Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Hardware and Software => Topic started by: Krusty on May 16, 2006, 11:33:18 AM
-
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTA0NSwxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==
surprise surprise, MS is going to make us (force us) to run this resource hog vista. Happened to be flipping through a PC Computing magazine in the library the other day with a few "features" of vista, the most notable being:
- transparent windows (you can see the desktop through them
[big freakin' whoop, how does that improve the OS in any way?]
- thumbnails while alt-tabbing and descriptions while same
[I have that NOW, you can install that power tool and others NOW]
- When you put your mouse over a minimized window on your task bar a mini thumbnail pops up
[WHO CARES?!?! How does that help the OS any???]
Basically the article listed a lot of CRAP that adds enormously to code bloat (and resource consumption) but does jack watermelon to help you, the OS user, find a stable and easy to run OS.
Then take into account the link I posted about DX10, and you come to the conclusion that MS is a bunch of retards. I bet they have a room of 10,000 monkeys and won't be "done" updating Windows software for another 10,000 years.
*sigh*
I don't want to have to run that bloated crap called vista. XP has enough. What happened to the days of MINIMUM FOOTPRINT software??? Hrm??
*rant over*
-
sounds like crap, looks like crap, smells like crap......hmm conclusion is?
-
Originally posted by Krusty
surprise surprise, MS is going to make us (force us) to run this resource hog vista. Happened to be flipping through a PC Computing magazine in the library the other day with a few "features" of vista, the most notable being:
I didnt read the link. How are they going to make me use Vista if I dont buy it?
-
Not sure if i read it somewhere but DX 10= VISTA only.
Bronk
-
<- Currently in the 2nd beta ...
ITS A Frelling monster ... oink oink oink ...
3500+ 939 w 2 gig of ram ... and it still causes GRUNTS .
Its got hun"dreds" of stupid buggy things that can and will drive ya bats .
It doesnt really do much more then XP and if ya want vista so bad,,,, I'd suggest ya just go get the XPvista theme for your version of xp and be happy that it doesnt sit there and think for 10 mins befor it does anything.
Its an OS built to Sell new pc's thats for shure ..
-
Correct. DirectX 10 will only be available on Vista.
Corporate users will be forced to upgrade as MS will drop support for XP, as soon as they can. And where corporate goes, so does the OEM computer makers. Where OEM computer makers go, so do most end users.
Edit: Hehe Rosco. And 2GB of RAM is considered a bare minimum for the OS and any application to run. 4GB will be needed for any power users or gamers.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
And 2GB of RAM is considered a bare minimum for the OS and any application to run. 4GB will be needed for any power users or gamers.
[EXPLETIVE DELETED][EXPLETIVE DELETED][EXPLETIVE DELETED]
-
yea .. that extra ram will be sold as a seperate pc addon for your inconvience... lol
btw its really wacked getting sli cards to run smoothy still
-
It's not just the ram... a LOT of computers CAN'T run more than 2GB ram. It's a motherboard limitation!!
I had to really search for a motherboard that had more than 2GB ram when I was buying mine. Mine allows 4 GB total, and I've only been able to afford 1.5GB to date.
The stupid thing is that MS is asking too much hardware to run the exact same crap we already have now. They're asking for too much power from a PC to run a simple OS. As a result a LOT of folks won't be able to run it, and a LOT of people will have to upgrade CPU/Mobo/RAM just to run it in the same manner they run XP now.
It's bloat for bloat's sake! And they're going to force us all to use it!
P.S. Yes, the link I postd said that DX10 was only going to be for Vista.
-
Why do you think it keeps getting postponed? They know what it is & how it's going to screw the average guy up. That's why I keep advising people who are about to drop several hundred bucks on anything that can be outdated by the release of Vista to wait.
Number one, the high dollar DX-9 compliant cards out today are going to be dirt cheap when DX-10 comes out
Number two if they do get Vista right (it's just a what if people) you will need to upgrade a buttload of stuff to keep pace as the mainstream goes that direction.
So just hold your water & see what happens, they may dump Vista and just release a more solid version of XP-64bit with DX-10 if they can't get Vista right soon. I doubt they will seeing how much money they have sunk into a chunk of landfill fodder but you never know what microslave is likely to do, they can take a 300million dollar hit & keep on trucking like nothing ever happened.
I am waiting to see it's release like a kid at a car crash.
-
It'll be another year, at a minimum, before a DX10 game (worth having that is) is released. The DX10 architecture is very different from DX9. The current DX9 cards will not be able to run a DX10 game very well at all, assuming the game actually makes use of the DX10 feature set.
ATI will be first with a DX10 video card, and have already started making changes to thier architecture (the X1900 series is more DX10, than DX9). NVidia will follow, but when is anybody's guess. They have not been, uh, in good graces (yeah, that's the ticket) with MS for a while.
I would not be in any hurry to upgrade to Vista folks. It is going to be painful.
Edit: Krusty, the physical address limit on the x86 architecture is 4GB. To get past that, the motherboard has to support PAE. And the OS has to support is as well.
-
Another bugbear will be the DRM (Digital Rights Media) in Vista.
Under certain circumstances it can prevent you from doing a dual boot system.
Thought 4Gb of memory will only show up at around 3.5Gbs due to space reseved for tables?
-
I have a feeling they will make a dx10 ver for the ntfs/xp type os's eventually
as of now there gonna need to try to cram vista down everyones throat ...
I cant wait til we see GOOGLEFOX ... the ultamate OS ... muhahahahaa
(small dream ... dont ruin it )
-
Oh yes, DRM is going to be more intrusive than ever in Vista. In many cases you will not be able to burn media, depending on the content you are trying to copy.
Backups of DVD's will be nearly impossible with Vista, especially with later generations of CPU's. And before anyone causally thinks some hacker will get around it. It is based on hardware protection in the CPU itself. All current generation CPU's have this mechanism.
Edit: Google's OS is about 6 years away (and that is a fairly conservative estimate)
-
It'll be another year, at a minimum, before a DX10 game (worth having that is) is released.
According to something I read the other day, it'll be at least that long before MS releases Vista, I think they said it was postponed until at least June? or July of 07. I also heard that Nvidia & ATI already have the hardware ready for DX-10 compliant release, they're just waiting on Vista.
Is there a game in the works ready for release on the DX-10 structure that you know of Skuzzy? ( I'm sure there are several, but you seemed to be alluding to something inparticular)
-
Poorly worded. A year after the release of Vista, there could be a DX10 game ready.
Yes, there are a couple of games MS wants to see on DX10 as soon as they can. It is why the DX10 SDK has already been released. They know the faster they can get the top 10 titles on DX10, the faster Vista will have to be adopted by the gaming community.
-
So when is that new Linux version of AH coming out? :)
Btw, if you really want to avoid Vista, Microsoft has had an alternative since they introduced XP.
Microsoft.com (http://www.mslinux.org/)
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Edit: Krusty, the physical address limit on the x86 architecture is 4GB. To get past that, the motherboard has to support PAE. And the OS has to support is as well.
What is PAE? I don't recall reading anything about it in my motherboard's documentation. I have 4 slots, and a 4GB limit, but it would be nice to plop in 4x 2GB sticks, or as time passes 4x 3GB sticks (lol! I wish!!! :p )
-
Originally posted by StarOfAfrica2
Btw, if you really want to avoid Vista, Microsoft has had an alternative since they introduced XP.
Microsoft.com (http://www.mslinux.org/)
Yeah, but can you play games on it, or does it have the same problems as other linux types? The only benefit I could see MS bringing is hardware support similar to Windows.
Oh, and they had me interested, UNTIL I read this blurb at the bottom:
"MS Linux is released under the provisions of the Gates Private License, which means you can freely use this Software on a single machine without warranty after having paid the purchase price and annual renewal fees."
It's $250.00 to buy the dang thing, and they want you to RENEW it every freakin' year? Dubya-Tee-Eff!
EDIT: Unless it's a joke page. I don't know, I've never heard of anything like it before, so it could be legit it could be a gag.
-
Read the quotes on the left. :)
-
It's a joke page...didn't you read on the right hand column about the Microsoft mars monkeys being trained to reboot the spaceship when they get the blue screen of death on their way to the red planet to set up trading colonies etc etc:lol
-
If AHII is the only game i use my pc for, will i still have to upgrade, or more like downgrade from what it sounds like, to this Vista crapper?
-
Krusty - Here is a MS technote on PAE : http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;268363&sd=tech
Please do NOT try to do this, this is for informational purposes only.
-
No speed, as a matter of fact you can still run AH in Win 98 if you choose.
-
Sticking with win98 and win2000 till the last possible moment........
-
We currently have no plans to migrate to DirectX10. As DX10 would only be available to Vista users, the community would hang us from the nearest tree.
DX9 based games (like ours) will run on all MS OS's, right now.
-
Well that PAE thing was interesting, but what if the documentation on your motherboard says its hardware limit is 4 GB? The software might support more, but the hardware won't. Is there a way around that?
-
Nope Krusty. The motherboard has to be designed to be able to address more than 4GB, and the BIOS has to support it as well.
-
Along the lines of how much ram.
I currently have 1 gig of 3200 ddr. (2 512 sticks) and have 2 slots open.
If I were to add 2 more 512 sticks would the ram jump back to single data rate?
The mobo documentation is worded kinda funky.
MSI neo4 plat.
Bronk
-
It depends on the ram you put in. If you've got matched pairs in slots 1 and 3 now, you should have dual channel. If you put a matched pair in the other slots (2 and 4) you should retain dual channel. If you don't match them they may revery to single channel.
However that does not stop it from being "Double Data Rate" -- as that is the type of RAM archtecture you're using, not the way it's installed.
You should be good.
-
AH 2 does run on Vista ... (beware of the alt/tab though)
IMO it ran better in vista on my 1.3 ghz pc then it does on my 3500+ 64 bit
its still not optemized for 64 bit correctly and drivers are a frelling nightmare.
another thing the install of vista still takes over 4 hrs ...
-
Originally posted by Krusty
It depends on the ram you put in. If you've got matched pairs in slots 1 and 3 now, you should have dual channel. If you put a matched pair in the other slots (2 and 4) you should retain dual channel. If you don't match them they may revery to single channel.
However that does not stop it from being "Double Data Rate" -- as that is the type of RAM archtecture you're using, not the way it's installed.
You should be good.
Was going to just buy the exact same type I have now.
So I should be good.
Bronk
-
Originally posted by Roscoroo
another thing the install of vista still takes over 4 hrs ...
:O :O :O
That's insane.
Bronk
-
The real meaning ...
(http://sperone.free.fr/images/extraz/PICS27/vista.jpg)
-
How can I verify that my memory is running in double data rate mode?
-
You can't verify that. Double Data Rate is DDR. Its the type of ram you put in your computer. Basically PC3200 is DDR RAM.
If you want to verify if you've got dual channel or single channel the best way is to watch your POST screen as you boot up. Mine tells me how much RAM I have saying "xxxxx MB running in virtual single channel" or something like that.
-
Skuzzy this is the current outlook on the situation I see for most developers please correct me if you see im wrong on some points.
People will upgrade to the new vista operating system if people like it or not, its will be sold with all new computers via dell, because Microsoft could simply offer insider deals that its 50% cheaper or free with new any PC’s.
What does vista offer developers?
· DirectX9/DirectX10
· .net platform
· Huge library files via .net
· New GUI interface
· WinFX forms
Current C++ code, wont be able to access the new directX10 graphics library because it being provided within the .net platform and only on vista. But C++/CLI enables programmers to take advantage of access the net platform. So does C#, but it’s a completely different programming langue that is interprted by a virtual machine. Also rewriting millions of lines of code from C++ to C# would be only a test case for Microsoft to prove that C# works on large scale software.
So the middle ground is going to be put on hybrid C++/CLI code itself to access DirectX10 and new winFX forms on Vista, but also being backward compatible within the same programming language to the older operating systems. I don’t think developers right now have the option to upgrade to .net platform on windows XP, because of the surrounding runtime corruption that have happened on peoples machine, and being a new technology.
Now lets lay it all out. I presume you will be able to run old directX 8.1 and direct 9.0 games within vista. Depending on how much of the windows api the software developer used. To take advantage of the new directX10 in vista the developers are going to have to port it across over to C++/CLI to use there existing code base. The complexity involved, I don’t really know. At the same time, providing the product for win98/xp/nt/ and also vista, can you hear the developers crying now? Also at the same time segregating your market into the ones that have directX10 and the ones that don’t have it.
-
Originally posted by F1Bomber
Current C++ code, wont be able to access the new directX10 graphics library because it being provided within the .net platform and only on vista. But C++/CLI enables programmers to take advantage of access the net platform. So does C#, but it’s a completely different programming langue that is interprted by a virtual machine. Also rewriting millions of lines of code from C++ to C# would be only a test case for Microsoft to prove that C# works on large scale software.
Are you sure it's the case for managed C++ ?
-
I know you can access .net code via C++/CLI managed C++. Considering that DirectX10 will be provided using the same common lanaguage interface for C# visual# that there is a high probability you will be able too. I cannot conferm it though, but can say C++/CLI gives you access to .net because i use it at work, and currently doing research on future trends.
Just an extra note.
Vista will most likly provided in 4 different version.
Retail ( lite )
Retail ( heavy )
Retail ( server lite ) or Retail ( heavy )
Though i do think introduction of all the technology into vista in one huge bang into the market is going to cause alot of issues. Firstly, digital rights mangement, memory consumption, requirement of having a dual core that the OS lock's itself to one proccessor. New standards and implimentation requirements. Backwards compatability for developers for old programs.
At this moment in time, just as looking into the industry. Any software house that relys on microsoft technology mostly software side is going to get a real shake up. Software houses that have rolled there own in the past are going to be lessly effected by the changed because of owning all aspects of there software.
I have some conflicting issues with using microsoft technology. Is it becomes deprecated too soon and very not very well documented implimentation and solutions. Coming from the java background here :). Mostly keep coming down to the conlusion, the best way to actualy keep conformaty and flexability in your software package is to roll your own. Replying on microsoft runtime envrioment i keep concluding its going to break more times than its worth. Java i never had this issues, because i mostly compiled the java enviroment with the executable, and all clients where very happy and never run into any major version control issue. Wish it was the same with microsoft.
When i first read skuzzy thoughts and reviews of the .net platform, i was say the least suprised. So i started digging into the matter. Mainly because 1. Skuzzy knows what hes doing, and I can rely on his comments more than marketing from microsoft.
So i went off, did some major research and pretty much agree with skuzzy on every single aspect he has posted about the .net platform.
Another posted it very nicly i will qoute it here.
One platform all languages
One Language all platforms
its a situation developers are facing now.
-
We do not use C++ for the game code. We use C.
The DirectX team has always done a very good job with backwards compatibility. However, MS lost the key architect for DX8 and DX9 about halfway through DX9 developement (he is working at ATi right now).
We are seeing the API migrate away from the C interface and back to the GUID/C++ crap of old, which marked all versions od DX from 7 back to 3 (that was some terrible API's). I suspect DX10 will be ripe with it. It just means it will be a very long time before we could or would adopt DX10.
I have not done a full review of the DX10 SDK yet, but suspect MS has not had time to get .NET implemented in it, as it will prove to be the most difficult to do, being written mostly in C and assembly. If they have not tied DX10 to .NET, then there is hope for it. If they have tied it to .NET, they will have effectively driven a nail into future game development for the PC.
Once people find out what .NET does to them (not for them), there are going to be a lot of unhappy people out there.
-
People may be upgrading to Vista when they buy new computers..
But that's their own problem. :p
-
Certainly OEM computers will come with it. MS licensing requires OEM's to adopt the latest OS. I feel for the people buying an OEM computer and the OEM as well.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
If they have tied it to .NET, they will have effectively driven a nail into future game development for the PC.
Hmmm, interesting. Trying to make the Xbox the only gaming system, or just trying to drive every third party developer insane?
-
It is just a sign of the times hubs. I cannot count how many, what I call, new-age programmers who do not think twice about using 1,000 lines of code, where only 10 lines would do the job.
It's not that they are bad programmers, per se. They just cannot get past the 'whiz-bang' approach to programming. Instead of using the right tool/language for the task at hand, they use the latest whiz-bang stuff, even if it is the wrong thing to do. Sort of like using a sledge hammer, when all you really needed was an awl.
MS has a very large programming population who are good application programmers, but suck at system programming. This is why Vista will be so bloated. It's being written like an application, rather than from the systems approach.
MS does not want to kill the PC gaming industry, but they are not doing much to help it with Vista.
-
Well, here are the offical minimum requirements for Vista. MS posted them today.
================================
- 1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor.
- 1 GB of system memory.
- A graphics processor that runs Windows Aero.
- 128 MB of graphics memory.
- 40 GB of hard drive capacity with 15 GB free space.
- DVD-ROM Drive.
- Audio output capability.
- Internet access capability.
================================
Keep in mind, 1GB of system RAM is just for the OS. If you plan on running anything, you will need much more RAM. Every application will grow as the API is highly bloated. What takes 20MB of RAM now, will take about 35MB of RAM.
-
OKay my bad! did some more reading. I was wrong in regards to only accessing directX10 via .net, the port over to .net hasnt happend yet and the specifications of the API are only out in C/C++. So i applogies for any incorrect information.
Please remind me not to write on bbs when i'm drunk lol.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Well, here are the offical minimum requirements for Vista. MS posted them today.
================================
- 1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor.
- 1 GB of system memory.
- A graphics processor that runs Windows Aero.
- 128 MB of graphics memory.
- 40 GB of hard drive capacity with 15 GB free space.
- DVD-ROM Drive.
- Audio output capability.
- Internet access capability.
================================
"That's no moon!"
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
It is just a sign of the times hubs. I cannot count how many, what I call, new-age programmers who do not think twice about using 1,000 lines of code, where only 10 lines would do the job.
It's not that they are bad programmers, per se. They just cannot get past the 'whiz-bang' approach to programming. Instead of using the right tool/language for the task at hand, they use the latest whiz-bang stuff, even if it is the wrong thing to do. Sort of like using a sledge hammer, when all you really needed was an awl.
MS has a very large programming population who are good application programmers, but suck at system programming. This is why Vista will be so bloated. It's being written like an application, rather than from the systems approach.
MS does not want to kill the PC gaming industry, but they are not doing much to help it with Vista.
I always remember some of the best games etc used to come out of the old Eastern Bloc countries as they never had the mega resources that typical Western PC's had.
Programming was really tight.
Even this has gone down the toilet now they have better access to more up to date Western stuff.
-
Originally posted by Bronk
Along the lines of how much ram.
I currently have 1 gig of 3200 ddr. (2 512 sticks) and have 2 slots open.
If I were to add 2 more 512 sticks would the ram jump back to single data rate?
Bronk
If u have 3200 DDR ram (400MHz) it will not work with 2700 DDR ram (333 MHz). So if u want to add more or upgrade you either need to buy 3200 DDR ram or new ram chips alltogether (as long as your motherboard will support it), the reason i know this is because i have a single 3200 (400 MHz) 1024 MB DDR ram and i have a 2700 (333 MHz) 512 DDR ram in my computer and it only picks up the 1024 MB ram chip :-(
and btw id sugest to get a single 1024 MB ram chip, besides the fact u can add more ram, it will run faster. they maybe more expensive but their worth it!!!
-
Originally posted by Nemeth
If u have 3200 DDR ram (400MHz) it will not work with 2700 DDR ram (333 MHz). So if u want to add more or upgrade you either need to buy 3200 DDR ram or new ram chips alltogether (as long as your motherboard will support it), the reason i know this is because i have a single 3200 (400 MHz) 1024 MB DDR ram and i have a 2700 (333 MHz) 512 DDR ram in my computer and it only picks up the 1024 MB ram chip :-(
and btw id sugest to get a single 1024 MB ram chip, besides the fact u can add more ram, it will run faster. they maybe more expensive but their worth it!!!
Thats a problem with your motherboard then, because PC3200 and PC2700 work just fine together. All the RAM just runs at the PC2700 speed. More than likely your motherboard isnt seeing the other stick because of the size difference, not the speed difference. Many of them require matched size sticks (ie 2x512 or 2x1024) If you have 4 slots, you can probably run 2x512 and 2x1024 and get 3GB of RAM, but you cant run 1x1024 and 1x512 and get 1.5GB. If it WILL work, you may need to take the sticks out and swap which one is the first stick.
-
Humm... yet i before i had my 1024 MB 400 MHz ram chip, I had a 512 MB 333 MHz and a 256 MB 333 MHz that worked together (same motherboard)
So why did that work before hand and not work now? im guessing the MHz difference between em. If im wrong just yell at me some more... im getting used to it on the fourms now...
-
Try swapping the positions of the two memory sticks. If the 1024 stick is in the first position, put the 512 stick in the first position. PC3200 is compatible with PC2700 and PC2100 RAM. All 3 can run together, assuming the motherboard supports all FSB speeds. The RAM just runs at the speed of the slowest stick.
-
If you have 4 slots on your motherboard, look for numbers next to them (numbers 1 through 4). If you don't see numbers just guess which one starts at 1, and they go from there.
If you have un-matched RAM, you need to stagger it in slots 1 and 3. If you try putting it into 1 and 2 it will attempt to run dual channel. At least, this is how my motherboard is set up, and it's recent, so I'd assume others act this way too.
Make sure you have a ram stick in every other ram slot. Either you end up with banks 1 and 3 full or 2 and 4, either way it should work. If you can, definitely try for banks 1 and 3, as I've not tested a setup that skips bank 1.
-
In this video of Vista in action they say minimum specs will be 512Mb ram?? I'm sure it won't be able to open notepad on that memory :)
http://reviews.cnet.com/4660-3513_7-6530547.html?tag=cnetfd.sd
-
I think that was the original target Ripley.
They will have 4 versions of Vista.
Vista Lite: It does not have Aero (the new windowing/video subsystem) and missing many tools for managing the OS. Think of it as pre-canned. You get what you get and that is it.
Vista: Managing utilites included. No Aero. Think of it is as being XP like, only needing twice the hardware resources.
Vista Pro: Aero, but no managing utilites. Think of it as XP, with major usage of Themes and needing three times the resources as XP Pro.
Vista Diety: The whole ball of wax. 4 times more hardware resources needed, but the Windows frames and headers can be transparent! WOOT! As a bonus, you cannot make a copy of a pre-recorded DVD! WEEEEE! How cool is that!?!?! :D
---
Ok, a bit of fun here with it, but you will be surprised how close I am in some of the descriptions.
-
:rofl
No, wait.... I just realized Skuzzy's right...
:cry
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
but the Windows frames and headers can be transparent! WOOT!
LOL, i alredy have that option on my computer and i have XP Home Edition, i think its part of my nVidia 5200 drivers called nView, its really not that great, only good thing about it is when you drag a window around u can see other open aps. (mostly not worth it cuz you cant read anything behind it if there is text on window :furious)
-
5 versions actually:
(from http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/getready/editions/default.mspx )
Windows Vista Business
Regardless of the size of your organization, Windows Vista Business will help you lower your PC management costs, improve your security, enhance your productivity, and help you stay better connected.
Windows Vista Enterprise
Windows Vista Enterprise is designed to meet the needs of large global organizations with highly complex IT infrastructures. Windows Vista Enterprise can help you lower your IT costs while providing additional layers of protection for your sensitive data.
Windows Vista Home Premium
Whether you choose to use your PC to write e-mail and surf the Internet, for home entertainment, or to track your household expenses, Windows Vista Home Premium delivers a more complete and satisfying computing experience.
Windows Vista Home Basic
Windows Vista Home Basic is designed to deliver improved reliability, security, and usability to home PC users who just want to do the basics with their PCs.
Windows Vista Ultimate
If you want all of the best business features, all of the best mobility features, and all of the best home entertainment features that Windows Vista has to offer, Windows Vista Ultimate is the solution for you. With Windows Vista Ultimate you don't have to compromise.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
I think that was the original target Ripley.
They will have 4 versions of Vista.
Vista Lite: It does not have Aero (the new windowing/video subsystem) and missing many tools for managing the OS. Think of it as pre-canned. You get what you get and that is it.
Vista: Managing utilites included. No Aero. Think of it is as being XP like, only needing twice the hardware resources.
Vista Pro: Aero, but no managing utilites. Think of it as XP, with major usage of Themes and needing three times the resources as XP Pro.
Vista Diety: The whole ball of wax. 4 times more hardware resources needed, but the Windows frames and headers can be transparent! WOOT! As a bonus, you cannot make a copy of a pre-recorded DVD! WEEEEE! How cool is that!?!?! :D
---
Ok, a bit of fun here with it, but you will be surprised how close I am in some of the descriptions.
Vista DUH - For the majority of users, comes pre-configured with all the resource hogging crap you don't need, and they can't be disabled.
Vista EEK - As above but resource hoggers can be disabled provided you have a Masters Degree in nuclear brain surgery. As an added bonus includes numerous other tools that can hose your installation at the click of a button.
Vista ADMINS NITEMARE - Will be bought by company owners and installed on all machines. Will include all the above plus the ability for users to screw things up just by merely turning on the system.
Vista ULTICRAP - For use if you happen to own a Cray.
[edit] Already told my boss (company owner) WE ARE NOT GOING TO HAVE IT, no way, no shape, no form.
-
A couple of points...
- The only reason for Vista's new GUI features (as described in original post) is to have an advance look-and-feel to compete with MacOS.
- The x86 architecture has supported more than 4GB for quite some time, at least on server-type motherboards. There's a significant diminishing-return, but it will address memory past 4GB.
- RAM is very cheap these days, drop in the bucket compared to video cards, I've been running 4GB for a couple of years. I turn the page-to-disk off, but it is irritating that Windoze likes to page even with HW-RAM availble in large quantities.
- You think it is bad now you shoulda seen Longhorn back in 2003 (maybe around build 4051 or so), took it half an hour to finish booting on a 2GB box...LOLOL.
- You wont see Vista RTM until late 2007.
- You wanna bash M$ then hit them on their most recent "flagship product", SQL-2005-64 that has no management tools. You have to run Enterprise Manager in 32 bit to do anything.
-
Originally posted by Edbert1
A couple of points...
- The only reason for Vista's new GUI features (as described in original post) is to have an advance look-and-feel to compete with MacOS.
And for many, those features will be very confusing. For many more, who buy OEM computers, they will be stuck with Aero and not have a clue they can disable it so it does not eat into CPU time.
- The x86 architecture has supported more than 4GB for quite some time, at least on server-type motherboards. There's a significant diminishing-return, but it will address memory past 4GB.
Yes, server grade motherboards have supported PAE for quite some time now. I have not seen a regular motherboard claim to support PAE yet. They may be there, but they do not appear to market it. The reason the return is not all that great is the way the Intel architecture works. Once you get past 4GB of RAM, the memory addressing is no longer linear.
- RAM is very cheap these days, drop in the bucket compared to video cards, I've been running 4GB for a couple of years. I turn the page-to-disk off, but it is irritating that Windoze likes to page even with HW-RAM availble in large quantities.
Yes, Windoze is very agressive about pushing stuff out to swap, even when it does not need to. It is equally agressive about caching huge files. I do not think MS will ever get memory management right.
- You think it is bad now you shoulda seen Longhorn back in 2003 (maybe around build 4051 or so), took it half an hour to finish booting on a 2GB box...LOLOL..
Too true, but compared to a trimmed down XP, Vista will take forever to boot.
- You wont see Vista RTM until late 2007.
That is probably more accurate than MS would like to admit. They currently are asking ATI if they can be ready by January or February 2007. By the way, MS has been working very closely with ATI on DX10 support. Seems MS is still pissed at NVidia over the XBox debacle.
- You wanna bash M$ then hit them on their most recent "flagship product", SQL-2005-64 that has no management tools. You have to run Enterprise Manager in 32 bit to do anything.
You mean there are actually people using that product? I feel for them. No way would I trust my business data to that product. Of all the SQL procducts around, it has to be the worst.
-
About memory limits....
Is it a limitation of the 32-bit architecture? If you get a 64-bit chip, does that limit expand?
About Vista....
I thought somebody "claimed" that Vista would boot in 30 seconds? Of course they didn't say if this was on a Cray or not.
-
It does not matter if it is a 32bit or 64bit chip. The PAE (Pentium Address Extensions)must be used to get past 4GB of RAM.
Intel's memory address scheme uses two registers. A segment and offset. When they got to 32bit addressing, a segment could be up to 4GB of linear space. To get past that, the segment register has to be set to another segment. It's a stupid scheme. Basically the memory address scheme is virtual. The memory controller has to calculate the actual RAM address for each access.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
About memory limits....
Is it a limitation of the 32-bit architecture? If you get a 64-bit chip, does that limit expand?
About Vista....
I thought somebody "claimed" that Vista would boot in 30 seconds? Of course they didn't say if this was on a Cray or not.
hell i can cook a full 5 course breakfast befor vista boots ..
-
Two main problems -
The overwhelming majority of home use motherboards currently only support up to 4Gbs, but only 3.5Gb (ish) is usable.
Anything more will require another mobo (Uncle Bill have shares in top mobo producers?)
Memory management - Needs a complete overhaul in Windows. It used to be if you had enough memory in Win 98 you could disable the page file totally, not any more. In fact MS doesn't recommend or support disabling the pagefile in 2000 or XP.
-
really easy, change format!
Vista is going to be the here, no getting around it. just be prepare to buy all new hardware.
MS really isnt sure what the requirements are going to be. Most new PC will be Vista compatible, but to what level. The basic requirements the MS release are some what confusing. I work in the Computer Service field, from the feed back I hearing is that people are looking for other options.
What does High Tech want shrinking member list (people like Grits and myself that wil refuse to upgrade to vista) or a possible swelling of the member ranks by make a game program that , will play with the other OS out there,
Please seriously consider this, How about a Mac OS X version, and my personel choice a Linux version. I only use XP for this game, Every thing else I do with Linux.
Note that Warbirds will play with Cedega (transgaming winex) I don't do program but will be more then willing to lend a hand as well as the rest of the world wide Linux community.
just my 4 cents.
-
Well, not to hijack, and FWIW but...
Apple has announced they are closing their "open source" OS for x86.
Add to that the sad fact that Linux, for all it's goodness, sucks for gaming.
So what are our choices here? I'll load Vista on a box just to keep current, but I'll keep my main gaming rig running XP for as long as I can, M$ wont cut support/updates for XP for about two years (maybe more depending on how well Vista is accepted) after Vista goes RTM. We have some time left to figure it out.
-
Few years ago when XP was coming, there was similar threads all over.
"I will never move to XP from 98 /2000 etc..."
Now we have the same situation with Vista.
It will come, we want it or not, and most people here will use it.
-
I won't. Not until I hear RAVE REVIEWS about it, and not until it can do something that WinXP cannot do.
I'm not made of frickin' MONEY. MS (richest company in the WORLD) is, so it doesn't give a care about system requirements. I care.
I'm not switching to Vista until they release a service pack or two that reduce the system footprint by a LARGE margin.
-
i still havent moved to xp ... :D
shure ive got it on a dual boot but i dont think ive used it in 6 months
as for having to go to vista ... i doubt i'll have to do the pemament move from what ive seen and been doing in vista beta I see no advantage in the vista OS as of yet ...
I cant wait Til the Google OS comes out .... now there is gonna be a OS i bet .
( rubs up against my Google stock :D )
-
Originally posted by Krusty
I'm not switching to Vista until they release a service pack or two that reduce the system footprint by a LARGE margin.
My friend is running a btea version of vista on his computer and its worse than mine (sometimes has trouble running CS:CZ), (dont kno exact specs) has a on-board 64mb vid card, and either 128 or 256 MB of ram, and vista runs fine, or so he has told me.
-
There's a good argument for waiting until a service pack comes out before running it, but hopes of a reduced footprint is NOT one of them...LOL.
I dumped W98 not long after XP came out, simply because XP offered something that 9x did not. So far I have not seen anything in the list of new features that I'd consider an improvement in performance or stability. When I see one or the other I'll move, until then I'll stay.
-
Originally posted by Edbert1
I dumped W98 not long after XP came out, simply because XP offered something that 9x did not. So far I have not seen anything in the list of new features that I'd consider an improvement in performance or stability. When I see one or the other I'll move, until then I'll stay.
That is my plan also. Too look on the bright side, by the time Vista does go gold CPU horsepower may have caught up.
-
Originally posted by Grits
That is my plan also. Too look on the bright side, by the time Vista does go gold CPU horsepower may have caught up.
Maybe the top end new series CPUs will. That doesn't mean those of us that have CPUs listed in the "good-to-high" range will be able to run it well. Nor does it mean that those of us with what is a GODLIKE amount of RAM *now* will even be able to open photoshop under Vista.
-
Originally posted by mipoikel
Few years ago when XP was coming, there was similar threads all over.
"I will never move to XP from 98 /2000 etc..."
Now we have the same situation with Vista.
It will come, we want it or not, and most people here will use it.
I'm still with Win 2000 (as is the companies who's network I support) , would only ever goto XP or Vista kicking and screaming.
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
I'm still with Win 2000 (as is the companies who's network I support) , would only ever goto XP or Vista kicking and screaming.
I didnt say XP is everywhere. I know companies who still use NT. :D
-
Okay guys, I am with you on there not being a compelling reason to switch to Vista at this time. But are you serious that you think W9x or NT4/W2K are superior in any way other than running on 32MB sub-200MhZ systems?
XP is every bit as stable as Windows 2000, and it provides security and flexibility that 9x could never have dreamed of. To me none of those other OS'es provide any benefit over XP other than lower footprint/resource consumption.
-
Gotta disagree Edbert -
Windows 2000 is a much more mature, stable, and secure system than XP is.
All XP has going for it - it looks pretty, and thats its major problem also. All the extra crap put into XP is what causes the problems.
Or the fact that MS did some major tinkering with the 2000 kernal for XP, look at the dual core problems on XP, they don't exist on 2000.
But Uncle Bill can't resist tinkering and releasing a new OS every couple of years just to fill his pockets even more.
By the time they drop support for 2000 (cringe), I would expect XP to be as good as 2000 is now.
-
I can see it now HTC OS 1.1
Boot the PC from the CD and run the game from there :P
Too bad there is no game support on Linux that HTC can use :(
Stupid no fun penguing :(
But I guess in 2-3 years we are all on Vista, so poor Bill dont run out of money.
-
My retail XP home is less bloated than my Dell OEM installed XP pro (of course) & therefore works better...but my XP pro is not bad really, it has a little hiccup now & then, nothing serious.
My 98 & 98SE were no better & in fact my XP home version on the machine I'm using at the moment is better than they were. Both my 98 versions would lock up now & again, allthough the 98SE was the better of the two.
Now in my definition "bad" was ME...my god that OS was the worst! I have a P/c sitting at my feet right now that uses ME...or locks up continually trying to use ME, I've been thinking of playing with the OS, maybe installing a free one like Xandros or whatever it's called.
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
Gotta disagree Edbert -
No problem, we can agree to disagree, it's all good :D
Originally posted by Kev367th
Windows 2000 is a much more mature, stable, and secure system than XP is.
All XP has going for it - it looks pretty, and thats its major problem also. All the extra crap put into XP is what causes the problems.
If by mature you mean older, well, of course it is. I have never had any stability problems with XP, I support almost 500 workstations all running Pro and have no problems with it whatsoever. I give much of that credit to my skills though...LOL. Outside of the OS, 3rd party drivers and software can cause issues, but that is true with any OS though. Security-wise I'd say they are about equal, what is there about W2K that you see as superior in that department?
But you can add the game support that W2K doesn't have. Disclaimer...last time I compared XP to W2K there was poor graphics and DX support for the older OS, so XP gave better frame rates, I do not know if M$ has closed that gap since W2K-SP2 or not, but if they did I'd wonder why.
Originally posted by Kev367th
Or the fact that MS did some major tinkering with the 2000 kernal for XP, look at the dual core problems on XP, they don't exist on 2000.
No comment, I've never run XP on a dual-core chip, it works well with x64 though, can W2K do that (honest question, I've never tried)?
Originally posted by Kev367th
But Uncle Bill can't resist tinkering and releasing a new OS every couple of years just to fill his pockets even more.
No argument at all from me there :D I saw XP as a real improvement, merging the best of 9x (speed and gaming) with the best of W2K (stability and security). Vista is just there for the reasons you mentioned IMO.
Originally posted by Kev367th
By the time they drop support for 2000 (cringe), I would expect XP to be as good as 2000 is now.
I say we are there already.
Stone...We can dream can't we? If "tEh p3ngU1N" ever supported gaming I'd be there in a heartbeat!
-
I have to say this:
I used Win98SE for a long long time. I loved it. It was better than 95, WAY better than ME, but when XP came out, and I made the switch -- I wasn't going back. With 98 when the system crashed, it crashed. It stayed there. You have to hard boot because you couldn't even shut down (no explorer listed in the task manager).
With XP, it catches 90% of all crashes before they happen, it doesn't crash. On the odd occasion that it DOES crash, it restarts explorer in the task manager and you may continue from there.
In all the many years using Win98SE I rarely got a BSD, and when I did it was my fault (installing/running questionable drivers, bad software, etc). I don't think I've ever gotten a BSD in XP, ever, since I've been using it.
Keep in mind I'm using XP Pro, a retail copy (not a pre-packaged "BloatWare (TM)").
XP was way way more stable than 98SE in general. I had to go through more hoops to set XP up the way I like, but its possible. Also, now that I have upgraded and have a lot more RAM (from my 98SE days) I'm glad I've got XP. 98SE doesn't handle large amounts of RAM so well. XP does (up to a limit).
So there's no benefit to running 98SE if you have XP. XP is better in several categories, including stability and memory. The ONLY reason to run 98SE is games. To me that's not a valid reason to choose your version of Windows.
As with all the other comments about 98/XP, mine are subjective, but I have a lot of first hand experience with both OSes, and XP is better in my book.
-
the problem w/ 98se is most people dont know about the unofficial service packs or how to tweek the memory settings ect in it so as its ran on newer hardware it becomes buggy , along with the fact that it needs 40 gb partitions to work best .. Besides that its a really good OS ... but was left out on the porch when xp came out .
w2k pro has all the goodies needed to run the xp only games without the bloatware .. it still lets you add your own security and other goods .very stable os , even on small machines .
xp well to me it feels like the goverment is spying on me ,,, and MS is trying to take over my pc and demand i only use there crud. The reason its not seaming /erroring as much anymore is that pc power has more then tripled since it 1st came out .
Vista is truly turning into the King of Bloatware ,, along with the fact that it needs to Frelling "Think" for 10 mins befor it does anything .
MS is living off there heyday from the beginning and most of there employees are just there to collect a paycheck these days ...
As I said I'm really looking forward to what Google is working on currently for a new OS ...
And now as Paul Harvey would say " Good-----Daaaaay"
-
oops thought it said system requirements... skiming + tiredness = bad reading...
-
Originally posted by Edbert1
No problem, we can agree to disagree, it's all good :D
If by mature you mean older, well, of course it is. I have never had any stability problems with XP, I support almost 500 workstations all running Pro and have no problems with it whatsoever. I give much of that credit to my skills though...LOL. Outside of the OS, 3rd party drivers and software can cause issues, but that is true with any OS though. Security-wise I'd say they are about equal, what is there about W2K that you see as superior in that department?
But you can add the game support that W2K doesn't have. Disclaimer...last time I compared XP to W2K there was poor graphics and DX support for the older OS, so XP gave better frame rates, I do not know if M$ has closed that gap since W2K-SP2 or not, but if they did I'd wonder why.
No comment, I've never run XP on a dual-core chip, it works well with x64 though, can W2K do that (honest question, I've never tried)?
No argument at all from me there :D I saw XP as a real improvement, merging the best of 9x (speed and gaming) with the best of W2K (stability and security). Vista is just there for the reasons you mentioned IMO.
I say we are there already.
Stone...We can dream can't we? If "tEh p3ngU1N" ever supported gaming I'd be there in a heartbeat!
Security wise - If they are still finding security holes in Win 2000 after 4-5 years, you can bet there are a lot more 'undiscovered' ones in XP.
Graphics - 2000 runs DX9c just like XP, but yup there is usually a small increase in frame rates in XP, and I mean small.
Dual core - Running 2000 on an AMD 4400X2 dual core, no problems. In fact it seems to be the only OS with an AMD dual core that runs AH2 flawlessly. All due to MS tinkering with the thread handler in XP.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
With XP, it catches 90% of all crashes before they happen, it doesn't crash. On the odd occasion that it DOES crash, it restarts explorer in the task manager and you may continue from there.
Ive crashed XP more than i have 98SE (cept on r crap P2/3's @ school that havnt been defragged in 3 yrs)
I liked 98SE alot better than XP, even thou it cant have as good specs, ive never had FR issues w/ games like i have in XP
-
I tried installing Windows95 on new hardware once. It was flying on crack! Unbelievable speed into all desktop tasks you could imagine.
Unfortunately it crashed with the same speed with driver support no longer available for the chipset I had back then (nforce1).
But if it wouldn't have crashed.. :D
-
vista and laptops
here ya go ... more headaches from M$ Bloatware .
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/windows/0,39020396,39272583,00.htm (http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/windows/0,39020396,39272583,00.htm)
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Well, here are the offical minimum requirements for Vista. MS posted them today.
================================
- 1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor.
- 1 GB of system memory.
- A graphics processor that runs Windows Aero.
- 128 MB of graphics memory.
- 40 GB of hard drive capacity with 15 GB free space.
- DVD-ROM Drive.
- Audio output capability.
- Internet access capability.
================================
Keep in mind, 1GB of system RAM is just for the OS. If you plan on running anything, you will need much more RAM. Every application will grow as the API is highly bloated. What takes 20MB of RAM now, will take about 35MB of RAM.
wow. They are gonna requirement themselves out of business!
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
Gotta disagree Edbert -
Windows 2000 is a much more mature, stable, and secure system than XP is.
All XP has going for it - it looks pretty, and thats its major problem also. All the extra crap put into XP is what causes the problems.
I switched to XP with this new machine, and I dislike it. Its unstable at times and just feels flakey. I hate to switch back to Win2K at this point, but I think about it daily.
-
I downloaded the Vista Beta today... No way I'm gonna try it on my "new" AH-computer. But I'm thinking to give it a test run on my older computer. If it doesn't work, well, it's time to clean some of the corners. :D (I've got a C-64, 2 Amiga 500's, 1 Macintosh LC, and 3-4 old pc's lying around..)
-
I just install beta version of vista, Forget 512mb or ram, You will need at least 1 gb of ram. Performace is choppy, I had it freeze 4 times in 2 hours.
It looks pretty.
Nothing installed except for Aces and firefox, almost 10gb for the OS alone!, WOW, I have a feeling the MS has found a way to fillup those 300 gb drives!
It really looks pretty .
I relize its a beta version but I all ready hated it in about 1/2 hour. It took me 15 minutes to get the internet to work. I assume when it goes gold, the window driver cache will easy load this up to about 15 to 20 gb.
It looks pretty.
Alot of the features kinda look like Mac OS X, and a few Linux flavors. I going to play around with it but I dont see a pressing need to upgrade to Vista when it is officially release.
by the way Aces does work but play is terrible cause of my mem count.
For those that want to switch start building your Uber PC's.
Ireally wish this game was cross platform. An apple version and or a Linus version. I wish, I hope, with fingers crossed.
By the way did I mention it looks pretty?
-
the only way to test vista in on a seperate hd ... also compleatly disconnect your current drive if your gonna test .. (you have been warned)
ps you need a really good book or something to occupy ya while it installs ....
" I just install beta version of vista, Forget 512mb or ram, You will need at least 1 gb of ram. Performace is choppy, I had it freeze 4 times in 2 hours. "
it freezes on a 3500+ 64 bit with 2 gb ram too ...
sometimes it just goes into SOS mode .. (Stuck on Stupid) just doing little stuff like opening a video , browsing a folder in doc's ... or even a webpage .. and it has this thing against firefox with each update ... prepare to reload it and hit it with stick ...it bugs out alot if your trying to read a second harddrive even worse still ....
:furious <--- most seen expression while using vista ....
Oh yea the transparent eye candy is nice ... but that about it .
-
Spent the evening reloading up my PC.
I found a old drive, 40gb (whiney) reinstalled XP with service packs, installed Aces.
Then install Vista on the old drive, figured I play around with it. Since I am a computer Repair Tech and will becoming across Vista on new machine, "after the First of the year".
Then I have Ubuntu Linux waiting to be install on the rest of the first hard drive.
So what would it take to get Aces built for Linux? Any Ideas? or a mac edition?
I can get he game installer to launch and "load" but the game will not launch in Linux.
So close but so far away.
Boy it sure looks pretty.
-
I wonder if pain spent adding an OpenGL option to AH would be less than the possible agony of DirectX 10?
I recall hitech saying something to the effect that it would be cheaper to buy Mac users a PC than to port to Mac. But, BootCamp makes it moot now.
-
DX10 will be backwards compatible with DX9. HTC can keep programming AH2 in DX9 and it will still work. DX10 will be highly resouce-demanding I think, and will require a re-write from ground up. No existing game will front that bill. Future games might plan for it, but a game that already exists is going to stay DX9.
-
Depends Krusty.
If the software developers have abstracted their internal system from the graphical API system. Then the transition from DirectX9 to DirectX10 could be as easly as designing a new interface to communicate with the new API system.
You can see this allready in the industry by software offering both directX and openGL graphical library files.
-
just talked to a guy in the smoke pit who was carrieing around a copy of the beta version. said you would need at least 512 mb of ram and a video card with enough memorie to run vista.......
im good with my machine but it appears that the days of running low end systems is over......
i think microsoft has deals with hardware manufactors........
-
"i think microsoft has deals with hardware manufactors........"
Ya think ... :rofl
can you say "Restore cd" .. yea they've had a deal for years .
-
MS will only learn once it's forced into bankruptcy. Which means it will never learn. Ever.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
MS will only learn once it's forced into bankruptcy. Which means it will never learn. Ever.
Boooooo, bad Microsoft.