Shoutbox

Very well said Cookie.

But for all you Vista haters. Most of your arguments are just plain bs. Vista runs most things perfectly just as XP does.

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Anderton
But if I'm getting a new PC, I would prefer getting Vista because I know that a year or two down the line, Microsoft will stop support for XP. They have been planning this far before Vista Beta 2 came out.

---

believe me that support for XP will not stop for a very long time! And it would take even a longer time before companies start to make Vista-only programs. Saying that support for XP will stop in a year or two is bullocks...

---

Quite true - in fact last I heard, Window 98 and ME support only ended on July 11 2006. That's 9 years after 98 was originally released, btw.

Now about the whole topic, there is practically nothing of use in Vista to people with a bit of tech. knowledge. Sure, eye-candy (and personally I want DreamSpace or whatever its called), and some (damned good compared to previous offerings) new games and it's a lot more "user friendly". (Excluding UAC, which is a pain in the rear end, especially if you're not tech. savvy enough to know how to turn it off...) But there's nothing totally amazing.

The main jump from 9x 16-bit-based kernels to the NT5 kernels was stability. No matter how hard you tried to keep everything running, Windows 9x would always occasionally fall over. And one or two badly coded apps could bring the whole system down. (Yes they can still do that on XP and Vista, but not to the same extent).

I have to admit though, I had Vista on my new laptop and wiped it in place of a dual-boot with XP and Kubuntu simply because I'm too lazy to learn where all my tricks have gone with Vista atm.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Anderton

quote:

---

Originally posted by Verte
It would be naive specifically because, these products worked on the previous version of Windows, which Microsoft have access to the source and manuals of. In other words, it's something that THEY broke, and have the ability to fix.

---

I might be wrong but I was always of the view that the OS is made by a certain someone. You make your apps/hardware (with drivers) for that OS and in doing so, need to make sure that your app/hardware works fine. If your app/driver works fine with the OS one day and the next day it breaks due to a patch on the OS, sure, go ahead and bitch about it to the OS creators.
But if its a new OS all together, like vista is here, you are the one who is responsible for making your app work on their OS since its not the OS that is running on your app, its your app running on the OS

Conversely, if you are the one making a processor/motherboard, the people who make the OS will make sure that they support your architecture..

As I said, I might be wrong with this whole thing of course

---

There hasn't been any major restructuring in the kernel. A few things have been changed and are a lot nicer, but it's still essentially the same. Which has to make you wonder why functionality from userland would be bad enough to break many programs and drivers. This suggests that not only have new system calls been added, but also older ones have been fundamentally changed. It'd make sense to provide functionality to allow programs to use the older calls as standard.

I guess it's more convoluted for drivers, particularly kernel resident drivers, and this is a problem for monolithic kernels in general [revisions of code that should be internal break real drivers in practice]. Maybe- I mean, I don't know exactly where the original driver and the new API clash.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Phillip

quote:

---

Originally posted by Verte
It would be naive specifically because, these products worked on the previous version of Windows, which Microsoft have access to the source and manuals of. In other words, it's something that THEY broke, and have the ability to fix.

---

Your joking right..? Are you saying Microsoft should make sure all programs work fine on their OS..?

---

I'm saying that they should provide an API which behaves the same as the previous one, and that it isn't particularly difficult to do [gcc + glibc is my favourite example, supporting all sorts of standards from win32 to SYSV, through the *BSDs, XOpens, POSIXen, GNU, for many different standards of languages, ad nauseum].

I'm just thinking, if there is a chance applications will rely on outdated syscalls, they should be depreciated; but still available. Even if it's through some wrapper.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Phillip

quote:

---

Originally posted by Verte
I'm not saying that things won't get fixed, but I've got to wonder why you'd be paying money for something with the promise it will work Real Soon Now. Why not stick with something that works for the moment, and then when you know you will get more positive than negative out of the move, make the switch.

---

I have not had one single problem with Vista. Programs run just as fast as XP and even my games have more FPS than XP.

Basically if you know what your doing, download a copy and try it out for the 30 days. Judge it for yourself.

---

Yeah, of course, it's most likely to work fine. That probability increases all the time. But if you're worried about it, there's no harm in waiting.

All I'm saying is, you've got to weigh up the potential downsides if some application you use isn't supported, and the fact that you will be paying $$$ to get it, with the upsides. What that means to you will be different to what it means to the next person. If I need application X for work and it just doesn't work on Vista, I'm less likely to make the move. If features A, B and C are worth $$$ to me, I'll really consider it.

Microsoft not giving good API is so last month's news. I still remember 6 months or so back Patchy not being able to add a proper thumb for flip 3d because there wasn't any half decent API

Microsoft have a very long history of doing things badly and annoyingly. I too have been pondering on the question whether to switch to Vista on my newer computer (without taking the cost of Vista into consideration at all). What worries me is the prospect of a bigger, heavier operating system which will suck the life out of other applications like some Microsoftic tumor (quite fits with Wirth's law which I just recently found )
XP by itself, though the many improvements take it's toll on the computer
Sure with newer more powerful computers it won't matter so much, but I remember that on my last computer, with 600Mhz, it almost died when running both eMule and a movie (though I have to say, that was a terrible version of eMule).
What bothers me is that all those eye candies and other useless junk will slow things down. Sure, I can disable it, but then what's the point of that? It'll better to have some automatic turn off mechanism when you run something that doesn't need it.
As for all those gadgets and stuff, they have been existing in Macs and *nixes for some time now, and only now did Microsoft remember to add them. Then again rather than looking at it as a bad thing, the glass is half full: they finally added it. Only difference is that Macs and *nixes don't need some uber computer to run it. =/
I would really like to have some gadgets and eye candies  on my desktop, I think they're cool. There are certain solutions, but they don't quite support right to left windows
Plus there's all that Creative Commons Right (or something like that). I hope to get past it, I've been told quite a lot of annoying things about it.
I think I'll stay with XP for a while and maybe then upgrade to Vista.
Only problem is that I think I should get the (seemingly at least) superior 64bit computer, which is known to be troublesome with XP

so... what do you think I should do?

I run Vista Ultimate, on 2GB RAM and Core 2 Duo, I have no problems with running multiple applications. My memory usage never goes above 56% on normal use(which is generally a lot of apps open - including Photoshop CS3 an Dreamweaver.)

People need to realise that their systems are old, you want to run new exciting things, you need new(er) hardware. I don't understand why everyone has a problem with this, sure it costs you money, but no pain no gain.


EDIT:

quote:

---

It'll better to have some automatic turn off mechanism when you run something that doesn't need it.

---

There is. All Aero features etc are turned off when you run a full screen application.

the thing is, some of the older computer can run this stuff . . .
though I wouldn't expect a 600Mhz computer to run it smoothly, not on Windows XP anyways (if some "good" (and by good I meant good programming, done well) 3rd party program would allow you to run it on XP)

btw I forgot to ask WHY THE HELL DOES IT NEED 15 GB OF FREE SPACE?!
hoping it doesn't actually use all the damn 15 GB >_>

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nefzen
hoping it doesn't actually use all the damn 15 GB >_>

---

I've installed it on a 20GB partition, its only using 10GB and that's with all my programs installed.

The 15GB installation procedure is down to the fact that Microsoft for some reason decided to compress the entire install by too many factors (the file is around 2.6gb on a DVD, they could've used a DVD-9, but nooo....), so the installer extracts the entire content of the file to the hard drive, and then copies the files to their new locations.

Also, you need to factor in Swap Space and System Restore points, etc., etc.

bleh >_<
what about 64bit PC? I've been told that 64bit XP has lots of problem, so should I really buy a new computer that's 64bit?