Windows Vista can save you money

i say lies

but hey who knows lol

im switching to linuz

SmeeZus

>< errrrr i wasnt done with my last post errrr ><

like i said im switching to linux lol

but i will be reading up on vista maybe some time in the near future when things work on vista ill try it out

SmeeZus

Frankly,with all of the DRM nonsense and other stupid things they did to Vista like leaving out features they were supposed to put in such as a new file system....it will be awhile before I switch. IF I switch!

XP pro and SP2 has made me content so far, so why should I trade that in for a bloated OS like Vista?

Wow Vista can save you money you wanna know how? By not buying it you can save loads of money. Dont make sense spending money on the fat boy of OS's.

Save you $100? So how much does this magical operating system cost? More than $100 you say? Hmmm... let me do a quick cost/benefit analysis...

the OEM of Vister U is going for 150,so ya you could save money by buying it installing it and not have to worry abotu running new games or programs on it and if your hardware is unsupported you wont even have a computer to worry about!

DVDBack23, i should have the other writers spank you for putting up such blatant microsoft propaganda, but because you are the master of photoshopping sigs, you are forgiven for now :-)

Originally posted by The_Fiend:

---

DVDBack23, i should have the other writers spank you for putting up such blatant microsoft propaganda, but because you are the master of photoshopping sigs, you are forgiven for now :-)

---

we cant be biased dan :) although i wouldnt touch vista with a 10 feet pole :D

Vista can save you money. Yep dont buy it, there you have saved money already

According to a White Paper written by PC Pro, businesses can save almost $100 USD per PC(over what time frame?) by using the new power management facilities of Windows Vista.

Most of these savings will be because of the default power-management settings of Vista, which puts the PC into "Sleep mode"(what is it with all the name changes in vista?! Why not just leave it as "standby"?) after an hour of inactivity.

Windows XP, which on default leaves the computer running idle, wastes large amounts of energy if OEMs, third-party software or employees didn't apply standby settings.

The sleep mode in Vista is more reliable than XP's equivalent "Standby setting" and your Vista PC will come back from sleep mode in a couple of seconds(probably only if you have a very fast system), very fast considering the mode it is awaking from.

The White Paper reports that these settings can save almost $100 per desktop(again, what the heck is the time frame?! Per week, month, year?!) especially if the administrator uses the new power management "Group Policy." The settings also help your business become more green friendly, sharply cutting carbon dioxide emissions.

Funny fact.. computers rarely suffer hardware failures when they are left on all the time. They fail on boot, when there is a surge of power which is over a period of time damaging..
The power savings are probably negligible compared to potential loss from downtime due to hardware failure.
I know from this week.. my pc which has been shut down only 3 times this year has had 3 hardware failures since December, all on startup..
1. ethernet card
2. soundcard
3. 256 stick of ram

Before this it had run solidly for 200+ days without a reboot.

Most businesses leave them on because it increases reliability in the long term.. the power savings are offset by repair costs, hardware costs and lost business from downtime..

Blatant M$ propaganda.. every OS for the last 10 years has had an optional "sleep/standby" mode. This is just an ordinary, and old, feature being cynically promoted to try to make this pile of crap sound good..

Maybe one time people will read the ENTIRE news article before going off on some anti-Microsoft rant.

All you guys going on how this is Microsoft propaganda - read it again. A paper written by PC PRO has said this. It doesn't say anywhere anything about Microsoft claiming this. So, if you want to bash how specifics weren't given (i.e. a timeframe), how about ranting about the source who wrote and claims it - PC PRO.

I'd like to know if everyone here who claims to run (or about to switch to) Linux actually does.

Originally posted by subpopz:

---

Maybe one time people will read the ENTIRE news article before going off on some anti-Microsoft rant.

All you guys going on how this is Microsoft propaganda - read it again. A paper written by PC PRO has said this. It doesn't say anywhere anything about Microsoft claiming this.

God people, get over the its cool to be anti-Microsoft and the endless "I'm switching to Linux" posts.

---

and if you read it you would see its mostly smoke and mirrors to prop up visters rep.

it would be the same as any article about the benefits of Lunix without mentioning that it cant run most software.

Well subpopz.. You stepped into the minefield there. I run debian etch.
My other machines run variously.. slackware, damn small, puppy, freeBSD and QNX.. I don't detect any M$ products there, and don't use any M$ compatable software whatsoever.

http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/53/156289#2850510

XP isn't too bad IF you take a lot of care and run far too much ram-eating protection.. But it's still buggy crap at the best of times.
Not good enough for something that costs so much.

BTW.. what are you on about Zippy?? Can't run most software?
I don't run any "built for windoze" software by choice, because with a whole world of free (and very often better) applications I don't need to..
If I needed the crutch of familiar (not to me) crappy cost money windows apps I can install and run http://www.winehq.com/ which allows most to run.

Originally posted by janrocks:

---

Well subpopz.. You stepped into the minefield there. I run debian etch.
My other machines run variously.. slackware, damn small, puppy, freeBSD and QNX.. I don't detect any M$ products there, and don't use any M$ compatable software whatsoever.

http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/53/156289#2850510

XP isn't too bad IF you take a lot of care and run far too much ram-eating protection.. But it's still buggy crap at the best of times.
Not good enough for something that costs so much.

---

thus why allot of us refuse to "buy" MS products ^^

No minefield, I was just curious if anyone actually did what they claim. I have known a number of people who bash Microsoft and Windows endlessly, but still run XP, scared to try anything else.

I am not a Microsoft advocate by any means. I did not like XP, and I now run Vista, and have since early February. I do enjoy Vista, I find it functional and easy to use. And yes, I have tried Linux (Unbuntu) as a substitute, and did not care for it at all - but you don't see me in every Linux topic/news posting bashing it and going on some rant trying to convince others that what works for me should work for everyone else.

Thats the point. Everyones entitled to an opinon, but it gets real old when its the same rant in every news topic that has the word 'Microsoft' in it.
For example, at least 3 people in this topic said the same thing about Vista saving you money by not buying it.

There point about saving $100, I'm sure this is an annual prediction, is most likely a valid one. Vista's sleep mode is not like Standby and by not having you hardware running HDD's spinning your MTBF is less effected. Anyone who says leaving your PC running all the time is better is a fool. Yes there is thermal shock when you cycle your PC but leaving your PC running 24/7 will take away from your MTBF faster then turning it off.

Vista has a lot of issues so anyone who needs there PC fully functional all of the time should stay away from Vista. If you have a removable drive or a spare PC then you might want to run Vista, it is pretty cool when you get around most of their issues.

Quote:

---

Anyone who says leaving your PC running all the time is better is a fool. Yes there is thermal shock when you cycle your PC but leaving your PC running 24/7 will take away from your MTBF faster then turning it off

---

Obviously never compared server reliability to normal desktop reliability..

Quote:

---

It is not a matter of proper off and ons per say. As with all things that utilize bearing surfaces, the repeated cooling off and heating up of the hard drive bearings take its toll on the drive. That is the part of the computer that seems to benefit most from being on continuously. As a senior engineer in the business, I have seen many machines come to an early demise by simply shutting down at the end of the day. Yet I have machines with the original HDDs that have been running continuously for 5 years or better with the occasional "post update warm boot". Additionally, my machines update & maintain themselves with patches, virus signatures, and anti spyware at night. Not to mention the afore mentioned scans as well. Notably this would be entirely to inconvenient during the day. So leave the machines on, and let them do the nightime business...

---

Quote:

---

I never turn off or log off of the computer because I use the windows on the screen to keep track of what I'm working on. Many would think that isn't such a good idea since the computer could crash at any time, but with some planning an things like the sessionsaver plugin for Firefox, it's less of an issue than many would think. Furthermore, judicious application of patches and maintaining a stable software environment go a long way to promote anywhere from 30-90 days of continuous uptime(it's never been longer than that because I have to reboot when patches are applied). In short, leaving the pc on is good for my productivity. For those of you who are wondering about how cluttered my desktop seems, there's currently 30 windows open on my desktop - including the window I'm typing this in.

For the users I support, we sometimes tell them to leave their machines on so that patches can automagically be applied at night rather than disturb their regular workday. Sometimes you have to weigh the cost of a virus against the cost of the electricity required to power the machines.

Worse that the computers is the lights in the typical office. Try this exercise: count the number of florescent tubes in your office(typically 4 per fixture), multiply by 40, and divide the result by 1000. That number is the approximate number of kilowatts/hour needed to run the lights in your office. Now realize that turning them off and on once consumes that amount of electricity in just a few seconds - you see, it takes more energy to turn the lights on than it does to keep them on continuously. Compare that with the 60-100 watts your pc draws when it's idle and you quickly come to the conclusion that turning off the lights at night is more important than turning off your pc. Well, that's true for most cube-farm offices, anyway.

---

Quote:

---

The reason behind the idea that power cycling often rather than just leaving an electronic device on is one of temperature fluctution! Metal happens to expand and contract along with change in tempurature. How do you think the thermostat in your home works?

I.e. electrical components tend to expand and contract more often if current is shut on and off more often. Electrical resistance produces heat! Why do you think there are heatsinks and fans on Electronic devices?
Only one person here that posted got the answer to the question right, and that answer was "thermal expansion and contraction can cause small cracks to form over time."
Granted, this is less and less of a factor than it was years ago when soldered components were more poorly soldered. CRT screens also produce heat cause rapid expansion and contraction which can damage electronic parts when the device is turned off and on constantly.

With modern equipment, the potential damage over time is decreased significantly. So effectively, it probable will have no noticable effect on your PC and monitor before they become obsolete anyhow.
Anyone with a vintage amplifier knows that its better to leave the device on rather than turn it off and back on if its only uneeded for a short enough period of time.
Overclockers probably know about thermal expansion and would probably understand the idea behind this. So, yes, there is a miniscule potential for damage over time by turning heat emitting devices off and on. It is not a myth, just a small factor with modern components for the most part. But the theory is still true: there is such a thing as thermal damage. Leaving pc's on all night is technically ever so slightly better than turning them on and off every 24 hours. So weigh that against the cost of the power consumtion and guesstimate how long a period of time a pc is worth turning off for.
I personally leave mine on all the time, because I like to let things download overnight, etc. and have the additional factor of using a MicroSux OS which tends to randomly screw things up 1 out of 10 reboots....

---

The views of a few system administrators, myself included from actual real world observations over more years than I care to mention is.. computers are more reliable and last longer when they are left on.

Some of my poor machines have been running continuously for more than 3 years without so much as a reboot, these are old alphas too. Not the most reliable. One power outage last year did untold damage, but all have been repaired and are now back in service running 24/7 quite happily. The raid sets used spindown after a while of not being accessed and every drive is well past it's 3 years warranty.

An opinion is fine, if you only use a pc for a few hours a day then turn it off. Don't try preaching that we are wrong to IT professionals who maintain banks of servers and other machines for a living.. We know that power cycling is more harmful than leaving them happy and running, especially as they start to age.

Vista Ultimate is also geared up to save the business community a lot more money then that. One Vista Ultimate license can be run an unlimited concurrent amount of times in a VM enviroment. This means that a VPN, Thin Client,or other Desktop servers only need one Vista license to serve multiple users.

Originally posted by quip:

---

Vista Ultimate is also geared up to save the business community a lot more money then that. One Vista Ultimate license can be run an unlimited concurrent amount of times in a VM enviroment. This means that a VPN, Thin Client,or other Desktop servers only need one Vista license to serve multiple users.

---

Ture but you still have new security quirks and driver quirks to deal with,much like the PS3 Vister will shine but tis going to take 2 or 4 years to become a ripe garden from a smelly pit o'horse'crap.