An Architect's View

CFML, Clojure, Software Design, Frameworks and more...

An Architect's View

Vista Upgraded

January 30, 2008 ·

As folks know, I bought Vista to run on VMware Fusion on my MacBook Pro. I'd felt it was slow and bloated but I figured I'd give it a good run to really make up my mind. What I like about Vista:
  • The UI is nicer than XP. XP always felt like a cartoon and earlier versions of Windows were just... dull.
  • The security level actually made me feel more comfortable about the integrity of the O/S. That said, it never alerted me to any suspicious activity or hacking attacks...
  • In general, I found the organization of the O/S more intuitive - after the initial learning curve. It felt a bit more "Mac-like" in some indefinable way.
  • It is stable. Much more stable than any previous version of Windows I've used (and I've used every version since 3.1). Apart from reboots for security updates (more on that below), I had Vista up and running for days, even weeks sometimes, just putting the Mac to sleep, switching networks without problems and so on. Rock solid.
But... You knew there was a "but", right? What I don't like about Vista:
  • It's just so godawful slow! Sometimes when it came back from hibernation it would thrash about for a full five minutes, repeatedly repainting parts of the screen, mostly with the CPU at 100%. Good grief! WTF is it doing? OK, I attributed some of this to running under VMware... but only some of it!
  • It's a fat bastard! To run it even acceptably on VMware, it needed 768Mb and really it wanted more. It ran better with 1Gb allocated - as long as I had nothing else running on the Mac.
  • It has a random tendency to just spin up the CPU to 100% for minutes at a time. Leave my processor alone you pig! I need it to do work! Common culprits were TrustedInstaller.exe (more on that below) and especially svchost.exe.
  • For a completely rebuilt O/S that took so long to create, it sure needs a lot of security updates! I used to complain about XP but Vista really has proven to be a leaky ship that needs a steady, prolific stream of "critical" updates. At least fewer of them require reboots it seems.
  • It has the most warped view of file system security I've ever encountered on any O/S. I've worked on certified secure Linux with far less hassle. Over the months, I've installed BlueDragon and ColdFusion and worked on a number of sites using Eclipse and SVN with Vista and every now and then, for absolutely no fathomable reason, it will decide that some new set of files cannot be read by ColdFusion / BlueDragon / Eclipse or some combination thereof. Into Windows Explorer I go and change the permissions on the files - and, yes Mr UAC I really do want to do that! It's a personal computer, they're my files, stop getting in my way and just let me work.
Apart from that, it's been great. No, really, it has. But last week I needed to test a site in Internet Explorer 6. Yes, I know, it's old and Microsoft is set to "force" everyone up to IE7, but I needed to see how some CSS / JS degraded on IE6. So I built a new VM with XP SP2. I gave it 512Mb and ran it alongside the Vista VM (yes, three O/S all active at the same time!). The first thing that struck me (apart from the ghastly cartoon graphics of XP that I've always hated), was just how OMG fast XP was compared to Vista! I'd fire off a task in Vista, switch to XP and fire off the same task and when XP was done I'd switch back to Vista and it would be 30-50% complete. Try it in reverse with XP in the background but Vista still took longer every time. File copies, web page rendering, opening applications, everything. And in less memory. So, instead of just using XP for occasional IE6 testing, I've decided to upgrade my Windows development environment from Vista to XP so that I can be more productive and get stuff done faster. It took me about a week to get BlueDragon, ColdFusion and SQL Server all playing nicely on Vista with a couple of sites. It took me just a couple of hours to get the same stack set up on XP (well, apart from a silly snafu with SQL Server that was entirely my fault - thank goodness for snapshots in VMware!). I bought Vista back in June last year or thereabouts so I think I've given it a fair trial. So far, I'm very happy with the upgrade to XP. After the subtle gradients of Vista, the bright blues, greens and reds of XP are actually rather refreshing. And the performance improvement is amazing, especially since the upgrade requires less memory! If you're having problems with Vista performance, you might want to consider upgrading to XP. While stocks last, of course. XP has proved so popular recently that it's almost impossible to get hold of...

Tags: bluedragon · coldfusion · microsoft

44 responses

  • 1 Dan Skaggs // Jan 30, 2008 at 4:55 PM

    Vista is the main reason that I became a Mac person. I had heard so many people say things just like you pointed out in the post that I decided if I was going to have to learn a new UI anyway, I might as well learn OS X and get all the benefits of Unix under the hood at the same time. I haven't been disappointed once in the 10 months since I switched. Since then my entire house has gone Mac (1 Macbook Pro, 3 Macbooks, 1 Mini and 2 AppleTV units)--just sold the last Windows machine a couple weeks ago.
  • 2 Chris Dawes // Jan 30, 2008 at 5:49 PM

    Nice review, probably the closest a mac person will ever get to an unbiased view.

    Just for the record Mac OSX Lepard has had more security updates than windows, infact more patches than windows period. Remember that Mac ad, yeah, seems like Mac is better at patches, now who's sicker...

    Vista is built for dual core machines, so naturally on a VM it's going to run a little slow. On my dual core it runs sweet. It took me about two hours to get my dev environment setup, pretty much the same as xp...

    Funny how people say Vista is a huge learning curve, but moving to KDE or to OSX is also a huge learning curve... weird...

    Also how can you find file browsing anything but amazing after using that user-unfriendly column-based finder thing... man that ticks me off when I use mac... is there a program to make it more like windows/linux or any other os that uses common sense? Just wondering... mac aint great on usability...

    Vista and never looking back! Whoo hoo!
  • 3 James Peek // Jan 30, 2008 at 5:50 PM

    Couldn't agree with you more. I had a reasonably beefy test machine running Vista for the past 6 months. It ran ok, albeit a sluggishly, but was alright for testing/email/browsing purposes.

    However, from when I installed it I noticed what sounded like the hard drive trying to park any time Vista tried to go into standby/low-power mode. I didn't take much notice, but sure enough I got a SMART warning on startup last week suggesting that the hard drive was in trouble.

    As a result I bought a new hard drive and did a fresh install of XP and was quickly reminded of how refreshingly zippy a fresh install of XP feels to use. Hardware dramas aside, Vista doesn't come close to delivering that experience.
  • 4 Sammy Larbi // Jan 30, 2008 at 5:58 PM

    Sean, how is the performance outside of VMWare?

    On mine it is just great - no problems performance-wise. Under VMWare Fusion, it's almost unusable and I exhibit many of the problems you mentioned.

    In fact, I've been meaning to ask you about that for a little while, knowing you like to use the VM alot, wondering what you do to keep it usable.

    (Yes, I have the tools installed. Before that it was certainly unusable, not "almost." ) =)
  • 5 Ken Sykora // Jan 30, 2008 at 6:05 PM

    I didn't even bother with Vista on my MacBook - I have it on my regular PC and even with 2gb of memory it still has to page which leads to hard disk thrashing. :(

    XP with 1024MB in VMWare Fusion runs just like a regular PC.
  • 6 Steve Nelson // Jan 30, 2008 at 6:48 PM

    Hahaha! Forget 768MB of RAM. Vista needs a full gig to run correctly. It doesn't mess around.
  • 7 Peter Tilbrook // Jan 30, 2008 at 7:26 PM

    Apparently... Many performance issues will be fixed when the first service pack is release soon. I say apparently as Microsoft love to disappoint me.
  • 8 John Allen // Jan 30, 2008 at 8:04 PM

    Im scared whenever I boot up my VM Vista to test CF8 apps on WinTell. XP on Mac OSX-intell is GREAT. Vista, scary.

    Ive seen the same things. Good to hear and know.

  • 9 rob // Jan 30, 2008 at 8:35 PM

    I needed to buy a copy of windows for a new gig I am starting, and I was on the fence about buying Vista Business vs. XP Pro. In the end I bought XP Pro because the minimum disk requirement for XP was 1.5 GB and Vista was minimum 40GB - that alone said quite a bit to me.

    Reading this over it sounds like I made the right choice :)

    And I agree with you on the speed. I am running XP on my new Macbook Pro using boot camp, and it's very snappy.
  • 10 robert // Jan 30, 2008 at 10:44 PM


    Thanks for the update.

    Instead of waiting to be forced to move to Vista I moved to a Mac Book Pro with Parallels Desktop and a copy of XP Pro SP2. It has been absolutely the best development box I have ever used.

    I can develop for windows but I also have new opportunities to learn more about, and play with, cross platform tools (UNIX, Apache, MySQL, Postgre, Eclipse) that I didn't really know (care?) about when I was married to Microsoft.

    Running XP as a virtual OS has many advantages none of which more handy than snapshots. This seems to be the only way to contain the windows bloat...

    I am curious to see how this all plays out for Microsoft and Apple. Any predictions?
  • 11 Luke Kilpatrick // Jan 30, 2008 at 11:31 PM

    If you give vista 8GB of ram and with x64 then in runs almost as fast as XP. :) I use vista to game on, but XP or even better OS X to work. I never thought I would say it but OS X is a better development environment provided you don't need MS SQL.
  • 12 Ben Garrett // Jan 31, 2008 at 2:39 AM

    Obviously XP is going to be significantly faster as it came out in late 2001. I am writing this on a Pentium 3 900mhz laptop with a lowly 256kb of RAM. For a laptop it was near-top of the line in 2001. Using it today under XP is tolerable at best. Though often the CPU will use 100% of the CPU resources for no apparent reason and I will have to wait a moment or two for the activity to die down for the computer to become usable. This happens even for simple tasks like web browsing using Opera.

    Windows ME runs like a charm though if you ignore it's other problems :)
  • 13 Sean Corfield // Jan 31, 2008 at 9:11 AM

    @Ben, I don't think it's progress that subsequent releases of an operating system run slower on the same hardware. Apple manages to make performance improvements in each release - why can't Microsoft?
  • 14 Adrock // Jan 31, 2008 at 9:36 AM

    I think most of the problems you've described are a direct result of VMWare Fusion. Remember when Microsoft made a big stink about "Vista Certified Hardware"? I don't think VMWare Fusion falls under 'certified hardware' or would anything manufactured by Apple. I've been running Vista on an upgraded ThinkPad and a brand new VAIO. From boot time to launching apps, Vista is much faster than XP (running on the exact same hardware). Between the two machines, we've never had any sort of failure (and I don't seem to remember having to reboot after updates either).

    You've got to give MS a little credit, their OS supports a lot more hardware than apple. If MS wrote an OS that only worked on certain motherboards, with certain chipsets, with certain ram, with certain peripherals... well, I imagined it'd be hella' optimized like OSX is. In Vista, check out 'Performance Information and Tools' under the Control Panel. I'm curious as to what score it gives the various components under VMWare Fusion on a Mac.

    That being said, I just ordered a new TabletPC which of course will be running Vista. I say of course because Apple has all the technology to build an incredible multi-touch tablet.... but... they aren't.... then again, Apple has never really supported the business user.

    Also, I really wish I could run OSX in VMWare. For a 'hardware' company, you'd think they would be a little more open with their software.
  • 15 Nolan Erck // Jan 31, 2008 at 3:26 PM

    I made the same "upgrade" last year, after buying a new Dev machine that came pre-installed with Vista (the price of this box was just too good to pass up, even with that pre-installed). It lasted about a day, maybe 2, before I wiped the drive and went back to XP Pro. Of course, that was my plan all along, but since then i've read more and more postings like yours that make me happy with my decision.

    I've decided there are only 2 ways I'll install Vista on a machine: 1) if a client requires it (which of course will get installed to a VMWare guest OS), or 2) if I ever find 10 or more "Vista only" video games worth playing. :)

  • 16 dave // Jan 31, 2008 at 6:14 PM


    First of all Chris, can you please fix your away messages or use a different email for these things because they bounce like crazy.

    you said...
    "Just for the record Mac OSX Lepard has had more security updates than windows, infact more patches than windows period. Remember that Mac ad, yeah, seems like Mac is better at patches, now who's sicker..."

    Now as too your comments, really it makes me LAUGH, yes Leopard has had a lot off updates but your reasoning is pure bs! Heres the thing... leopard needed updates and Apple quickly gave us them, so that within about 1 month most all issues were fixed..

    Now your precious Vista hasn't had many updates, now do you honestly think it doesn't need any? Actually the deal is that microshaft hasnt fixed diddly squat on Vista and it's been out over a year and windows is so crappy that it needs HUGE service packs to "try" and fix it's issues, but apparently you are not counting the thousands of issues that microcrud hasn't fixed yet.. If I was in your shoes I would be hoping and praying for updates because the fact is that if you run windows you are using the most vulnerable os in the world.

    One of the best things I have seen since switching to a mac is that when there is a problem Apple gets it fixed QUICK!! They don't wait around and slowly add them to a mega service pack thats as big as the whole damn os, if its broke.. it gets fixed...

  • 17 dave // Jan 31, 2008 at 6:20 PM

    @ Robert
    "Running XP as a virtual OS has many advantages none of which more handy than snapshots. This seems to be the only way to contain the windows bloat..."

    the best thing about that is that you can set up a working image of windows and save it so that when windows takes a big crap you can just replace the image and not have to go through the whole re-install bs that you normally would have to do.
  • 18 TJ Downes // Feb 1, 2008 at 1:04 PM

    Sean, I agree with much of what you said. I'd like to add that in regards to memory 64bit, which I recently moved to, is a LOT better. I never seem to have any memory issues now, using the same amount of memory when I was on 32 bit.

    Java, especially eclipse, seems to be my biggest memory hog on Vista for some reason. I suspect its all the plugins and compilers I have loaded.

    You need at least 2GB of RAM to make Vista run smoothly. Im guessing especially for running it via a VM, which users generally will allocate much less memory for since they want the majority of RAM for their primary OS.

    Windows security makes a lot of sense if you understand it. Really. It does. Mainly because you are dealing with domains, and since you don't have a real concept of a domain with .nix it's much much simpler with .nix systems.

    The other thing I would highly recommend with Vista is to remove the god awful sidebar. Make sure its off permanently. Most folks don't realize just how much memory and CPU that thing chews up.

    The thing I am really unhappy with in Vista is the network stack. It's just jacked. I work on various VPNs 30% of my day and now I get locked out of my local network often when trying to access my mapped drives. I also lose DNS frequently and have to flush my DNS cache. In all of these cases there are no issues reported in the server or client event logs. It's just bad!
  • 19 Gary F // Feb 2, 2008 at 6:05 PM

    Vista has crashed on me more times than XP in the past year. I'd go for stability and a more accessible and faster GUI any time over eye candy, so that's why I've stuck with XP SP2.

    If you want eye candy and stability go for Ubuntu 7.10 with its slick and tasty 3D effects. Not sure if it runs CF though?

    XP may be 6 years old but it's mature and stable. I have reluctantly replaced the much more expensive Vista Ultimate installation with XP. SP3 will be out this summer containing a few new features.
  • 20 Sean Corfield // Feb 2, 2008 at 8:20 PM

    @Gary, yes, Ubuntu definitely runs CF but it is not a supported O/S.
  • 21 Joshua Curtiss // Feb 2, 2008 at 8:58 PM

    @Chris: I'd like to challenge you to prove your claim regarding Mac vs. Windows security updates. Apple has certainly released some, and I haven't actually looked up the info myself, but I find your claim hard to believe.

    @Sean: I think the excessive chugging and thrashing that Vista has been exhibiting on your vmware setup is probably due largely to the memory allocation forcing it to resort to heavy virtual memory usage, which is particularly painful in virtual environments with virtual disks. Leopard would probably thrash a bit with 768MB in a virtual environment too. I'm not being a Vista apologist--I've been an Apple fan since the '80s thru thick and thin--but I must admit Vista was given a slightly short end of the stick in your evaluation.

    I have a 2.8GHz aluminum iMac with 2GB RAM, and have XP and Vista VMs in Parallels and yet another Vista install in bootcamp. When I'm running Vista on the metal and not in VM, I actually find it a decent experience.. Except for the fact that I can't have the luxuries of my Mac running alongside my Windows apps. ;-)

    Thx for the interesting post.. And FWIW I do my primary Windows work on an XP VM as well!
  • 22 Chris Dawes // Feb 2, 2008 at 9:40 PM

    Rob - Vista is a 15Gb install not a 40Gb install (actually mine is around 13Gb) which is nothing on my 1Tb sata drive :-)

    Vista 64 bit is sooo sweetly running I'd never go back to XP... they say it can only be faster with SP1, so I guess I'm going to loooove it in a couple of months time!

    Anyone running Leopard on a G4... didn't think so... it would be what... too slow! maybe even 'wrong architecture' even if you wanted to! Apple performace increases always come with apple hardware performace increases. Ask a graphic designer running the latest version of OSX on a computer that was bought on an older version of OSX.

    Get real.. you bought a Mac because it was cool 'at the time'... Funny how all you mac people still write bad code even with your shiny white laptops ;-)

  • 23 Sean Corfield // Feb 2, 2008 at 9:54 PM

    @Joshua, yes 768Mb for Vista's VM is probably too small but XP runs extremely well in 512Mb so I still consider that a strike against Vista. Microsoft's Vista system reqs page says 1Gb is the recommended minimum. For XP they say 128Mb is recommended but it may run in as little as 64Mb. Apple's Leopard system reqs page says 512Mb is the recommended minimum.

    @Chris, there's no need to be childish and resort to name calling.

    As for running Leopard on a G4 PPC box, Apple recommends a minimum processor speed of 867MHz and I've heard of some folks installing Leopard on G4's and finding performance improved compared to Tiger (which is generally Apple's record I believe).

  • 24 dave // Feb 2, 2008 at 10:02 PM

    @ chris
    even m$ knows vista is crap

    and "Funny how all you mac people still write bad code even with your shiny white laptops "
    most of our laptops arent "white", pull your head out and take a look around. I'm sure vista "lets" you write "perfect code" everytime... If you are going to write bad code then you are gunna write bad code no matter what platform you use mr einstein. Whether you write good or bad code a mac just gets the job done faster, easier.

    maybe if you weren't using vista my mailbox wouldnt fill up with the all the mail bounces from every blog you post on. (you are the only one that this happens with) must be on a windows server lol

    ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----

    ----- Transcript of session follows -----
    554 permanent problems with the remote server
    Reporting-MTA: DNS;
    Arrival-Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2008 00:07:08 -0500

    Original-Recipient: RFC822; <>
    Final-Recipient: RFC822; <>
    Action: failed
    Remote-MTA: DNS;
    Last-Attempt-Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2008 00:54:27 -0500
  • 25 rob // Feb 2, 2008 at 11:04 PM

    @Chris - hum, perhaps I read the Vista box wrong. It might have been recommended 40GB - maybe 20GB - either way 1.5GB for XP was still way way less, and better for my dual boot MacBook.

    I also have to agree with Sean there - people who start name calling are just admitting that they have no idea what they are talking about. They are so "out of ammo" that they just result to going "oh yeah well neaner neaner you're a poo head" - don't be that guy. We get enough of that in the presidential election eh ;)

    And lastly, I am running Leopard on two G4 boxen. One Powerbook G4 and one PowerMac G4, and while I have had my share of issues, it is indeed faster than Tiger. On my new MacBook Pro - it screams (and I haven't had any of the G4 issues).
  • 26 Joshua Curtiss // Feb 2, 2008 at 11:31 PM

    @Sean: I do concur regarding your RAM comments. I checked my VM settings, and my XP VM has 640MB allocated and runs great, whereas my Vista VM has 768MB allocated and is sluggish like your experience.

    A note about your reference to performance improvements on OS releases.. You're right, this is a common occurrence since OS 9 (although RAM requirements have risen similar to Windows). Apple's interesting history with its hardware architectures has facilitated this a bit.. The moves from Motorola to PowerPC, the initial implementation of OS X, and the move from PowerPC to Intel all were major system transitions whose success is proof of the nimbleness of Apple as a company of developers. They got the transition out the door as quickly as possible, with much of the code running in an emulated or unoptimized state, so as major and minor revs of the OS were released that incorporated more and more native and optimized code, the OS continued to manifest performance improvements.

    This is compared to Windows which has not experienced any such major transitions and yet appears to be bloated and unoptimized.
  • 27 Sean Corfield // Feb 3, 2008 at 11:02 AM

    @dave, you're sailing close to the wind - please don't drop to Chris's level. No more name calling comments.

    I've just deleted three childish posts from Chris that added nothing to the thread except more sniping (and misinformation).

    If you want to acts like kids in the sandbox, go play on the HoF Community list m'kay? :)
  • 28 Sean Corfield // Feb 3, 2008 at 11:06 AM

    @Rob, thanx for confirming Leopard runs on G4 faster than Tiger.

    @Joshua, yes, Apple are, I believe, unique in having switched the hardware behind their mainstream operating system and all applications. Not once, but twice.

    @Chris, one last comment directed to you, based on a line out of a comment I deleted: I have used Mac OS X since early System 6 days and Windows since 3.1 days. I can't speak for the experience level of all the commenters in this thread but I certainly have plenty of experience with both operating systems and, whilst I may have an anti-Microsoft bias, I am trying hard to be fair rather than just some Apple fanboi.
  • 29 dave // Feb 3, 2008 at 8:31 PM

    i promise to be good.. i promise to be good :)

    sean, just outta curiosity, how much ram you running in your mbp? I was just exporting stuff from a sql server so was in my xp vmware and I got a gb allocated to it and even that is god awfully slow, with my new mbp on the way I was also wondering if running it from bootcamp via vmware might be any better, i'll have 2 gb more in this machine but I still would rather not give windows anymore than a gb to work with.
  • 30 Sean Corfield // Feb 3, 2008 at 10:04 PM

    @dave, I have 3Gb in the MBP with 512Mb for XP and 768Mb for Vista. Funnily enough, as part of my "upgrade" I also had to backup and restore a couple of SQL Server DBs. One was about 300Mb, the other was 750Mb. XP restore performance was pretty good, Vista's backup performance was noticeably slower (but, hey, maybe SQL Server takes longer to backup than restore a DB, I don't know). Bootcamp will definitely be more performant for you. More RAM will also help.
  • 31 Chris Dawes // Feb 3, 2008 at 11:55 PM

    So the advice is:

    For Windows:
    - Direct hardware (dual core+) : run Vista
    - Direct hardware (single core)/Virtualisation : run XP
  • 32 Chris Dawes // Feb 3, 2008 at 11:57 PM

    Maybe your email is bouncing because you've made it only my black list. I get about 700 emails a day, so it's clearly not my windows-based mail server :-)
  • 33 Rob Wilkens // Feb 4, 2008 at 7:51 AM

    First, I've unsubscribed from your newsletter as a result of this message. Why? All the good stuff about Vista that you mentioned is true (especially the security), but the only "real" criticisms you had of it were the ones about how it has to be patched to stay secure, which I'd think you'd be glad about. However, you complain about memory, and think about this: You're running it on a virtual machine on a non-supported platform!! How can you complain about how it runs on that type of configuration. Performance wise, Vista is excellent with a modern Core 2 Duo with 2 GB of RAM (memory is cheap, incidentally, I recently purchased 2GB DDR2 memory (I believe 800MHz speed) for something like $50 at Micro Center. No need for anyone to write back/complain, I won't be back to check for messages and I am no longer subscribed to this newsletter.
  • 34 John // Feb 4, 2008 at 7:55 AM

    OK ... so I can see some of your points ... but really, if you want to do a true, unbaised test of Vista, run it under PC and then tell us what you think of it.

    I've been using it for over a year and a side from the minor bugs I've found hear and there, I really don't have too much to complain about. Actually I had more to complain about when it came to my new mac then my HP/Vista computer. That's coming from an unbaised user of both O/S's since I use both for web development/graphic design/audio and video production.

  • 35 Sean Corfield // Feb 4, 2008 at 8:38 AM

    @Chris, well, certainly in the virtualization environment I think most people are saying that XP will run better than Vista. As to whether I'd pick Vista over XP on dedicated hardware... I don't know... I've seen it run on fast, memory-filled machines and it's "acceptable" but XP uses fewer resources and that's quite a draw.
  • 36 Jim Kelly // Feb 4, 2008 at 10:21 AM

    I've been at this internet thing since 1992, mostly on the design side, and am quite surprised over the rancor between Mac and PC folks.

    It isn't all bad... but perhaps a little bit less blood letting.

    That aside, thanks for the insight from all of you.

    I mean that with all sincerity.
  • 37 dave // Feb 4, 2008 at 12:08 PM

    I did run my copy of business vista on straight bootcamp thinking it would be ok and it was still pretty bad and that was the final trial before vista hit my trash can.

    So far what I gather is that you need a 64 bit processor, at least 4gb of ram and a keg of red bull hooked up to your hd to get vista to run at an acceptable level and I don't see that as "acceptable" & I am no cheap skate when it comes to buying my computers.

    I was waiting for Rob to chime in on using leopard on his g4's. A few years ago I loaded up tiger on a 6 year old blue & white g3 and it ran better than my newer super dell. One of the stronger points I have seen on a mac is that when you upgrade your os it makes your older hardware actually run better, not the opposite like "some other unnamed company".

    Had a guy over today who wanted to watch me fix his site and I am still running on this older mbp 2.16 w/2gb and (we counted) I had 27 programs open and running (including big ones like ps) and it didn't hardly have any performance hit and it was purring along as normal, in all honestly.. I think the crapped himself, absolutely could not believe I could have that many programs open at once and still function. He's like if I have like 5 programs open mine crashes and I do remember that from pc days.. ugggg no wonder why i left. Vista had a really tough time with several programs open at once, hell it had a problem with 2 browsers opened at once, xp was better but I couldn't work on either at this point.

    @rob w
    lol.. what else can you say?

    No matter what we argue on here the true telling is how it is in business? From what I hear businesses don't want anything to do with it because of these same reasons that we are talking about on here. So I guess us kool-aid drinkers aren't all nuts.. Well except for Sean but thats cause he's just not from "around here" ;)~ haha jk Sean

  • 38 Jason Sheedy // Feb 5, 2008 at 12:59 AM

    Hi Sean,
    it's been a while. I hope all's well. Just thought I'd throw in my 2 cents. The main reason I've avoided Vista on my work machine up until this point is because of it being a resource hungry, bloated piece of .... well don't get me started. I'm biased against M$.

    I use XP at work and Ubuntu (with Compiz 3d desktop) at home and Ubuntu craps all over XP.. CF server starts at least twice as fast, file management, games, you name it, it's faster.

    You mentioned a significant performance difference between XP and Vista. I dread going from Ubuntu to XP ... I can't imagine going from Ubuntu to Vista.
  • 39 Richard Tugwell // Feb 5, 2008 at 1:45 AM

    MS SQL on OSX?

    I have switched from Windows to OSX for most development work. I didn't go down the VMWARE route although I use MS SQL for some applications. I have remote servers with MS SQL running and just use RDC for DBA stuff etc.
  • 40 Sean Corfield // Feb 5, 2008 at 8:50 AM

    @Richard, yes, that's my primary reason for using VMware. I have had just two clients whose sites only run on Windows but I have had several clients that rely on SQL Server. XP on VMware is a good way to handle that while developing on a Mac since then I can have my entire localhost development running "off the grid".
  • 41 richard // Feb 5, 2008 at 8:57 AM

    sean - you have VMWARE just for SQL server? Seems like a lot of hassle, but I suppose if you do a lot of development on the move and you can't guarantee connectivity then you need everything on the box
  • 42 Sean Corfield // Feb 5, 2008 at 10:05 AM

    @Richard, yes, my primary reason for running VMware is to have a full localhost development environment.
  • 43 Hal Helms // Feb 7, 2008 at 4:59 PM


    I saw the blurb on your home page that said...

    What I like about Vista

    followed by...nothing! Ha ha. Now THAT would be an apt comment on the latest and greatest from Redmond.
  • 44 Brad Carvey // Feb 14, 2008 at 12:57 PM

    I recently bought a Macbook Pro with 4 Gybte of ram, Parallel Desktop and I installed XP. I run the lap top at 1920 x 1280 and use an external monitor 24" monitor at 1920 x 1280 with a wireless mouse and keyboard.

    This is the best development enviornment that I have every used. I open XP apps and OSX apps in windows using Parallel Desktops Coherence Mode. I use the apps from both operating systems and don't even thing about which OS the app is running on. I can cut and paste between any application. I find that I am consoliating my appliations on one box. For example, I am running Photoshop 7.0 on the PC side and Office 2003 on the Mac side, because those are the programs that I have. With some programs I install on both sides, like Eclipse (Flex, CF and Java plugins).

    I still use my older XP machines and my Quad Core Vista machine, but I like the flexibilty and portability of the MacBook Pro with OSX and XP.