Is 861 errors in 19 days too many?

[ws78819]

I finally took the plunge and moved up in the PC department. I first booted up my new PC/Vista HP(x64) and since then I have been yearning to get my old pc out of the storage box. Really now, isn't Vista, quad core processors, DVD/CD burner/writers, supposed to be the set-up to have as we move forward?

My old XP Home Ed gave me few headaches and was steadfast in it's delivery of what I wanted to do. It was the PC and it's components that were becoming outdated and old, 10 years. Since I have had this new system I have been trying to figure out just how to keep tabs on the system hardware and software. I was looking at the Admin. Event Viewer after contact Microsoft about some problems I was having with programs becoming invalid/corrupted.

I noticed that in 19 days my error reporting program has issued:

861 Errors

1480 Warnings

18, 891 Information

......events. I don't believe that this is an true accounting of error events, as I have noticed some event logs go back two or three days. But we will consider the total given in the 'Event Viewer(Local)' section, I am now wondering is this alot of errors for this span of time? I don't have a large amount of experience with the Admin tools or understanding how to address the plethora of errors in the event viewers logs. I just know that when some program is issuing alot of error reports that something is amiss.

I did spend some time with tech supp. addressing a 'HP Cue DeviceDiscovery Service' problem two days ago. But I see those errors are now back. So I downloaded all of the data within the event viewers logs and shipped them off to tech supp. That was two days ago, I figure it may take awhile before I hear back from them.

I see this query is getting long. So I'll Say "Hi" I'm Bill and I am new to this forum. I'll post abit more about myself later.

Hope someone can provide some insight to what is going on with my operating system and programs.

Thanx for taking the time to read and consider my query(ies)' Bill

[ripken204]

you don't have vista, you have HP Vista, which is complete crap.

[ws78819]

Well Thanks for the support and candor. I didn't realize I was buying CRAP./

Bill

[cluberti]

Well, to be honest, most OEM vendors put out crap installs of Windows (not just Vista). It might be better to wipe the stock OEM install and reinstall it clean with the Vista disc you should have with your machine. Always a good idea if you can do it.

[Zxian]

I'lll third the vote to nuke-and-pave. Install a clean copy of Vista, and then only install the drivers you need and the apps you want.

[Octopuss]

Reading this thread makes me sad. I work in HP and MUST use company notebook with Vista installed from image, and it comes with INCREDIBLE amount of crap. Installing takes 2 hours. LOL. Booting the **** thing takes about ten minutes until disk stops reading like mad.

I really wish you will never have to undergo the same

[Tripredacus]

Using x64 Vista is a thing I wouldn't recommend to just anyone. It requires you to keep track of what programs/drivers you have installed and what you want to install. For compatibility reasons of course. I wouldn't trust OEM loaded x64 (ala HP) unless you purchased the OS on the side and had the OEM put just that media on the hard drive. 64bit to the masses isn't going to work because most people do not understand what they are getting themselves into. Its like when Sony started selling VAIOs with RAID on them. I was with Sony at that time (for the second time) and many users called up to complain. Most of them did stupid things like changing their BIOS settings which would blow away the array on them.

Also, I have noticed, with the advent of 2008 Server, that even on a base install, the OS is not configured properly and will generate errors out of the box. Its an annoying process, especially when you find a lot of errors (like in my case, Kerberos related ones) are false negatives and can be ignored. If there was a way to hide these types of errors then I would think that would be better.

[Zxian]

Using x64 Vista is a thing I wouldn't recommend to just anyone. It requires you to keep track of what programs/drivers you have installed and what you want to install. For compatibility reasons of course. I wouldn't trust OEM loaded x64 (ala HP) unless you purchased the OS on the side and had the OEM put just that media on the hard drive. 64bit to the masses isn't going to work because most people do not understand what they are getting themselves into. Its like when Sony started selling VAIOs with RAID on them. I was with Sony at that time (for the second time) and many users called up to complain. Most of them did stupid things like changing their BIOS settings which would blow away the array on them.

So you're suggesting that we keep the masses in the dark, and never move on to the benefits of 64-bit computing? I recommend that all my friends use 64-bit Vista if their computers can support it and they can find the drivers for them. Software isn't really a big deal - I haven't found any common 32-bit software that won't run on Vista x64 yet, and 64-bit drivers are just like 32-bit drivers... everything is just categorized for the architechture these days.

Education goes a long way with most people. If my father can understand the benefits of 64-bit computing, anyone can.

[ripken204]

Vista 64 is a must by my standards.

when i bought my laptop about a year ago, i didnt even boot into the OS, i immediately installed Vista 64 on it without a hesitation.

i purposely ordered the laptop with vista home instead of the premium that the normal model comes with, just to save some money.

Edited December 31, 2008 by ripken204

[Tripredacus]

Using x64 Vista is a thing I wouldn't recommend to just anyone. It requires you to keep track of what programs/drivers you have installed and what you want to install. For compatibility reasons of course. I wouldn't trust OEM loaded x64 (ala HP) unless you purchased the OS on the side and had the OEM put just that media on the hard drive. 64bit to the masses isn't going to work because most people do not understand what they are getting themselves into. Its like when Sony started selling VAIOs with RAID on them. I was with Sony at that time (for the second time) and many users called up to complain. Most of them did stupid things like changing their BIOS settings which would blow away the array on them.

So you're suggesting that we keep the masses in the dark, and never move on to the benefits of 64-bit computing? I recommend that all my friends use 64-bit Vista if their computers can support it and they can find the drivers for them. Software isn't really a big deal - I haven't found any common 32-bit software that won't run on Vista x64 yet, and 64-bit drivers are just like 32-bit drivers... everything is just categorized for the architechture these days.

Education goes a long way with most people. If my father can understand the benefits of 64-bit computing, anyone can.

No I totally agree. We should be moved more into 64bit. Microsoft even wants to do a total shift into that area as well. My problem is that 64bit software development is seen as an optional thing. There needs to be more incentive to creating 64bit apps, as this will make the transition easier. Microsoft always has a way of plopping stuff into our laps and then we have to struggle to adapt to it. I imagine a larger outcry than the Vista transition when 64bit becomes the requirement. The Vista transition may have been a lot easier if Microsoft distributed dev-betas to software companies, so that they can prepare for the next OS release. MS does this for hardware companies, but the usual outcry about their operating systems is based on software woes.

Right now, 64bit is a specialised option for people and companies to use. Some engineering applications are written for it, but the reason most people use it is for higher reliability in storage and server platforms. The market share for 64bit is much lower than 32bit, and I would imagine that 64bit Windows releases are lower even than Linux or Mac. The thing is that we are seeing it from the "Power User" or corporate environment angle, and not from the regular every day user angle. Regular people do not understand system requirements. They do not know that some program they have that requires Windows 98 or higher is not likely to work properly on XP, Vista or a 64bit OS. A lot of customer education will be required for 64bit integration, unless the leading software makers get on board before that transition takes place. Otherwise, we are just going to have another Vista, or more likely, another Windows 2000.

I have found a few programs that do not work in 64bit so far.

[cluberti]

And I totally disagree. The problem with any migration to something newer/better is that no matter how long you wait, and how many times you tell people to get ready for it, there will ALWAYS be people who are not ready or who do not understand the migration. For those of us in the US, look at the impending DTV migration in February off of most analog channels to almost all-digital TV transmission - in the US, programs have been simulcast for years on both digital and analog distribution channels, but on Feb 17th, most of that analog distribution will go away. The reason I bring it up is that there are still millions of households in the US (estimated) that are not ready for the DTV transition, even though it was signed into law 3 years ago, and communications about getting ready for the transition (and even these silly vouchers for converter boxes) started in real force in media communications over a year ago, at the end of 2007. No matter what you do or don't do with a migration to something new and drop the old, there will always be the hangers-on who either refuse to upgrade or who have their collective heads in the sand ignoring what is about to come.

Don't misunderstand what I'm saying - I understand that there may be little reason to migrate to usage of x64 Windows for most people today. However, not doing so will unnecessarily prolong the x64 migration overall, and this architecture is simply far superior to x86. The x86 architecture is starting to show some limitations with newer consumer hardware (and has on server-grade hardware for a few years now), and whilst hacking around these things now to make x86 still "work" is possible, there's not a really compelling reason to avoid this migration to x64 either to solve some of these problems, and open up new possibilities.

Also, the app dev argument is mostly the problem of the developers, not Microsoft - app developers can get their hands on beta and RC x64 versions of Windows just as easily as the x86 versions, but for the most part vendors are choosing not to write x64-native versions because the 32bit variants they write will work on both architectures, and the expenditure to support both platform architectures might be more than they're willing to cut out of their bottom line (especially in this economic climate). I honestly think that the only way that Windows is going to be able to go entirely x64 is to draw a line in the sand (and I believe that this has already been done, if quietly, with Win7 being the last x86 Windows client version), and tell developers to expect x64-only Windows in 2012 or 2013.

[Tripredacus]

I know what you mean Cluberti. It just seems to me that brute forcing people into changing doesn't seem like the best it could be done.

[cluberti]

Understood, but do you have a viable alternative in mind? Again, apps won't go x64 en masse until vendors can't simply write x86 apps knowing they'll likely run on both variants (whereas obviously an x64 app won't run on x86). If you've got a good alternative, I'm all ears.

[Tripredacus]

Understood, but do you have a viable alternative in mind? Again, apps won't go x64 en masse until vendors can't simply write x86 apps knowing they'll likely run on both variants (whereas obviously an x64 app won't run on x86). If you've got a good alternative, I'm all ears.

This is quite the derail i've made huh... lol

Its a tricky situation, I don't think I can answer this right now.