EVE Search - Windows Vista whats all the fuss about?

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Out of Pod Experience

Windows Vista whats all the fuss about?

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Captin ShadowHawk Caldari	Posted - 2006.10.25 14:28:00 - [1] OS systems are obviously one of the most important parts of computers, but whats all the fuss about windows vista is it a massive leap forward or just Microsoft marketing machine in full swing. What will the advantages of changing to this OS be?
Araxmas Caldari Imperial Space Corporation	Posted - 2006.10.25 15:17:00 - [2] Direct X 10 plus some other support for games it gives. --------
Kurren Farscape Mining	Posted - 2006.10.25 19:05:00 - [3] Originally by: Araxmas Direct X 10 plus some other support for games it gives. This is probably the only plus... imo. Everything else is just XP rehashed in a DX-10 compatable verison. To me, it's just plain ugly, but I'll need it for DX-10. Stupid XP64 not supporting it... Damn you, Gates! Damn you! --- --- --- --- My Sig Is Not Too Big...
Dark Shikari Caldari Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2006.10.25 19:09:00 - [4] Windows Vista is a massive leap backwards. More RAM usage, more hard disk usage, more CPU usage, yet still uglier than most window managers were 6 years ago. The only real advance is DirectX 10, which is really an excuse to make people buy new graphics cards anyways. -[23] Member- Awesome new space games site, from the editor of E-ON!
digital0verdose Caldari Ships Unlimited	Posted - 2006.10.25 19:18:00 - [5] Originally by: Dark Shikari Windows Vista is a massive leap backwards. More RAM usage, more hard disk usage, more CPU usage, yet still uglier than most window managers were 6 years ago. The only real advance is DirectX 10, which is really an excuse to make people buy new graphics cards anyways. O_o how is needing more resources a leap backwards? -------------------------------------- http://digitalsdomain.spaces.live.com/ <--- Check it out. Latest Update: "The Departed" and something no Nintendo fan should be without.
Kailea Shandrasekkar Caldari Tsurokigaarai Kimotoro Directive	Posted - 2006.10.25 21:10:00 - [6] Originally by: digital0verdose O_o how is needing more resources a leap backwards? Newer OSes are meant to provide better resource management, not hog it. ;) The price demanded for the most precious of all things in life is life itself: Ultimate cost for perfect value.
Dark Shikari Caldari Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2006.10.25 21:24:00 - [7] Originally by: digital0verdose Originally by: Dark Shikari Windows Vista is a massive leap backwards. More RAM usage, more hard disk usage, more CPU usage, yet still uglier than most window managers were 6 years ago. The only real advance is DirectX 10, which is really an excuse to make people buy new graphics cards anyways. O_o how is needing more resources a leap backwards? Windows 98 runs fine on 64MB of RAM and even allows you to disable the swap file for near-instant OS performance. It can run as fast and smoothly as a good linux install or Mac OS X. Windows XP eats up hundreds of megs of RAM and swapfile, cannot turn off its swapfile, and takes up 3-4 gigs of disk space just from the install and service packs. Windows Vista will take 1-2GB of RAM and 5-10GB of disk space. It will provide nothing that a 50-100MB of RAM 1-2GB of disk space linux install won't. That is a step back. -[23] Member- Awesome new space games site, from the editor of E-ON!
Kurren Farscape Mining	Posted - 2006.10.25 22:06:00 - [8] Originally by: Dark Shikari Originally by: digital0verdose Originally by: Dark Shikari Windows Vista is a massive leap backwards. More RAM usage, more hard disk usage, more CPU usage, yet still uglier than most window managers were 6 years ago. The only real advance is DirectX 10, which is really an excuse to make people buy new graphics cards anyways. O_o how is needing more resources a leap backwards? Windows 98 runs fine on 64MB of RAM and even allows you to disable the swap file for near-instant OS performance. It can run as fast and smoothly as a good linux install or Mac OS X. Windows XP eats up hundreds of megs of RAM and swapfile, cannot turn off its swapfile, and takes up 3-4 gigs of disk space just from the install and service packs. Windows Vista will take 1-2GB of RAM and 5-10GB of disk space. It will provide nothing that a 50-100MB of RAM 1-2GB of disk space linux install won't. That is a step back. It's still a lot, but it'll only take up 512Mb or RAM. --- --- --- --- My Sig Is Not Too Big...
GouldFish Unscoped Myriad Alliance	Posted - 2006.10.26 08:48:00 - [9] The fact that to get a computer that will run vista it will cost you 1/3 of what it would have done for win98 is neither here nor there ;) Vista will be a step forward, the interface has been updated and is gernally much better. But like any interface change it will take time to get used to it. A big plus is the fact that drivers are done differantly which means if a drive crashes you machine should not BSOD. Also due to the new driver model we get DX10! Yes DX10 is Vista only, why because it uses the new driver model to do things better. Also updated security settings so it should be harder to hack and also it should mean it's alot harder for spyware to install. Even if you parents are using it. I've also heard some my mates at work who have been running it that it more responsive then XP and even in Beta runs very nicely. Oh and on the It needs more power thing again, if you really want a small OS works on 512kb of ram and can be installed in 1Mb of space go get Amiga workbench. Each time an OS is updated it uses more power because it trys to do more for the user, apples OS X uses more power then OS9.
Rutefly Amarr Freedom-Technologies	Posted - 2006.10.26 08:53:00 - [10] Heard that it only runs with specially certified hardware, and allows a limited number of applications to run simultaniously. Like the Basic version of Vista will only run 4 programs at a time. A big leap forward for mankind indeed, lol. If true, im going back to dos 32 protected mode. (Anyone know more about these rumours, plz comment)

Badhan	Posted - 2006.10.26 10:12:00 - [11] I'm guessing it will only run with certified drivers, or warn you when you are installing drivers that an't certified. and as for only 4 programs at once, that sounds like a LOAD of bull.
Kailea Shandrasekkar Caldari Tsurokigaarai Kimotoro Directive	Posted - 2006.10.26 14:03:00 - [12] Edited by: Kailea Shandrasekkar on 26/10/2006 14:04:40 Originally by: Rutefly Like the Basic version of Vista will only run 4 programs at a time. That's actually true. It's called 'Windows Vista Starter Edition'. Google it. Originally by: GouldFish (...) to get a computer that will run vista it will cost you 1/3 of what it would have done for win98 is neither here nor there ;) (...) Vista will be a step forward, the interface has been updated and is gernally much better. (...) A big plus is the fact that drivers are done differantly which means if a drive crashes you machine should not BSOD. (...) Yes DX10 is Vista only, why because it uses the new driver model to do things better. (...) updated security settings so it should be harder to hack and also it should mean it's alot harder for spyware to install(...) But if you run a Win98 in today's computer it'll be lightining fast, believe me. And the new interface is just a mix of WindowBlinds with Yahoo desktop objects. =/ Mark my words: DX10 won't bring anything special (it's not Vista-dependent, actually - visit the MS dev newsgroup in order to check that info; it's just tying it up with Vista for commercial reasons), the new driver model will hang Vista the same way the 'old new' model driver hangs XP, the 'updated security' will be blown to bits in less than a week after its public release and the spyware developers will learn to exploit the new security flaws in a split sec. [EDIT] Adding references: http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_editions_final.asp Quote: 'Vista Starter will allow only three applications (and/or three windows) to run simultaneously.' The price demanded for the most precious of all things in life is life itself: Ultimate cost for perfect value.
Viktor Fyretracker Caldari Worms Corp	Posted - 2006.10.26 14:25:00 - [13] so basicly code wise DX10 would run on Windows XP but need new drivers but MS has it locked out to only being installable on Vista to drive sales of the new OS.
Kappas. Galaxy Punks Freelancer Alliance	Posted - 2006.10.26 14:31:00 - [14] Also heard that Vista unloads everything thats not being used (including desktop) from memory when a game is loaded, making it faster. And in 8 years I'll ask you to install Vista on a machine from 2014 and see how fast it runs, every time a new MS OS is released everyone always cries "too much HD/CPU/RAM usage" but in reality all of said components are getting cheaper almost on a daily basis, and 1-2gb of RAM used just by Vista? lol, it's showing under 512mb in my testbox machine. Hardware in PCs will just adapt to accomodate it, like every time a new MS OS is released, everyone that complains about it are 99% linux users, "average joe" doesn't care about HD/CPU/RAM usage, as the PCs that will have it on it by and large won't notice the difference. And remember all the debug code and other crap is left in these BETA builds.
Dark Shikari Caldari Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2006.10.26 16:43:00 - [15] My main PC has a 3Ghz processor, 1Ghz FSB, and 1GB of RAM. It has a 7200 RPM SATA hard disk. I have a laptop with a 667mhz processor, 66mhz FSB, and 64MB of RAM. It has an ancient laptop hard disk. The laptop runs 98, my main machine runs XP. The laptop boots faster and is easily 5-10 times faster in normal Windows usage. And my main computer isn't slow--its just that the laptop uses Windows 98, which doesn't naturally swap craploads of stuff to the disk and is far less bloated than XP. Vista will be no different. -[23] Member- Awesome new space games site, from the editor of E-ON!
Rutefly Amarr Freedom-Technologies	Posted - 2006.10.26 17:42:00 - [16] Faster than 3 GHz ? Impossible. Electrons would have to go faster than light. Science dictates. 640 Kb is enough.. All lies
Taedrin Gallente Mercatoris Technologies	Posted - 2006.10.26 18:37:00 - [17] Originally by: Rutefly Faster than 3 GHz ? Impossible. Electrons would have to go faster than light. Science dictates. 640 Kb is enough.. All lies http://www.tomshardware.com/2003/12/30/5_ghz_project/index.html 0_o And that was nearly 3 years ago.
Dark Shikari Caldari Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2006.10.26 19:26:00 - [18] Originally by: Rutefly Faster than 3 GHz ? Impossible. Electrons would have to go faster than light. Science dictates. 640 Kb is enough.. All lies Clock speed has absolutely nothing to do with electron speed, which is dictated entirely by voltage. And at the voltage a CPU takes (1.5V give or take) they move at a few micrometers per second. -[23] Member- Awesome new space games site, from the editor of E-ON!
Sphit Ker	Posted - 2006.10.26 19:51:00 - [19] Windows FTL. I allow the world a million years to convince me otherwise 999,999,989 years remaining.. I prefer, and by far, an half-arsed Linux distro than any Windows install. Point blank. Vista will not change this. Welcome to the new Windows, exactly like the old ones, it only cost more to operate. It still is a taskbar with a Start button and icons-on-desktop same old same old. 5GB disk space for the OS only?!? lick my POD yeah So, back on heart for now. The 'advantage' to 'upgrade' to Vista will be that you will have access to all the shiny-new 'content' that will require Vista to get. Oh I see there is a 'new' search function.. and shiny buttons.. and DRM all around. I love to hate Windows. If you let them successfully hype you up like that and get to believe you 'need' Vista you deserve to get poked at by a shinny new and more productive and efficient than ever stick of digital scam. /me turn green GHAAA!
digital0verdose Caldari Ships Unlimited	Posted - 2006.10.26 21:46:00 - [20] Originally by: Kailea Shandrasekkar Originally by: digital0verdose O_o how is needing more resources a leap backwards? Newer OSes are meant to provide better resource management, not hog it. ;) So in 40 years do you expect the OS to only take up 1/100 the resources it does now? This is like saying program files should be getting smaller and not bigger. -------------------------------------- http://digitalsdomain.spaces.live.com/ <--- Check it out. Latest Update: "The Departed" and something no Nintendo fan should be without.

Frezik Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap	Posted - 2006.10.26 21:55:00 - [21] Originally by: GouldFish Vista will be a step forward, the interface has been updated and is gernally much better. But like any interface change it will take time to get used to it. I went through the Win3.1 -> 95 switch, which is a bigger interface switch than MS has done before or since. That was fine, because anything approaching a true multitasking system with Win3.1's interface would have been very clunky. Any significant interface switch at this point is only going to cause confusion. There's nothing so massively wrong with the current XP interface to justify large changes. Not that it's perfect, just that it's not worth even the temporary confusion you'll get. Quote: Also updated security settings so it should be harder to hack and also it should mean it's alot harder for spyware to install. Even if you parents are using it. Microsoft talks about improved security with every release. It gets broken every time. That's simply part of having significantly more installations than everyone else combined. They're the biggest target. It wouldn't matter if Mac OS or Linux or OpenBSD were the top, it'd still be easily attacked. To get real security, we need to spread it out more. Anything else is just band-aids.
Dark Shikari Caldari Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2006.10.26 21:57:00 - [22] Originally by: Frezik Microsoft talks about improved security with every release. It gets broken every time. That's simply part of having significantly more installations than everyone else combined. They're the biggest target. It wouldn't matter if Mac OS or Linux or OpenBSD were the top, it'd still be easily attacked. To get real security, we need to spread it out more. Anything else is just band-aids. This isn't true. The reason Windows is insecure is because of the design philosophy. In Linux and OS X, the user runs without admin privileges. In Windows, by default, the user does. This simple fact means that Windows, under default settings, will be a million times less secure than any other operating system. -[23] Member- Awesome new space games site, from the editor of E-ON!
Frezik Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap	Posted - 2006.10.26 22:05:00 - [23] Originally by: digital0verdose Originally by: Kailea Shandrasekkar Originally by: digital0verdose O_o how is needing more resources a leap backwards? Newer OSes are meant to provide better resource management, not hog it. ;) So in 40 years do you expect the OS to only take up 1/100 the resources it does now? This is like saying program files should be getting smaller and not bigger. Diminishing returns sets in eventually, but yes. Kernels should be kept to a small set of base functionality. Everything else is an optional add-on. Linux breaks this rule, too, but not nearly as bad as MS. And they at least try to keep things minimal. 3D-accelerated desktops are pretty nifty, but I'd like the option to shut it off. I don't need it to run a word processor.
Frezik Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap	Posted - 2006.10.26 22:22:00 - [24] Originally by: Dark Shikari Originally by: Frezik Microsoft talks about improved security with every release. It gets broken every time. That's simply part of having significantly more installations than everyone else combined. They're the biggest target. It wouldn't matter if Mac OS or Linux or OpenBSD were the top, it'd still be easily attacked. To get real security, we need to spread it out more. Anything else is just band-aids. This isn't true. The reason Windows is insecure is because of the design philosophy. In Linux and OS X, the user runs without admin privileges. In Windows, by default, the user does. This simple fact means that Windows, under default settings, will be a million times less secure than any other operating system. IMHO, that's the second biggest security problem in Windows. Monoculture is the first. If people could choose between 3 OSes with roughly equal market share, a single attack won't (usually) work on all 3. Up until the mid to late '90s, the Unix OSes out there were actually considered some of the worst, security-wise. The reason was that while it separated admin and user, you were only one or the other. Better systems would give a range of possibilities in between. For instance, a network admin might need full access to the networking card, but shouldn't need to touch /etc/passwd. You hardly hear that argument anymore, even though Windows NT and its children offer theoretically much better user control than any Unix system out there. There are several reasons for this: 1) With inexpensive computers, it's no longer necessary for many people to share a single system. The simpler user/group model of Unix works well for that setup. 2) The overwhelming monoculture of Windows makes it the most obvious target. Security problems of anybody else are afterthoughts. 3) The more complex user/group model that Windows allows is beyond the abilities of most users. 4) Too many Windows applications are poorly written and will end up needing admin access anyway (indicating that the more complex model is beyond a lot of developers out there, too)
Kurren Farscape Mining	Posted - 2006.10.26 22:48:00 - [25] Edited by: Kurren on 26/10/2006 22:50:01 Originally by: Sphit Ker Windows FTL. I allow the world a million years to convince me otherwise 999,999,989 years remaining.. Originally by: Frezik Microsoft talks about improved security with every release. It gets broken every time. That's simply part of having significantly more installations than everyone else combined. They're the biggest target. It wouldn't matter if Mac OS or Linux or OpenBSD were the top, it'd still be easily attacked. To get real security, we need to spread it out more. Anything else is just band-aids. Hardly MS's fault though. The saying, "Build a tougher mouse trap, get a tougher mouse," comes to mind. Nothing is impenitrable in the computer world. Everything is codes, and codes can be ***ed. But, 128 bit encryption will still remain better than 64 bit. Just because people can hack it, doesn't make it less safe. Its kind of like a security system on your car. You can low-jac it, but that doesn't mean it can't be stolen. edit - The bit encryption part has nothing to do with actual Windows security. --- --- --- ---** My Sig Is Not Too Big...
GouldFish Unscoped Myriad Alliance	Posted - 2006.10.27 10:34:00 - [26] Originally by: Frezik Originally by: Dark Shikari Originally by: Frezik Microsoft talks about improved security with every release. It gets broken every time. That's simply part of having significantly more installations than everyone else combined. They're the biggest target. It wouldn't matter if Mac OS or Linux or OpenBSD were the top, it'd still be easily attacked. To get real security, we need to spread it out more. Anything else is just band-aids. This isn't true. The reason Windows is insecure is because of the design philosophy. In Linux and OS X, the user runs without admin privileges. In Windows, by default, the user does. This simple fact means that Windows, under default settings, will be a million times less secure than any other operating system. IMHO, that's the second biggest security problem in Windows. Monoculture is the first. If people could choose between 3 OSes with roughly equal market share, a single attack won't (usually) work on all 3. Up until the mid to late '90s, the Unix OSes out there were actually considered some of the worst, security-wise. The reason was that while it separated admin and user, you were only one or the other. Better systems would give a range of possibilities in between. For instance, a network admin might need full access to the networking card, but shouldn't need to touch /etc/passwd. You hardly hear that argument anymore, even though Windows NT and its children offer theoretically much better user control than any Unix system out there. There are several reasons for this: 1) With inexpensive computers, it's no longer necessary for many people to share a single system. The simpler user/group model of Unix works well for that setup. 2) The overwhelming monoculture of Windows makes it the most obvious target. Security problems of anybody else are afterthoughts. 3) The more complex user/group model that Windows allows is beyond the abilities of most users. 4) Too many Windows applications are poorly written and will end up needing admin access anyway (indicating that the more complex model is beyond a lot of developers out there, too) Very much what I was going to say but you said it better. oh and by default vista users have very limit priviages, and even if apps need to install system files (for older apps) they no longer install into the real system folder by a user specfic folder.
Hellspawn01 Amarr The Phantom Conglomerate	Posted - 2006.10.27 11:44:00 - [27] What about the rumors that vista will have FBI backdoors or that programs that are not registered at M$ cant be installed like EVEmon or such fan programs? Ship lovers click here
Dark Shikari Caldari Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2006.10.27 12:41:00 - [28] Originally by: Hellspawn01 programs that are not registered at M$ cant be installed like EVEmon or such fan programs? That's called Trusted Computing. Hope that it will never see the light of day. -[23] Member- Awesome new space games site, from the editor of E-ON!
Yukari Tanizaki	Posted - 2006.10.27 12:41:00 - [29] Edited by: Yukari Tanizaki on 27/10/2006 12:41:18 bah alt
Frezik Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap	Posted - 2006.10.27 15:11:00 - [30] Originally by: Kurren Edited by: Kurren on 26/10/2006 22:50:01 Originally by: Sphit Ker Windows FTL. I allow the world a million years to convince me otherwise 999,999,989 years remaining.. Originally by: Frezik Microsoft talks about improved security with every release. It gets broken every time. That's simply part of having significantly more installations than everyone else combined. They're the biggest target. It wouldn't matter if Mac OS or Linux or OpenBSD were the top, it'd still be easily attacked. To get real security, we need to spread it out more. Anything else is just band-aids. Hardly MS's fault though. The saying, "Build a tougher mouse trap, get a tougher mouse," comes to mind. Nothing is impenitrable in the computer world. Doesn't matter who's at fault. The fact is, the biggest single security gain you can get is just to use a less popular OS, for no other reason than the fact that it's less popular.



Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.