Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
just_some_guy

Another Vista Gotcha for the list

Recommended Posts

I needed to connect to a NetMeeting today.

 

That's when I discovered that NetMeeting doesn't exist in Vista anymore.

 

It's been replaced by Windows Meeting Place. But Windows Meeting Place is not backwards compatible with NetMeeting.

 

Googling reveals a hack you can make to get some - but not all - of NetMeeting working under Vista. But you still won't be able to host a NetMeeting that way.

 

So, I say again...

 

Costs more, runs slower, and is less compatible with 3rd party hardware and apps... Avoid Vista unless you specifically you must have one of the very few things it does that XP does not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Costs more, runs slower, and is less compatible with 3rd party hardware and apps... Avoid Vista unless if you specifically must have NetMeeting.

Fixd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

netmeeting?

 

We switched to the Java application called Elluminate, no turning back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not just put Windows Meeting Place on the older machines?

Doesn't run on XP, I believe.

 

Stupid, you say? I concur.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How old is net meeting win 95?

Cant keep supporting old stuff for ever.

There is a hotfix for vista business so you can use netmeeting on it.

Edited by A Hitman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How old is net meeting win 95?

Cant keep supporting old stuff for ever.

There is a hotfix for vista business so you can use netmeeting on it.

You just got pwned by a learner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Costs more, runs slower, and is less compatible with 3rd party hardware and apps... Avoid Vista unless you specifically you must have one of the very few things it does that XP does not.

Legacy requirements are but one aspect of a cosm that creates a new OS. Things grow, change, and get better. We can't live in a bygone era, forever. Progress is progress. Without it, we become dull, lifeless and technology by very definition becomes a moot point.

 

Vista shouldn't be avoided on the basis that it doesn't suit certain people's legacy requirements. There is a fundamental flaw in "avoiding" technology on the premise of singular faults, to my mind.

 

z

 

PS: Hopefully the fact that I'm an open source guy reinforces the fact that Vista should not be shunned, or at very least, goes some distance in explaining that there really is little to fear. I endorse it, on the basis that it's a good OS. A better OS than XP ever could be. Such is the nature of progress, in many cases. If I were a jerk, I'd ask that people stop bloody crying about vista, and start living in this year...but I'm not, so I'll leave it to others to use more harsh/simple words.

Edited by zebra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You just got pwned by a learner

Which part of the OP "Googling reveals a hack you can make to get some - but not all - of NetMeeting working under Vista. But you still won't be able to host a NetMeeting that way." was unclear to you and the Learner?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I were a jerk, I'd ask that people stop bloody crying about vista, and start living in this year...but I'm not, so I'll leave it to others to use more harsh/simple words.

If I was a jerk, I'd point out that progress is supposed to make things better, and OSs which cost more, run slower, consume more system resources for little or no benefit, and reorganize their UIs in non-intuitive ways, are not actually better, and people that blindly think that "newer equals better" need to wake up...but I'm not, so I'll leave it to others to use more harsh/simple words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cost more? Nope. Quite the opposite.

Run slower? On newer hardware, nope.

Consumes more system resources? Hardly. It uses more RAM by caching your software to improve speeds, and take advantage of your hardware.

Reorganised UI? Sure, it's slightly different. I can't see how it's worse though. I'll leave that to personal preference.

 

If you need your OS to be as fast as possible, grab a copy of Windows 7 beta. Faster than both XP and Vista so far. I doubt it'll run NetMeeting though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I were a jerk, I'd ask that people stop bloody crying about vista, and start living in this year...but I'm not, so I'll leave it to others to use more harsh/simple words.

If I was a jerk, I'd point out that progress is supposed to make things better, and OSs which cost more, run slower, consume more system resources for little or no benefit, and reorganize their UIs in non-intuitive ways, are not actually better, and people that blindly think that "newer equals better" need to wake up...but I'm not, so I'll leave it to others to use more harsh/simple words.

 

1. They do make things better.

2. It doesn't run slower on all hardware configurations. This is a relative thing.

3. Nobody said blindly newer is always better.

 

Maybe you should have a play with Windows 7? You might like it...

 

If you're into UI efficiency and HCI consistency, tried out Mac OS X? Never know, you might find something you like in there too. I think you'd probably dig iChat Conference mode...

 

z

Edited by zebra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Run slower? On newer hardware, nope.

For the record...

 

Vista consumes more clock cycles to do the same job that XP did with fewer. This is an empirical fact. On all hardware configurations, Vista will consume more clock cycles just sitting there than XP did. So Vista gives you fewer clock cycles for apps than XP did.

 

Sure, you can get around its increased slowness by running it on faster hardware. But, saying Vista runs as fast as XP "on newer hardware" is like saying that low octane fuel is just as good, because when you put it in a Ferrari it goes as fast as your Skoda.

 

As for other OSs. Sure, they exist. Yes, the Mac interface is elegant. This post was comparing Windows to the former version of Windows, and pointing out that the 'Vista is better' BS is just that.

Edited by just_some_guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...'Vista is better' BS is just that.

This is a highly subjective and context sensitive statement however. Wouldn't you agree? I'm entirely willing to accept that you've had a rough trot with vista, and don't like it for the reasons you've mentioned above - but to make a generalisation, as the one you just have, is stretching things a bit far, right?

 

z

Edited by zebra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

baloney, even 64-bit flavours will hit the hardware harder, but it'll be more efficient once the programming is optimised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's where you're wrong just_some_guy. Vista can actually take advantage of modern hardware, such as multi-core CPUs and DX10 hardware. So XP may use 'less clock cycles', but each cycle has wasted potential. In fact, I might put this to the test soon since I have XP, Vista and 7 on this machine. Results shall follow.

Edited by .:Cyb3rGlitch:.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How old is net meeting win 95?

Cant keep supporting old stuff for ever.

There is a hotfix for vista business so you can use netmeeting on it.

You just got pwned by a learner

 

Status and post count does not mean your smarter than anyone else you know. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is highly subjective however. Wouldn't you agree?

Perhaps. But let's look at this dispassionately...

 

Vista:

 

1. empircally runs slower (on equivalent hardware, as noted above),

2. is less backwards compatible (which matters a lot to some),

3. introduced new bugs that didn't exist before,

4. required people to once again relearn elements of the UI,

5. introduced some really annoying new 'features' (eg. locks you out of modifying access to certain directories that you ocassionally do need to modify),

5. removed some apps (eg NetMeeting)

6. Created 4 levels of crippleware with increasing levels of pricing, underneat 'Ultimate'

7. cost more than its predecessor at each level of pricing.

 

Counterbalancing all that, we got:

 

1. Some eye candy

2. a new PC performance rating, which would be handy if other vendors got behind it a little more

3. more noob-proof (but highly irritating for non-n00bs) security settings

4. better inbuilt search, which is definitely handy

5. the Mac-alike sidebar, which contains some useful gadgets.

 

Are the negatives outweighed by the positives?

 

Certainly not from my perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you realise that the only reason DX10 wont run on XP is because MS made it that way in order to get you to buy Vista?

 

There's nothing so technically special about DX10 that it couldn't have been made to work with XP. But MS built it specifically so that it couldn't.

 

It's the "only on Xbox" strategy again. Make exclusive software that users will want so much they'll actually buy one of your other products in order to get it to run.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"empircally runs slower (on equivalent hardware, as noted above)"

 

No. It doesn't.

 

It runs slower on an equivalent shitbox. I assure you it runs faster and more effectively than XP on my modern rig. Not to mention it's easier to use and is significantly more stable. If you have issues, don't use it, as recommended above.

 

EDIT: Yes, DX10 probably was made exclusively for Vista on purpose. They needed to convince people to upgrade somehow. The fact of the matter is, if your hardware can run DX10 enabled games well, it'd most likely require Vista to perform to its greatest potential anyway.

Edited by .:Cyb3rGlitch:.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Status and post count does not mean your smarter than anyone else you know. ;)

However, failing to notice that the thing you're suggesting was already specifically addressed in the original post, does mean you're dumber than most ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Each to their own. I don't read the tripe other people produce, I do my own testing. Everyone knows that Vista was crap in the early months due to shit drivers etc. Notice the date of majority of those 'respectable' sites. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×