Jump to content
3000AD Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Supreme Cmdr

Vista - The Wow starts now

Recommended Posts

quote:

Originally posted by Darkling:

I'll probably do the same with Vista that I did with XP, wait until most of the machines sold have 4X the processing power and 4X the memory, then get it. This way I won't Notice a performance decline. These days the performance difference between XP and 2K is there, but not so noticeable anymore on todays faster machines, but I remember installing XP on a 400Mhz machine with 256Megs of RAM and man... WAS THAT THING SLOW. And this is the same problem today.

I agree, there is no reason to rush for an upgrade right now. How long did we have to wait to get XP to the point where it was truely ready for prime time?

I toyed around with Vista a bit to see what to expect, but there really isn't much that's worth the trouble and the inevitable headaches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Darking: I have Vista Business. The Network dialog box looks fine to me.. the point is that if you use it a lot its easier to get tasks done quicker. The new start menu works better, the control panel works better, the new system panel is great IMO. File Explorer is finally a file manager that doesn't make me want to kill myself, and while its definitely a rip from Apple Finder's "Spotlight", the "Live Search" bar works well enough.

Vista takes some time to get used to, but once you start really using it your mind shifts to "Wow, this is actually pretty good." One major thing that is a huge plus for me is that M$ is moving towards the interface design principles that Apple and some of the Linux vendors have been using for years. WinXP's interface is atrocious. Its unoptimized, frustrating, and is tied to the kernel so simple tasks can still lag the entire system.

I really must have the perfect setup, because Vista runs great for me when I'm booted into it (which isn't that often at home). I don't notice any different past logging on, which takes a few seconds longer. I have gone and turned off services I don't use, and I also turned off the sidebar, because all it did was lag the computer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Cmdr. WeeGee:

WinXP's interface is atrocious. Its unoptimized, frustrating, and is tied to the kernel so simple tasks can still lag the entire system.

Actually, Vista's interface isn't much different than XP's from my point of view, and no, they STILL didn't make it modular, like Unix, Mac & Linux, everything is still integrated tightly into the Kernel, except for the Browser, that's been separated "a little bit".

Biggest problem I see with Vista is the lack of a REAL reason to purchase it. I've already resolved the security issues on my XP & 2000 installs, so what other reason do I have to upgrade?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by stingray:

So with more and more devs jumping on the videogame console bandwagon, Windows is sure to die.

That's not really a factor, gaming is already very well established in MS over Linux, but what is a factor is the fact that it's much easier to scale a Linux distro to run a dual processor, Quad Core sytem, (in effect an 8 parallel processor system) on Linux than it is to get the same to run on Windows. In other words, it's MUCH easier to scale.

I remember back when Wing Commander came out, you needed around a 486-DX2-66Mhz system or better to run it, this was when most people still had the 386-25's or 33's. You also needed a whopping 8Mb of RAM, again most only had around 2 or 4. You HAD to have Dos 5 WITH a Memory Manager OR Dos 6, because DOS 4 wouldn't let you load the CD player AND have enough memory left for the game. Dr. DOS wouldn't work, so IBM was out. Everyone rushed out to upgrade their systems to be able to run this game.

You know how many of my friends upgraded their OS, Motherboard, EVERYTHING, Bought a CD ROM, just to run this game!

If some "Killer App" were to come out for Vista, it could EASILY be made to run on XP, so unless it was MS that actually came out with it, there's no reason to switch, because it would probably RUN BETTER on XP.

However, if someone came out with some Killer App, that would only run on an 8 Parallel processor Linux System, there would probably be no easy way to port it to Vista, so where would that leave them? Also, such a system could be made to run NT compatible programs utilizing 2 of the 8 processors, so people wouldn't have to give up compatibility. If someone invested the resources, they could probably make something similar to the MAC, (Which utilizes a Unix/Linux Core), with some sort of proprietary Windows compatibility (Like Codeweavers) and make it all into a fairly easy to use system. Once someone comes out with something like that coupled with some Linux "Killer App" it woudd be all over for MS, but we're talking years away since apparently no one has it on the drawing board.

When you think about it, this is what Apple did with the MAC. They threw away their OS, went to Unix, and built a compatibility Layer to run OS9 and previous. Wrapped it up in a beautiful interface and whala, OSX is born.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Windows Vista is probably here to stay. It doesn't have to be efficient compared to the competition, or efficiently programmed.

Web browsing is going to need to use features that create security problems to create more powerful features web content providers will want in the future. This means they will need browser control and control over some features of your computer. Websites are expected to do a lot more in the future, the microsoft website seems to predict. This means sites will need cookies and ActiveX whether you want it or not.

The way it will have to be made secure is not through content provider restrictions but through rules. Rules mean artificial intelligence analaysis of usage of insecure features. Windows Vista sounds like it is ahead in making web browsing secure in a way that does not restrict what content providers can do. I think they call this dynamic security.

Windows also seems to be ahead in driver technology. Manufactures can more easily make graphic cards for Windows than any other operating system. It is amazing that Windows can still work with graphic cards many years old and also work with dozens of new graphic cards without a game maker changing their code.

A big technology Windows has that no one else can match is DirectX 10. Its Geometry shaders can create extremely fast, photographic shading without game makers having to revert to pixel shading. DirectX 10 might also be useful for 3d modeling for business use such as Computer Aided Design, and recreating or modelling an event or physical process for science.

I think Microsoft knows that Windows Vista is too slow for today's machines. Its unnecessary features will become not much of a slow down on tomorrow's faster computers, just like what happened with Windows XP. It is a shame that they don't let you turn off features anymore, like in Windows 2000 Professional. Microsoft doesn't care if they don't sell very many copies of Windows Vista right now. They are betting it will sell well in the future.

Windows Vista is probably only slower not because it is inferior, but because it won't let you turn off features. The memory allocation technology may be better as said in a previous post. Better memory allocation technology will make all the difference on future computers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by rapilot:

... sites will need cookies and ActiveX whether you want it or not.

Actually, because of the way that Vista treats Active X controls, it renders the ones not specifically written for Exporer 7, practically useless. Try running BellSouth's DSL Router Setup (an Active X control) on Vista, it doesn't work AT ALL.

Since MS is basically forcing everyone to rewrite their Active X controls to run on Vista, many of them will choose to switch to Java instead, since Java will work on ANY machine, be it Mac, Linux, Unix, Win2K, WinXP, you name it.

quote:

Originally posted by rapilot:

The way it will have to be made secure is not through content provider restrictions but through rules. Rules mean artificial intelligence analaysis of usage of insecure features. Windows Vista sounds like it is ahead in making web browsing secure in a way that does not restrict what content providers can do. I think they call this dynamic security.

Artificial Intelligence? Sounds like a bunch of nothing? Firefox ALREADY ahead in making web browsing secure, the technology is already here and already implemented. Best of all, you can get it for free right now.

quote:

Originally posted by rapilot:

Windows also seems to be ahead in driver technology. Manufactures can more easily make graphic cards for Windows than any other operating system. It is amazing that Windows can still work with graphic cards many years old and also work with dozens of new graphic cards without a game maker changing their code.

Actually, this is the biggest area of WEAKNESS for Vista, a lot of the new features won't work unless you have a DirectX9 compatible card, while Linux machines are implementing features similar to the 3D desktop, without needing to upgrade. In addition, there are many more drivers available for a Linux System like Suse, then there are for Vista.

quote:

Originally posted by rapilot:

A big technology Windows has that no one else can match is DirectX 10. Its Geometry shaders can create extremely fast, photographic shading without game makers having to revert to pixel shading. DirectX 10 might also be useful for 3d modeling for business use such as Computer Aided Design, and recreating or modelling an event or physical process for science.

Are you on crack? Do you even know what you're talking about here? First of all SwiftShader, by Transgaming is the fastest shader out there, and guess what, it works with DirectX8 or 9 cards and up to 50X faster than DirectX9. In addition, they will shortly be adding calls for OpenGL very shortly, which will make it extremely easy for vendors to create games for both Linux & Windows at the same time. The only REAL advantage that DX10 supposedly gives you (and I say supposedly, because no one has actually implemented a game that uses it yet) is that it looks at your hardware, and gives you the MAX performance without you having to manually tweak things. As for DX10 being used for CAD and stuff like that, most CAD programs use Vector Graphics! Why would a Pixel based Graphics card do anything for a Vector based program? That doesn't even make sense. There's a reason why CAD cards cost over $1000.00, and that's because it's a very specialized application for a very specialized field.

quote:

Originally posted by rapilot:

I think Microsoft knows that Windows Vista is too slow for today's machines. Its unnecessary features will become not much of a slow down on tomorrow's faster computers, just like what happened with Windows XP. It is a shame that they don't let you turn off features anymore, like in Windows 2000 Professional. Microsoft doesn't care if they don't sell very many copies of Windows Vista right now. They are betting it will sell well in the future.

Yes, but unlike XP, that had featurers like "Compatibility Mode", better handling of Drivers, and a host of new features, what does Vista bring to the table. Tell me ONE feature that Vista has that makes it a reason to switch? My prediction is that the only people who will be buying Vista is people who are buying new computers. It's one of the reasons they have it for $200.00 in the stores. They want to make a Phsycological point, if you pass up Vista now, and go for XP, it will cost you BIG TIME to switch later.

quote:

Originally posted by rapilot:

Windows Vista is probably only slower not because it is inferior, but because it won't let you turn off features. The memory allocation technology may be better as said in a previous post. Better memory allocation technology will make all the difference on future computers.

You're basically contradicting yourself on this last statement. What good is "Great Memory Allocation" if you can't force the system to use a smaller footprint? I have several Linux Servers installed, where I don't load up the GUI at all, to keep the footprint extremely small. Can you do that in Vista, or any Windows machine past 3.11? No, you can't. The only thing Vista does for "Better Memory Allocation" is that it addresses more memory, since it's designed to be used on a 64 bit processor, which has more to do with the processor than the OS. Operating Systems like Solaris, HP-Unix, and even Linux on a 64 Bit machine have had this feature for YEARS. How is it that now that Vista has it, all of a sudden, this is the future?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

My mother is looking for a new laptop, and I have told her straight up.

GET XP, NOT VISTA!!!

I don't care how top of the line the computer is, GET XP!!

Luckily a lot of the manufaturers are giving people a choice between Vista and XP still.

I told her she had better hurry, because it won't last long.

Once Bill decides that he is not going to sell anymore licenses for XP, that'll be it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by rapilot:

Web browsing is going to need to use features that create security problems to create more powerful features web content providers will want in the future. This means they will need browser control and control over some features of your computer. Websites are expected to do a lot more in the future, the microsoft website seems to predict. This means sites will need cookies and ActiveX whether you want it or not.

This is one of the most naive things I've EVER heard anyone say on these forums. As an experienced Web Developer I can most certainly tell you that ActiveX is dying and is already near death. Microsoft doesn't even care about it anymore since the Eolas patent case pretty much put the final stake in it. Modern languages such as ASP and PHP do everything on the server much better and on the client side Javascript with XMLHttpRequest works fine on every browser, even IE7.

There is not a single one of my colleagues who thinks that even IE7 is a great browser... much less anything that Microsoft does for the Web. The Web industry is based on STANDARDS; standards that Microsoft vehemently ignores because they're so bloody arrogant. I cannot tell you how many times after talking with the IE dev team at conferences I've walked away pretty peeved. That said, IE7 is a great step forward, and the company I work for is dropping support for IE6 as soon as we phase out our last piece of software that requires it.

There are wonderful ways to develop secure web browsers that work unbelievably well. Have you heard of Firefox? Opera? Safari? All of these are standards compliant, and very secure.

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

My mother is looking for a new laptop, and I have told her straight up.

GET XP, NOT VISTA!!!

I don't care how top of the line the computer is, GET XP!!

Good move. While in previous posts I said that I liked Vista, I still don't think its mature enough for the general public. That goes with any new version of Windows though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

quote:

Originally posted by Nomad:

Now that's crazy, Darkling, Jag and me actually having similar positions ?

Yeah, it scared me too...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Windows Vista is a slow and impractical operating system at the present time. It is also very incompatible with Windows XP games. If Microsoft wants to sell very many copies to people who sometimes play games, they should have included Windows XP with it. It will be the stickypoint that will keep a sizable number of people from getting new computers. Many will wish they would have bought full version copies of Windows XP so they could have both Windows XP and Windows Vista on their machine. I think incompatibility will be less tolerated now than it would have been in the late 90s or in 2001 when Windows XP came out. Yet Vista is a version of Windows that is more backwards incompatible than ever.

One of the strengths of Vista, however, is that its design in terms of security, has been largely overhauled. Many of the flaws that made Linux a superior security design over Windows are gone in Windows Vista. Common sense security changes are made to the operating system core to fix these flaws. Files unrelated to a running program can not be accessed by it that are irrevelant to the execution of that program. No Windows settings can be changed by an internet use attack without explicit user consent. If Windows does gets confused by where a program came from that does try to change system settings, it will attempt to catch any suspicious changes made by it. Also, programs do not run in administrative mode by default to prevent them from gaining control of the operating system. It also checks for suspicious elevation of privalege activity by a program. However, the Windows kernel can still be used as a vector for malware to attack the system, but atleast it is monitored on every level. Maybe their operating system monitoring technology is better than Linux due to the fact that they need it more than they do. The monitoring system might use artificial intelligence since Windows Vista has been in many more years of development than the earlier versions of Windows. I would be disappointed if it was too unintelligent to be characterized that way.

Hopefully attempts for Linux and Windows interoperability will close paths of attacks by compartmentalizing programs or doing whatever else Linux does to block paths of attacks. There will be little to monitor in an operating system that actually blocks paths of attacks rather than just attempts to control them. Some Web content providers may insist on the lowering of security barriers to provide more poweful content in the future. So the dynamic security of Windows Vista monitoring would be best for that situation. Fortunately, the dynamic security will never have to be used, because ActiveX is dying and will die soon. I hope the legacy of ActiveX goes away soon and that websites quit sneaking in ActiveX that Explorer can't detect without Norton Firewall, when all that's on the webpage is simply text. It is about time the industry is forcing powerful web content to be produced in a way that compartmentalizes it in the web browser.

DirectX10 is a good graphics language that is better than the competition. Swiftshaders will definately not replace it because they are software shaders. While it is great that it massively increases software shading performance for those that want it, it is still only as fast as a low end Direct3D card. Eventually, the Swiftshader's ability to convert hardware calls to software rendering will make hardware accelleration obsolete, once processor speed multiplies. For the present, however, its competitor, OpenGL which Linux uses, can not list what a graphic card can not do and pass that information to a program. This shortcoming of OpenGL can create speed stability problems, especially when graphic cards will vary widely in features again. Also unlike before, DirectX can now break down a graphic card driver into both user mode and kernel mode components so it will be just as fast. Microsoft is also setting strict standardization guidelines for DirectX10 cards, which should help make the new DirectX10 graphics cards technology good. But DirectX10 games like Crysis sound like they can be plenty good using DirectX9 cards. So DirectX10 is not quite the leap frog improvement in shading detail and performance that the hype would suggest.

Given the poor speed, and incompatibility, there is no way Windows Vista is worth getting just for the security and DirectX10. You can always surf the web using Linux and then play games using Windows XP. One nice feature is it indexes files so they can be searched faster. Dramatically faster file searches in the file browser is worth buying for $10 maybe. A backwards incompatible operating system must have something that is better than the original, but wow I can't believe how minor the improvements are besides security. The operating system is laughably bad if it doesn't include Windows XP. Microsoft seems to forget that they are creating a product that must actually be used, not just a technology showpiece.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just had to laugh when I ran thier little compatibility App....

It listed all the programs that might have issues. Several of them were current Microshaft programs like Instant Messenger. I call that shooting yourself in the foot to spite your face.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Nomad:

Now that's crazy, Darkling, Jag and me actually having similar positions ?

It's another sign of The Reaping

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×