tahir
|
Win2K -> VistaNormally I'd be looking to go from 2k -> XP but Vista's had it's first major service pack and I can't see me moving away from a Windows desktop anytime soon, so can I go 2k -> Vista?
|
dpack
|
think so
vista seems pretty stable and easy so far
|
Barefoot Andrew
|
I'm thinking of going from Win2K to Vista x64 Ultimate, so we can hold hands.
A.
|
tahir
|
| Barefoot Andrew wrote: | I'm thinking of going from Win2K to Vista x64 Ultimate, so we can hold hands.
A. |
Excellent  
|
tahir
|
I'm looking at it like this:
Upgrade current system to Vista, then install new M/Board, processor etc. I know this is likely to be more expensive than buying a new PC but I'll be wasting less and I won't have to re-install all my stuff.
Any flaws in my plan?
|
Barefoot Andrew
|
Proceed with caution - it would be disappointing if having upgraded the OS, then the hardware, Vista threw a major strop because the chipset and other key bits of machine glue had changed. I've no idea if Vista copes with a motherboard change - worth checking out.
A.
|
Maxwell Smart
|
I doubt that you could do that - as the drivers won't match the new hardware when you reboot on the new board, processor, ram...
Also consider that depending on how old your current board is there is a very good chance that your current drives will not work on the new board so you may need to replace them to! Tower mounting points, graphics cards and power source also need to be considered when changing mboards...
Finally Vista is a pig - so unless you have at least 1GB for a bare installation.... i've got 2gb and it is still slow...
I think what would be less wasteful and cheaper is buying a brand new machine and then donating your current one to a charity or school...
|
Jonnyboy
|
Personally, I would go for XP sp3.
|
vegplot
|
Vista Ultimate seems to be fine but I've only run it on a new PC. I'd be wary of upgrading to Vista from a PC which didn't have plenty of oommph or was more than 6 months old. I've overcome this by running Windows Server 2008 as a workstation but that's not practical for everyone.
|
Maxwell Smart
|
the other thing is if you are using thin clients and a wireless network then i would stick with XP. vista on a wireless network is often very problematic due to the new security layers - it can be very very slow. - 1 hr to transfer a 100mb file / 5 mins to transfer a 60kb file.... over a wifi G network....
|
orangepippin
|
I certainly would not upgrade to Vista and then upgrade the motherboard, that is asking for trouble.
Vista with SP1 is fine. I have not noticed the wifi problem ... daughter uses it on her wifi laptop all the time, but possibly not transferring large files.
Have a think about virtual PC solutions. There are various ways (which are beyond me) of doing a "physical to virtual" transfer, e.g. using VMware. Basically you create a snapshot of your old PC and then run it as a virtual PC inside Vista. I have XP running as a virtual machine inside Vista all the time - however I use MS Virtual PC 2007 (free download from MS). Provided you have enough RAM on the host PC, virtual PCs are great and so flexible.
|
vegplot
|
There was a major problem with the pre SP1 versions of Vista with file transfer, even from one one local drive to another. This was sorted in SP1 as far as I'm aware.
|
Maxwell Smart
|
| orangepippin wrote: | | Vista with SP1 is fine. I have not noticed the wifi problem ... daughter uses it on her wifi laptop all the time, but possibly not transferring large files. |
It is fine for big files on the internet - it is only on local networks. Definitely a common problem on SBS2003 - not sure about 2003 server but assume it should be the same.
| vegplot wrote: | | There was a major problem with the pre SP1 versions of Vista with file transfer, even from one one local drive to another. This was sorted in SP1 as far as I'm aware. |
ya right....  ...it sped it up 50-75% but even 15 mins for a 100mb file is too slow. Actually it is not so much the transfer speed but the "calculating time remaining..." never had much problems with local transfers - just network.
|
vegplot
|
| Maxwell Smart wrote: | | ya right.... ...it sped it up 50-75% but even 15 mins for a 100mb file is too slow. Actually it is not so much the transfer speed but the "calculating time remaining..." never had much problems with local transfers - just network. |
That's not my current experience of transferring files over WiFi. It was but not any more. Perhaps there's another issue here?
|
Maxwell Smart
|
the file transfer speed itself is ok - its just initiating any form of handshake between the laptop and server is painstakingly slow - even starting up outlook and trying to open an email. once they're speaking it's usually ok.
and starting up and turning off the laptop while connected to the wifi is a definite no go as it tries to sync everything which can take hours; even though syncing once it is on and running is fast. but since i usually just hibernate it, then it is not really an issue and when i do need to fully turn off/on i just disable the wifi and then reconnect/sync when the machine is on.
on a network cable it is fine though.
|
orangepippin
|
My daughter uses wireless link on a Dell Vista laptop to our internal network all the time, editing photos, office documents, and videos etc. I never noticed any problem with Vista wireless either before or after SP1 apart from the well-known pre-SP1 - general instability and the most incredibly slow file transfers between workstations and servers (wireless and wired). SP1 seems to have fixed both those problems.
|
