Notices
ECU Flash

Vista Compatibility ?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Mar 9, 2007 | 06:57 AM
  #16  
mchuang's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (11)
 
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 2,180
Likes: 1
From: h town
Well I am still waiting for them(dell, hp, acer) to get a laptop that can also have a physics accelerator installed.
Reply
Old Mar 9, 2007 | 09:32 PM
  #17  
codgi's Avatar
Evolved Member
20 Year Member
Photogenic
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
iTrader: (22)
 
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,493
Likes: 41
From: Seattle, WA
Originally Posted by evo4mad
.NET v1.1 is installed to a totally different folder on your system so it doesn't effect anything else. Its a good idea to install .NET v1.1 on Vista, hundreds of programs use it.

Vista is designed for the new generation of graphics cards and cpu's.. We used to upgrade computers every year, now you're complaining when you have to upgrade every 3yrs time for a faster computer and decent graphics card to take advantage of ALL the new awesome features of Vista!!
This is not what causes the problem. For some odd reason on some systems if you install the newer .NET it registers itself over the old one and this can cause problems when a program that explicitly needs stuff from the newer version comes along. It will then fail. It doesn't happen on all machines but it is just something to watch out for.
Reply
Old Mar 9, 2007 | 09:41 PM
  #18  
codgi's Avatar
Evolved Member
20 Year Member
Photogenic
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
iTrader: (22)
 
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,493
Likes: 41
From: Seattle, WA
Originally Posted by cij911
I am not a fan of vista...to me it seems that msft keeps making things bigger and more clunky, rather than small, secure, and nimble....My wife even commented that the new Dell with Vista appears to be slower than her 3 yr. old laptop running XP...
Sorry we're not Apple...we can't get up a morning and suddenly decide to move over to a BSD base and then throw backwards compatibility out the window. It would be great if we could though...the hours of testing we could save

Windows is its size because of you the consumer...backwards compatibilty is a good chunk of that size increase. There are also several other reasons why it is that size...and many of them just have to do with the fact that the OS has to run on an infinite matrix of hardware which several other OSes out there don't have to.

As far as security, I'd warrant the average PC user can't really tell which OS is more secure than another...they can definitely tell which one gets attacked more than another...but thats another story .

Last edited by codgi; Mar 9, 2007 at 09:47 PM.
Reply
Old Mar 10, 2007 | 04:02 AM
  #19  
cij911's Avatar
Thread Starter
Evolved Member
iTrader: (14)
 
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,636
Likes: 1
From: Socal :)
Originally Posted by codgi
Sorry we're not Apple...we can't get up a morning and suddenly decide to move over to a BSD base and then throw backwards compatibility out the window. It would be great if we could though...the hours of testing we could save

Windows is its size because of you the consumer...backwards compatibilty is a good chunk of that size increase. There are also several other reasons why it is that size...and many of them just have to do with the fact that the OS has to run on an infinite matrix of hardware which several other OSes out there don't have to.

As far as security, I'd warrant the average PC user can't really tell which OS is more secure than another...they can definitely tell which one gets attacked more than another...but thats another story .
Codgi -- Sorry if you felt like I was anti-MSFT. I am in general a MSFT fan and a long time shareholder. I almost joined the company back in the early 90's after racing with a now retired exec. I understand your points about backward compatibility, but am not sure that is the driver of increased size and processor requirements.

Anyway, keep up the great work and let me know if I can PM you should I ever have a Vista question. Thanks!
Reply
Old Mar 10, 2007 | 04:12 AM
  #20  
rice_rocket88's Avatar
Evolving Member
iTrader: (9)
 
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 369
Likes: 0
From: MA
Okay.. bad news.. this Dell doesn't like it at all! I tried to install all the old .net 1.1 and it still doesn't register it as being installed. Of course when I try to install it again it says it's installed. Jeez!

I need to find EvoScan .98 though, since I didn't get the new download link.

ECU flash and Mitsulogger "seem" to work.. haven't plugged it into the car yet.
Reply
Old Mar 10, 2007 | 04:29 AM
  #21  
codgi's Avatar
Evolved Member
20 Year Member
Photogenic
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
iTrader: (22)
 
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,493
Likes: 41
From: Seattle, WA
Originally Posted by cij911
Codgi -- Sorry if you felt like I was anti-MSFT. I am in general a MSFT fan and a long time shareholder. I almost joined the company back in the early 90's after racing with a now retired exec. I understand your points about backward compatibility, but am not sure that is the driver of increased size and processor requirements.

Anyway, keep up the great work and let me know if I can PM you should I ever have a Vista question. Thanks!
Yeah its an uber generalization. There is also the stupid "we need to put 23032230 features in the OS because competitor x does it and we need to keep up" which helps the size increase to...but oh well i'm with Office so i feign innonence about any Vista problems .
Reply
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Mr Evolution
ECU Flash
20
Jun 22, 2009 09:35 PM
FathouseFab
ECU Flash
11
Jun 18, 2009 08:34 PM
cky_bam_marg
ECU Flash
3
Feb 3, 2009 01:19 AM
travman
ECU Flash
34
Jan 18, 2009 08:09 PM
Import Junky
ECU Flash
8
Aug 26, 2008 03:01 PM




All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:03 AM.