OK. MVPs do not take on responsibility to help. We are not MS employees.
We try to be helpful where we can, and if we are helpful enough that other
MVPs notice, then we're nominated into a program where there are a few
perks. By no means is it compensation for work performed, and after you've
been awarded, it is very explicit that the award is for past performance and
there is no obligation. So any help is voluntary. We have lives too, but
sometimes in our free time we offer free help, instead of private consulting
during that time for $75/hr plus.
I have an HP NX9005e Athlon XP 2400+ with 768 MB RAM. It installs Vista in
under 45 minutes, I'd say it's more like 25-30 minutes for a clean install.
I just installed on my Sempron 3100 a couple of days ago and it took about
20 minutes. I installed it on a virtual machine and it took around an hour.
I have a couple of P4s at work, 2.4 and 3.2 GHz, with either 512 MB or 1 GB
of RAM, and I installed on them in about 30 minutes tops. I just upgraded
my RC2 x64 EMT64T 3.4 to RTM x64, 1 GB of RAM. It had a fair bit of stuff
on it. It took under 2 hours.
All the machines I have installed Vista on have been snappy, almost as fast
as XP to sometimes faster.
If you don't see benefits to Vista, you're not looking close enough. Paul
Thurrott said it well, from far away it doesn't look like a compelling
upgrade, but from close examination, the benefits are very numerous. (I
don't reference him often but IMO his latest articles were well-written and
Anyway sorry for the rant. It's just that I had a lot of things to do
tonight and instead spent time helping people online... for free....
MVP - Windows Server - Directory Services
"tairobi" <email@example.com> wrote in message
> The people who are disputing the installation times are saying they are
> either on Dual core procs, x64 machines or using SATA hard drives. That's
> point exactly. I am on a Dell Inspiron 2.66 GHz laptop with 1 GB of
> It's using a UATA hard drive, not Serial ATA. There are a lot of people
> using UATA. My point is that myself, the guys who post about long install
> times on these boards, and those with comparable systems can expect long
> install times. I stand by that conclusion 100%.
> The MVPs may or may not be MS employees. In either case, they are still
> MVPs, meaning they have taken on a role of some responsibility and should
> trying to help people actually using this software instead of offering
> one-liner dismissals to people's problems. Microsoft should be ashamed of
> themselves for not having dedicated staff open to assisting people on
> As for not adopting Vista, I'm not saying don't ever upgrade, I'm saying
> don't adopt it now. Every OS is buggy right out of the starting gate and
> Vista has a multitude of them. My suggestion is to wait a couple of years
> Microsoft to start taking people's comments seriously and actually do
> something to make this a better operating system and not a multi-million
> dollar "mediocre" OS. It's funny how Microsoft touts that they have spent
> tens of millions on Vista and this is the best they can come up with.
> So far no one has told me any GOOD reason to upgrade from Windows Xp to
> Vista other than the graphics are prettier. Anyone? Anyone? What about
> makes it absolutely necessary for me to scrap Windows XP and move to
> So far, absolutely nothing.
> "Tim Draper" wrote:
>> no install issues here. i'd be more inclined to say its your pc.
>> took about 1hour for me (about right for a windows install on DVD)....
>> comparing the speed to an XP install on cd.
>> i installed with 1gb ram
>> a 2ghz opteron @ 2.9ghz on a single drive hitachi SATA2 250gb drive.
>> theres always going to be software issues with new OS releases. it's
>> called evolution of the OS. if that didnt happen, we'd all be on 3.11
>> code that sucked (althought did need less system resources same thing
>> happened with XP and drivers afaik.
>> do you use WMP11? i've always found since the new WMP skin (wmp7+) is
>> always buggy. i never use it apart from to play wmv/wma. a combo of
>> jetaudio and VLC for me. plays EVERYTHING I need.
>> if something is buggy (which tbh, vista isnt available public retail yet
>> & with stable+mature drivers) then find something that IS stable. if a
>> media player is unstable then use something else.
>> tairobi wrote:
>> > I'm not sure what's up with all of the hateful posts from Chad Harris,
>> > who
>> > obviously has mental issues. This post is meant to convey facts about
>> > Microsoft's newest operating system.
>> > First, let me say that I've spent a lot of time with Vista from Beta 3
>> > to
>> > the latest RTM version. After months of working with Vista and
>> > comparing to
>> > the mature Windows XP operating system, I'm less than impressed with
>> > Windows
>> > Vista.
>> > For the latest RTM release from MSDN, I completely formatted and
>> > installed
>> > the x86 RTM to a P4 2.66 MHz system with 1 GB of RAM. I timed the
>> > installation. It took three hours and 17 minutes from the time I popped
>> > in
>> > the DVD that I made from the ISO image from MSDN to the time the
>> > operating
>> > system was on the screen, with the pointer, awaiting input. Upgrades
>> > from
>> > Windows XP take even longer. On my machine, an upgrade from Windows XP
>> > SP2 to
>> > Vista Ultimate took four hours and 43 minutes. On these very forums,
>> > other
>> > users posted about the long upgrade times. One user said his was going
>> > on for
>> > 10 hours. Paul smith with Microsoft replied "I've had Vista typically
>> > take
>> > about 90 minutes to upgrade XP in virtual machine. So yes, 10 hours is
>> > slow.
>> > 8-)" and then proceeded to offer no technical help. Translation: It
>> > upgrades
>> > fine on the 4 GB RAM Core Duo machines we're testing on here internally
>> > at
>> > Microsoft, therefore the problem is yours, not ours.
>> > Now onto usage. Here's what I've found:
>> > 1. Instead of an OS that boots faster, Vista takes a full 5 minutes to
>> > go
>> > from the computer being turned off to being responsive enough to let me
>> > do
>> > tasks. What that means is between the time I turn on the computer and
>> > the OS
>> > gets through the "splash screen" and then to the actual desktop, it
>> > takes
>> > about three minutes. Afterward, the machine is completely unresponsive
>> > for at
>> > least another two mintues. CPU usage during this time is pegged at
>> > 100%.
>> > There are no running programs or processes listed in task manager, so I
>> > have
>> > to conclude that it's a bunch of services initializing. There is a
>> > services
>> > tab on the task manager, but no CPU usage column to tell you which one
>> > is
>> > hogging so much memory. You actually have to launch the resource
>> > monitor and
>> > get familiar with it and try to decipher what's using up so much of
>> > your CPU,
>> > and even then it's not clear. So, 5-6 minutes to boot and become usable
>> > as
>> > opposed to 2 minutes on Windows XP. This was clearly a step backwards
>> > from
>> > what we, the users, wanted.
>> > 2. Media Player 11 that ships with Vista has some major issues. After
>> > loading the OS, I found that DVDs which would play flawlessly on
>> > Windows XP
>> > no longer played well on Vista. The picture skipped and hung and was
>> > full of
>> > artifacts. I had to set hardware acceleration to be completely off
>> > before it
>> > calmed down. The problem doesn't happen when played on Real Player or
>> > PowerDVD, only Media Player 11. I posted on these forums about this
>> > problem
>> > and of course no one from Microsoft bothered to respond.
>> > 3. Many applications that worked in XP run poorly on Vista or don't run
>> > at
>> > all anymore. Most notably is Office 2003. My Office applications are
>> > dying
>> > for no reason or giving obscure error messages. I had to download the
>> > Office
>> > 2007 Pro suite off MSDN to get Office stable again. Don't expect
>> > Microsoft to
>> > take you seriously when you report these errors. For example, several
>> > users
>> > on these forums posted an error connecting with Live Messenger 8. Jim
>> > Pickering replied with "Unable to duplicate on a 32 bit system running
>> > a
>> > clean install of Vista RTM." Another user reported that
>> > Time.Windows.Com
>> > (developer) didn't work on Vista and cited the behavior he was seeing.
>> > Colin
>> > Nash with Microsoft replied with "Works for me..."
>> > Translation: We don't believe you.
>> > Other posts for help with applications not running on Vista are going
>> > largely unreplied to. Nice way to treat your customers, Microsoft.
>> > 4. The added security is more of a pain in the butt than a help. I'm
>> > constantly plagued with Vista asking me if the application which I
>> > double
>> > clicked on is okay to run or the operation I'm trying to do in Internet
>> > Explorer is okay to do. You know, this was mildly interesting at first,
>> > but
>> > now I'm really annoyed. I know it's possible to turn these stupid
>> > warnings
>> > off, but you cannot do it from the dialog box.
>> > Pros:
>> > I find Windows Vista "pretty". That's about the ONLY reason I can think
>> > of
>> > to upgrade from Windows XP at this point. The aero interface is nice
>> > and
>> > creative.
>> > Cons:
>> > Takes hours to install or upgrade.
>> > The performance is sluggish at very best because of all the background
>> > crap
>> > that Microsoft crammed into the operating system. For better
>> > performance,
>> > plan on buying a Core 2 duo processor or at least 2 GB of RAM (and
>> > there's no
>> > guarantee that will help much).
>> > Vista eats an additional 2 GB of hard drive space over what Windows XP
>> > took.
>> > Media Player 11 is buggy and frustrating to use.
>> > The beefed up security in Vista isn't readily apparent except for
>> > annoying
>> > dialog boxes that constantly ask you for approval. For the end-user,
>> > it's not
>> > easy to disable these dialogs.
>> > Unless you have antivirus software, plan on getting used to that little
>> > yellow shield with the exclamation on the system tray. There's no way
>> > to
>> > disable it without hacking the registry or buying some antivirus
>> > software.
>> > The "improved" user interface for sorting and displaying files seems
>> > only
>> > improved by appearance. The sorting scheme seems to be exactly the same
>> > as in
>> > Windows XP.
>> > Bottom Line:
>> > It's like Microsoft completely ignored what the average user wanted in
>> > an
>> > operating system. You're better off waiting for Vista to mature for at
>> > least
>> > a couple of years before you decide to abandon Windows XP. The number
>> > one
>> > issue I can see Microsoft getting hit hard with are the home and small
>> > business users with relatively fast machines and performance issues.