Vista home premium and the JDK and asp.net runtimes

Hi,


Hope you can help me with this query. I'm think of buying a new
laptop with Windows Vista Home Premium as the operating system (I was
using Windows XP).

Q1: Can I install the Java Development kit on top of this? Is it
stable?

Q2: Can I install the ASP.NET runtime environment on top of this also?
Is it stable?


I ask as I program in both C#.Net and Java. Hence I need the 2
runtimes on the box. In other words, is Vista Home Premium a suitable
OS for both these runtimes? Is there anythign I should be aware of?
Any user experiences?
I would appreciate any comments/suggestions/advice you would like to
make.

Thanks,
Al.

 

almurph@altavista.com wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> Hope you can help me with this query. I'm think of buying a new
> laptop with Windows Vista Home Premium as the operating system (I was
> using Windows XP).
>
> Q1: Can I install the Java Development kit on top of this? Is it
> stable?

YES. I use it on Vista 64 Home Premium.
I've been using JRE both 32/64 bit installed, JDK, alongside NetBeans.
No problems....

>
> Q2: Can I install the ASP.NET runtime environment on top of this also?
> Is it stable?

The .NET framework comes standard with Vista.

>
>
> I ask as I program in both C#.Net and Java. Hence I need the 2
> runtimes on the box. In other words, is Vista Home Premium a suitable
> OS for both these runtimes? Is there anythign I should be aware of?
> Any user experiences?
> I would appreciate any comments/suggestions/advice you would like to
> make.
>
> Thanks,
> Al.
>

 

On Jun 3, 2:29 pm, James Kosin <jko...@support.intcomgrp.com> wrote:
> almu...@altavista.com wrote:
> > Hi,
>
> >    Hope you can help me with this query. I'm think of buying a new
> > laptop with Windows Vista Home Premium as the operating system (I was
> > using Windows XP).
>
> > Q1: Can I install the Java Development kit on top of this? Is it
> > stable?
>
> YES.  I use it on Vista 64 Home Premium.
> I've been using JRE both 32/64 bit installed, JDK, alongside NetBeans.
> No problems....
>
>
>
> > Q2: Can I install the ASP.NET runtime environment on top of this also?
> > Is it stable?
>
> The .NET framework comes standard with Vista.
>
>
>
>
>
> >    I ask as I program in both C#.Net and Java. Hence I need the 2
> > runtimes on the box. In other words, is Vista Home Premium a suitable
> > OS for both these runtimes? Is there anythign I should be aware of?
> > Any user experiences?
> >    I would appreciate any comments/suggestions/advice you would like to
> > make.
>
> > Thanks,
> > Al.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You sure, everyone is telling me that vista is unable and I should get
them to install XP. Any problems?

Colm

 

almurph@altavista.com wrote:
> On Jun 3, 2:29 pm, James Kosin <jko...@support.intcomgrp.com> wrote:
>> almu...@altavista.com wrote:
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> You sure, everyone is telling me that vista is unable and I should get
> them to install XP. Any problems?
>
> Colm

They are living in the past.
http://java.sun.com/javase/downloads/index.jsp
lists Vista and also the JRE is starting to list Windows 7.

I haven't heard of any issues other than with much earlier releases.

OS wise, I've found VISTA more stable than XP or 2000; though you need a
good machine to run VISTA.

James

 

On Jun 3, 2:57 pm, James Kosin <jko...@support.intcomgrp.com> wrote:
> almu...@altavista.com wrote:
> > On Jun 3, 2:29 pm, James Kosin <jko...@support.intcomgrp.com> wrote:
> >> almu...@altavista.com wrote:
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > You sure, everyone is telling me that vista is unable and I should get
> > them to install XP. Any problems?
>
> > Colm
>
> They are living in the past.http://java.sun.com/javase/downloads/index.jsp
> lists Vista and also the JRE is starting to list Windows 7.
>
> I haven't heard of any issues other than with much earlier releases.
>
> OS wise, I've found VISTA more stable than XP or 2000; though you need a
> good machine to run VISTA.
>
> James

James, tell me more. How much RAM/disk space/CPU chip, speed etc...
A mate of mine said that Vista takes up IG or RAM alon.e So he said
you need at least 3GB. Would you agree?
Anything you would like to offer?

Cheers,
a.

 

almurph@altavista.com wrote:
> On Jun 3, 2:57 pm, James Kosin <jko...@support.intcomgrp.com> wrote:
>> almu...@altavista.com wrote:
>>> On Jun 3, 2:29 pm, James Kosin <jko...@support.intcomgrp.com> wrote:
>>>> almu...@altavista.com wrote:
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>> You sure, everyone is telling me that vista is unable and I should get
>>> them to install XP. Any problems?
>>> Colm
>> They are living in the past.http://java.sun.com/javase/downloads/index.jsp
>> lists Vista and also the JRE is starting to list Windows 7.
>>
>> I haven't heard of any issues other than with much earlier releases.
>>
>> OS wise, I've found VISTA more stable than XP or 2000; though you need a
>> good machine to run VISTA.
>>
>> James
>
> James, tell me more. How much RAM/disk space/CPU chip, speed etc...
> A mate of mine said that Vista takes up IG or RAM alon.e So he said
> you need at least 3GB. Would you agree?
> Anything you would like to offer?
>
> Cheers,
> a.
Yes.
My laptop I use VISTA 64 Home Premium and it has 4GB of memory; though
the laptop is suppose to support up to 8GB. Haven't been able to find
4GB memory though for the laptop... I guess they haven't developed the
technology quite yet.
Another system I use is a 32-bit machine. Quite OLD. It is running
VISTA with 1GB of memory. Stable, but SLOW mostly because it is only
using 1 of the two CPUs... and it is OLD.

Both have been very stable.

Laptop specs are here
HP Pavilion dv4-1147cl Notebook PC
http://h10025.www1.hp.com/ewfrf/wc/...6854&cc=us&dlc=en&lc=en&jumpid=reg_R1002_USEN

My other system is an OLD:
Pentium 3 system with DUAL processors running at 666MHz each and
currently has 1GB of memory.
Most off the shelf units at Walmart would probably smoke the system today.


James

 

On Wed, 3 Jun 2009 06:43:30 -0700 (PDT), "almurph@altavista.com"
<almurph@altavista.com> wrote:

>You sure, everyone is telling me that vista is unable and I should get
>them to install XP. Any problems?
>
>Colm

XP is faster on any given hardware, has better hardware support, has
more features, and is more stable.

If you are doing development and have a choice (i.e. drivers are
available for your system) go with XP.

 

+Bob+;1057270 Wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Jun 2009 06:43:30 -0700 (PDT), "almurph@xxxxxx"
> <almurph@xxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > >You sure, everyone is telling me that vista is unable and I should get
> > >them to install XP. Any problems?
> > >
> > >Colm > >
>
> XP is faster on any given hardware, has better hardware support, has
> more features, and is more stable.
>
> If you are doing development and have a choice (i.e. drivers are
> available for your system) go with XP.

XP is a joke, most modern systems dont even have drivers for XP. I know
my new ASUS W90 doesnt even have XP drivers for most of its hardware, so
please dont spread the lie that XP is faster on any given hardware, it
is obviousely not.


--
wwoods

 

+Bob+ wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Jun 2009 06:43:30 -0700 (PDT), "almurph@altavista.com"
> <almurph@altavista.com> wrote:
>
>> You sure, everyone is telling me that vista is unable and I should get
>> them to install XP. Any problems?
>>
>> Colm
>
> XP is faster on any given hardware, has better hardware support, has
> more features, and is more stable.

BULL****!
>
> If you are doing development and have a choice (i.e. drivers are
> available for your system) go with XP.

Bad, stupid advice.

 

On Wed, 3 Jun 2009 11:17:18 -0500, wwoods <guest@unknown-email.com>
wrote:

>> XP is faster on any given hardware, has better hardware support, has
>> more features, and is more stable.
>>
>> If you are doing development and have a choice (i.e. drivers are
>> available for your system) go with XP.
>
>XP is a joke, most modern systems dont even have drivers for XP. I know
>my new ASUS W90 doesnt even have XP drivers for most of its hardware, so
>please dont spread the lie that XP is faster on any given hardware, it
>is obviousely not.

Note that I mentioned "(if) drivers are available". FYI - it's a fact
that XP is faster than Vista, particularly in and I/O operations. If
you chose not to believe facts, that's your business.

 

On Wed, 03 Jun 2009 09:50:17 -0700, Frank <fb@fuk.you> wrote:

>>
>> XP is faster on any given hardware, has better hardware support, has
>> more features, and is more stable.
>
>BULL****!

More advice from local Mensa representative Frank (Very cranky because
girls don't like him).

 

+Bob+ wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Jun 2009 11:17:18 -0500, wwoods <guest@unknown-email.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> XP is faster on any given hardware, has better hardware support, has
>>> more features, and is more stable.
>>>
>>> If you are doing development and have a choice (i.e. drivers are
>>> available for your system) go with XP.
>> XP is a joke, most modern systems dont even have drivers for XP. I know
>> my new ASUS W90 doesnt even have XP drivers for most of its hardware, so
>> please dont spread the lie that XP is faster on any given hardware, it
>> is obviousely not.
>
> Note that I mentioned "(if) drivers are available". FYI - it's a fact
> that XP is faster than Vista, particularly in and I/O operations.

That is simply not true...especially with Vista SP2.

If
> you chose not to believe facts, that's your business.

It is you who can't accept the facts.

 

On Wed, 03 Jun 2009 11:50:25 -0700, Frank <fb@fuk.you> wrote:

>> Note that I mentioned "(if) drivers are available". FYI - it's a fact
>> that XP is faster than Vista, particularly in and I/O operations.
>
>That is simply not true...especially with Vista SP2.

Please show me any documentation of improved I/O performance under
SP2. The (lack of) performance thus far is well documented.

> If
>> you chose not to believe facts, that's your business.
>
>It is you who can't accept the facts.

Post them.

 

+Bob+ wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Jun 2009 11:50:25 -0700, Frank <fb@fuk.you> wrote:
>
>>> Note that I mentioned "(if) drivers are available". FYI - it's a fact
>>> that XP is faster than Vista, particularly in and I/O operations.
>> That is simply not true...especially with Vista SP2.
>
> Please show me any documentation of improved I/O performance under
> SP2.

I have only seen documented, verifiable evidence that Vista SP1 is
slightly faster than XP and Win 7 is faster than both.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=3236&page=2

Since SP2 just went RTM I have yet to see any verifiable evidence or
documentation of any performance numbers. I have head, (read) evidence
(anecdotal) of better running Vista's w/SP2 and I have personally
experienced a better running Vista even with the SP2 betas.
YMMV.

The (lack of) performance thus far is well documented.
>
It is? Where? Please post the test results.

And please show me any verifiable documentation of decreased performance
with SP2 installed.

>> If
>>> you chose not to believe facts, that's your business.

SHOW ME THE FACTS!!!

>> It is you who can't accept the facts.

SHOW ME THE FACTS!!!
>

> Post them.

SHOW ME THE FACTS!!!

Or just STFU!

Oh and BTW, a number of yrs ago I was the president of our local Mensa
group!...LOL!

 

On Wed, 03 Jun 2009 16:13:10 -0700, Frank <fb@fuk.you> wrote:

>I have only seen documented, verifiable evidence that Vista SP1 is
>slightly faster than XP and Win 7 is faster than both.
>
>http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=3236&page=2

Real world performance belies most of those figures, but notice how
many times XP beats Vista in the I/O area nonetheless. Vista also
sucks at USB I/O and CD/DVD I/O.

Face it Franky, Vista I/O sucks.

 

<almurph@altavista.com> wrote in message
news:c6ad2df0-7124-4f04-83e4-3cc25ca4438c@21g2000vbk.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 3, 2:57 pm, James Kosin <jko...@support.intcomgrp.com> wrote:
>> almu...@altavista.com wrote:
>> > On Jun 3, 2:29 pm, James Kosin <jko...@support.intcomgrp.com> wrote:
>> >> almu...@altavista.com wrote:
>> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> > You sure, everyone is telling me that vista is unable and I should get
>> > them to install XP. Any problems?
>>
>> > Colm
>>
>> They are living in the
>> past.http://java.sun.com/javase/downloads/index.jsp
>> lists Vista and also the JRE is starting to list Windows 7.
>>
>> I haven't heard of any issues other than with much earlier releases.
>>
>> OS wise, I've found VISTA more stable than XP or 2000; though you need a
>> good machine to run VISTA.
>>
>> James
>
> James, tell me more. How much RAM/disk space/CPU chip, speed etc...
> A mate of mine said that Vista takes up IG or RAM alon.e So he said
> you need at least 3GB. Would you agree?
> Anything you would like to offer?
>
> Cheers,
> a.

That is true, Vista will thrash about with only 1GB. 2GB-3GB is best,
unless you want to spend more money.