Poll
Question:
Have you tried a beta version of Vista?
Option 1: I've tried Vista Beta RC1 or newer.
votes: 53
Option 2: I've tried an older beta of Vista or Longhorn.
votes: 10
Option 3: I havn't tried a beta of Vista yet, but I want to.
votes: 32
Option 4: I don't care about Windows Vista.
votes: 86
I want to know what you think of vista. Please post what you like or don't like.
My votes:
1: Tried RC1 Beta.
2: Neutral opinion of it right now. Looks pretty and I like Vista's visual theme (I didn't like winXP's theme at all). However, it sucks too many system resources for my liking (12Gb on HD and 500+ Mb of RAM in Aero) when WindowBlinds or Aston or such can give a nice-looking UI for very little system resources. Media Player 11 also suffers from horrid load times.
3: I might upgrade in a year or two, but right now I'm happy with Win2K, WinXP, and Fedora Core Linux.
I'm positive that my next laptop will have windows vista preloaded, but other than that winxp is as far as microsoft will go for me.
I tried every build so far (including MSDN releases only) excluding RC 1 and like it somwhat. The builds I had had some annoying bugs or features and was looking forward to seing some changes. Unfortunately, I cannot install Vista on an external HDD to see how RC 1 looks like and I am tired of repartitioning my HDD.
Also, I will probably get it after the first SP was released.
The whole 'needs your permission' thing is annoying. If I click on Device Manager as Aministrator, it should just go into Device Manager, not give me a stupid yes/no dialog box every time I want to do somthing. Does any one know if it can be turned off?
Have any of you tried the audio effects in the audio control panel? Things like the room correction, loudness EQ...
eww. gross.
I want to try out the beta, but with all this trusted computing shit, I'm not upgrading after if I can help it. Too satisfied with my current setup to muck around with my system right now.
Trusted computing is just some fancy word for DRM and its not like we currently dont have it on our computers.
Besides I look forward to the new windows architecture and DirectX10 (some applications and games will be vista only so upgrading to it is almost inevitable for some people).
I dont really like its resource hogging UI but Ill just flip on the windows classic and install blackbox.
1: Tried.
2: I didn't like.
3: Will never install or upgrade on my home PC, but I may be forced to use at work (hope not).
There are better choices than Vista around
There are better choices than Vista around
Like?
Compiz and gnome
Ah sure Linux but IMO in a world dominated by windows and the gates an alternative OS isnt an option for some people
When I first installed it it seemed like it had virtually no advantage over XP. But there are a number of things that it does nicely - wireless networking and audio being the biggest plusses. Yes, the whole screen darkening ominously every time you try and do anything is hideously annoying, but presumably that's going to be improved on by release. If not, it'll be hideously insecure because everyone will switch it off completely. The whole signing of drivers is a bit off since it'll make a lot of hardware incompatible. Still I'm sure I'll get a machine running it at some point, but since I only have one cheap laptop and it's treble booting as it is I doubt it'll be any time soon.
Hm, looks like I'm in the same boat as over half the other responders. I'd switch to Ubuntu or OS X before switching to Vista. Vista looks like Microsoft's next Win ME: slow, buggy, insecure. This time though, Microsoft is aiming for security. In real-world language, after you get past the marketroids, it will end up instead as: more restrictions piled on the user. XP's level of restrictiveness bugs me already; I only use it because it's the defacto standard. The next switch I do should be to some other architecture that breaks some compatibility, like from 98 to XP to avoid ME. It will probably be to Ubuntu, with Windows in VMWare for legacy apps.
When I first installed it it seemed like it had virtually no advantage over XP. But there are a number of things that it does nicely - wireless networking and audio being the biggest plusses.
I'm continually astounded at the state of wireless drivers on Windows XP/2K today. Why does every board maker have to include a super-bloated suite of applications related to their wireless chip? Linksys, D-link, SMC, hawking, killme...
And don't get me started on the one on my Thinkpads either. It's even worse on my X40, where the IBM app to reconnect to a WPA wireless access point has to be running in a user context continuously...which plays havok on lost wireless connections when you are using multiple console accounts (e.g. my girlfriend is working on a project).
I suppose that's the secure way of doing things, but it's still super killing me that I have to switch to my user account, quit the app, switch back to hers and start it again.
I guess it's "good" that Microsoft got that right with Vista, but how it ever got this unright in the first place is a mystery.
/rant off
-brendan
Its not that unright, find the drivers and .ini file on a cd or in temp folders and avoid the dreaded setup.exe, then use windows SP2's own untility for searching for AP's.
I want to try out the beta, but with all this trusted computing shit, I'm not upgrading after if I can help it. Too satisfied with my current setup to muck around with my system right now.
Trusted Computing is something to watch out for, but it is mostly a hardware thing.
Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_computing)
...The whole signing of drivers is a bit off since it'll make a lot of hardware incompatible...
Another thing I haven't liked since XP. I have a Promise TX2 IDE controller and when I installed XP, I could see the drives in my computer, but there were no folders in them. I stuck the floppy in that I got with the card and it whined that it had an unsigned driver and I said to use it anyway and the drives worked fine after that. IMO: the driver signing thing is just a way to get hardware companies to pay for the 'designed for Windows' logo.
Also IMO: Windows 98SE and 2Kpro were the most stable and user-friendly versions of Windows ever, depending on what you use your computer for.
I too have an IDE controller that only works with unsigned drivers. There are signed ones available, but they cause audio interruptions and general glitchiness.
Go Microsoft!
There are better choices than Vista around
Like?
Mac OS X. Even Windows 2000 or XP.
There are better choices than Vista around
Like?
Mac OS X. Even Windows 2000 or XP.
Since you both have made statements that imply you have made a full, responsible comparison, may I ask exactly what build of Vista each of you has downloaded and tried? Surely that would be an easy thing for you to tell me.
Since you both have made statements that imply you have made a full, responsible comparison, may I ask exactly what build of Vista each of you has downloaded and tried? Surely that would be an easy thing for you to tell me.
I'm going to have to agree here. It is easy to say that X is better or worse than Y based on stereotyped or hear-say opinions without actually doing the research for yourself, and Microsoft has a lot of stereotyped opinions floating around about it's products. If you havent tried Vista, the download is free from Microsoft or bittorrent, and you will improve your credibility having actually tried it. If you have tried Vista, more power to you to bomb or promote it.
I've tried numerous builds from pre-beta1 to RC2 now, And I'm pretty impressed with Microsoft. Vista is a solid Operation Sytem and a worth-awhile upgrade to any older windows.
1. I don't care about Windows Vista.
2. I have not tried Vista.
3. I don't use Windows and I will not get Vista.
Personally if I ever move OS it will be to either Windows 2000 Pro or Windows 2003 Server-converted-to-workstation, as their stability and security appeals to me. If I manage to get a decent modem that works with non-windows OSes, I'll get FreeBSD on here.
Since you both have made statements that imply you have made a full, responsible comparison, may I ask exactly what build of Vista each of you has downloaded and tried? Surely that would be an easy thing for you to tell me.
I work at a very big company. We have access to all Vista Releases. We have many testing machines. We test our products against it. I don't install it myself, and i don't care about the build number, but i assure you its the latest version.
1. I don't care about Windows Vista.
2. I have not tried Vista.
3. I don't use Windows and I will not get Vista.
And the polls say that you are not alone, at least on 1 and 2.
I work at a very big company. We have access to all Vista Releases. We have many testing machines. We test our products against it. I don't install it myself, and i don't care about the build number, but i assure you its the latest version.
Doubt ended.
Doubt ended.
latest version i have is build 5744.
latest version i have is build 5744.
That's either RC1 rel. 2 or RC2
Doubt ended.
latest version i have is build 5744.
And your issues, then?
And your issues, then?
bloated, ugly, still windows.
And your issues, then?
bloated, ugly, still windows.
Goodness, you can do better than that, can't you?
What do you want, a console with bourne shell running on it?
Seriously, if it's a question of taste, there's no arguing personal taste.
But if you don't like how something works, tell me about it.
have you seen, for example, Mac OS X now, and Mac OS 9 then? After more than 5 years, this rehash of XP is the only thing that MS can came with? An MS has like what, 20 times more developers working on Vista?
bloated, ugly, still windows.
For all you MS-bashers out there:
Microsuck Windoze Beasta
(covers self from impending rain of vegatables)
You say rehash. I say the most advanced Windows operating system to date, With numerous changes to the core of how things work. Who's right here?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_windows_vista (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_windows_vista)
*whistles*
have you seen, for example, Mac OS X now, and Mac OS 9 then? After more than 5 years, this rehash of XP is the only thing that MS can came with? An MS has like what, 20 times more developers working on Vista?
Let's see. I came into the (computer) world with GE Timesharing Mark 1, using Algol. I used research Unix from V2 DMERT to V11, IRIX, VMS, VM32, BSD, Redhat, using C, Basic, Focal, Fortran, Pascal, PL1, LISP, MATLAB, hm, I've left a few out, I'm sure...
Now, yes, I've seen lots of things.
How many of them can my mom use?
You say rehash. I say the most advanced Windows operating system to date, With numerous changes to the core of how things work. Who's right here?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_windows_vista (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_windows_vista)
*whistles*
you are talking about the same OS that would be released, without (canceled):
Palladium,
WinFS,
Monad,
UEFI Support,
SecurID Support,
PC-to-PC Sync,
and probably many others? What is so advanced about Vista, that deserves a 5 years, with more budget thatn the space program?
http://www.techweb.com/article/printableAr..._section=700027 (http://www.techweb.com/article/printableArticle.jhtml?articleID=189601600&site_section=700027)
Quoting articles is nice.
Why would you want Palladium? I don't see TCPA as a good thing.
Monad will still be available as a seperate install due to all kinds of nice EU tactics and some security paranoia by other people.
WinFS' demise didn't hurt Vista all that much - You still have instant desktop integrated search system-wide. It could have been better, But it's certainly not bad.
UEFI - I'm not familiar with this, I suppose you mean EFI booting capabilities - Again, Not sure. What benefits are there?
Same goes to SecurID support. I haven't seen much backing up to this.
PC-to-PC Sync.. How many users would actually need this? Normal, Average users, Which are the majority of Windows' user base.
Don't get me wrong - Vista isn't perfect - But the complaints from some people are just unnerving. It's not the best thing since sliced bread. So what? It is a solid improvement that out-does every other windows OS out there with numerous improvements. Now, Since i dislike quoting other sources, You can go and read the gist of that in the mentioned wikipedia article.
i will never upgrade to Vista. For a while, i will stay with my current version. In the future, i will either switch to ReactOS or a non-windows OS.
Don't get me wrong - Vista isn't perfect - But the complaints from some people are just unnerving. It's not the best thing since sliced bread. So what? It is a solid improvement that out-does every other windows OS out there with numerous improvements. Now, Since i dislike quoting other sources, You can go and read the gist of that in the mentioned wikipedia article.
ok, can you explain to me, what real advantages does it has over lets say, Windows 2003 or XP?
Lyx: Lovely argument, I guess.
kwanbis: To me? Locking down the kernel, The User mode audio and video drivers, Networking Improvements, Audio improvements including per-application volume, Integrated search, The start menu redesign, The breadcrumb bar and other similar changes prove a solid improvement to the overall experience. The fact Vista caches all the memory for quick transition between OS and user application tasks. There also all sorts of better secured features like system services no longer running in the same session as the user logons ('Session 0 Isolation') or ASLR ('Address Space Layout Randomization').
Like it or not, UAC is helpful in a way to prevent certain things, And in a way, XP spoiled us with default admin control - It shouldn't be the case in any modern OS.
For gaming, DirectX 10 is a god-sent gift, No more cap-bits. Vista's hardware detection is also better, and all my hardware gets installed and updated the moment i install vista. If we're on about installing, Vista's installer and the whole image-based solution to it are a good addition aswell. NTFS now has transactional operations, Which could be useful when you do things like deleting directories by mistake - and cancel in the middle (i haven't verified if the shell works like that yet). It also has symbolic links like in unix\linux, Also useful in certain situations.
Other things i enjoy are the 3D accelerated desktop. Even though WinFS isn't here, I find the search, grouping and stacking ablities of the shell quite enough, as well as the inline metadata tagging of content. The snipping tool is useful. Windows update not being a webservice anymore is also helpful. The task manager's services and procceses seperation helps around.
All in all, I don't see anything bad or worse in vista as of now (RC2 running as my main OS). I only see all-around improvements. It is not a life-changing revolution like we were promised in PDC2003, But its a damn good OS from my point of view (Developer).
Just my 2 cents on the whole "OMG VISTA SUCKS" issue.
Looks like I'm with the majority on this...
I want to avoid vista simply because I want to get away from proprietary stuff. I also suspect it will be even more bloated than XP.
Looks like I'm with the majority on this...
I want to avoid vista simply because I want to get away from proprietary stuff. I also suspect it will be even more bloated than XP.
But you haven't tried it, nor have you looked into the Vista audio chain, this being an audio board and all that.
Oh well.
nor have you looked into the Vista audio chain, this being an audio board and all that.
yeah ... i can't wait to use vista with my cryogenic gold plated, same size, woofer cabels
Why would you want Palladium? I don't see TCPA as a good thing.
Agreed. The original idea (user controlled) was a great idea, but what lurks now (content controlled) should go away for ever.
It is a solid improvement that out-does every other windows OS out there with numerous improvements.
Every other 'windows OS' - that's the clincher. It will be better depending on what you like in an OS, but no-one's preferences are the same.
For gaming, DirectX 10 is a god-sent gift, No more cap-bits. Vista's hardware detection is also better, and all my hardware gets installed and updated the moment i install vista.
DX10 will be available for earlier versions of Windows, too- correct me if I'm wrong. It's a shame that not all of those Microsoft-provided drivers work as well as I'd hoped. The best bet is to use the drivers that came with the hardware, or downloaded from the manufacturer's site. Who cares if they're digitally signed .
I also suspect it will be even more bloated than XP.
Unfortunately. About 4X more on HD and RAM and obviosly the CPU and GPU take harder hits, especially in aero.
DirectX cannot be available to older OS', As it builds upon technologies used in Vista, As far as i know.
4x the resources? In which versions, really? My RC2 uses under 400MB ram sitting idle with my usual programs - mIRC, Miranda, uTorrent (downloading and seeding of course), Foobar playing, etc. Also remember that Vista caches almost all free RAM for quicker switching between OS tasks and Applications - After all, If you have the RAM, why should it sit idle?
CPU doesn't seem to get used much more either - Because the GPU is actually doing something now in the desktop environment.
P.S. I noticed that Aero does get shut-down when running full-screen games.
Another reason not to "upgrade" to Vista: it will only install onto a "new" system twice. Upgrade too many times? Time for a new OS again...
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=156 (http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=156)
Under 400mb? That's nice, I have 256mb, XP runs fine with my programs too at about 100mb. Try again
Prepare for a lot of 2-5 year old systems that ran XP fine to be alienated from Vista. My thoughts and prayers go out to all those 256mb, integraded-graphics, Celeron/Duron budget-PC owners if Vista becomes the next super-standard. Vista is almost a forced hardware upgrade for most people.
One thing I honestly don't get is the piles of eye candy. An average user will be more confused about moving, gliding and fading windows than they will by clearly marked titles, buttons, and text. Why bump up the system requirements for confusion?
nor have you looked into the Vista audio chain, this being an audio board and all that.
yeah ... i can't wait to use vista with my cryogenic gold plated, same size, woofer cabels
So, you say that? Please show your evidence that such is offered by Microsoft, or rather address what IS supplied by Microsoft for Audio processing.
Please do so from the POV of someone who has used it, not someone who refuses to use it, but who makes a whole variety of confused assertions.
Let's see.
No more Kmixer.
Exclusive mode (low latency, direct-to-sound-card, no gain, no thing)
Room Correction that's on a par with anything else.
Loudness EQ (not RMS, loudness)
Bass Management
Speaker fill (for the "my back speakers don't work" issue, not for the 'phile)
High-quality resampling (as good as anything else out there)
Consolidation of gain controls
Lower latency throughout
Floating point pipeline (no clipping in the WAVE streams) with limiters and bad-data protection
Acoustic Echo Cancellation for 128 foot paths.
Array Microphone support for com use
Now, you were saying? Would you care to actually TRY these and then address the points? I would suggest that mere guessing, like you are obviously doing, is quite inappropriate as well as rude.
Now, I'm only addressing the audio signal processing and pipeline. There are also a host of new features in WMP (your one-stop shop for A/V playback) but that's for a different person and a different thread, I think.
Please, now that you've engaged others in this thread and made some solid-seeming claims, show that you have some data to back up your assertions. Show us the speaker cable you speak of. Show us your test results on the various signal processing engines. Talk about the class-driver strategy.
Another reason not to "upgrade" to Vista: it will only install onto a "new" system twice. Upgrade too many times? Time for a new OS again...
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=156 (http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=156)
This is a change how?
Under 400mb? That's nice, I have 256mb, XP runs fine with my programs too at about 100mb. Try again
100mb? Really? What doyou use, sendmail? (n.b. sarcasm warning for those with slow sarcasm detectors)
Have to agree with Woodinville here. There are some programs that ALONE take over 100mb RAM to run. Thats simply not an issue. Besides, I guess people read posts partially:
RAM USAGE IN VISTA SCALES ACCORDING TO YOUR PHYSICAL RAM AMOUNT.
Yeah. Whatever.
(1st items in all 3 tables)
With my hatred to XP, I have no other choice :-)
Whatever happened to progs / OSes that didn't binge off the RAM and just worked...
Thank Heavens For Open Source
Whatever happened to progs / OSes that didn't binge off the RAM and just worked...
Thank Heavens For Open Source ?
Well, I suppose I should just let you have the last word, but I have to ask here what "binge off the RAM" means. I routinely run huge (1GB sized) MATLAB calculations that take overnight. Is this what you mean by "bloated"? Or did you miss "RAM usage scales ..."?
If we're in a world where disc is as fast as RAM, I'm not yet aware of it.
After running the bloated, monstrous horrors that are KDE, GNOME and X, I don't have a problem with running 100% Windows boxes. I challenge anybody to objectively prove that Linux is faster or requires less memory than Windows in comparable environments. I can certainly point to some OS architectural improvements that Linux has over Windows, but they've only affected my work, maybe, two or three times in my life.
Vista's graphical "improvements" are things that every other OS vendor (including Linux distributions and OSX) are already rolling into their products. Pot, meet kettle.
Not like I'm going to be upgrading in the next year or two, since I don't really have a use for the new features right now, and of course the driver support is very spotty. But I'll have no qualms with it for my next computer.
It also has symbolic links like in unix\linux, Also useful in certain situations.
NTFS version 3.1 (XP and Server 2003) already offer symbolic links, they just arnt called that. So theres no change there. Its currently just completely command line driven, so they finally switched to a GUI.
I really dont care about how fancy it looks. Ill disable it all, switch to classic view and install backbox, job done.
Main advantages is its core changes (by that I mean user mode drivers and such) and DX10. DX10 will not be available for older operating systems.
Hopefully it will be secure too *tries to forget about IE7*
Well, I'm using the leaked Vista RTM build and I must say that it greatly surpassed my expections. It uses a bit more RAM than XP did, but it looks so nice and it feels much more responsive than XP did.
I will eat my humble pie and say that Microsoft did this one right. I've switched and I see no reason to look back.
I will be downloading the leaked build as well. Even the release candidates were still betas.
Vista looks polished with the compositing stuff. Smooth effects etc. But when you enable all the compositing goodness it needs a megafast pc. In general (without compositing) it isn't so very fast either...
I will stick with linux for now. Gives me everything I need, and then some.. including compositing eye candy that doesn't hog my computer so much.
Define megafast. My 2400+, 1GB DDR333 ram and 6600GT AGP seem to wheeze through even with the shitty nVidia drivers we have now.
On wikipedia as I read on Vista in the security section, all I see is check, verify and monitor. Isnt all that checking going to stress out the computer? I mean theres already a hell of a lota resources going to Avalon
I'm not interested in Vista one bit, and hope to never use it. My MS Windows days are nearing their end.
I'm having some probs with the RTM build 6000. It's refusing to install on the partition that I had RC1 on. (The 3rd partition) I'm wondering if MS wants to mandate that it have the first partition.
I'm not interested in Vista one bit, and hope to never use it. My MS Windows days are nearing their end.
I'll probably be following you on that. I don't plan on ever using Vista as my main OS, and I'll probably use Fedora Core Linux when XP pro outstays it's welcome.
I find it odd that people feel they have to state that in every thread about vista in a vista related forum. Oh well, Each to his own.
I havn't used vista yet.
I don't plan on it. Unless there is something new in it that accually matters to me I have no reason to use it. Server 2003 will last me until I feel like using Ubuntu again.
Sure, the Aero UI looks amazing, but in my opinion it isnt worth it. I don't really trust microsoft with all the new DRM stuff they are gunning for. Windows is already secure enough for me, and if it ever becomes a problem then linux is a good candidate.
The only way I might use it is if there is some big amazement of everyone on how well it works on decent computers, and that it doesn't need really fast ones. If it is critically aclaimed and such...
1. I've used Windows Vista RC1.
2. I didn't like it.
3. Don't plan to upgrade until I can't help it.
I tried Vista RC1 on an intel Core 2 Duo with 1.5 or 2GB of RAM. I found RC1 to be a little slow. My impression of the New Start Menu and general Windows layout is, that it's superfluous. Windows always seems like a little more congestion than I like. I'm an IRIX and Mac OS X man. I think I'll stick with XP Pro on my PC for as long as I can. I'm sure by next year though we'll have a new Vista machine at work.
1. I've used Windows Vista RC1.
2. I didn't like it.
3. Don't plan to upgrade until I can't help it.
I tried Vista RC1 on an intel Core 2 Duo with 1.5 or 2GB of RAM. I found RC1 to be a little slow. My impression of the New Start Menu and general Windows layout is, that it's superfluous. Windows always seems like a little more congestion than I like. I'm an IRIX and Mac OS X man. I think I'll stick with XP Pro on my PC for as long as I can. I'm sure by next year though we'll have a new Vista machine at work.
RC1 is outdated atm. A LOT has changed since then, if you want to try vista, you should try the RTM version.
I like it and im gonna upgrade as soon as i can. (Running a dual boot with XP SP2 atm)
The "eyecandy" uses your GPU and VRAM, so slowdowns are out of the question. If you don't have a supported gpu then it's off by default. Not many drivers available atm but that will change soon.
About the RAM, yes it uses more then XP but it also feels better and more smooth then XP and it's more stable then XP. Besides, you have the ram, you paid for it, why not use it?
My system: P4 3,0GHz HT, 1GB DDR RAM and 6600GT AGP
Nvidia has not released an RTM driver yet, only driver available is for RC2, so im using vista drivers atm.
Erm yeah, apparently most games run slower in Vista compared to XP. I cant remember where I saw it, but there were benchmarks somewhere. Ill try n find them.
I brought my RAM for games, If most of it is being taken up by the operating system then Im gona need more to satasify the games. And what about VRAM, when running a game does Vista page out the VRAM or let its UI just sit there?
I'm no "hardcore" gamer site benchmark, But i tend to see that performance fairly comparable.
That said, For the love of god, satan, and everything else, Wait for proper video drivers before judging game peformance.
Can Vista mount disc images itself or do you still need a third party app ?
I think you still need stuff like Daemon Tools.
I can't say ive heard of any OS with that functionality (as usually most image types are proprietary, like NRG).
I think you still need stuff like Daemon Tools.
I can't say ive heard of any OS with that functionality (as usually most image types are proprietary, like NRG).
OS X can mount ISO, IMG and DMG images. I run XP with Boot Camp but I have MacDrive installed so I can see everything on the OS X partition as well. Daemon Tools and Alcohol 120% are incompatible with MacDrive which is a right PITA. The only thing that might have persuaded me to go with Vista would have been image mounting capability but it looks like I'll be sticking with XP. I only have that installed for the kids' games and EAC anyway
subst can make a folder look like a drive, thats as far as windows goes.
Nvidias offical Vista drivers were released a few days ago...
Thats after 10 betas
I think you still need stuff like Daemon Tools.
I can't say ive heard of any OS with that functionality (as usually most image types are proprietary, like NRG).
I've never heard of another OS that
doesn't have built-in functions to mount ISO, for example?
Well, Seems i was wrong. Though it's not something i expect an OS to perform, I guess support for standard image formats is a nice addon. Pesk MS enough, might get added in SP1?
I find it really funny that people decide which OS to use on the toll of such minuscule features. Each to his own i guess. I like looking at thing on a bigger level.
I can't really complain about XP, it has done me well over the years. I am getting a Mac next week though and I probably won't upgrade my Windows PC to Vista which I am going to keep as my desktop and have an Apple laptop. Hoping the MacBook won't give me any problems.
It's been a while, but since Vista has officially hit the store shelves and every tech store flier is trumpeting it's awesomeness, I thought I should dredge up this thread and recap and expand on this issue.
Sine my last post, I put the retail version of Vista on one of my partitions, and moved Linux onto my Pentium III machine. I still cannot do too much with Vista because there is so little support for it still, but I finally got my Sound Blaster to work with a beta driver.
Been running Home Premium for awhile, As solid as XP in terms of stability, Maybe even more (Bad bad NVidia drivers couldn't crash the system this OS around). Pretty shoddy graphic drivers and certain software support from companies like Apple, But it's all around a pretty good support sheet for Vista, Both software and hardware-wise
I find it really funny that people decide which OS to use on the toll of such minuscule features. Each to his own i guess. I like looking at thing on a bigger level.
bigger = (little good things - (little bad things * 5))
.. And I've to find anything I'd call 'bad' in my day-to-day use (Aside from NVidia being useless).
A lot depends on the computer you try to run it on. The RAM use has gone down since rc1... About 20 megs... Still around 450+ MB even in "Windows Classic" mode. It runs decent for me because I have a P4 with 2GB of RAM but not everyone can afford that or even a new computer pre-loaded with Vista. I've seen a lot of people put WinXP on a Pentium 2 machine because they couldn't get a new machine, but needed to upgrade the OS anyway, and I expect similar things with Vista- it will just be an even bigger pain when people need to upgrade on the Celeron E-machines budget-PC platform they thought was a good deal a year ago.
Well, Vista adjusts memory usage to the physical amount installed, So I'm not sure how much we can compare based on the raw number.
The current marketing for Vista is crazy...
Beside that, I've read from computers sold with vista pre-installed that weren't able to run it properly.
Vista madness
The current marketing for Vista is crazy...
Beside that, I've read from computers sold with vista pre-installed that weren't able to run it properly.
I read somewhere that real soon, Dell won't be allowed to sell computers with Windows XP anymore, as per their agreements with Microsoft.
As about everything that is wrong with vista, this gentleman said better than I ever could:
http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2007/0226/050.html (http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2007/0226/050.html)
I see no point in upgrading to Vista, honestly. I do have the hardware for that - Athlon 64 3000+, 4Gb RAM, GeForce 6600 GT - but it's not just because I have lots of resources that I will burn them away with bloat. And the far-reaching attacks against my privacy and my rights to do as I please with my PC (read Guttmann) are another nail in the coffin. Vista could probably be written off as the most expensive idiocy in history, and probably the one that spent the most time in the making. For now I'm staying with Win2000, and will probably migrate to Linux before I upgrade to another Windows version.
PS: I'm an intern at Microsoft, so I guess you can expect me to be biased :B
(read Guttmann)
I would suggest that you read the replies to Guttmann's article before you take anything at all from that article.
I would suggest that you read the replies to Guttmann's article before you take anything at all from that article.
Haha, yeah JJ, I read the Microsoft PR answer (http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2007/01/20/windows-vista-content-protection-twenty-questions-and-answers.aspx) cleverly disguised as a "blog post". Didn't help me take Microsoft much more seriously.
Do you mean this article by Gutmann? http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html (http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html)
Do you mean this article by Gutmann? http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html (http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html)
Hell yeah!
I would suggest that you read the replies to Guttmann's article before you take anything at all from that article.
Haha, yeah JJ, I read the Microsoft PR answer (http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2007/01/20/windows-vista-content-protection-twenty-questions-and-answers.aspx) cleverly disguised as a "blog post". Didn't help me take Microsoft much more seriously.
You seem somewhat confused about my name, and I would further suggest that you look quite a bit more deeply into Guttman's claims before you wax so enthusiastic.
I would suggest that you read the replies to Guttmann's article before you take anything at all from that article.
Haha, yeah JJ, I read the Microsoft PR answer (http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2007/01/20/windows-vista-content-protection-twenty-questions-and-answers.aspx) cleverly disguised as a "blog post". Didn't help me take Microsoft much more seriously.
You seem somewhat confused about my name, and I would further suggest that you look quite a bit more deeply into Guttman's claims before you wax so enthusiastic.
Yeah, I am confused about your name, Mr. Johnston...
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....mp;#entry384473 (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=43730&st=0&p=384473&#entry384473)
WHOOOPS!
And, let's be honest here, I'm not enthusiastic about Vista. Quite the opposite!
I did read Mr. Gutmann's article. It looked quite level headed and coherent to me - much better than the rambling whining you read from open source nerds at Slashdot against Vista. And, as far as I can perceive, that Microsoft blog post - I mean, press release - only confirmed most of Gutmann's claims, while trying to put them under some positive light.
I would suggest that you read the replies to Guttmann's article before you take anything at all from that article.
Haha, yeah JJ, I read the Microsoft PR answer (http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2007/01/20/windows-vista-content-protection-twenty-questions-and-answers.aspx) cleverly disguised as a "blog post". Didn't help me take Microsoft much more seriously.
You seem somewhat confused about my name, and I would further suggest that you look quite a bit more deeply into Guttman's claims before you wax so enthusiastic.
Yeah, I am confused about your name, Mr. Johnston...
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....mp;#entry384473 (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=43730&st=0&p=384473&#entry384473)
WHOOOPS!
And, let's be honest here, I'm not enthusiastic about Vista. Quite the opposite!
I did read Mr. Gutmann's article. It looked quite level headed and coherent to me - much better than the rambling whining you read from open source nerds at Slashdot against Vista. And, as far as I can perceive, that Microsoft blog post - I mean, press release - only confirmed most of Gutmann's claims, while trying to put them under some positive light.
That's too bad, then.
I suggest that you're a bit off on Gutmann's claims.
WTF? I get back from class and BOOM- THIS!
Seriously, though, I've read anything that's shown up on Dvorak.org (http://www.dvorak.org), PC Magazine (http://www.pcmag.com), or CDFreaks (http://www.cdfreaks.com) on Vista for the past year, including Guttmann's 'longest suicide note in history' article and I find it all very intresting. It's all quite amusing to see the MS-bashers and -apologists duke it out. By the way, I went to Best Buy about 3 days after the Vista release and you CAN'T GET AN XP MACHINE THERE ANYMORE!
PS: Those who have called me out on RAM usage are free to provide numbers of their own on their various machines. Over the next few weeks I'll probably have a whole dog and pony show of RAM use with various set-ups and with other programs running.
WTF? I get back from class and BOOM- THIS!
Seriously, though, I've read anything that's shown up on Dvorak.org (http://www.dvorak.org), PC Magazine (http://www.pcmag.com), or CDFreaks (http://www.cdfreaks.com) on Vista for the past year, including Guttmann's 'longest suicide note in history' article and I find it all very intresting. It's all quite amusing to see the MS-bashers and -apologists duke it out. By the way, I went to Best Buy about 3 days after the Vista release and you CAN'T GET AN XP MACHINE THERE ANYMORE!
PS: Those who have called me out on RAM usage are free to provide numbers of their own on their various machines. Over the next few weeks I'll probably have a whole dog and pony show of RAM use with various set-ups and with other programs running.
Well, I've seen quite a few claims, counterclaims, and the like, but it's interesting how much of what people assert are simply not backed up by even the lightest kind of evidence. I mean, we don't even need a DBT here, it's pure measurement.
Well, I've seen quite a few claims, counterclaims, and the like, but it's interesting how much of what people assert are simply not backed up by even the lightest kind of evidence. I mean, we don't even need a DBT here, it's pure measurement.
Here is all the evidence you need, JJ:
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/device/strea...ut_protect.mspx (http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/device/stream/output_protect.mspx)
Well, I've seen quite a few claims, counterclaims, and the like, but it's interesting how much of what people assert are simply not backed up by even the lightest kind of evidence. I mean, we don't even need a DBT here, it's pure measurement.
Here is all the evidence you need, JJ:
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/device/strea...ut_protect.mspx (http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/device/stream/output_protect.mspx)
It's obvious that there's no reasoning with you. I would propose moving this exchange to the "hopeless" sector.
Having said that, you are welcome to continue to be rude and insulting, after all, I won't stop you.
Someone hates Vista more than me.
I don't like the DRM either but the deal was broke long before that. I am fimiliarizing myself with Vista because I plan to do PC support and I need to know the forced status quo, but I never plan on using it as my main OS.
I look at it as the content providers dropping a deuce into a toilet that the majority have been drinking from because they can't find water anywhere else and the majority is ignorant of the alternative methods of water-drinking.
If you didn't get that analogy, deuce = DRM, toilet water = Windows, drinking = using, and water anywhere else = Linux, Mac, and such.
Having said that, you are welcome to continue to be rude and insulting, after all, I won't stop you.
What is "rude" typically depends on morals - and morals dont necessarily depend on rationality. As for insults: a frontal rationally valid statement which criticices someone is also an insult. Again, depending on morals it may be branded "rude".
The point: suggesting that being "rude" and "insulting" is bad, is a moral statement. But it isnt necessarily always true from a rational POV.
On other forums for example i am often called "rude", "insulting" and "arrogant"..... not because i'm treating others unfairly or because of proclaiming without delivering - but instead for exactly the opposite reason: i often overwhelm them with founded arguments and rationally valid reasoning - they feel threatened, turn hostile because they cannot handle themselves... and then project it on me "its your fault that i feel personally threatened". Thus, common sense is totally lost and the issue becomes an emotional one, not a rational one - because people cannot cope with being wrong and others being better than themselves.
- Lyx
It will be interesting to see in a few years if vista is popular or not (or generally known to be good or bad).
I read somewhere that for most previous versions of windows, the hardware requirements were considered really big, like vista's are. I wonder if people also thought things like they are thinking now...
"Noones gonna use windows 98, it's way to bloated. Ill just use Windows 95 until it gets outdated then ill switch to Mac OS8."
The point: suggesting that being "rude" and "insulting" is bad, is a moral statement. But it isnt necessarily always true from a rational POV.
Or an ethical statement. But this is so far off topic I can't even see the OP.
Having said that, you are welcome to continue to be rude and insulting, after all, I won't stop you.
Maybe you consider me "rude" for spilling out your real identity, but where precisely did I insult you?
It's obvious that there's no reasoning with you. I would propose moving this exchange to the "hopeless" sector.
Having said that, you are welcome to continue to be rude and insulting, after all, I won't stop you.
Normally I don't jump into others' arguments but here I have to agree with Woodinville - I recall that when he first joined he requested no more prodding into his identity, which is understandable for a resident of Redmond. It's good for this board to have an insider programmer's perspective - I mean, who better to know how the audio internals of Vista and WMA are set up? And Rjamorim comes along with a fat banner just for the cheap fun of revealing that Bruce Wayne is Batman
As far as Vista itself goes, well I'm still on 256MB RAM and a 1.4Ghz P4 with 80+40GB HDDs, and running Win98SE (with ongoing 3rd-party security patches linked from MSFN.org). While far from ideal, my system is stable enough and fast enough to handle the wide range of things I do. Truly, not counting high-end business applications, and not interested in the editing of personal videos, Vista could do nothing more for me as long as my current hardware stays intact.
I remember when Win95 was being developed, and word from MS was that they were doing all they could to make it possible to run it on systems with 4MB RAM. RAM being so much more abundant these days, it looks like MS has forgotten that 1994 ethos. Vista's minimum system requirements are obscene, and what are they for? That "flip 3D" thing must look awfully gauche to consumers in third-world countries running yesterday's hardware (Aero is snazzy but ultimately useless in terms of real productivity, or from the bottom line, except to hardware manufacturers).
I appreciate Vista's incremental improvements, e.g. in speech recognition, security, support for vector icons (moving towards a solution to the problem of LCD resolutions being too high for readable text), but somehow hardware requirements ballooned out of all proportion.
edit - also i don't like how native support for DOS programmes has been dropped in the 64-bit version. DOS!! Like a trusted grandpa.
Normally I don't jump into others' arguments but here I have to agree with Woodinville - I recall that when he first joined he requested no more prodding into his identity, which is understandable for a resident of Redmond. It's good for this board to have an insider programmer's perspective - I mean, who better to know how the audio internals of Vista and WMA are set up? And Rjamorim comes along with a fat banner just for the cheap fun of revealing that Bruce Wayne is Batman
First, I don't remember him asking people not to investigate his real identity or not.
Second, he spilled the beans himself when he used his indefectible signature in this very forum.
Third, I find it very low when someone with obvious bias (in this case, bias towards his employer) hides this situation and tries to pass off as unbiased. Woodinville does mention he lives in Redmond in his profile, but as far as I know, he never admitted working at Microsoft in this forum (I might be wrong, I'm not as active here as I used to be).
I believe in full disclosure to give people means to evaluate how valuable is the information I put forth. That's why I informed right away I was an intern at Microsoft and, therefore, all opinions on Microsoft coming from me should be taken with a grain of salt, no matter if these were good opinions or bad opinions.
First, I don't remember him asking people not to investigate his real identity or not.
Second, he spilled the beans himself when he used his indefectible signature in this very forum.
Third, I find it very low when someone with obvious bias (in this case, bias towards his employer) hides this situation and tries to pass off as unbiased. Woodinville does mention he lives in Redmond in his profile, but as far as I know, he never admitted working at Microsoft in this forum (I might be wrong, I'm not as active here as I used to be).
I believe in full disclosure to give people means to evaluate how valuable is the information I put forth. That's why I informed right away I was an intern at Microsoft and, therefore, all opinions on Microsoft coming from me should be taken with a grain of salt, no matter if these were good opinions or bad opinions.
Touche, about disclosure regarding working for the company being discussed. I just felt your iconoclasm was a bit excessive (and gleeful). With legalese the way it is these days, and all this emphasis on corporate secrecy (cf. that Microsoft VP's "I'd rather use a Mac" e-mail), bosses can't help being paranoid these days about what their charges do online. (I know folks firsthand who were fired for their blogs.) Ought government sources speaking under condition of anonymity to reveal their identity whenever they leak something to the press?
I guess it's natural for an expert in a field to try to draw a compromise between joining discussions/sharing expertise and protecting his/her career...
Regarding the bit about disclosure, I recall someone asking who he was and he merely (and purposefully) replied, "You may call me Woodinville "
That's why I informed right away I was an intern at Microsoft and, therefore, all opinions on Microsoft coming from me should be taken with a grain of salt, no matter if these were good opinions or bad opinions.
you are working there now? sorry to hear
I read somewhere that for most previous versions of windows, the hardware requirements were considered really big, like vista's are. I wonder if people also thought things like they are thinking now...
"Noones gonna use windows 98, it's way to bloated. Ill just use Windows 95 until it gets outdated then ill switch to Mac OS8."
Memory requirements quadrupled with all "major" new windows version. With win95 you better had at least 64mb. With win2000 you better had at least 256 MB. With Vista you better have at least 1 GB.
"Minor" upgrades like win98 didnt up the requirements that much - as for winME.... better forget that it ever existed.
But in the past, every major upgrade offered significant improvements for the user. The problem with Vista is that from a critical user POV it does more "worse" than "better". And if you find most of the GFX irritating, then the few advantages get literally crushed by the disadvantages. And it is designed for adding even more limitations in the future via updates.
Will most users upgrade to it when the get a new PC? Yes, simply because they are stupid and noncritical. They just obey orders and do what they re told to do.
To me, there does however seem to be an unusually high chance that it will alienate a significant amount of critical users - which may switch OSes. Thus resulting in a society of dumb MS Windows users and advanced other-OS users.
Why does MS do this? Because they arent just power-drunk anymore - they ve become power-mad. They are so certain about being invulnerable now, that they think that they can pull anything off without caring about the users desires at all. MS is now certain about their marketshare and foothold, so they think that now is the time to make unpopular advancements "since we re now invulnerable anyways".
- Lyx
I fully agree with Lyx.
MS is, now, out of the real word. I hope more people will switch, at least, to Firefox or Opera, to OpenOffice, and so on; and I see in my businnes area more and more people ask "so, what do you think about... ... you know, the windows with the penguin(!)"
Ought government sources speaking under condition of anonymity to reveal their identity whenever they leak something to the press?
In that case they're not leaking opinions, they are leaking facts. Therefore, being biased or not makes no difference as far as the value of whatever information they leaked is concerned.
That's why I informed right away I was an intern at Microsoft and, therefore, all opinions on Microsoft coming from me should be taken with a grain of salt, no matter if these were good opinions or bad opinions.
you are working there now? sorry to hear
Quite honestly, I'm not enjoying it. But it'll look good on my CV, so I endure...
Besides, it's not work, it's a temporary internship. Won't last long...
and I see in my businnes area more and more people ask "so, what do you think about... ... you know, the windows with the penguin(!)" :D
Honestly, besides of the "power-drunk"-aspect, linux is not much different than windows regarding the effects. Windows is designed from a corporate POV. The linux-architecture is designed from a programmers POV. Both lack understanding about the actual purpose of a tool: "using it to get stuff done". Windows gets bloated via corporate-greed, Linux gets bloated via decentralized architecture and everything-depends-on-everything.
Macs possibly come closest to this goal - though, still suboptimally. Macs though have other issues in turn - especially regarding easy availability of 3rd party software which can be found, installed and used by average-joe.
I dont like any of those three options. Though, if i'd be forced to pick one, because my XP became unusable, it would currently be a Mac.
(currently) every OS sucks.
- Lyx
Third, I find it very low when someone with obvious bias
Either produce evidence of this alleged "bias" or stop making such accusations.
The article you keep pointing to is seriously flawed, and appears to have taken a set of assumptions leading to the worst possible position. I can not speak for the author or why that is the case, but that appears to be the situation. You have not addressed this at all, you simply continue to spread scorn and derision, without measurement or example.
Show me your measurements.
Not suppositions, or 3rd party hearsay, your actual, repeatable measurements.
(edited for typographic errors)
Interning for MS means absolutely nothing. Back when I was in college, the president of the local LUG interned at MS for a summer. He loved it!
---
I've never touched Vista, but from what I've read, its audio chain is quite superior to Windows XP's. A full floating-point processing chain? Built-in DSP effects that are actually useful and well-written, like dynamic range compression and room correction? A better interface for low-latency audio? Are all of you people who claim that Vista doesn't have anything for you smoking crack? Or are you just too stuck up not to recognize good things when they pass by?
It humors me considerably to shill for MS like this, but it seems like they actually has people working on the audio chain who know what they are doing, and implemented competitive features that really do matter to people. Don't get me wrong, I think the rest of Vista's features suck. I don't care at all about Aero, I'm worried about the future of OpenGL on the platform (but I'm not convinced MS is trying to bury it yet), the DRM is abominable, the driver architecture is an train wreck waiting to happen. And don't get me started on tilt bits. But the audio chain seems pretty reasonable to me.
Again, I say all this not having any real experience in it. But judging by the "evidence" that Roberto and others have provided, nobody else here does either. Woodinville (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/curmudgeon) almost certainly does, but he hasn't been particularly forthcoming in any rationales or insights. I wouldn't exactly call his behavior astroturfing, although it might appear like it. So I'll respect it.
One can argue that MS is playing catch up to CoreAudio, but again, I haven't delved into OSX enough to make a fair comparison. Superficially, MS has done a much better job with integrating DSP effects than Apple has. But Apple was, as usual, first with a modern high-performance audio interface, and probably has a leg up on many things. I'm not going to make a judgement between the two.
But what's going on in this thread is hyperbolic frothing at the mouth. Trusted computing could sacrifice your firstborn, just like Windows XP Home could have disabled users' machines due to spurious hardware changes. By "could", I mean "doesn't". Nobody's actually shown real-world evidence yet that Vista's audio chain will spontaneously combust when not playing protected content. Show me a real example, then I'll get scared. The floating-point path will not conduct an illicit affair with your FLAC collection and deprive them of their bit-perfect virginity. And if it does - who cares? Go to Exclusive Mode and forget about it. Otherwise, show me a successful DBT or get the hell out.
Another thing. I haven't touched Linux audio for about 5 years, but what I recall is that it's an absolutely stone age interface that was maybe competitive with Windows 98. I feel that ALSA, XMMS, JACK and esound all suck at a technical level. The only thing that was remotely nice about it is PortAudio, which also happens to be crossplatform... LADSPA is sort of nice too, but it too is not really Linux-specific. So remind me why people defend Linux audio on technical grounds?
FWIW, I don't work for MS, and never have, and I don't work for an all-MS shop, and I generally avoid shilling for my employer (who shall remain happily nameless). I used Linux as my primary desktop for about 5 years, but all my environments are Windows now, for no important reasons.
Woodinville (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/curmudgeon) almost certainly does, but he hasn't been particularly forthcoming in any rationales or insights.
Well, you know, I haven't said everything that I could say simply because I thought that would be rude, and would look like I was shilling for the product.
It seems that merely pointing out errors in a horridly flawed article, however, is now being presented as deliberate shilling. It is not. The article is wrong.
Gutmann's article is, as the blog that whazzisname points out, wrong in some particulars, and pretty much as uncharitable as possible in the rest.
The simple evidence that people can, and do, easily play music over Vista ? shows that the article is wrong, and the claims silly. This is called "evidence", as opposed to "flaming" or "assertion" or "bias" or hearsay from articles.
I COULD say more about the room correction, loudness EQ, etc, but I frankly do think that would look like shilling on this board, no matter what. So I won't. I have tried to avoid saying who I am, because I am NOT trying to speak from a position of personal authority, even though I could choose to do so, because everyone's claims and ideas should be examined and tested, even Gutmann's and rjamorjims.
In short, I haven't said more because my perception is that it, and I, am pretty much unwelcome here.
Rjamorjim(sp?)'s performance just reinforces that perception.
And, having said this, I expect an apology from rjamorjim and a return to technical discussions. This is a waste of time.
While eveyone else was beating each other with sticks, I got some work done:
My computer (according to them)
Intel Pentium 4 CPU 3.20 GHZ
2.00 GB RAM
nVidia GeForce 6800GT
Windows Experiance Index: 4.3
Processer 4.3
RAM 4.5
Graphics 5.9
Gaming 5.1
Primary HD 5.2
RAM USED:
Just Windows: approx. 470MB
Adding Media Player: 500MB meaning 30MB for WMP (compare to foobar or winamp, he he)
Opening Media Center : down to 375MB, which means it dropped some things.
that's all for now. I'll have more later.
PS: I am intrested to see the effects on a sub-par system, plaese don't make me kill Linux on my PIII in the name of science...
Third, I find it very low when someone with obvious bias
Either produce evidence of this alleged "bias" or stop making such accusations.
Don't get so worked up. Bias is natural. I'm personally biased towards and against a lot of things. Quoting Al Gore quoting Upton Sinclair:
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it."
It seems that merely pointing out errors in a horridly flawed article, however, is now being presented as deliberate shilling. It is not. The article is wrong.
Let me clarify one thing: not in any moment you pointed out errors in Gutmann's article. You told me to read the replies and look more deeply into his claims, and that's all.
The simple evidence that people can, and do, easily play music over Vista ? shows that the article is wrong, and the claims silly. This is called "evidence", as opposed to "flaming" or "assertion" or "bias" or hearsay from articles.
Yes, play music, but not ANY kind of music. Protected music, that is. Or "premium content" as the documentation puts it.
And, having said this, I expect an apology from rjamorjim
Keep expecting. I only apologize when I genuinely repent for something I did. And I didn't do anything in this thread that warrants my repentance, IMO. And you still didn't point out where I insulted you.
Third, I find it very low when someone with obvious bias
Either produce evidence of this alleged "bias" or stop making such accusations.
Don't get so worked up. Bias is natural.
I think you are dangerously close to trolling.
Keep expecting. I only apologize when I genuinely repent for something I did. And I didn't do anything in this thread that warrants my repentance, IMO. And you still didn't point out where I insulted you.
Personally, I think revealing real-world information about a member in an anonymous enviroment is quite rude. Perhaps your political or religious beliefs impair your objective opinion and should be "investigated"...
I also think accusing a member of bias with no evidence other than a knowledge of that person's employer is improper. I have had the misfortune of having to read this whole thread, and all I have seen is Woodinville ask members for evidence of their statements (something HA has always been keen on) and an open mind.
That "flip 3D" thing must look awfully gauche to consumers in third-world countries running yesterday's hardware (Aero is snazzy but ultimately useless in terms of real productivity, or from the bottom line, except to hardware manufacturers).
Before using windows XP I was all like "oh, that looks so cool compared to windows 2000". Then after I used it, it didn't seem that great.
It will probably be that way for Aero too.
I appreciate Vista's incremental improvements, e.g. in speech recognition, security, support for vector icons (moving towards a solution to the problem of LCD resolutions being too high for readable text), but somehow hardware requirements ballooned out of all proportion.
I dont know much about speech recognition, but I doubt vista has better security. Based on what microsoft has said in the past about improving security (which I think fixed some problems but made more problems), its all just them saying stuff. Nothing real. Though I havn't studied vistas security, so I cant know for sure.
Though vector icon support is great
Memory requirements quadrupled with all "major" new windows version. With win95 you better had at least 64mb. With win2000 you better had at least 256 MB. With Vista you better have at least 1 GB.
Ive never noticed that before... Odd, and kinda scary :/
"Minor" upgrades like win98 didnt up the requirements that much - as for winME.... better forget that it ever existed.
I had always thought 98 was something big, as people still use it now (but not many use 95). But I guess it is minor compared to 95 and 2000.
And it is designed for adding even more limitations in the future via updates.
That is, in my opinion, the worst part of it all.
Microsoft willingly doing whatever the big movie/music corporations tell them to do. "Just following orders" didnt work to well at nuremburg, and if people were rational, it wouldn't work now.
Why does MS do this? Because they arent just power-drunk anymore - they ve become power-mad. They are so certain about being invulnerable now, that they think that they can pull anything off without caring about the users desires at all. MS is now certain about their marketshare and foothold, so they think that now is the time to make unpopular advancements "since we re now invulnerable anyways".
Good take on it.
That careless attitude has been the downfall of many empires, and hopefully...
Windows is designed from a corporate POV. The linux-architecture is designed from a programmers POV. Both lack understanding about the actual purpose of a tool: "using it to get stuff done".
Heh, I think linux seems to get it done better then windows. Unless the user is a
really basic user.
Macs possibly come closest to this goal - though, still suboptimally.
Macs, in my opinion, don't come close in the usability department. What I mean is that the interface doesn't seem that logical. I cant point anything out specificly right now, but just the way it is... This might be from my use of windows for so long, but heh.
Linux is most of the time logical, aside from the "do it our way or dont do it at all" attitude the linux community sometimes takes as a whole towards some things.
Windows is kind of logical, but when you think about it, it doesn't generally seem to have that many complicated (not in terms of complicated code, but in functionality) things to do. But that may be from the fact that linux has more (usefull, not the OEM trial bloat stuff) software that comes with it.
Come to think about it, if microsoft did something like APT or YUM with repositories and all it couldn't do that well because it doesent have alot of credibility among developers.
I dont know if I made much sense in that whole thing, but oh well.
I have had the misfortune of having to read this whole thread...
Maybe we can publish this in a compilation book called "Indecent Forum Behavior 2: Extreme Moderation". We could make HUNDREDS! (Dr. Evil theme music)
Before using windows XP I was all like "oh, that looks so cool compared to windows 2000". Then after I used it, it didn't seem that great.
It will probably be that way for Aero too.
I couln't stand the look is XP as well, let alone Vista. IMO, it's like an anorexic model wearing too much make-up, prompting the question, 'Is that supposed to be sexy?'. The answer is, for me at least, a resounding 'no' and Windows Classic mode it is.
It should be noted that rjamorim HAS been warned for his behavior in this thread. You know very well rjamorim that name-calling and other techniques you like to apply are not welcome here.
I really think that we should have the warn status displayed for all members, as it would help in situations like this.
Anyway, rjamorim please stop pushing your luck and let the conversation continue in an acceptable manner.
Aw cmon! A little while more at this and I could make a concrete compatison between Roberto and Todd Krieger.
While eveyone else was beating each other with sticks, I got some work done:
...
RAM USED:
Just Windows: approx. 470MB
Adding Media Player: 500MB meaning 30MB for WMP (compare to foobar or winamp, he he)
Opening Media Center : down to 375MB, which means it dropped some things.
that's all for now. I'll have more later.
A couple of questions on the experiment.
1) What RAM measurement are you using? The nature of shared DLLs causes some uncertainty, and the values reported by the task manager are (apparently) horribly misleading under manu circumstances. Then throw in the system cache issue...
It might be somewhat more useful to use Process Explorer and track the several separate values of: Private Bytes, Virtual Size, Working Set, WS Private, WS Shareable, WS Shared.
2) Are you rebooting in between experiments?
-brendan
While eveyone else was beating each other with sticks, I got some work done:
...
RAM USED:
Just Windows: approx. 470MB
Adding Media Player: 500MB meaning 30MB for WMP (compare to foobar or winamp, he he)
Opening Media Center : down to 375MB, which means it dropped some things.
that's all for now. I'll have more later.
A couple of questions on the experiment.
1) What RAM measurement are you using? The nature of shared DLLs causes some uncertainty, and the values reported by the task manager are (apparently) horribly misleading under manu circumstances. Then throw in the system cache issue...
It might be somewhat more useful to use Process Explorer and track the several separate values of: Private Bytes, Virtual Size, Working Set, WS Private, WS Shareable, WS Shared.
2) Are you rebooting in between experiments?
-brendan
I'm also sceptical of the worth of those figures, as Vista's supposed to be better able to scale its usage with the amount of available RAM -- unused RAM is wasted RAM -- and 2GB is a lot for it to play with.
1) What RAM measurement are you using? The nature of shared DLLs causes some uncertainty, and the values reported by the task manager are (apparently) horribly misleading under manu circumstances. Then throw in the system cache issue...
It might be somewhat more useful to use Process Explorer and track the several separate values of: Private Bytes, Virtual Size, Working Set, WS Private, WS Shareable, WS Shared.
I agree with you 100%, but I have yet to DL any extensive memory and benchmarking tools. Any tool recommendations would be apprecieated. I'll look into the Process Explorer if you have doubts about Task Manager.
2) Are you rebooting in between experiments?
I rebooted before loading the Media Center enviornment. Even if I didn't, for Media Player / Media Center I'm sure they share a lot of the same code anyway.
I'm also sceptical of the worth of those figures, as Vista's supposed to be better able to scale its usage with the amount of available RAM -- unused RAM is wasted RAM -- and 2GB is a lot for it to play with.
I'm actually kinda jaded because I was originally going to get 4GB, I actually got 2GB, and I've never gone over 1GB in XP even with beefy games and media apps running. I agree that unused ram (for the most part) is wasted ram, but I'm not whining about ram use because I don't have enough, but because the average consumer PC just now started shipping with 1GB+ of ram and most will need to upgrade the memory, if not their whole machine, for Vista. I still would like to see Vista on a sub-par 256-512MB PC, ya know, one that would run XP/2K just fine.
I'm also sceptical of the worth of those figures, as Vista's supposed to be better able to scale its usage with the amount of available RAM -- unused RAM is wasted RAM -- and 2GB is a lot for it to play with.
I'm actually kinda jaded because ...
Not to be too pedantic, but...the third quote you attributed to me (see above) was actually text posted by euphonic.
-brendan
Not to be too pedantic, but...the third quote you attributed to me (see above) was actually text posted by euphonic.
-brendan
Noted and fixed.
Not to be too pedantic, but...the third quote you attributed to me (see above) was actually text posted by euphonic.
-brendan
Noted and fixed.
I have to admit, I use photoshop a lot. I just fill up memory...
The operating system isn't even much of a factor there...
I do have the hardware for that but it's not just because I have lots of resources that I will burn them away with bloat.
I agree. After using vista for a month, i removed it and went back to xp; i just couldn't justify the extra bloat. Looks like Vista is the new Windows ME.
I agree. After using vista for a month, i removed it and went back to xp; i just couldn't justify the extra bloat. Looks like Vista is the new Windows ME.
Windows has
always been the new ME, hasn't it?
Oh, now we're going straight down fanboyville. /me goes looking for a padlock
well, it seems that in the people there is some sort of updater thingy waiting to sc*** the current stable system..., i have killed the wish for a while by installing zune theme for xp sp2 (oh, and i got a new cpu, that will do it for a while)
I will wait until the comany release some decent Vista driver...Creative, nVidia is a mess right now with Vista driver situtation :/
I luuuuurve my Windows-2003-as-a-workstation
Seriously. Windows NT 5.1 is really stable and uses less resources than Windows NT 5.0
Is Vista = Windows NT 6.0?
Yep Windows Version 6.0
Windows Vista is NT6 in kernel "revisions", Yeah. Longhorn Server and eventually Vista (after SP1) will be NT6.1, though.
I luuuuurve my Windows-2003-as-a-workstation
I liked it when I had it, but it didn't reconize my external acomdata hard drive. Anoying :/
I realize this topic hasn't been touched in a while but I've just made the move to Vista 64 after SP1 became available. I have two issues so far that I really haven't been able to resolve. I have a fairly decent system which I built myself with the following specifications :
AMD64 x2 4600+ processor
4GB Super Talent DDR-II 800 memory
Gigabyte GA-MA770-S3 motherboard
Asus 8500GT video card
The motherboard has a RealTek 888 audio chip which is pretty good as far as I can tell. I've also tried the Creative PCIE X-Fi Extreme Audio (a Audigy 2 under the hood I'm told). Both devices have the latest drivers available for them and the motherboard has the latest BIOS revision available.
1) Vista is indicating a high amount of CPU utilization when playing any audio. FB2K is using about 15~25% over the 2~10% that Vista alone uses. WinAmp uses a little more generally speaking though this could be due to the somewhat active graphics in that applications. Of course Windows Media Player is just plumb pathetic using about 50% more than WinAmp and frequently pings one of the cores over 75% utilization.
2) Another problem I've had is getting 5.1 sound for my Logitech Z5500's from either sound card via the SPDIF optical cable. It simply won't work. I get 2 channels and that's it. And that's from both cards.
Note that I'm not entirely incapable when it comes to computers and I've optimized many Win95 ~ WinXP systems for end users. I've also made a couple of tweaks to drop the CPU usage down slightly on this system as well. Still, there is some reason for this high usage that I simply can't figure out. Any recommendations short iof rolling back to XP are most welcome.
P.S. I forgot to mention that the audio files are .wav's ripped directly from CD's and stored on an internal hard drive though I found no difference when I tried MP3's as well. Also there is no antivirus installed as I don't bother with such things.
Oh well. Like so many opthers, I just dumped Vista. Now playback takes 0~1% of the proc. under XP x64.
Diggin' this thread outta the dumpster, huh?
Oh well. Like so many opthers, I just dumped Vista. Now playback takes 0~1% of the proc. under XP x64.
Putting off building my next computer because I'm STILL using XP...
So am I. I stick to XP, and stay away from Vista like the plague.
Oh, and I'm part of this growing movement:
(http://i25.tinypic.com/s3f4sw.png)
For MS's sake, I hope Win7 doesn't flop as well.
Anyways, it has been a very good few years for Apple and Linux
Anyways, it has been a very good few years for Apple and Linux
Indeed!
Ive moved to Linux pretty much fulltime (sure i cant play crysis but thats a good thing) and have installed it on everyones box that used to bother me with computer problems (even my grandparents!). Yes my grandparents are using Xubuntu! Probably the most computer illiterate people i know and they say its easier then windows. No pop ups, firewalls, doesnt fragment, doesnt crash, runs on last decade machines (xfce). . . it works! Average joe with a $400 box just needs someone to set it up for them. . . get all the codecs/plugins and then just click on the update icon when they see it till their computer brakes.
I don't care about Windows Vista.
I havn't tried Vista.
Not for as long as I can help it.
Only Microsoft has a need for Vista. Of course they opt to sell Windows to everybody over again rather than provide service packs for free. The interface must be different and the whole package must be bigger in order to justify the purchase in eyes of the consumer. If the product looked like normal Windows (Win98/2k), some wouldn't understand why pay again. But bigger is perceived as better the same way as louder is.
I have not tried to play with Vista yet, because there is no free computer for experiments of this kind. I've interacted with it a little on a client's computer and was offended that nothing in the interface is where it used to be.
Tried Vista, hated it. I'll wait for Windows 7, gonna be built around Windows Server 2008, which kicks ass
For now I'll stick to OpenSUSE 11.0 and OS X
My main reasons for not wanting to use Vista:
0) The high system requirements - especially the CPU.
My Athlon XP system works fine for me still but would throw a huge fit if asked to run Vista. Next year will be 8 years if memory serves for my main winXP box and win2k crash box (with upgrades along the way of course).
1) The cost - I have no intentions of paying for a microsoft operating system, unless that 'Windows 7' is available in a form resembling *nix. As in a more modular kernel with a better variety of GUIs available ranging from minimal to full blown eyecandy.
For that matter I would just dual boot WinXP and BSD/Linux/whatever else and incur no additional cost in the OS area whenever I move to the world of PCIE slots and SATA.
Vista is in the 'no real need for it personally' category that covers Internet Explorer and MS office as well.
Speaking of interface bloat, I don't understand the concept of "server core" they're pushing (server editions of Vista only). Why these two extremes? The choice is between Vista gui with huge fat icons, and no gui at all. Why the heck we can't have normal graphic interface with icons that are just big enough to relay the message? A normal work computer, not a 3D game. They criticized nLite for providing modularity, yet failed to deliver a comparable installer themselves.
Update: Still not running Vista and still no plans to ever do. In the meantime, because of my job, i've interacted with over 100 vista boxes, and while i like that microsoft is providing me with income because of all the vista problems, my problem is that the most frequent "solution" i propose to customers, is to "upgrade to XP", simply because vista considers itself to be so perfect, that i have little flexibility in manually correcting or overriding stuff. Vista knows whats best, so no need to let the user/technician decide. Seriously, without drastic modifications, vista has some remarkable similarity to a trojan horse - a fully automated remote control, disguised as an OS.
I find that there isn't enough improvement in Vista, and as such to me upgrading to it seems quite pointless unless one really likes the eyecandy. Especially since most software released for Vista will also support XP for quite some time.
I value a solid stable system above anything else. For that I run Arch Linux as my main and XP x64 for when I need windows.
I'm still running Windows 2000 Server as my desktop (has remote desktop built-in, usefull to work as a limited user and then RDP to localhost as Administrator to do administrative tasks).
I have here by my side a new machine I built with 8 GB RAM, dual Core 2 and two 500 GB SATA disks and a 256 MB NVidia VGA, and it has Windows Server 2003 R2 SP2 x64, which is going to be my next desktop, but somehow I just don't feel the need to change just yet (Win2k works so well...). So I'm using the new box just to fool around with iESX and some other things using the second HDD...
Vista is not an option.
I've been using Vista Home Premium for several months now on two home laptops, and quite like it actually, though nothing to write home about. I wouldn't go back to XP for sure at this stage, have experienced very few (and correctable) hardware compability issues, installed all the updates, there have been quite a few. Bit slow at times maybe, and bloated, but with a big hard drive not too much of a problem, so Vista's OK with me.
I like some parts of vista (the better cron e.g.) some things I don't like. Selecting desktop icons with the mouse has become more difficult because the whole area until the next item is selected. Minor.
Major: I'm on a p3/3ghz, virtually 2 cores. Using fb2k and one encoder thread makes the system sometimes hardly responsive, especially if tags are written etc. It does use all ressources sooner somehow. XP works simply fluently if I have one encoder thread and do other things at the same time.
I like the user switching which I have never used at XP.
Also, I installed a patched terminalserver dll, I can open a rdp session while my wife works at the PC. (You can have this on XP as well).
You pretty quickly get used to the start menu. You'll never click through "all programs" any more, but most likely type into the search field and press enter.
The prefetch/superfetch systems work very well. It needs to learn though. It's really true, applications first startup (when it's not in cache) may be 1/2 as on XP. Also Windows boot time increases. It's maybe 25 seconds here, definitely not worse than on XP. The user profile part is faster than on XP.
I like fast application startup. Office programs or the VS2008 IDE start in about a second.
I have a Vista Business license as well as XP pro. I use XP for gaming.
It's the same every version. People say "Bypass version [n], wait for [n+1]". *yawn*.
i hate vista... but dx10. only this reason instal vista.