| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Topic |
Scrap Brain
    |
Posted - 2007.09.28 15:37:00 -
[31]
I run vista.
It is much more stable than XP ever was, I've not crashed since I installed it about a year ago. Not once - not even any odd behaviour - which considering my PC is never turned off/out of use is rather good going ^_^ Previously XP would jitter about, it would blue screen, etc, the crap you expected from MS. The only alternative was linux and back then linux was really not up to the tasks I had in mind (media, gaming, general randomness), and is still lacking in light of my recent dabblings with mandriva, opensuse and Debian. Getting better though.
tbh I let people chose what they like most and what works best for them, rather that what I use or think would be best for them.
and demonising microsoft is old and tired, make intelligent, informational comments or please, stfu.
and to the OP, you had a valid point until you came out with the anti-vista rubbish.
|
Falkrich Swifthand
|
Posted - 2007.09.28 16:08:00 -
[32]
Edited by: Falkrich Swifthand on 28/09/2007 16:13:05
Vista uses more memory than XP intentionally.
In XP, the contents of each window AREN'T STORED, which is why windows leave trails, blank out, paste into each other etc when a program crashes. It also causes programs to have to redraw large areas of themselves when other windows move about, which in some programs is very expensive. Other programs just ask for a separate buffer and copy from that to the screen when asked to redraw, which adds extra memory cost.
This also causes problems for drawing hardware-accelerated images to a window. Ever seen a playing video or game appear to lag behind it's window when you drag it around?
In Vista, each window is automatically given it's own buffer in memory (about 3MB for a 1024x768 window), and so doesn't have to redraw when it moves, or other windows move, or on minimize/restore. It does have to copy all the windows to the same buffer for display every frame, but even a weak 4-year-old graphics card makes that a quick and simple task.
This massively reduces the amount of processing that happens when just moving windows around, and improves the user experience by removing nearly all graphical glitches. It does increase the memory requirements though.
It's also much easier on the programmer this way.
|
Bishman82
Racketeers
|
Posted - 2007.09.28 16:10:00 -
[33]
I had the offer of a free copy of Vista ultimate when i last formatted my machine, i decided to try it out and whenever it starts to cause me problems i'll go back to XP. That was a few months ago and i still haven't switched back, i actually like it quite a lot.
There is one piece of hardware that doesn't have vista drivers and that's my bluetooth adaptor, everything else works great, most games are just as fast FPS wise as in XP and some newer games actually run better.
If people didn't move on to new operating systems because of the faster pc requirements, we would probably still be stuck with windows 3.11 and 16-bit software. At the moment XP is going to be the better choice if you want to get 100% speed out of your old hardware and better compatibility etc.
 |
MasterEnt
|
Posted - 2007.09.28 16:21:00 -
[34]
 Originally by: Scrap Brain
I run vista.
It is much more stable than XP ever was, I've not crashed since I installed it about a year ago. Not once - not even any odd behaviour - which considering my PC is never turned off/out of use is rather good going ^_^ Previously XP would jitter about, it would blue screen, etc, the crap you expected from MS. The only alternative was linux and back then linux was really not up to the tasks I had in mind (media, gaming, general randomness), and is still lacking in light of my recent dabblings with mandriva, opensuse and Debian. Getting better though.
tbh I let people chose what they like most and what works best for them, rather that what I use or think would be best for them.
and demonising microsoft is old and tired, make intelligent, informational comments or please, stfu.
and to the OP, you had a valid point until you came out with the anti-vista rubbish.
I do not believe a word you said.
The only way you have no problems with Vista is if you install it and just leave it running. For people who actually USE the OS to run intense applications, its a different story.
I had a valid point until my Anti-Vista rubbish... LOL.. did you read the title of the post? I dont see how me not liking Vista makes my point any less valid.
Thanks for contributing
|
Paulo Damarr
|
Posted - 2007.09.28 16:24:00 -
[35]
Logic is whats failing here, "Some of my software doesn't work right!" is the the largest complaint and people are only to ready to blame vista when its a two way street its as much the software manufacturers fault for not having updates ready and its not like that they didnt have advance warning.
I Have run vista pretty much since release and I didn't really choose it but I just built a new machine and didn't want to pay for the licence on a outgoing OS so I bought Vista.
For the first few months there was problems with some games and software due to buggy drivers but after a few updates and some MS updates vista is pretty much perfect and in last 6 months I have had zero crashes and that's a massive improvement on XP.
All Vista needs is better hardware and more modern software to run well and then its much better than XP.
|
Asperger
Foundation
R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.09.28 16:27:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Falkrich Swifthand
Edited by: Falkrich Swifthand on 28/09/2007 16:13:05
Vista uses more memory than XP intentionally.
In XP, the contents of each window AREN'T STORED, which is why windows leave trails, blank out, paste into each other etc when a program crashes. It also causes programs to have to redraw large areas of themselves when other windows move about, which in some programs is very expensive. Other programs just ask for a separate buffer and copy from that to the screen when asked to redraw, which adds extra memory cost.
This also causes problems for drawing hardware-accelerated images to a window. Ever seen a playing video or game appear to lag behind it's window when you drag it around?
In Vista, each window is automatically given it's own buffer in memory (about 3MB for a 1024x768 window), and so doesn't have to redraw when it moves, or other windows move, or on minimize/restore. It does have to copy all the windows to the same buffer for display every frame, but even a weak 4-year-old graphics card makes that a quick and simple task.
This massively reduces the amount of processing that happens when just moving windows around, and improves the user experience by removing nearly all graphical glitches. It does increase the memory requirements though.
It's also much easier on the programmer this way.
Actually, this is complete nonsense. Even if it weren't, by your calculation having around 20 windows open would only result in +60 mb of memory used, which is a pitifully small amount for most modern systems.
The fact is, Vista just implemented better window management than XP, something GNU/Linux had for ages by now. People tout the new Aero interface as something great and something that obviously needs beefy hardware, but the fact is Compiz/Beryl/Fusion on linux runs better effects on an old computer.
Vista memory management is quite messed up, because it tries to be omniscient, ie. determine which programs you'll use, so a complete nonsense. (Bash the OS for the right reasons, caching memory is OK, if it is unused anyway, but it has to be accessible for applications on demand)
|
Soy Black
|
Posted - 2007.09.28 16:30:00 -
[37]
Wasn't gonna - but I'll add my thoughts too lol...
ANYWAY - Vista was the most frustrating thing to cross over too - I started on it in RC1... last november or so...
Some of THEIR OWN development software (visual studio) wouldn't run on it - as a small software developer - that's a huge problem.
By release for the public - they fixed that.
I had REALLY smooth sailing for about 6 months - since then - some of the hotfixes have caused more problems and have resulted in a need to rebuild my computer with data loss. The problem with Vista is WHEN you have a crash - it can be more severe than previous versions of vista - where any data that you hadn't backed up is so screwy you lose it.
The most rediculious thing of Vista is my MacBook Pro which is a year old runs Vista better than the $3300 Dell laptop I purchased... Not sure how that's supposed to work... but yeah. :P
Anyway - there is DX10 hope for XP users - as there are rumors MS will be making an XP version of it... We'll just have to wait and see... (There are also groups of programmers working on a project to make it work on XP... we'll see how they do.)
But yeah - if you are on XP - stick there until SP1 in Q1 of next year. Or get a mac... vista runs REALLY well under bootcamp. :)
|
Scrap Brain
|
Posted - 2007.09.28 16:38:00 -
[38]
Originally by: MasterEnt
I do not believe a word you said.
Someone has a differing opinion to me! I shall cover my eyes and wail, for they must be lying! Whaaaa, Whaaaaa.....
I'll say something else
I use IE 7 because it's better than firefox.
*MasterEnt's head explodes*
|
Postlatta Mouseanon
Caldari
State War Academy
|
Posted - 2007.09.28 16:53:00 -
[39]
Man. All this over "XP Millennium Edition"?
|
MasterEnt
|
Posted - 2007.09.28 16:55:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Scrap Brain
Originally by: MasterEnt
I do not believe a word you said.
I use IE 7 because it's better than firefox.
*MasterEnt's head explodes*
HAHAHAHA.. LOL.. yep, it just did ;)
But now I know that either:
A) You are just flaming, or
B) You truly have no idea what you are talking about.
Regardless, I am surprised this caused such a stir.
What is going to drive you even crazier is that in the interest of not living in the past (as someone said), and truly wanting to move ahead, ill probably dump MS all together and go Mac.
The Mac OS has always been ahead and the new one is TRULY an evolution in efficiency, speed and stability, not this bloated pipe-dream called Windows.
And now that EVE is making a client for Macs... sweet.
|
|
Soy Black
|
Posted - 2007.09.28 17:21:00 -
[41]
Wait wait wait wait...
Eve is making a client for Macs???? Where the hell have I been?
And yes - OS X is really fantastic. The new release - hopefully out within a few weeks - will be excellent.
Mac has a way and an understanding of making things look really nice BUT in addition to looking nice - it complements functionality. Things make sense on a mac... really...
Prime example - Microsoft Office... Have any of you messed around with the new one? There are droves of companies sticking with 2005 (2005 right?) cause the new version's menu system is so wonky.
Anyway - PLEASE CCP!!! GIVE US A MAC CLIENT!
|
Price Watcher
|
Posted - 2007.09.28 17:28:00 -
[42]
Anyone care to post those command line switches? Thanks.
POST WITH YOUR ALT!
The Shame o' The Galaxy |
LordChaos
Amarr
Celestial Apocalypse
Insurgency
|
Posted - 2007.09.28 17:37:00 -
[43]
Vista = Crap and more crap and utterly more crap and to add MEGA CRAP
downgrading to XP on this weekend .
worst dam OS ever.
XP was a bit annoying at first when it came out but it never was like this mega crap of a OS.
Played on it eve and every other game works all like crap.
Bye Bye Vista
The Master Of Chaos
|
Ellie Marie
|
Posted - 2007.09.28 17:42:00 -
[44]
aaaaaaaaahahahahaha. love seeing all the whiners that think they know computers crying about vista. Vista only breaks if you cant run a pc for ****, those that have a clue get on with vista just fine.
Not found a single reason for me to go back to xp so far, at least i can make use of all my memory with vista compared to xp
|
Jimer Lins
Gallente
Sanctuary
|
Posted - 2007.09.28 17:43:00 -
[45]
Originally by: MasterEnt
I do not believe a word you said.
The only way you have no problems with Vista is if you install it and just leave it running. For people who actually USE the OS to run intense applications, its a different story.
As a counter to this- I run Vista both at home and at work, where I'm a software developer.
Not long after putting together my shiny new machine, I decided to give it an informal torture test, just to see what it was really capable of, so I did the following:
Visual Studio 2005 Professional Edition (2 copies running, 2 different solutions open)
SQL Server 2005 Enterprise Manager
SQL Server 2005 Developer Edition services running.
Ran SQLCMD importing the EVE database dump, which is over 500MB total.
MSDN Documentation for both Visual Studio and SQL Server open
Several IE windows, an IRC client and some other miscellany.
2 copies of EVE in 1900x1200 fullscreen
Fraps, capturing half-size video from one copy of EVE.
AVISynth and VirtualDub, filtering previously captured Fraps for a movie I was working on.
Windows Movie Maker.
The biggest pain point here was that I had only one hard drive, so the system got I/O-bound, which resulted in a bit of slowdown. However, this exhibited itself as merely a noticable lag when switching windows. Once an application was in the foreground (with the exception of Enterprise Manager, for some reason it always took a while to redraw), everything was fine with that app, and it was usable. Saving or loading a file did take a bit longer than normal because of all the disk activity. EVE framerates remained good even under the highest load.
So, I'm going to disagree with your statement about using the OS to run intense applications. I put my system through far more than the vast majority of PCs on a regular basis, and so far Vista x64 has done things I wouldn't have dreamed of even trying on XP.
And not one application compatibility issue- unless you count a broken installer putting code in the 32-bit version of "Program Files", which is easy to correct with a cut/paste.
In the end, though- anecdotes aren't data.
[center] |
Soy Black
|
Posted - 2007.09.28 17:44:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Ellie Marie
aaaaaaaaahahahahaha. love seeing all the whiners that think they know computers crying about vista. Vista only breaks if you cant run a pc for ****, those that have a clue get on with vista just fine.
Not found a single reason for me to go back to xp so far, at least i can make use of all my memory with vista compared to xp
Yes lol - JUST people who "cant run a pc for ****" lol...
|
Soy Black
|
Posted - 2007.09.28 17:45:00 -
[47]
Oh - but I didn't add...
Vista did however play games better than xp on the same machine... I did find I actually gained about 5fps on my setup. Could just be my setup however. :P
|
Jimer Lins
Gallente
Sanctuary
|
Posted - 2007.09.28 17:48:00 -
[48]
Oh, and insofar as "failed" goes, Vista outsold XP by 2 to 1 in the first month of its release vs. XP's, and within 5 weeks of release had sold more copies than the entirety of Apple's entire installed base.
If that's failure, I'll buy some stock in it.
|
Asperger
Foundation
R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.09.28 17:56:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Jimer Lins
Oh, and insofar as "failed" goes, Vista outsold XP by 2 to 1 in the first month of its release vs. XP's, and within 5 weeks of release had sold more copies than the entirety of Apple's entire installed base.
If that's failure, I'll buy some stock in it.
XP was released in 2001 and the IT industry had double digit growth every year since then. That is bound to mess up your numbers.
|
Jimer Lins
Gallente
Sanctuary
|
Posted - 2007.09.28 18:01:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Asperger
Originally by: Jimer Lins
Oh, and insofar as "failed" goes, Vista outsold XP by 2 to 1 in the first month of its release vs. XP's, and within 5 weeks of release had sold more copies than the entirety of Apple's entire installed base.
If that's failure, I'll buy some stock in it.
XP was released in 2001 and the IT industry had double digit growth every year since then. That is bound to mess up your numbers.
Yes, there's some skew of course, but it's still very strong sales, especially compared to the predictions of dogs and cats living together + mass hysteria leading up to the release.
|
|
Pwett
Minmatar
QUANT Corp.
|
Posted - 2007.09.28 18:03:00 -
[51]
*Pwett looks around*
I'm still running two computers with Windows 2k, one with Server 2003 (apparantly another failed OS), and 21 with XP.
FFS people, who really cares what OS you use.
_______________
Pwett
CEO and Founder
[QTC]QUANT Corp.
 |
Verone
Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2007.09.28 18:27:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Chancer
Vista failed? I must have missed the Microsoft press release.
It's called denial.
>>> TRIBUTE TO A FALLEN WINGMAN <<<
|
Alitha Maru
Minmatar
Hidden Agenda
Deep Space Engineering
|
Posted - 2007.09.28 18:35:00 -
[53]
I've been running dual boot XP and Vista Ultimate since January, and I got 20-30% increase in most games I've been playing with Vista. I love it. No crashes, no slowdowns. Just pure speed for me. I don't know what other people use for hardware, but it must be some strange stuff if you Vista is slower than XP. Or you just don't have enough RAM.
A friend of mine curses Vista to hell and back. He can't understand why it runs like crap on his 2ghz, 1gb ram, 9800 pro system. Well, I've tried to tell him that his system is like using stone age tools. Hardware and OS is so interconnected these days, no HW really lasts for more than two years tops.
Personally I upgrade to a new computer at least every 1.5 years. When the new X38 chipset is ready, I'm gonna build me a new one. And it's going to run Vista baby 
|
Possessed Clown
Amarr
Spiced Wine Syndicate
|
Posted - 2007.09.28 18:41:00 -
[54]
I actually like Vista... I have a dual boot set up but once I get a second monitor ill switch. Its runs pretty dang good, the only problem I can see is the annoying run in admin mode, but I am sure their is a way to set that up to be permanent.
O and I can put EVE on a flash drive I don't know about you but I can.
Sig Removed. Please keep sigs to 400x120 pixels and 24000 bytes in size or less. -Kaemonn
^^^I got pwnt :( |
Asperger
Foundation
R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.09.28 18:58:00 -
[55]
Originally by: Alitha Maru
A friend of mine curses Vista to hell and back. He can't understand why it runs like crap on his 2ghz, 1gb ram, 9800 pro system. Well, I've tried to tell him that his system is like using stone age tools. Hardware and OS is so interconnected these days, no HW really lasts for more than two years tops.
Can I have what you're smoking please?
|
Arana Tellen
Gallente
The Blackguard Wolves
Knights Of the Southerncross
|
Posted - 2007.09.28 18:59:00 -
[56]
Unless you have a computer built JUST before vista launched then you should not even THINK about installing it. For me I have had 0 issues 
---------------------------------
Core 2 Duo E4300 1.8ghz @ 3ghz, 2GB Gskill DDR2 5400 @ 800mhh 4-4-4-12, Abit fatality mATX F-I90HD @ 334mhz, 8800GTS 320mb
2x250GB 7200.10s Raid 0, Vista 64 Home. |
Daagon
Viziam
|
Posted - 2007.09.28 19:08:00 -
[57]
Originally by: Jimer Lins
Oh, and insofar as "failed" goes, Vista outsold XP by 2 to 1 in the first month of its release vs. XP's, and within 5 weeks of release had sold more copies than the entirety of Apple's entire installed base.
I wonder how many of these "sales" resulted in an installation that is still in use?
---
You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake. You are the same decaying organic matter as everyone else, and we are all part of the same compost heap. |
Theo Samaritan
Gallente
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2007.09.28 19:13:00 -
[58]
Quote:
Why was it split up anyhow ??
Vista's DRM and admin management.
______________________________
A Request About Lag Discussion
--
Yet another "Edit my sig devs!" request \o/ |
MasterEnt
|
Posted - 2007.09.28 19:26:00 -
[59]
Originally by: Jimer Lins
Originally by: MasterEnt
I do not believe a word you said.
The only way you have no problems with Vista is if you install it and just leave it running. For people who actually USE the OS to run intense applications, its a different story.
As a counter to this- I run Vista both at home and at work, where I'm a software developer.
Not long after putting together my shiny new machine, I decided to give it an informal torture test, just to see what it was really capable of, so I did the following:
Visual Studio 2005 Professional Edition (2 copies running, 2 different solutions open)
SQL Server 2005 Enterprise Manager
SQL Server 2005 Developer Edition services running.
Ran SQLCMD importing the EVE database dump, which is over 500MB total.
MSDN Documentation for both Visual Studio and SQL Server open
Several IE windows, an IRC client and some other miscellany.
2 copies of EVE in 1900x1200 fullscreen
Fraps, capturing half-size video from one copy of EVE.
AVISynth and VirtualDub, filtering previously captured Fraps for a movie I was working on.
Windows Movie Maker.
So, I'm going to disagree with your statement about using the OS to run intense applications. I put my system through far more than the vast majority of PCs on a regular basis, and so far Vista x64 has done things I wouldn't have dreamed of even trying on XP.
In the end, though- anecdotes aren't data.
Well, I have not seen any data on your end either.. just a list of programs you said you ran at once.
It looks like you are comparing Vista 64 bit with XP!!! XP what.. 64 bit also.. or 32.
And I am sorry if you consider those intense application...LOL. Just a lot of number crunching... which windows may do fine with a good Intel chip
Try running the entire creative suite full visualizations, Maya, Vue, multiple renderings (internal and networked), max out your 8 gigs of ram while using 4 drives runing at 10,000rpm totaling 1.5 TB swapping data and managing render frames. then come back and talk to me.
I have not listed my credentials that include 20+ years in technical direction so lets not assume that I am clueless.. because I am the first one tell people that things are always difficult when you don't know what you are doing.
PS - How does volume of sales indicate how good an OS is? Volume of sales is not very specific, most of those sales were skewed due to the fact that they include the licenses to premade systems like Dell, Gateway, IBM, Alienware. So there was no choice on that sale..
MIND YOU, those are the very manufacturers who have pressured Microsoft into releasing more XP keys.
But in the end.. as my original post states.. I just would like everything back into one little folder like we had before. I know it may not be happening, but I can still say I love that aspect of the EVE client.. and it WAS Microsoft Vista that screwed that all up.
|
Hunters Presence
Amarr
Nuclear Engagement
|
Posted - 2007.09.28 19:42:00 -
[60]
Edited by: Hunters Presence on 28/09/2007 19:46:04
Edited by: Hunters Presence on 28/09/2007 19:45:59
I'll stick with reliable drivers, better SDKs, DirectSound support, less patronising messages, faster gameplay (because my resources aren't going towards the OS), better old games support, freer EULA (you're not allowed to mod Vista, or your key can be invalidated and they reserve the right to delete software on your system they don't like, etc) the ability to make more than one backup and less DRM crap (how dare you watch your DVDs on a cheap monitor rather than an overpriced HDR thing, Vista reduces the quality to below feeble) for a year or two yet. Then I'll move one of my gaming systems to Vista out of necessity.
Sales numbers are worthless, since they mostly reflect OEM and business suppliers, which form the majority of Microsoft's market. Not us. Their attempt to appeal to gamers with DX10 is the most irritating and opaque piece of extortion in the history of video gaming. The idea that they couldn't have implemented it in XP is bull****, at the very least they could have definately implemented Shader Model 4... they just care about grabbing the consumer's money.
I would normally be a heavy advocate of such new technology, especially with the features offered to gamers. However, Vista is a step back in terms of operating systems. It removes your rights as user in so many ways... and I imagine without the DX10/SM4 BS no gamer would feel the need to upgrade at all.
|
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |