:14

Not many people will pay the full retail price. Either they will upgrade from XP or they will buy a new PC that already has it.

That blog offers nothing new to say on the issue. A waste of space and of my time. I wish my employer would pay me to regurgitate subjective gibberish every few months.

Sharktooth

1st October 2007, 13:32

is so "subjective" that dell and other OEMs are offering XP as a replacement for vista since M$ doesnt do it (business and enterprise editions apart)... and it's so "subjective" that this offer was forced by hundreds of thousands of consumer requests
so at the end, ppl started to use his own brain instead of another part of the body... and what you claim "subjective" is becoming "objective"...

JohnnyMalaria

1st October 2007, 19:36

He's putting his opinion on the state of the situation. That's SUBJECTIVE.

Presenting hard numbers including the volume of complaints from customers - that's OBJECTIVE.

Presenting MS' original forecasts for Vista sales vs. actual - that's OBJECTIVE.

Comparing the share price of MS vs. FTSE100, S&P500 etc - that's OBJECTIVE.

Rehashing the same old bollocks over and over again - that's A WASTE OF TIME.

The points you make are valid. MS have dropped one big time with Vista. I don't like it. I much prefer XP.

The way HE states it is nothing more than amateurish tabloid sensationalism. He'd be better off being the editor for The Sun or The Star in the UK.

:):mad::devil::confused::p:rolleyes::cool::eek:

zambelli

1st October 2007, 22:00

The points you make are valid. MS have dropped one big time with Vista. I don't like it. I much prefer XP.

The way HE states it is nothing more than amateurish tabloid sensationalism. He'd be better off being the editor for The Sun or The Star in the UK.
Agreed. Valid cases can be made for why Vista isn't as successful as XP was this far into its release - but that blog is not one of them, and the DRM point in particular is a perfect example of FUD.

Extremist points of view are, well, pointless (pun intended).

Gerard V

2nd October 2007, 00:35

So, despite the rhetoric, and the extreme points of view, is it a valid point that MS may have shot itself in the foot with Vista to a degree? I think so. I will try to be objective.

While it is true that many new PCs will ship with Vista, there are few compelling reasons for most ordinary users and businesses to upgrade unless buying a new PC. Apart from the eye-candy, what functionality does Vista really offer that is of sufficient benefit to the majority of business or home users to make them bear the pain of an unforced upgrade?

And there is real pain involved in the significant hardware upgrades necessary, and currently limited and unstable driver and application certifications with Vista. This is not unique to Vista, but it is a real issue. Most people and most business will wait for stability.

There is also a real business impact from the bad press and the FUD mentioned earlier. MS will almost certainly fix the majority of issues, and after a while hardware will catch up and the extra burden of Vista over XP etc. will not be too important. But in the meanwhile MS has handed a degree of legitimacy and support to MAC OS/X and various Linux & BSD Distros, and these are having a good run.

Perhaps the MAC/*nix market will soon be big enough to attract ports of the majority of serious commercial software that presently limits use of anything but Windows in many contexts. Will MS close the door before that happens or is it too late? We need to wait to find out.

JohnnyMalaria

2nd October 2007, 00:58

I (almost) completely agree.

My own experience with the stability issue is that it is stable on my machine - 1 BSOD since Nov 2006 due to a soundcard that can't even work with XP. But I so wanted it to!

Some apps may be ported to *nix fairly painlessly. Others though - especially multimedia intensive - would require a major rewrite due to the fundamental frameworks within Windows that just don't exist elsewhere. It's bad enough getting major Windows apps ported to 64-bit Windows.

Re certification, I started on the route to Vista certification but, after a lot of time and effort, decided not to proceed. There are some requirements that I just could not agree with and that would definitely aggravate the users. Microsoft actually phoned me to find out how I am getting on (!) and if I was planning to get certified (the software, not me). I explained the reasons as to why not.

One of the things I had to do was to get a Digital Certificate from Verisign so that I can sign my products. That was worthwhile and every component gets signed.

Bathrone

8th October 2007, 11:49

For me I like how Vista is substantially more secure than XP, and I like Directx10. Its the best operating system MS has every written for desktop computers. Thats not to say its perfect, but its certainly better than XP ever was.

Since Sharktooth et al carried on so much about *nix I figured I would take a long hard look at *nix. My particular Linux distro I have enjoyed the collaboration (Ive reported over 21 bugs) and getting into it as a geek hobby but its by no means as reliable or easy to use as Vista. If its not bugs in gnome during install its poor graphics driver bugs or lots of app level bugs. Somehow people will unfairly criticise MS for being the giant evil assimilator and cause of all the worlds wrongs when in Linux bugs are accepted cos we all pretend were cool geeks. Thats not even beginning to consider the problems Ive had with no printer drivers, no mobile phone driver and all the rest on Linux.

Im getting a kick out of Linux and will continue to be involved in the linux community with it but its certainly not a here and now replacement for Vista.

Sharktooth

8th October 2007, 13:31

not all linux distros have the same HW support... and not all linux distros are experimental or unstable... however the only responsibles for not making drivers for linux are the hardware manufacturers. Also i dont know why ppl still use gnome when there are better WMs/DEs.
Another point is "the ease of use". M$ made the users dumb idiots that does not even know what's inide a computer. When it crashes most users blame something or someone when the problem is elsewhere... in the worst cases they dont even have a clue of what they're talking about... (an example are the tons of discarded bug reports about MeGUI...)
So, the ease of use comes at a cost... a huge cost.
In the real world, you need know what you're doing and not just push the button and hope it goes the right way unless you're a dumbass or an automa.
however if you want to compare something to windows, compare stable distros like suse, debian and so on.
Also i disagree on the Vista security over XP. UAC is a USER ACCESS control... it does prevent the user to do some damage, but it does not prevent programs to do the same or worse damages... It's not a security measure but just a user restriction measure. Other security features were just exploited and bypassed (including UAC) so it's hard for me (and some others...) to understand why Vista is more secure than XP.
That said, Vista has nothing appetible over XP (except DX10 - by M$ choice!) because it has less performance, more memory and CPU hogging due to useless programs/services/tasks (windows defender? LOL) running in background, new bugs, added incompatibility, an impossible to read EULA and way more user restrictions.

Shinigami-Sama

8th October 2007, 23:03

int 21h

12th October 2007, 01:42

Yea, geez, Vista has nothing worthwhile :-(

ASLR (http://blogs.msdn.com/michael_howard/archive/2006/05/26/address-space-layout-randomization-in-windows-vista.aspx)
Mandatory Integrity Control (http://www.adopenstatic.com/cs/blogs/ken/archive/2006/08/18/Why-Vista_3F00_-Mandatory-Integrity-Control-_2800_MIC_2900_-_2800_Security_2C00_-Stability_2C00_-System-Integrity_2900_.aspx)
The ability, in a corporate or .edu environment, to use NAP (http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/network/bb545879.aspx)
Code integrity features for kernel level drivers and files
Windows Service hardening, along with changes to many of the services to run them as something other than System

Is Vista more secure than XP? Yes, without a doubt. Saying that Vista is only secure momentarily because it has just come out is pretty naive. If you don't think blackhats are on MSDN or fiddling with the leaked betas, or worse case, trying out the CTPs... :rolleyes:

This is the same thing that people said about IIS 6 when it came out, "Oh, just wait, people will find a ton of vulnerabilities with it!" During the lifespan of IIS 6, it has had... what.. 3 vulnerabilities? All of relatively small risk. Hmm, how many vulnerabilities has Apache had during the same time frame?

If you want to lambast someone about security, start looking towards the 14 year olds developing web applications in their bedroom because 95% of the vulnerabilities coming to light right now are web-based in nature. Or how about the PHP developers? They "patch" the same security flaws three or four times, and then when they finally get it right, they regress at the next major patch level and expose the same, or a very similar flaw all over again.

JeffAlso

12th October 2007, 03:51

I have to comment on this
Is Vista more secure than XP? Yes, without a doubt.
Perhaps it is, perhaps not. The answer to this can only be vetted over time. There is a very real concern that tilt-bits and other recent introductions exposes the OS to an entirely new catagory of DOS attacks. To say anything is without a doubt concerning security indicates you have no understanding of the subject matter.

During the lifespan of IIS 6, it has had... what.. 3 vulnerabilities?
Go here, search for IIS: http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls
It appears the numbers used in your argument are incorrect.

how many vulnerabilities has Apache had during the same time frame?
Apache is a web server, and Vista is an operating system. The nature, likelyhood, and severity of vulnerabilities varies drastically between these products. No accurate conclusions can be made from comparing these disparate product types.

If you want to lambast someone about security, start looking towards the 14 year olds developing web applications in their bedroom because 95% of the vulnerabilities coming to light right now are web-based in nature
The impact of an amateur web developer exposing a vulnerability in his hobby-site cannot be compared to the impact of tens of millions of internet-connected machines with a potential platform vulnerability.

What is it with people these days making arguments absent any facts, and drawing conclusions from nonsensical comparisons? Has everyone gone in to politics without telling me or something, geez...

foxyshadis

12th October 2007, 03:56

IIS is not IE. IIS is the windows web server, so the comparison is valid. (Although some of apache's vulnerabilities have been in - go figure - the php and cgi modules and outside ssl library.)

JeffAlso

12th October 2007, 04:01

IIS is not IE. IIS is the windows web server, so the comparison is valid. (Although some of apache's vulnerabilities have been in - go figure - the php and cgi modules and outside ssl library.)
I stand corrected. I looked up IE rather than IIS. Post is corrected. Thank you.

int 21h

12th October 2007, 04:28

I have to comment on this
Perhaps it is, perhaps not. The answer to this can only be vetted over time. There is a very real concern that tilt-bits and other recent introductions exposes the OS to an entirely new catagory of DOS attacks. To say anything is without a doubt concerning security indicates you have no understanding of the subject matter.

There are many things you can say without a doubt with regards to security. These features will, without a doubt, contribute to making Vista more secure than XP. Just as Windows 2003 x64 (and XP x64 for that matter) is more secure than XP x32.

Go here, search for IIS: http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls
It appears the numbers used in your argument are incorrect.

Uhm, that search will bring up vulnerabilities for IIS 4, IIS 5, and IIS 6. There are 5 vulnerabilities listed at NVD (http://nvd.nist.gov/nvd.cfm?startrow=1) and Secunia has 3 vulnerabilities listed (http://secunia.com/graph/?type=adv&period=all&prod=1438).

Apache is a web server, and Vista is an operating system. The nature, likelyhood, and severity of vulnerabilities varies drastically between these products. No accurate conclusions can be made from comparing these disparate product types.

I was actually comparing the FUD regarding Vista with the FUD regarding IIS.

The impact of an amateur web developer exposing a vulnerability in his hobby-site cannot be compared to the impact of tens of millions of internet-connected machines with a potential platform vulnerability.

It isn't the one hobby-site that is the problem, it is the amateur developer who then decides to share his creation.

Pindorama (http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/26026), PicoFlat (http://secwatch.org/advisories/1019239/), PhpStats (http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/25674),TikiWiki (http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/26006), CMS Made Simple (http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/25997), Design Stride Merchant Shop (http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/26046), LightBlog (http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/25990), and finally, here is a nice PHP one (http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/25498/info) (to lend credence to my previous example of PHP).

Let's see, what would I rather have for nefarious purposes, an owned workstation... even a thousand owned workstations, or a rack of webhosts... hmm... hard choice.

What is it with people these days making arguments absent any facts, and drawing conclusions from nonsensical comparisons? Has everyone gone in to politics without telling me or something, geez...

Hmm.. Hi pot, this is kettle.

GrofLuigi

12th October 2007, 05:00

More code = more bugs = more vulnerabilities.

GL

burfadel

12th October 2007, 06:19

Microsoft just stuffed up through corporate greed. They only made a 32 bit version of Vista because they expected everyone to rush out and change over from XP. What they should have done is have vista x64, and bring out a modified SP3 kind of like a release 2 of XP. Then they could have charged a nominal fee (say $30) to update to the new release. This new release should be based on the Server 2003 code like XP x64. However, unlike a normal service pack that doesn't include new versions of WMP, IE etc, they should automatically include that as part of the update, as well as the updates to Directx, Net framework 3 etc etc. Most people with genuine XP would probably buy that! The advantage with this is that updates for the 'new XP' would be the same as server 2003, like the updates for server 2003 x64 and XP x64 (they're the same!). The outcome of this is that the profit from the nominal fee would cover the minimal development cost, as its essentially an updated port from Server 2003 with the other stuff chucked in, it would actually cut down by one the operating systems they need to support for XP, as sp3 would use the server 2003 updates, and sp2 would be covered by the updated (so instead of having updates like in the future for sp2, sp3, server 2003, they can cut out the sp3 update version), and they also cut out support for Vista 32 bit because it wouldn't exist. This would represent a very large saving for Microsoft, as well as better operating system options for the consumer. Development on updates for Vista x64 would also be quicker because the support can be rediverted from the scrapping of 2 system versions, and the consumer would benefit from much better Vista (let alone better development from day one because of the need not to make Vista 32 bit).

The truth be told, Sp2 for XP SHOULD have been udpated to the Server 2003 core, Microsoft would have saved a lot of money by doing so and it may have prevented a small loss from people being sick of Xp's reliability (server 2003 is much more reliable) and switching to Linux.

The other downside is that without Microsoft pushing for 64 bit operating systems the consumer misses out. A 64 bit version of a programme is faster than its 32 bit version, its not as simple as just having more memory available. 64 bit introduces new, faster instructions so processor intensive applications if programmed correctly can have a 40 percent or more performance boost :)

Bathrone

12th October 2007, 10:07

The good thing about the internet is that it gives people a voice. The bad thing about it is that you get countless people with no clue talking about subjects they are actually ignorant about.

Its refreshing to see people like int 21h actually contribute a reasoned and factual set of posts to this thread....which is nothing more than an example the problems of public internet creates.

Just because UAC is all the clueless users who think they know better can see, does not mean thats all thats changed under the hood. Go and read Roger Grimes book on Vista security and you ignorant people might actually begin to comprehend the depths of better security Vista offers over XP.

4Dude

17th October 2007, 05:50

For many people who will use Vista, these DRM issues are meaningless.Yes but you shouldnt not want your privacy invaded!!

ON VISTA YOU HAVE ZERO PRIVACY...... And that is something everyone should frown upon. (Even if they have nothing they wanna keep to themselves)

THIS IS ALL ABOUT PRIVACY!!!!!

Bathrone

18th October 2007, 11:00

4Dude you claim Vista has privacy issues. Can you explain what those are please? Most countries have various privacy laws and certainly in my country at least there is a whole range of privacy laws that MS are bound by.

DRM is not the same thing as privacy. I dont like DRM and I use tools to assert my fair use rights on Vista.

However, what do you propose MS should have done about patent pools and multimedia IP? Are you suggesting MS should have done a FOSS stunt where they rip off other IP holders stuff without licence? Or should MS have not met the terms the IP holders dictated when implementing the IP holders technology and broken the law that way?

burfadel

18th October 2007, 11:12

Shinigami-Sama

18th October 2007, 20:51

Media issues aside, Vista isn't that bad of an operating system. People must think of Vista like XP RTM, 95 RTM, and Windows 3.0 (the three previous truly new operating system). They all had problems to start with. Windows XP RTM was probably worse than Vista truth be told, it only became good once SP1 came out, when was it? 2002?

I compare it to ME than anything but hey

I do agree with you though, once the service pack comes(and hopefully has a more efficient aero) then I'll consider it again, until its a POS just like ME imo

Sharktooth

19th October 2007, 18:09

no "more efficient aero" in sp1... you can download the beta and test it... once sp1 is installed vista eats even more RAM!

JohnnyMalaria

19th October 2007, 18:49

no "more efficient aero" in sp1... you can download the beta and test it... once sp1 is installed vista eats even more RAM!

Where from? According to:

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9038660

it's by invitation only.

Beta SPs tend to be bigger than the final, too.

Sharktooth

19th October 2007, 18:57

just look on the net. i can legally download it here in italy, but dont know in your country.

Shinigami-Sama

19th October 2007, 21:09

no "more efficient aero" in sp1... you can download the beta and test it... once sp1 is installed vista eats even more RAM!

to bad I don't have any more vista compatible hardware:rolleyes:
unless I put it in a VM

Sharktooth

20th October 2007, 03:41

good for you. you wont miss XP... ;)

JohnnyMalaria

20th October 2007, 03:56

Just a thought - isn't it time to change the title of this thread?

i.e., "Why Vista will suck...." should be "Why Vista sucks..." or "Why Vista doesn't suck...."

:):o

Sharktooth

22nd October 2007, 17:28

yeah. "Why vista SUCKS" would be ok.

another Vista myth: Vista boots faster than XP.
i think it does not...: http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=378

GrofLuigi

23rd October 2007, 17:17

another Vista myth: Vista boots faster than XP.
i think it does not...: http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=378

For quite a few years I've been constantly amazed by Microsoft's (and moreso users') fascination by "boot times". AFAIK it all started between Windows2000 and XP, when some users complained about slow boot times and Microsoft reacted by cutting corners in XP ("fast initialization" of devices), introducing "prefetch" (which adds another layer of complexity and work to be done, IMO unnecessary) and hibernation (which is rarely implemented right in hardware - try putting a computer to sleep or waking it up with USB2.0 device connected).

Why not wait few seconds more and let hardware and all structures be initialized properly?

GL

Maccara

23rd October 2007, 18:18

For quite a few years I've been constantly amazed by Microsoft's (and moreso users') fascination by "boot times".

Exactly.

We actually had a staff meeting once, where one guy pointed out that we should focus some effort on shaving boottimes - he had calculated we will save so-and-so much time by just shaving off 15s. Everyone took that on face value and agreed.

Something nagged me about the figures and took out a calculator and a minute later voiced my opinion: "I just realized, we should give guy X the boot - he doesn't do any work here, he's just rebooting his computer all day." :devil:

He's calculations were for a reboot of every 6 minutes - probably tried to calculate for every 60 minutes, which is also a gross overestimation. Average user just came to work, booted computer (and at least in our department most didn't actually sit & wait for boot, so even that couldn't be calculated directly as a loss) and shutdown when left.

HyperHacker

24th October 2007, 01:18

How about that product deactivation (http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/23/1255235)? :p

Sharktooth

24th October 2007, 02:08

oh, that's a new feature that comes with Vista... slap in a new video card or a particular driver and you get your system... ehrr... deactivated. nice stuff...
ill laugh when the (in)famous driver/software revocation (http://www.fastsilicon.com/opinions-editorials/blame-vista-9.html?Itemid=27) will seriously hit Vista users...
however if you have some time... have a nice read: http://www.getgnulinux.org/windows/

shevegen

25th October 2007, 21:17

"Why not wait few seconds more and let hardware and all structures be initialized properly?"

I am using Linux almost exclusively these days.
But I must say that, your average Linux distribution will boot MUCH SLOWER than Windows.

It can be improved by not using those ugly shell scripts, but you see as long as the distributions do not aim for fast bootup times on default, this is another unnecessary area where Microsoft is better.

Shinigami-Sama

25th October 2007, 21:20

to bad most of those 'ugly shell scripts' are required to get your OS running, M$ just hides them in services and the registry

I do agree that if they wanted to they could make linux boot faster by atleast 30%, but atleast its not solaris slow!

Sharktooth

25th October 2007, 23:22

http://forums.fedoraforum.org/showthread.php?p=319950#post319950

wmansir

4th November 2007, 13:06

I finally got around to running some tests.

http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/706/chartws4.gif

On average Vista was 4% slower, but that's including the unusual case of 2 instances of Procoder running. It's a dual core system and ProCoder is mutlithreaded, but it still runs a little faster with 2 instances in XP. In Vista I reran the test twice and the process that took 168 minutes in XP took 188 and then 198.
Earlier this week I upgraded from 1GB DDR400 (2.5-3-3-5) to 2GB DDR2-667 (4-4-4-12) (MB supports both). My memory benchmarks were about the same with the new memory (still have some tweaking to do), but I ran the same DVD through RB last night and awoke to find my Procoder run had gone from 176 minutes to 118 minutes! I guess Vista really needs 2GB I though...then I noticed that my computer clock was a hour behind and realized the computer had knocked 60 minutes off when it corrected the clock for DST. D'oh.

Ryokurin

5th November 2007, 03:01

GrofLuigi

5th November 2007, 04:52

JohnnyMalaria

5th November 2007, 23:06

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=299 A three part series of basically Ed Bott completely tearing apart Peter Gutmann's whitepaper on Vista. Basically a ton of people are very misinformed on how Vista works, this thread included and its all a bunch of lies and misconceptions.

So, as with everything in the real world when two extreme groups are trying to tell you what the real truth is, the reality is that it lies somewhere in between.

At the end of the day, only you will know the truth about how any OS performs for you.

Sharktooth

6th November 2007, 05:07

... crappy ... :p

HyperHacker

6th November 2007, 08:25

All I can say for sure is I've used Vista and didn't like it. Slow, bloated, overly flashy, ugly, and unstable. (I managed to crash the Start menu. <_<) YMMV, but I can almost ensure you'll enjoy XP SP2 more.

burfadel

6th November 2007, 09:35

People should be reminded of Windows XP when it first came out! Before SP1 it wasn't exactly the best operating system, and you have to remember it was the second in that generation. Windows 2000 RTM would be the best one to compare to as that was version 5.0, XP was 5.1, and Server 2003/XP x64 was 5.2.

The problem is its been so long since it came out people can't remember what they were like. Then, it has to be considered Vista has to be a lot more complex than what 2000/XP was when it first came out. Most computers now wouldn't function properly on the original 2000/xp RTM.

My only suggestion is, if you only want to run a 32 bit operating system stick with XP, if you get a new computer or have a really good computer currently (I mean good, not what you think is good), then Vista x64 is the way to go, fully updated of course. I'd stay well clear of 32 bit Vista, that was the biggest mistake Microsoft has made recently. It makes support a whole lot more difficult, and future support just isn't there! Vista 32 bit can ONLY run with 2gb of RAM (same as XP), unless the addressing switch is used which limits you to 3GB. The latest games are heading towards requiring more than 2gb of RAM for best gameplay.

deuce2

7th November 2007, 01:51

So, as with everything in the real world when two extreme groups are trying to tell you what the real truth is, the reality is that it lies somewhere in between.

It indeed sounds like that is the case. I'm sure that given time Microsoft will have worked out many of the bugs as they did with XP. Until then I'll wait before purchasing it since I have a perfectly good XP operating system now. :) In the meantime, I think I'll check out one of the Linux packages because I like free stuff and I've got an extra computer to play with... now which flavor?:confused:

Sharktooth

7th November 2007, 02:33

why ppl likes to pay for beta softwares (cause IMHO, looking at the problems it has, Vista is still in beta stage!!!)?

Shinigami-Sama

7th November 2007, 02:45

why ppl likes to pay for beta softwares (cause IMHO, looking at the problems it has, Vista is still in beta stage!!!)?

I agree
to many bugs, still lots of unoptimized code(aero)

zambelli

9th November 2007, 09:32

Sharktooth

9th November 2007, 15:00

you can get a fast 8GB USB flash for about 30 euros (approx 45 USD)...
however, ReadyBoost didnt make any difference on my system (even if it's a bit old it has a fast hard drive).
on older machines it may make some though.

Ryokurin

10th November 2007, 04:09

Has anybody tried the Vista ReadyBoost (http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/features/details/readyboost.mspx)feature? I'm really curious about it. You can get 4GB of flash memory for $60 on NewEgg right now.

It didn't make that big of a difference to me, but then again I already have 1.5 gigs, about to step it up to 2 gigs on my laptop.

Its just like what burfadel said, If you remember how windows 2000 was right when it came out then you see how Vista is now, a ton of growing pains and minor issues that are annoying, but if you stick with it for a while you tend to forgive it as it is still better in the end. If the last time you tried it was the first of the year, seriously try it again as its quite a bit better now. Its not 10% but its getting there slowly.

I've kept it strictly on my laptop for now, but I'll probably start to roll it out to my desktops after the first of the year (making sure to buy business, as ultimate is basically a waste of money imho) I'm still sticking with XP for my family simply because of the nags, but I'll revisit the idea after SP1.