Posted: 09 Sep 2007, 07:44
Does this make Vista the new Windows ME?Caydr wrote:Goody, Vista's successor is due in 3 years, too bad about the idiots that bought Vista already: http://www.engadget.com/2007/07/20/vist ... e-years?=7
Spring RTS Engine
Open Source Realtime Strategy Game Engine
https://springrts.com/phpbb/
Address Space Usage XP vs. Vista
Page 2 of 3
Posted: 09 Sep 2007, 07:46
It was the new ME long before that. 
Posted: 09 Sep 2007, 18:31
Caydr, you are like one of those fucking loud-assed mac fanboi's....
YOU JUST JABBER JABBER JABBER... nobody will read all that crap, and if I was up to it, I'd quiz you on it, namely because, you ain't read it either, but... nooooooooooooooooooooooo... you can post 70 some-odd links to typical "we hate vista" webring sites, and you think it validates your claim to be nothing more than an "anti-vista" fanboi.
shut up.
There ain't nothin wrong with Vista, it works fine on my rig, I like it, maybe you don't.
we get it.
YOU JUST JABBER JABBER JABBER... nobody will read all that crap, and if I was up to it, I'd quiz you on it, namely because, you ain't read it either, but... nooooooooooooooooooooooo... you can post 70 some-odd links to typical "we hate vista" webring sites, and you think it validates your claim to be nothing more than an "anti-vista" fanboi.
shut up.
There ain't nothin wrong with Vista, it works fine on my rig, I like it, maybe you don't.
we get it.
Posted: 09 Sep 2007, 18:45
Burn.Felix the Cat wrote:Does this make Vista the new Windows ME?Caydr wrote:Goody, Vista's successor is due in 3 years, too bad about the idiots that bought Vista already: http://www.engadget.com/2007/07/20/vist ... e-years?=7
Posted: 09 Sep 2007, 19:28
"There ain't nothin wrong with Vista"
Posted: 10 Sep 2007, 16:54
*_*
First off, I do not have MS Office installed. The ribbon UI looks a little pretty but otherwise its not going on my machine unless it really has to for University.
Instead I use OpenOffice 2!
Secondly
I did not spend $300 on vista. If I had to spend $300 on an Operating system I would opt for a cheaper OS no matter how good the OS was. I got Vista for free via MSDN Academic Alliance. And what's more I do not recommend that people spend ludicrous amounts of money on an OS. Vista has a crap price tag! I keep saying that but nobody seems to notice the word crap and somehow manage to insert 'brilliant' in its place (huh?).
And all this talk of vista draining hardware is a bit of a moot point. So you wanted those fancy graphics but are now complaining that they take up resources? What did you expect them for free? And that Vista would have a magical box full of oozing instant gigahertz?
Well there's a very simple solution. Turn the extra features off.
Yes they can be turned off! Wow what an innovative solution! An off switch!
So what can I really diss Vista for?
- Its price tag, it plain sucks(but as I said nobody buys windows, they get it for free/bundled with new PC)
- flip3d (Its rubbish, go get the expose style switcher program shown below)
- Media player balking at DVDs yes it does this but who uses media player for DVDs anyway? just use *insert other player* and the mountain of codec you end up downloading anyway for those obscure formats
- UAC turn it off and start using a standard user account for day to day stuff. Vistas much nicer in that rather than forcing you to logout and back in to an admin account it just asks you for an admin password, and it lets you do a lot more stuff without needing admin rights, and on top of that standard accounts don't have a slew of admin protection features so they're a lot faster as well as more secure!
- Lack of XP themes Theres aero, there's Vista basic, then there's classic, but no XP? Shouldn't be too hard to remedy.
- No obvious hibernate option? Well there is a hibernate option but it doesn't get listed and its not very good, thats because instead they implemented hybrid sleep, which means when your PC goes into sleep mode it also hibernates so if the power switches off your PC resumes as if nothing had happened when power returns which is much better.
- Bugs in Mingw32 Apparently the entire gcc for windows toolset has a set of bugs that require special work arounds under vista because sloppy erroneous command lien parameters dont work under vista any more, whereas XP blindly accepted parameters that had sloppy syntax.
In the meantime Vista business 64bit continues to outdo XP 32bit on my other machine. Its certainly better than XP 64bit in that Vista 64bit is actually better than vista 32bit. If anything XP x64 was ME mkII.
First off, I do not have MS Office installed. The ribbon UI looks a little pretty but otherwise its not going on my machine unless it really has to for University.
Instead I use OpenOffice 2!
Secondly
I did not spend $300 on vista. If I had to spend $300 on an Operating system I would opt for a cheaper OS no matter how good the OS was. I got Vista for free via MSDN Academic Alliance. And what's more I do not recommend that people spend ludicrous amounts of money on an OS. Vista has a crap price tag! I keep saying that but nobody seems to notice the word crap and somehow manage to insert 'brilliant' in its place (huh?).
And all this talk of vista draining hardware is a bit of a moot point. So you wanted those fancy graphics but are now complaining that they take up resources? What did you expect them for free? And that Vista would have a magical box full of oozing instant gigahertz?
Well there's a very simple solution. Turn the extra features off.
Yes they can be turned off! Wow what an innovative solution! An off switch!
So what can I really diss Vista for?
- Its price tag, it plain sucks(but as I said nobody buys windows, they get it for free/bundled with new PC)
- flip3d (Its rubbish, go get the expose style switcher program shown below)
- Media player balking at DVDs yes it does this but who uses media player for DVDs anyway? just use *insert other player* and the mountain of codec you end up downloading anyway for those obscure formats
- UAC turn it off and start using a standard user account for day to day stuff. Vistas much nicer in that rather than forcing you to logout and back in to an admin account it just asks you for an admin password, and it lets you do a lot more stuff without needing admin rights, and on top of that standard accounts don't have a slew of admin protection features so they're a lot faster as well as more secure!
- Lack of XP themes Theres aero, there's Vista basic, then there's classic, but no XP? Shouldn't be too hard to remedy.
- No obvious hibernate option? Well there is a hibernate option but it doesn't get listed and its not very good, thats because instead they implemented hybrid sleep, which means when your PC goes into sleep mode it also hibernates so if the power switches off your PC resumes as if nothing had happened when power returns which is much better.
- Bugs in Mingw32 Apparently the entire gcc for windows toolset has a set of bugs that require special work arounds under vista because sloppy erroneous command lien parameters dont work under vista any more, whereas XP blindly accepted parameters that had sloppy syntax.
In the meantime Vista business 64bit continues to outdo XP 32bit on my other machine. Its certainly better than XP 64bit in that Vista 64bit is actually better than vista 32bit. If anything XP x64 was ME mkII.
Posted: 10 Sep 2007, 19:48
Batman Begins, Guild Wars and Civilization all at the same time? I know that was a mockup shot.
Well, alright AF. Now I just have to try the tweaks mentioned and hope.
Well, alright AF. Now I just have to try the tweaks mentioned and hope.
Posted: 10 Sep 2007, 20:18
neddiedrow wrote:Batman Begins, Guild Wars and Civilization all at the same time? I know that was a mockup shot.
Well, alright AF. Now I just have to try the tweaks mentioned and hope.
lold
Posted: 10 Sep 2007, 21:01
Sure Vista has lots of little lolz features.
The question is, why should I upgrade to Vista over XP?
Seems like it's been proven that Vista is not worse than XP... which isn't enough.
The question is, why should I upgrade to Vista over XP?
Seems like it's been proven that Vista is not worse than XP... which isn't enough.
Posted: 10 Sep 2007, 22:09
Taking and cropping OS screenshots is alot easier in vista. That's worth 400$ right?Felix the Cat wrote:Sure Vista has lots of little lolz features.
The question is, why should I upgrade to Vista over XP?
Seems like it's been proven that Vista is not worse than XP... which isn't enough.
Posted: 10 Sep 2007, 22:19
AF all the nice things you're saying can be true or false, they're not what bothers me most. Actually none of those things even affected me.
My problem is this: Vista is XP with a new skin. There is nothing new of any substance. The few things that have been changed are just icon shuffling and putting control panel options in new places for no reason. It's like they said, "well our users have been used to finding these in X location for the last 10 years, let's put them here for no apparent reason and offer no recourse." At least with XP they were smart enough to put switch to put it in Classic mode. You can still do that, but what each icon does is still different. The network setup thing is a PITA compared with XP.
But that doesn't really bother me. The changes don't bother me really. Ok so control panel's a little different, I can adjust. Ok so the start menu is supposed to be more useful by making it smaller so I can't see my dozens of programs. Ok, stuff's prettier. What bothers me is what comes next. I ask myself, "Ok... so where's the real changes?" and I find none.
I used it for 2 months and I still use it on my laptop because I'm too lazy to format it.
It's a pile of rubbish that should never have been made. Microsoft wasted 5 years or more on this, accomplished nothing meaningful, stuck a $300+ price tag on it, and made it a mandatory "upgrade" for all future gamers.
That deserves consumer backlash, and that's what I and many other people are giving them.
I'm not anti-Microsoft, I realize that they have their place. They're a necessary evil. I actually like XP a fair bit, for all its little problems. They can be worked around, and generally things just work when they're supposed to. Fast forward to Vista. Things still generally work, after a fashion. However, the things I'm interested in most in the future won't work on my "ancient dinosaur" PC because I don't want an unnecessary upgrade.
I GET why I can't install new apps on Windows 95. I understand why even 98 often isn't supported. But there is no substantial difference between Vista and XP except for people who don't know that the monitor isn't the computer. If XP had DirectX 10 released for it, I'd say "Oh well, MS screwed up on Vista but who cares." But that's not the case.
Go ahead and quote MS when they say "but dx10 is teh shizzie! it's, like, way advanced, yo! you gots tah have the new kernel lol"... well that's a load of crap. If they could afford to have 50,000 developers sitting on their thumb spinning for the last 5 years "working" on Vista, they could've just as easily made a patch for XP.
Heck, DX10 is the same thing too. I don't care about it, I've seen comparison shots between DX9 and DX10 rendering, and it's nothing like the leap from DX8 to 9. I'm not terribly concerned. But you know Microsoft is going to do everything in their power to make sure the best games in the future will be DX10+ only.
My problem is this: Vista is XP with a new skin. There is nothing new of any substance. The few things that have been changed are just icon shuffling and putting control panel options in new places for no reason. It's like they said, "well our users have been used to finding these in X location for the last 10 years, let's put them here for no apparent reason and offer no recourse." At least with XP they were smart enough to put switch to put it in Classic mode. You can still do that, but what each icon does is still different. The network setup thing is a PITA compared with XP.
But that doesn't really bother me. The changes don't bother me really. Ok so control panel's a little different, I can adjust. Ok so the start menu is supposed to be more useful by making it smaller so I can't see my dozens of programs. Ok, stuff's prettier. What bothers me is what comes next. I ask myself, "Ok... so where's the real changes?" and I find none.
I used it for 2 months and I still use it on my laptop because I'm too lazy to format it.
It's a pile of rubbish that should never have been made. Microsoft wasted 5 years or more on this, accomplished nothing meaningful, stuck a $300+ price tag on it, and made it a mandatory "upgrade" for all future gamers.
That deserves consumer backlash, and that's what I and many other people are giving them.
I'm not anti-Microsoft, I realize that they have their place. They're a necessary evil. I actually like XP a fair bit, for all its little problems. They can be worked around, and generally things just work when they're supposed to. Fast forward to Vista. Things still generally work, after a fashion. However, the things I'm interested in most in the future won't work on my "ancient dinosaur" PC because I don't want an unnecessary upgrade.
I GET why I can't install new apps on Windows 95. I understand why even 98 often isn't supported. But there is no substantial difference between Vista and XP except for people who don't know that the monitor isn't the computer. If XP had DirectX 10 released for it, I'd say "Oh well, MS screwed up on Vista but who cares." But that's not the case.
Go ahead and quote MS when they say "but dx10 is teh shizzie! it's, like, way advanced, yo! you gots tah have the new kernel lol"... well that's a load of crap. If they could afford to have 50,000 developers sitting on their thumb spinning for the last 5 years "working" on Vista, they could've just as easily made a patch for XP.
Heck, DX10 is the same thing too. I don't care about it, I've seen comparison shots between DX9 and DX10 rendering, and it's nothing like the leap from DX8 to 9. I'm not terribly concerned. But you know Microsoft is going to do everything in their power to make sure the best games in the future will be DX10+ only.
Posted: 10 Sep 2007, 22:40
What I dislike about Vista: It's slower and less compatible.
1st one is unavoidable, because of the added stuff, and the updates are fixing it. 2nd one will hopefully be slowly mitigated as new programs are made available for Vista.
What I like about Vista: It has a better interface and much better security (because you can actually do stuff with a standard account, but malicious stuff can't unless you let it.)
Would it be worth it to upgrade from XP? Probably not at this time. But I do NOT regret having gotten it with my new computer.
1st one is unavoidable, because of the added stuff, and the updates are fixing it. 2nd one will hopefully be slowly mitigated as new programs are made available for Vista.
What I like about Vista: It has a better interface and much better security (because you can actually do stuff with a standard account, but malicious stuff can't unless you let it.)
Would it be worth it to upgrade from XP? Probably not at this time. But I do NOT regret having gotten it with my new computer.
Posted: 10 Sep 2007, 23:28
No operating system is worth $400 fullstop no matter how good ti is. No suer should pay more than $60 for an OS imo and it had better be a good one for $60. No OS has yet reached that pillar of achievement.
And tbh I don't care about DX10. Im not joined at the hip to the DX10 sdk, the only real DX10 game I own is bioshock. Thats not why I like vista.
But aside form DX10, vista is a major overhaul of windows internals. It is not XP in new skin. The kernel is rewritten, a new network stack, a heck of a lot of reworking.
For example did you know the Vista GUI is .Net? And that win32 API is a wrapper for .Net 3.0? In XP it was the other way around. As a result .Net now gets a free speed boost over win32 API apps under Vista.
And how can you say XP networking is better than Vista? Vista networking may not be brilliant but XP networking is diabolical. At least Vista attempts to do something even if there's still room for improvement.
So lets recapp:
Why should you upgrade from XP to Vista?
Its better
Why should you pay for Vista?
you shouldnt
its very simple, heres some pseudocode
As for not enough ram, just buy a 2 GB usb drive (a new one not an older one), plug it in, and pick ready boost, and hey presto 2GB of ram have just been added to task manager. Its not as good as DDR2 but it does the job a lot better than that page file.
And tbh I don't care about DX10. Im not joined at the hip to the DX10 sdk, the only real DX10 game I own is bioshock. Thats not why I like vista.
But aside form DX10, vista is a major overhaul of windows internals. It is not XP in new skin. The kernel is rewritten, a new network stack, a heck of a lot of reworking.
For example did you know the Vista GUI is .Net? And that win32 API is a wrapper for .Net 3.0? In XP it was the other way around. As a result .Net now gets a free speed boost over win32 API apps under Vista.
And how can you say XP networking is better than Vista? Vista networking may not be brilliant but XP networking is diabolical. At least Vista attempts to do something even if there's still room for improvement.
So lets recapp:
Why should you upgrade from XP to Vista?
Its better
Why should you pay for Vista?
you shouldnt
its very simple, heres some pseudocode
Code: Select all
onVistaOffer{
if(price < $5 && PCAge() == modern && CpuCores > 1){
getVista()
}else{
complainaboutpriceorCurrentHardware()
}
}Posted: 10 Sep 2007, 23:36
loonix? <_<AF wrote:No operating system is worth $400 fullstop no matter how good ti is. No suer should pay more than $60 for an OS imo and it had better be a good one for $60. No OS has yet reached that pillar of achievement.
XP Pro still goes for $200 :O
OSX (latest) is at a quite reasonable price ($130) imo.
Btw, the usb bus is WAY slower than the cheapest, crappiest modern harddrives available today...the usb 2.0 standard delivers a whopping 60 MB/s max bandwidth and usb drives generally have painfully slow (compared to hdds) write speed.
Posted: 10 Sep 2007, 23:58
standard USB 2.0 gives minimum 12Mbps. However its technical maximum speed is 480Mbps not 60Mbps.
The best Hard drives give 100Mbps on spin up and then level out between 10MBps and 70/80MBps at the top end.
So the reason usb drives seem slow to you is not because USB is providing a bottleneck but because the bottleneck is in the drive itself. Flash memory ahs come a l long way and you can buy brand new usb drives that're many times superior to the ones sitting next to them on the shop shelves or the drive in your pocket with similar specifications in that they have faster read write speeds and far longer lifespans.
But I agree that not all usb drives are as fast as each other and sometimes that usb drive labelled as hi speed can perform up to 100x faster than that year old drive in your pocket despite both being usb 2.0
The best Hard drives give 100Mbps on spin up and then level out between 10MBps and 70/80MBps at the top end.
So the reason usb drives seem slow to you is not because USB is providing a bottleneck but because the bottleneck is in the drive itself. Flash memory ahs come a l long way and you can buy brand new usb drives that're many times superior to the ones sitting next to them on the shop shelves or the drive in your pocket with similar specifications in that they have faster read write speeds and far longer lifespans.
But I agree that not all usb drives are as fast as each other and sometimes that usb drive labelled as hi speed can perform up to 100x faster than that year old drive in your pocket despite both being usb 2.0
Posted: 11 Sep 2007, 00:01
Oh, so I get 1.5 MBps download bandwidth with my crappy dsl, rather than 188 KBps?AF wrote:However its technical maximum speed is 480Mbps not 60Mbps.
LERN BIT/BYTE DIFFERENS PLZ
Peet wrote:60 MB/s
Peet wrote:60 MB/s
Peet wrote:60 MB/s
Posted: 11 Sep 2007, 00:04
Heres an in depth faq from Matt Ayers, the program manager behind ready boost explaining ready boost more accurately and how it produces a gain from using it. Stuff like random access times versus serial access times and such and performance testing.
http://blogs.msdn.com/tomarcher/archive ... 15199.aspx
http://blogs.msdn.com/tomarcher/archive ... 15199.aspx
Posted: 11 Sep 2007, 00:26
Readyboost may help loading times a bit, but AF, it's not a replacement for ram at all. If I was to take out half of my 2GB on this laptop and replace it with 4 gigs of readyboost, I would be completely screwed when trying to run everything I have open right now. The thrashing would be bad enough to make me want to throw it out a window. Don't act as if readyboost is even in the same ballpark as having more ram when it comes to actually running things.
This laptop came with Vista Basic, no aero, with a core 2 solo processor and 512MB ram. Using it was quite a bit worse compared to XP on a pentium 4 with 192MB ram. And that was XP with included bloatware, and Vista with the bloatware uninstalled.
This laptop came with Vista Basic, no aero, with a core 2 solo processor and 512MB ram. Using it was quite a bit worse compared to XP on a pentium 4 with 192MB ram. And that was XP with included bloatware, and Vista with the bloatware uninstalled.
Posted: 11 Sep 2007, 00:31
AF, you're missing it completely. I have no choice to downgrade to Vista eventually or I'll miss out on games and, eventually, software etc. Despite the fact that it does nothing new and is no significant improvement over XP. And I'll HAVE to pay who knows how much. I can't just go an buy a new computer and write off the $2000 the computer cost by saying to myself, at least I saved $300 on the OS.
That's why I hate it. It's a forced upgrade for no purpose. There was a reason to upgrade to XP from 98. There was a reason to go from 95 to 98 even.
They've created another abortion of an OS like "millennium edition", and they're making it mandatory. Buy this or else you can't use your computer for what you bought it for.
I remember someone saying that crappy GF8 performance/compatibility was entirely Nvidia's fault recently.
That's why I hate it. It's a forced upgrade for no purpose. There was a reason to upgrade to XP from 98. There was a reason to go from 95 to 98 even.
They've created another abortion of an OS like "millennium edition", and they're making it mandatory. Buy this or else you can't use your computer for what you bought it for.
I remember someone saying that crappy GF8 performance/compatibility was entirely Nvidia's fault recently.
According to NVIDIA's VISTA Hotfix Page two Updates were released by Microsoft:
Hotfix for GeForce customers:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/938194 and http://support.microsoft.com/kb/938979
These hotfixes improves the compatibility and reliability of Windows Vista.
Posted: 11 Sep 2007, 00:35
No modern PC should have 512MB or a single core processor. Vista was not optimized for single core cpus. All modern cpus have at last 2 cores or more, and if they don't then they're just ripping you off.
That machine should not have had Vista on it.
On top of that it had Vista basic which is rubbish. Do not get the basic edition.
And yes 2GB ram > 2Gb flash, I said that in a previous post.
That machine should not have had Vista on it.
On top of that it had Vista basic which is rubbish. Do not get the basic edition.
And yes 2GB ram > 2Gb flash, I said that in a previous post.