PDA

View Full Version : Inatalling Vista.



SoundMachine
September 15th, 2006, 02:24 AM
Any caveats, anything special that you experienced.

Don't worry, it's for work, all my home computers are running Linux/BSD so don't turn this into a .vs. discussion.

Thank you.

maniacmusician
September 15th, 2006, 02:28 AM
i've only ever installed it on one computer; a really old one at that. It was a while ago too, when they were offering a free beta for public testing. i have to say, it was a painless and easy install. the problem was that the video card was so horrible that everything appeared staticky on the screen and at a really big resolution, so it was pretty unusable. and it did a run a little slow...the machine was a P3, maybe a P2 with 512 RAM.

darkhatter
September 15th, 2006, 02:47 AM
I ran the RC1 and it was a huge step up from my XP, the install was really easy. Vista uses like 4gb I have no idea why 20gb was needed

SoundMachine
September 15th, 2006, 02:51 AM
i've only ever installed it on one computer; a really old one at that. It was a while ago too, when they were offering a free beta for public testing. i have to say, it was a painless and easy install. the problem was that the video card was so horrible that everything appeared staticky on the screen and at a really big resolution, so it was pretty unusable. and it did a run a little slow...the machine was a P3, maybe a P2 with 512 RAM.

The load of computers on which i will eventually install it will all be Opteron 165's with 2GB's of memory, 160+ of them.

The tryout machine is a sempron 4000+ with 512MB, i was mainly thinking of partitioning and installation since i'd be running it on a separate HDD (no need to clutter what works) and run it in a familiar environment.

Thank you for your input, we do have a lot of machines with that config today.

Unless i know you you probably got a RC and the debugging is still turned on, which will make it slow.


As an example, a current of FreeBSD with unlinked malloc and and full kernel debugging vs a linked malloc and disabled debugging is vastly different.

SoundMachine
September 15th, 2006, 02:56 AM
I ran the RC1 and it was a huge step up from my XP, the install was really easy. Vista uses like 4gb I have no idea why 20gb was needed

Probably because of the decompression install, kinda like any package manager, download it encrypted adn it will have to fit that size and twice the size of install.

Download, unzip, copy.

Nice input. I believe that Vista with it's support for TPM will eventualy be the most secure OS to date (actually, it alrady is).

Qrk
September 15th, 2006, 04:55 AM
I ran the RC1 and it was a huge step up from my XP, the install was really easy. Vista uses like 4gb I have no idea why 20gb was needed

That makes me feel better about Vista. When I heard that Vista would take up 20 GB I thought would be the worst thing since ME. But if it only takes up 4, it doesn't sound half bad. I just might upgrade (if its free and Free of course!)