XP vs Vista

[Skuzzy]

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.

[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.

[Skuzzy]

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.

[Roscoroo]

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 ..

[Kev367th]

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.

[1azbaer]

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.

[Edbert1]

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.

[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.

[Krusty]

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.

[Roscoroo]

i still havent moved to xp  ...  

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 )

[Nemeth]

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.

[Edbert1]

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.

[Grits]

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.

[Krusty]

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.

[Kev367th]

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.