DX10 in XP 47 replies

Please wait...

Freyr Advanced Member

A2Files Staff

46,877 XP

5th February 2005

11 Uploads

4,275 Posts

0 Threads

#41 12 years ago

I'm going to skip the first part of your post as its just becoming a punch and judy esque yes it does, no it dosen't.

Sgt. D. Pilla;4402447They don't...if a COMPANY is migrating from XP to Vista, then their machines will already suit Vista fine, Companys computers don't board on the minimum requirements, they are almost always exceeding the requirements and it the company has a reason to upgrade to the new operating system, then they accept they may need to spend money on some computers to be able to do the upgrade.

Um. New to business? Lots of companies, especially companies listed as sole traders and partnerships (which makes up a significant number of SME's, who account for around 80% of businesses) spend as little as possible on anything because they take say 60% of the profits. If IT uses up an extra 5% of the cashflow then that reduces the profit and what they get in their back pocket. As a result companies like this tend to operate IT on a shoestring budget.

Even larger companies do the same as regards to upgrades, have you ever noticed DOS clients running on PC's in large retail stores? Or NT clients in well known international banks?

Just yesterday I had a client who wanted Office 2007 on their system because its better then 03 for a variety of reasons, they asked me to check their system specs and I told them it couldn't cope, so they spend 2k on a new system, which quite frankly, in terms of RAM, and CPU, wtf pwns my new system with 4GB and E8400 Becuase in the long run, it turned out cheaper to upgrade the system, now they are set for ages, including Windows 7 which is more intensive then Vista is

Professional IT != buying the latest OS from microsoft. Most companies have better things to spend the cash on.

Given the chance of how I would spend £30k I would replace a number of peices of older euipment over five years old, replace a large amount of our infrastructure and upgrade the business ADSL links at our remote sites to SDSL for the next several years. That would be a better use of the money as it would increase productivity and remove long standing grumbles people have had with the systems. However, given we aren't going to get a £30k windfall we just have to keep chipping away at the higher priority replacements with the operations budget.

Becuase its been proven more reliable and stable then XP was at XP's first release, then with SP1 its been proven to be just as stable as XP SP2, its cheaper to buy then XP is as XP is now "legacy" old, worn out, just like buying DDR400 ram is alot more expensive then buy DDR2 ram. Or buying an IDE HDD is more expensive then buying a SATA HDD

There is no cost difference buying XP on a VLK to Vista on a VLK in the UK.

A complete exageration... Had an SMB only a few days Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement employ a Server 2007 machine, which set them back 6k, and they also purchased, along with licenses, 100 machines Vista "Ready" (1GB, and E6600 machines) with Vista Business which set them back only 10k... Along with Trend Micro CSM for SMB @ 10 seats per server which set them back 800 bucks, a complete turn around from Win 2000/XP and Server 2000, to Server 2007 and Vista Business, all for less then 20k, or around 18k in USD. Thats a business of 100 machines, virus protection, servers new machines and the licenses for those 100 machines. And enterprise business in the range of 300 machines yeah, maybe 60k but they are buying from the wrong source... heck, i can provide the invoice if you really want

Did you forget the cals?

Vista business desktop upgrade x100 ~£12000 Server 2008 x3 ~£3600 300 S2k8 CALs (3x100) = ~£6000 Exchange 2007 + 100 CALs. £7018.33 --------- £ 28618 ($56,559.64 at current exchange rates)

Excluding costs for testing, implementation, user training, 3rd party software upgrades to work with Vista and hardware upgrades.

Its around 100% more expensive to perform an upgrade of a Microsoft product in europe as Microsoft carry products across at $1 = £1 where the exchange rate is $2 = £1.

Relabliltiy, ease of use, compatability, stability, price all from the get go, with no service packs, none of the above was offered until SP1 for XP Vista outright, beats XP with SP1, Vista SP1 is the same as XP SP2, as has been proven many times by various online reviews

Reliability: At the moment the systems are extremely reliable. Once you get to being 99.9999 reliable there is no point upgrading on the point of reliability.

Ease of use: The users don't know how Vista works, so this would require training. They already know how their current system works. Not a valid reason.

Compatibility: Defiantly not a reason I am going to buy Vista for, our accounts and case management system wouldn't run reliably on Vista and this is the most business critical system we have. That would put the company out of danger. Certainly not a good reason.

Stability: XP is completely stable running its applications. Our accounts package/case management crashes on Vista. Not a good reason to upgrade.

Price: We have XP installed and working, and it would cost extra to upgrade to Vista. Not a good reason to upgrade, we don't have cash to burn.

This is why you see businesses still using 2k or NT networks. The only feature in Vista I see as useful is the drive encryption, which would be useful for laptops. But seeing as we can use 3rd party products for that at the moment anyway for less than the upgrade cost there is no much point doing so.




Sgt. D. Pilla

Uber Geek

50 XP

23rd October 2007

0 Uploads

3,473 Posts

0 Threads

#42 12 years ago
I'm going to skip the first part of your post as its just becoming a punch and judy esque yes it does, no it dosen't.

You skip, I lolThere is a big difference between SME and SMB, Small to Medium Enterprise, or Small to Medium Business...Im talking business, not enterprises, for enterprises to upgrade to Vista then of course it'll cost heaps, but for them to downgrade, or do anything that involves employing new software will cost heapsFor a small to medium business on the other hand, its vital they have a reliable, and NETWORK friendly Operating System, we have ALL experianced XP locking up trying to connect to a computer when bandwidth is limited, this doesn't happen in Vista, well, it does, but you can still use the computer.XP is not a networking Operating System, it locks up, its slower, and its not as easy to use in terms of networking, Vista on the other hand its much easier to most people, Including my mother (If you knew her, thats saying something)

Even larger companies do the same as regards to upgrades, have you ever noticed DOS clients running on PC's in large retail stores? Or NT clients in well known international banks?

Of course they don't run DOS, because like XP its not reliable, its slow to network, and simply, is harder to use, not as intuative...And most people don't like starting at 8 colors haha

Most companies have better things to spend the cash on.

Those with networking prioritys, say for example Hospitals, or GP's (You know, the Doctors Surgery for "Am I sick?")Anywhere where communication and networking is important, will use, or will have considered to the point of quotation's Vista or at the least, a Server 2007 operating system, because one of Vistas strongest points, which Im sure we can all agree on, is Vistas networking abilitys...Anyone who's used Vistas networking in regards to PC access, file/folder access, sharing permissions etc, know that its not going to lock the entire system up trying to search for files or folders, its much faster at what it does for networking, its permissions are more extensive and easier to moddify...Software network related issues such as the infamous "Cannot connect drive listings" in Word, are gone in Vista, Thats the problem when you use the drop down box in Word to save or open a file and word locks up trying to search into disconnected Mapped Network drives, after a few minutes it frees up....Vista fixes this, Sure that alone isn't a reason to upgrade, but if you are a company with multiple network drives, multiple systems then it may become a valid reason, because all office versions do this, and there is no fix for it, other then trying to restore network drive connectivity, there are many other programs that do this, but Word is the most infamous for it

Did you forget the cals?Vista business desktop upgrade x100 ~£12000Server 2008 x3 ~£3600

TeeHee, I sure did forget to calculate the Desktop upgradesYours are equally wrong though...Starters, Why did you include the 300 PCs in the price? That was for an SME of 300 PCs rather then 100...Exchange comes part of Server 2007, Server 2007 comes with the Server, the Server sets them back 6,000$Vista Ready PCs c/ Vista = 800$ each * 100 qtyServer 2007 c/ Exchange 2007 and Hardware = 6,000$Trend Micro CSM for SMB c/ 10 seats per server = 800$Total: 80,000+6,000+800 = $86,800 or £42,037Which depending on the size of the business, is remarkable affordable to do a complete company Computer turn around, new hardware, new servers, new operating systems...Applications costing no extra as they use their own, Drivers needed are free downloads all the company MAY pay extra for is Operating System Training, but here atleast, they usually don't...If your business buys you a mobile phone, they don't train you how to use it here, your just expected to learn as you go, the same is said for PCs, atleast for a few companys I know that have experianced this..may be different in the UK or other countries

Ease of use: The users don't know how Vista works, so this would require training. They already know how their current system works. Not a valid reason.

They also don't know how Myob works, or Quickbooks, or how XP worked, but they were taught along the way, and XP was pickup and go, Vista is more so by a long shot

Compatibility: Defiantly not a reason I am going to buy Vista for, our accounts and case management system wouldn't run reliably on Vista and this is the most business critical system we have. That would put the company out of danger. Certainly not a good reason.Stability: XP is completely stable running its applications. Our accounts package/case management crashes on Vista. Not a good reason to upgrade.

I guess they are kinda the same thing, In terms of Operating Stablility, Vista wins, Far less BSODs caused by Drivers or memoryIf your work program, after 2 years still doesn't run on Vista, then its the programmers fault, for being a lazy bugger, either that, or there is a new version the manager is unware of or is to stubborn to buy, Applications that run on XP, DO run on Vista, EXCEPT for drivers, A program that runs on XP has never ever been an issue running it on Vista for me, people I know with Vista, and client experiances, with the exception of Myob which continues to struggle due to Myobs in combinatin with Vista's networking handleingAnyways, long post, and im over this whole Vista is better vs XP is better, we all have our own opinions and they arn't going to change




C38368

...burning angel wings to dust

55 XP

14th February 2004

0 Uploads

5,013 Posts

0 Threads

#43 12 years ago

Would somebody please explain to me what page three of this thread has to do with running DX10 under XP? Oh, right. Nothing. FFS people, start a new thread if you want to argue the merits of one OS over another.




Sgt. D. Pilla

Uber Geek

50 XP

23rd October 2007

0 Uploads

3,473 Posts

0 Threads

#44 12 years ago

Would somebody please explain to me what page three of this thread has to do with running DX10 under XP?

Oh, right. Nothing.

FFS people, start a new thread if you want to argue the merits of one OS over another.

Im so proud of you C3! I didn't know you could get grumpy! Now I've done my job! But it does actually have some relation, such as DX10 is faster then DX9 is, thus games under DX10 are typically faster then those under DX9, thus Vista is typically better for gaming then XP is... its all related, But I understand if you didn't read the posts...they are kinda long




C38368

...burning angel wings to dust

55 XP

14th February 2004

0 Uploads

5,013 Posts

0 Threads

#45 12 years ago

I've read enough of them to know that you and Freyr are trading blows about a lot of reasonably valid points, none of which actually deal with running DX10 on XP. So, take it to a new thread. And if this is the first time you've seen me "grumpy" then you must not have read very many of my posts.




Sgt. D. Pilla

Uber Geek

50 XP

23rd October 2007

0 Uploads

3,473 Posts

0 Threads

#46 12 years ago

I read most of the posts you make in Tech Discussion :P Ahh, Stop making me derail the thread C3! :P




Oblivious

I tawt I taw a puddy tat...

50 XP

30th December 2002

0 Uploads

2,806 Posts

0 Threads

#47 12 years ago
Sgt. D. Pilla;4403512Im so proud of you C3! I didn't know you could get grumpy! Now I've done my job!

Anyone that's been here long enough can tell you that you've not even begun to see grumpy yet. ;)




Sgt. D. Pilla

Uber Geek

50 XP

23rd October 2007

0 Uploads

3,473 Posts

0 Threads

#48 12 years ago

Stop derailing, so I don't see grumpy pls :p But to the original question, No, DX10 can't run under XP when I say can't I mean, can, but doesn't...