http://uk.gamespot.com/features/6164940 ... id=6164940
>.>
don't worry! vista will support DX9 compatible games O_o of all the sarcastic stuff posted about vista this is making me doubt most. why the hell would i PAY to upgrade to vista??? i'd only have it if i was getting a new PC...
Vista and media playback
Moderator: Moderators
http://fun.drno.de/pics/windoof/which_vista.gif
HUR! HUR! Ignore the .de in the domain...
HUR! HUR! Ignore the .de in the domain...
And yet you don't question why the hell you upgraded to Windows XP? Or 98?Min3mat wrote:http://uk.gamespot.com/features/6164940 ... id=6164940
>.>
don't worry! vista will support DX9 compatible games O_o of all the sarcastic stuff posted about vista this is making me doubt most. why the hell would i PAY to upgrade to vista??? i'd only have it if i was getting a new PC...
It's really the same thing (if you believe Vista has less new features, that's what you get for only listening to the Microsoft anti-fanboys), if it bothers you, there are free alternatives.
2k is as fast if not slower than XP. The only difference is that XP has a load of extra stuff turned on by default, lots of services, that're running which can be turned off, visual themes for example. XP uses an improved version of the windows 2k core.
As such the same could be said of vista. You can make it run a heck of a lot faster by trimming features off and rolling back fancy effects. People moan vista will take lots of ram and gfx effects, they forget that they're not forced on you and you can turn them off and use the windows 95 style rendering. Microsoft doesnt add features that push the hardware up without adding on off switches unless they really have to.
That having said, people said the same about XPs graphics, and I got XP to run on a 386Mhz amd k6 cpu with 160MB SD RAM nad a 4MB trident graphics card, with the fancy graphics turned on with no major laggyness.
So dont blame microsoft, blame antimicrosoft fanbois, and blame yourself for not taking care of your computer.
As such the same could be said of vista. You can make it run a heck of a lot faster by trimming features off and rolling back fancy effects. People moan vista will take lots of ram and gfx effects, they forget that they're not forced on you and you can turn them off and use the windows 95 style rendering. Microsoft doesnt add features that push the hardware up without adding on off switches unless they really have to.
That having said, people said the same about XPs graphics, and I got XP to run on a 386Mhz amd k6 cpu with 160MB SD RAM nad a 4MB trident graphics card, with the fancy graphics turned on with no major laggyness.
So dont blame microsoft, blame antimicrosoft fanbois, and blame yourself for not taking care of your computer.
You don't think you'll be forced to upgrade to Vista because of games too?KDR_11k wrote:I do but I just couldn't find another way to make Company of Heroes work. 2k was so much faster than XP...ZellSF wrote:And yet you don't question why the hell you upgraded to Windows XP?
(and I usually find the speed limit on my computer to be how fast I can work, not how fast it can work)
As for Vista, that article goes voerboard. The person saying it all is biased and while there is truth in what he says there are moments where he isnt as truthful as we'd like him to be.
The article wrote: This is a biased writeup.
Perhaps, but then I challenge anyone to read the specifications given in the Sources section above and write a positive analysis of Vista's content protection. Someone has to point out these problems, and it happened to be me in this case, but I think anyone with technical skills who reads the relevant documents would come to a similar conclusion.
And much of the other critisism general is true (eg, microsoft trying to get monopoly on the market, windows being unstable compared to other OS), so don't blame it all on AntiMS and the plp.
I haven't ever seen Windows XP crash on my computer, how's that unstable? Does Windows secretly crash itself while you're not watching while Linux and Mac OS X does not? 
Before Windows being unstable was true, now I'd blame any complaints on that on the user, just like you'd blame it on me if I told you Linux and Mac OS X crashes more frequently here (which they do).
Everyone tries to get a monopoly on the market, so that's not really a valid criticism of Microsoft imo.
Before Windows being unstable was true, now I'd blame any complaints on that on the user, just like you'd blame it on me if I told you Linux and Mac OS X crashes more frequently here (which they do).
Everyone tries to get a monopoly on the market, so that's not really a valid criticism of Microsoft imo.
Considering how long it took for XP-only games to appear I wouldn't be surprised if Vista-only games from companies other than MS won't appear until after the next Windows has been released.ZellSF wrote:You don't think you'll be forced to upgrade to Vista because of games too?
Working within one application is pretty fast but switching between them is very slow and has loads of page faults (loading stuff from the virtual memory). In 2k it didn't have nearly as many page faults when accessing the task bar after spending some time in an application. That's my biggest gripe, XP seems to drop stuff from the physical memory a lot faster than 2k and takes much longer to recover. I've also had XP freeze a few times after switching over and my 2k installation was 3+ years old at that time, should be crufty as hell but still outperformed a clean XP install.(and I usually find the speed limit on my computer to be how fast I can work, not how fast it can work)
-
maverick256
- Posts: 115
- Joined: 21 Sep 2004, 19:41
Well, glad to see people actively discussing this. Obviously vista have more features, no question about it. It is in many ways better than XP, no doubt about that either. It's another version of windows, not some miracle OS MS marketed it to be, which I doubt anyone will dispute. But still, what about the points raised in the article? While things might not be as bad as he says it will be, his analysis has enough facts in it to make me somewhat concerned. Just what I think.
But, whether you like MS or not, if you are interested in the issue, then read the article and MS's white paper listed in the sources, read their response to the article, and once you've heard both side of the issue, you'll be able to make your own rational judgment on the matter.
But, whether you like MS or not, if you are interested in the issue, then read the article and MS's white paper listed in the sources, read their response to the article, and once you've heard both side of the issue, you'll be able to make your own rational judgment on the matter.
Okay, using shady tatics to get that monopoly/'s. For example:
Everyone tries to get a monopoly on the market, so that's not really a valid criticism of Microsoft imo.
And so on.With regard to web browsers, the plaintiffs in the antitrust case claimed that Microsoft had added support for ActiveX controls in Internet Explorer to break compatibility with Netscape Navigator, which used components based on Java and Netscape's own plugin system. The plaintiffs also accused Microsoft of using an "embrace and extend" strategy with regard to the Java platform, by omitting the Java Native Interface from its implementation and providing J/Direct for a similar purpose. According to an internal communication, Microsoft sought to downplay Java's cross-platform capability and make it the "latest, greatest way to write Windows applications." Microsoft paid Sun $20 million U.S. in January of 2001 to settle the resulting legal implications of their breach of contract.
This doesnt counter the point it simply redirects it. But for oen the whole arguement is simply irrelevant as I doubt anybody will bother using the protcted media channels anyway, and they've already been cracked as it is, and they're totally bypassed by simply using free media players.Perhaps, but then I challenge anyone to read the specifications given in the Sources section above and write a positive analysis of Vista's content protection.
Imagine if XP had a program call Pass.exe. And Blu-ray and HD DVD movies didnt work unless that program was running. This program was added to provide the content DRM needed to allow these movies to play when its needed. When a movie finishes playing Pass.exe autoexits. Sadly ti only works for HDCP compliant hardware atm.
Does that seem fair? IIRC something like that aleady exists in XP. Replace all mentions of XP with Vista and Pass.exe with content protction and suddenly a huge group of fanatics appear out of nowhere and start attacking making a much bigger deal out of it.
*news report* hackers have modified Pass.exe to work with any hardware in XP.
This would quash all the claims normally, but because this is Vista everybodies ignoring it.
You all forget that you only get thsi DRM stuff running when vista plays protcted media. Namely blu-ray and HD-DVD, formats WHICH HAVE ALREADY BEEN CRACKED. formats that've already been ripped into nonprotected freeware formats playable freely, even shared on bit torrent and IRC.
The vista protcted content path is irrelevant. Anybody whose knowledgable enought o know about it should have the means by which to 'unprotect' the content and totally bypass the system.
Any other company would do the same though (look at Apple). Of course, it's valid criticism, but it shouldn't really shouldn't be a surprise to you, and there's not much you can do about it.Kixxe wrote:Okay, using shady tatics to get that monopoly/'s.
Everyone tries to get a monopoly on the market, so that's not really a valid criticism of Microsoft imo.
security, stability, improved user interface (not talking about aero when I say that), faster UI (XP temporarily lags when I right click things or when I mouse over the new or send to options, but its snappy and fast in vista), better views in explorer, better start menus, improved default programs with a lot of waste removed, improved networking, per application volume controls, better than commercial grade speech recognition, support for horizontal scroll wheel everywhere, windows update that doesnt need internet explorer running, better program handling, crash reporting that even checks for fixes online when you ask it to (control panel->problems and solutions), an extdended control panel, native video desktop support, better user management and access controls, faster startups and shutdowns, quicker logons, improved application startup speeds, native IM support for LANs, A specialised Vista version of Windows Defender, a great amss of media and wallpapers and screenshots that actually look pretty for once and arent cheap replicas of the previous windows version or sprites that scroll a windows logo, new icons, new cursors, more control over window colours transparencies effects, flip3D alt tabbing, thumbnails of programs in the taskbar, ..
And I could keep going on and on...
Its not a rcoded XP with DX10 DRM and flashy GUI effects, there's a lot more in there if you'd actually look.
And I could keep going on and on...
Its not a rcoded XP with DX10 DRM and flashy GUI effects, there's a lot more in there if you'd actually look.
