Author Topic: Vista Ultimate (Read 4609 times)

Mustaine · « **Reply #105 on:** January 31, 2007, 08:28:39 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mightytboy
The problem is ALL software that worked with XP should work without having to tweak it. I didn't spend all that money on software so MS could come along and make a system that won't run it

May I assume you mean Vista SHOULD but does not run the said software?

if so I totally AGREE. it should, especially considering the amount of money high end video / audio / imaging editing software costs.

Quote

Originally posted by Catalyst
...yes performance loss but some other stuff compensate for it, like a much better Desktop...

if you know how to work a PC even remotely above a chimpanzee's ability I can not imagine a "better" desktop than simple Icons for what you personally choose, and is supremely easy to modify like ANY desktop since WIN98

a desktop is a place to easily start frequently used programs that provide content. it is not a place to show content in and of itself IMHO.

vorticon · « **Reply #106 on:** January 31, 2007, 09:09:04 PM »

"a desktop is a place to easily start frequently used programs that provide content. "

bingo. i cant remember the last time i spent more than a few seconds looking at my desktop...everything i use has both a desktop icon, and a seat on the initial start menu thingy, so once i get my browserup, its all through that.

Catalyst · « **Reply #107 on:** February 01, 2007, 07:47:57 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Yknurd
But, but, but...Catalysts says he's having no problems.

And he's not even suffering any performance loss.

And AHII runs beautifully.

And Vista is the bestest, most goodest, uber-est OS out there.

reread, you sound like a child...

Catalyst · « **Reply #108 on:** February 01, 2007, 07:51:39 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mustaine
if you know how to work a PC even remotely above a chimpanzee's ability

a desktop is a place to easily start frequently used programs that provide content. it is not a place to show content in and of itself IMHO.

assuming again, I was giving a small example, of course its takin completely out of context to suit your chimpanzee comment...

you don't know **** about my computer knowledge, stick to what you know and never mind the assuming part...

Catalyst · « **Reply #109 on:** February 01, 2007, 08:01:15 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by tedrbr
Ah...yes....

Looks like VISTA will be the best thing to have happened to Mac and Open Source in years.

Nothing I hear about VISTA is encouraging.

1- that has been said many times, but apart from Servers, nothing else was gained(maybe minimal gains at best)...Mac or open source

2- same was said about XP when it came out

short memory for some folks around here...I remember folks biatching about how much XP was taking alot of mem.

well some do have to test this Vista, thats what I'm doing, not just biatching about it, but actually experiancing working with it...you know, walk the walk talk the talk and all that

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #110 on:** February 01, 2007, 08:06:46 AM »

Just heard a report on the radio talking about Vista.

Seems alot of businesses are taking the wait and see approach rather then rushing out and buying a new OS when they arent unhappy with the old one.

Not to mention from what I see most businesses do with computers they could just as easily, and just as quickly do on an old P100 and Windows 98.

There just simply isnt any need, other then to say they have it to have a new superduper machine with the latest OS on it

lazs2 · « **Reply #111 on:** February 01, 2007, 08:11:14 AM »

ok.. if you know so much how does it do with CH controllers.. this is an AH forum ya know?

I mean... I don't really care if it makes opening spread sheets look cooler. I don't care if it runs 12 spread sheets at once better than xp does.

I also don't recall taking such a performance hit with xp when it came out... didn't xp run some things faster than 98?

lazs

Skuzzy · « **Reply #112 on:** February 01, 2007, 09:39:31 AM »

XP brought a lot of technical improvements to the operating system. Better memory management was probably the single best improvement over 98 in XP.

MS also maintained a level of backward compatibiity to 98 for a very long time. Every DirectX version, for example, had a counterpart for 98. While DirectX10 is only available in Vista. There is no technical reason for this. It is strictly done to coerce people to migrate to Vista.

Vista breaks hundreds of high end applications, by design.

And best of all, not one person has actually provide a technical reason why Vista is needed. XP was desparately needed due to the poor memory management in 98. That is something that really cannot be changed via a patch as it goes to the core of the operating system.
The only massive changes in Vista has to do with embedding DRM in every aspect of the OS.

A new desktop could have been added to XP. There already was a company who had done a Vista knock-off of the desktop for XP, but MS took care of them.

Everyone who is rooting for Vista has incredibly shallow reasons to do so. In other words, there is not a good reason to switch to this OS. There really isn't.

Captain Virgil Hilts · « **Reply #113 on:** February 01, 2007, 10:33:13 AM »

Skuzzy, attempts to interject facts and common sense into the marketing side of computer operating systems are futile.

I'm sticking with 2000 Pro until I can't get any hardware or software to use with it any more. I guess I'll buy a copy of XP Pro pretty soon, so I can avoid the rest of the crap they're dishing out for a few years after 2000 Pro just can't be used anymore.

Best I can tell, these days computers, for personal use anyway, and for most business use, have reached the point of diminishing returns. Honestly, the new processors and 2 gigs of memory, combined with the SATA hard drives with RAID, and the recent video and sound cards, will do almost anything you could want to do on a computer within reason. From this point on, the OS will be what forces people to continually upgrade at ridiculous cost. Hardware upgrades will be forced by software upgrades that are not really upgrades. And the reverse will probably also be true. I can find much better places to spend my money.

mussie · « **Reply #114 on:** February 01, 2007, 10:33:34 AM »

It took about three years for me to convert to XP..... (98 did what I wanted and what I needed)

I hope I can continue to use XP for at least twice that.....

In the end my stance with VISTA comes from the simple fact that I want to be able to do what I want on my PC, Not what they want.

But to be honest, with the amount of money M$ has to inject into development (Applications, games ect) we are going to find ourselves with no choice...

More and more hardware will "REQUIRE" Vista

More and more Applications will "REQUIRE" Vista

And one day (as someone here put it) "They will pry XP from my cold dead hands"

Captain Virgil Hilts · « **Reply #115 on:** February 01, 2007, 10:45:23 AM »

Exactly. The only hope is that there will be some groups who just refuse to be assimilated.

MrRiplEy[H] · « **Reply #116 on:** February 01, 2007, 11:05:05 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Skuzzy
XP brought a lot of technical improvements to the operating system. Better memory management was probably the single best improvement over 98 in XP.

MS also maintained a level of backward compatibiity to 98 for a very long time. Every DirectX version, for example, had a counterpart for 98. While DirectX10 is only available in Vista. There is no technical reason for this. It is strictly done to coerce people to migrate to Vista.

Vista breaks hundreds of high end applications, by design.

And best of all, not one person has actually provide a technical reason why Vista is needed. XP was desparately needed due to the poor memory management in 98. That is something that really cannot be changed via a patch as it goes to the core of the operating system.
The only massive changes in Vista has to do with embedding DRM in every aspect of the OS.

A new desktop could have been added to XP. There already was a company who had done a Vista knock-off of the desktop for XP, but MS took care of them.

Everyone who is rooting for Vista has incredibly shallow reasons to do so. In other words, there is not a good reason to switch to this OS. There really isn't.

Actually you can get an awesome free desktop enhancement from crystalxp.net even today.

tedrbr · « **Reply #117 on:** February 01, 2007, 11:27:51 AM »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't WinXP built on the Free-BSD kernel, or base code?

I'm more hardware and admin than code, so I really don't remember exactly, I just remember a WinXP "not-so-free-BSD" joke.

If it were not for games and the college courses I take, I'd be completely away from Windows OS on a personal level. Their vision of the future where all programs lie in on-line servers, and the customer perpetually "rents" the use of those programs, and their "blackmail" tactics for peripherals to receive Windows Compliance is over the top for me.

I'm wondering if Firefox or Thunderbird work with Vista.

I'll wait for reviews on Vista before venturing to try it myself. I'd rather spend the time, resources and effort getting reacquainted with Mac and a SELinux distro.

Maverick · « **Reply #118 on:** February 01, 2007, 11:35:00 AM »

One can only hope vista will go the way of Win ME and ASAP.

Skuzzy · « **Reply #119 on:** February 01, 2007, 02:29:06 PM »

The CEO of MS has already proudly proclaimed there will be many more versions of Vista/Windows coming.

Windows XP was built from the NT/2000 code base. Microsoft owns a UNIX license and they have used quite a bit of UNIX derived code in Windows. Mostly subsets of UNIX.

MrRipley, I had thought MS killed CrystalXP? Good to hear they are still around.