Skip to main content

Viva la Vista

Recently my Compaq Presario 2700T laptop's screen has been flaking-out on me. With the crash in laptop prices, I figured it would be more cost effective just to get a new laptop with a Core 2 chip and Vista. Why not? I'm a developer and I need to stay ahead of the curve on new technology.

My first stop was at CircuitCity.com where I purchase a new Gateway laptop with 2GB of RAM, and a 1.6 Ghz Core 2 Duo chip. This used to be my "wow" developer configuration, but apparently it's the status-quo for home users. I feel so uncool now.

The laptop came with Vista Home Premium, which is cool in its own right, but I need Vista Business or Ultimate. You can't upgrade laterally to Vista Business from Vista Home. Rather, you have to use the Vista Update Anywhere tool to go from Vista Home to Vista Ultimate. I didn't realize this until I purchase the laptop AND Vista Business separately. Oh well, I can re-use the Vista Home Premium license for another computer ...

Many of you may not remember the day when Windows 95 came out. I do. Back then there was Windows 3.1, and everyone thought it was hot stuff. So when Windows 95 came out, many people balked at it and complained about it being "too different." Many of the same complaints are made of Vista. Sure, there are compatibility issues, and the interface is a little bit different. Mostly, though, these lamentations are lame and unfounded.

I found Vista to be easy to install, easy to setup, and even easier to use. Vista was able to setup the driver for my HP Business Inkjet 1200 without me doing anything except clicking on a few buttons. Yeah, it's a network printer too, and it found the printer without fail. XP couldn't do that without locking up my entire shell for about 10 minutes.

Then I started to migrate my old data over to my new computer. This is where it gets really cool. I copied the "My Documents" folder from my old computer to the appropriate documents folder on Vista. During the copying, Vista figured out that I was copying these special folders, and was able to redirect the "My Pictures", "My Music" and other "My ..." folders to the appropriate NEW locations in Vista. Plus, it was smart enough not to automatically clobber the existing index files for these folders. How cool is that? Try that on a stinky-mac!

So far, the only software that has not been compatible is Norton SystemWorks 2005. I've gotten warnings about VisualStudio 2003 and 2005, and of course SQL Server 2005, but they all seem to work just fine. I have projects that are in the hundreds-of-thousands of lines of code, and Vista with VS 2003 and 2005 both crank!

ActiveDesktop is finally a first-class citizen with Vista. That's the nifty gadget bar on the right of the default desktop. Microsoft has made it easier to customize and program now that you can create HTML gadgets instead of ActiveX controls. Another hoo-ra for Microsoft and Vista. I saw AD released back in the early 90s and thought it was cool back then. Today, it's even cooler!

Probably the most important features for the end user of Windows are startup time and shutdown time. Vista startsup super-fast now, probably a whole 50% faster than XP does on a clean install. Shutdown is nearly instantaneous. My 1.6 Ghz Vista laptop kicks my 3.5GHz XP Pro desktop, seriously.

Because of some compatibility issues, I wonder if some business users will just wait 6 months to upgrade to Vista. I had thought about that too, but figured, why wait. It's not like Microsoft just went on vacation and isn't working on compatibility. Plus, to be fair to Microsoft, the vendors have had Vista in hand for over a year. They've had plenty of time to get their software Vista Ready. If nothing else, new Vista users will experience what it's like to be a Mac user with no software available to them. The only difference is that the Vista user is guaranteed to have an ocean of software open to them soon, whereas those Mac users, well, keep that inner-smile!

Popular posts from this blog

Clustered Foolishness

I had morning coffee with a well respected friend of mine recently. Aside from chatting about the usual wifery and family, we touched on the subject of clustered indices and SQL Server performance. A common misconception in the software industry is that a clustered index will make your database queries faster. In fact, most cases will demonstrate the polar opposite of this assumption. The reason for this misconception is a misunderstanding of how the clustered index works in any database server. A clustered index is a node clustering of records that share a common index value. When you decide on an index strategy for your data, you must consider the range of data to be indexed. Remember back to your data structures classes and what you were taught about hashtable optimizations. A hashtable, which is another way of saying a database index, is just a table of N values that organizes a set of M records in quickly accessible lists that are of order L, where L is significantly less than M. ...

Deadly Information

Remember back to 2006 when a young girl killed herself [1] , [4] after being tricked and harassed by a faux boy she found on the Web using MySpace. The trial against the faux boy, an adult woman (Lori Drew), did not result in prosecution for the death of Megan, much to the dismay of many.  Yet, today we read about another trial where someone is being accused of second degree murder because they may have mentioned something slanderous about another person who was later killed by a hit man [2] . In this case, though, the person on trial is a former FBI agent who was working deep cover to infiltrate organized crime. In both cases, someone released information to third parties that resulted in the death of another person.  Neither defendant in either of these cases actually committed the act of murder, though. In the case of the FBI agent, though, the murder charge is being taken seriously. Yet, in the MySpace slander case, the murder charge was not taken seriously. How are t...

Faster Climate Change

CNN reports that a WWF study has found that global climate change is happening faster than predicted in 2007 and that there will not be any arctic ice by 2013, or 2040. [1] Then it goes on to say that global sea level will increase by 1.08 meters by the end of the century, which is 2100, 92 years from now. Quite honestly, nobody really cares what is going to happen to the planet in 98 years. Why? Because in 98 years we (as humans) will either: (1) Obliterate ourselves because God told us to do it. (2) Eat eachother because there will no longer be any land available to grow crops and sustain living quarters for our 50 billion people. (3) Suffocate because our planet will no longer smell nice thanks to 50 billion people producing lots of solid waste in our oceans. (4) Leave the planet because there will no longer be enough fresh water to sustain our lives. Wait a minute. Consider (4) for a moment. Where can we get an abundance of fresh water TODAY? Anyone? Yeah, the arctic! It's goin...