AnimeSuki Forums

Tiberium Wolf · 2007-02-02, 17:32

We will need to to Vista side sooner or later. It has always been like that. The games and the apps will move to the new system and then what? You still stay in old OSs? This remembers me time ppl were complaining about the switch from divx to xvid or this recent h264 issue. If majority of ppl that do the games and apps start making software for vista only you only have 1 option.

I am not telling that Vista is worth buying now. Just wait a few months to see what direction it's taking. It's not like it's imperative to buy it now.

PS: mac, linux, etc all sux. EVERYONE PLS SUPORT MS AND BILL GATES!

killmoms · 2007-02-02, 17:35

Vista is... well, it's just not necessary at the moment. It's interesting, and there's some good stuff in it, but I personally find the Mac more compelling. Tiger was shipping 2 years ago with features just now arriving in Vista. I personally find the new Aero appearance kinda schizophrenic and un-integrated. Some stuff is neat (like the fact that they're compositing with DirectX), but then they go waste it on needless, usability-reducing things like blurry transparency. Hint to Microsoft: Apple learned in 2001 that too much transparency makes shit hard to read. And don't even get me started on Flip3D, which is a gimmicky toy compared to Apple's Exposé. Even Microsoft's own former director of platform evangelism Lenn Pryor was saying in June of 2004 that "Tiger is like a free pass to Longhorn-land" (Longhorn being Vista's old code name). And Jim Allchin, former Vice President of Longhorn development (retired on Vista launch day) has been saying that Microsoft had "lost their way" with Vista, and that he would buy a Mac if he was not working for Microsoft (I wonder if he showed up at the Seattle Apple Store in the last few days?

).

There is some good stuff in Vista that isn't in OS X yet, of course. Network searching of indexed volumes is one. Of course, that's coming to OS X in three or four months when 10.5 Leopard arrives—Spotlight will be able to search computers on the network as well as the local machine. And there's lots of other really neat stuff coming in Leopard—Time Machine (like Vista's Volume Shadow Copy, but in a form your average user can easily use), a whole new amazing file system called XFS, real-time genuine resolution independence for the UI, QuickLook in Spotlight, virtual desktops (been in UNIX for years, finally in OS X), full 64-bit and 32-bit support in ONE version of the OS (no need for separate ones like Vista)... plus some other stuff we haven't even heard about yet.

And don't get me wrong, I have Windows on a second partition on my Mac Pro. I boot it up every once in a while to play some games, since there's so much more developer support there (gotta go where the users are). But I do it less and less. I just bought an Xbox 360 and a DS, and I've been gaming more on those platforms than my Mac. I can stream all my music to my Xbox right from my Mac, no need for Windows or WMP11. So, it's nice to have around, but by no means necessary for what I do with my computer 95% of the time.

Syaoran · 2007-02-02, 18:36

After playing with a vista trial for 3 days, I've reinstalled Windows XP on that box. The only interesting feature in Vista was its speed. For some applications it was impressive how fast they started, compared to XP. Even on a clean install Firefox takes more time to start. Networking in Vista also improved. They should add the same to XP SP3 to make everyone happy

What I hate are the so called security features. Why do I've to click 10x to get a program installed or copy / edit an file in \Program Files\ ?
Another thing... After 3 days my system already got infected with adware and weird IE7 plugins since my version of Symantec Antivirus (not Norton) couldn't be installed on Vista O.o
Wasn't this supposed to impossible on Vista?

As for eye candy, it doesn't beat my laptop running Linux with XGL/Beryl enabled. \(^_^)/ It doesn't even affect performance very much when working with it... except 100% CPU during compiling... but that's the same without XGL.

Ledgem · 2007-02-02, 19:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tiberium Wolf

We will need to to Vista side sooner or later. It has always been like that. The games and the apps will move to the new system and then what? You still stay in old OSs?

It's actually interesting that you mention that; I was thinking that when XP becomes obsolete, I'd probably switch over to Linux. I've grown out of gaming for the most part, so I have no use for that, and all applications that I use heavily are available on Linux.

I'm also terrified of the feature in Vista that basically "degrades the OS" as Microsoft described it. Others say that it locks you out completely. It occurs if your install of Vista doesn't validate - an anti-piracy measure. I don't trust any company enough to put a kill switch into my computer. Even the Windows Genuine Advantage experiment with XP shows that it's too dangerous. For those who don't know, WGA in XP had a number of false positives. People throw around numbers - 4% false positives, 8% false positives - the number doesn't really matter. Even if it's 1% false positives, that 1% could be me. I refuse to put myself into a situation where my computer could lock me out at a time when I need it most, all because of a mistake on Microsoft's part.

Tursiops_G · 2007-02-02, 19:51

As was the case with ALL Prior Versions of Windows, Being an "Early Adopter" has it's Pitfalls... You will be MUCH better off to WAIT at least until the First "Service Pack" Distribution is released, IMHO...

Windows NT 3.5 wasn't decent until Service pack 2 (SP3 at EOL)...
Windows 95 finally got it's act together with OSR2 (OSR2.1 at EOL)...
Windows NT 4.0 needed Service Pack 2 (SP6a at EOL)...
Windows 98 did the same with SE (now EOL)...
Windows ME was an Abortion... :P
Windows 2000 needed Service Pack 1 before it was at all usable, and is actually quite decent at Service Pack 4 (now EOL)...
Windows XP needed to be at SP1 before it was decent, Currently at SP2. (Will there be an SP3 before it goes EOL? Who Knows...)

As the old saying goes: "Patience is a Virtue"...

-Tursiops_G.

martino · 2007-02-02, 20:57

In my opinion, Windows 2000 was one of the best and most stable operating systems that M$ have ever put on a shelf (from my own experience, I mean 2000 runs damn fast compared to XP). Since Windows NT started off what they've been basically doing was adding more features to it, and not actually changing the inner workings of the system (which I believe are rather bad, but some changes need to be done in order to move on). It's like putting newer and newer layers of paint onto a wall without removing/changing what's underneath it to support it and eventually it will break. I see this the same as with Vista, and probably even the next M$ OS after it. Windows NT core with more addons which will eventually bring the core of the OS down at a certain point. What would help M$ would be to rewrite the core from the bottom to the top.
The main points of Vista are DX10 and the Aero thingy (after all it's NT again), which are what? Just more addons, no big change in the way the OS works. They even dropped WinFS lol... (maybe coming later on, lol again). What I'm hoping is that Windows will crack as soon as possible so that M$ will have to rethink their approach and strategy (yes, I'm mean and evil).
-I'm an anti-M$ person by the way, but I tried to keep this is as neutral as possible...

And yes, M$ will eventually stop support for their older OS, but that takes time...

Linux is very nice, and very good indeed. However the customer base of M$ is so massive that...well, you know what I want to say. Also, as someone mentioned earlier hardware and software support isn't as good on Linux and on M$ (which will hopefully change in the course of time). Furthermore, Linux is not for newbies. It does come with so much software preinstalled that it makes you wonder whether you actually need to download something. And that's where you have to compile the source and/or install bloody RPMs (and all the rest that is out there). These are not easy tasks though...

P.S. I hope I haven't hijacked this thread...

SeijiSensei · 2007-02-02, 22:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by martino

And that's where you have to compile the source and/or install bloody RPMs (and all the rest that is out there). These are not easy tasks though...

This is one of those persistent myths about Linux distributions. Have you tried using modern distributions like Fedora or Ubuntu which have solid package managers? Most times on my FC6 system I just type "yum install packagename," and it resolves all the dependencies, downloads the needed packages from repositories, and installs them. yum even knows to restart running daemons when they are updated (sshd being a particularly good and important example). If you don't like the command line, these programs have GUI interfaces as well (e.g., kyum).

I have compiled many things from source, but those have almost exclusively been applications that I'm running on servers. Most ordinary users of modern distributions never have to compile anything.

The reality is that, with the exception of gaming, modern Linux distributions include software for nearly all the tasks that ordinary people demand of a computer system. Moreover all that software is free and is installed along with the OS. Sure there are issues about proprietary things like codecs and video drivers, but the development of non-free repositories like Livna or tools like Automatix for Ubuntu/Debian make most of these problems go away as well.

Finally, it costs nothing to try Linux out. Download a live-CD version of a distro like Ubuntu, pop it in your CD reader, and reboot. You'll know right away if it can diagnose your hardware (I'd bet it can), and you'll see what Linux has to offer without making any changes to your current computer.

Vexx · 2007-02-02, 23:47

I really don't recommend to my clients that they pursue Vista for now. Historically, users are better off waiting for the SP1 or later packs and letting "early adopter" fanatics catch all the fire unless they have a thorough testing lab. Its already been established that Vista breaks many applications that depend on hooks that are no longer available. There also appear to be driver availability issues (network and sound subsystems, for example).

Basically, if you're buying a new "off the shelf" computer or laptop, then its been tested with Vista (we hope) and you're probably okay (though I'd test all the applications that matter to you first). Unless you don't mind potentially screwing up all your games, communication tools, graphic packages and such... I'd really advise against upgrading to Vista (unless you have access to a test box to try everything on).

Currently, I still run a Win2K box for my officework and communications, I have a separate XP box I use for games and another box that runs Ubuntu for the home server/gateway. I home-build all my systems anyway so I figure my next box will get a Vista (see the recent Penny Arcade cartoon for a funny take on the versions) and that will become my gamebox. I see no reason to move my work into the XP box until the win2K OS is no longer supported (and at that point I may already have moved my workbox to Ubuntu anyway).

I guess the moral is: they don't call it *bleeding* edge technology for fun

panzerfan · 2007-02-03, 00:21

Personally, should DirectX10 ever become available to XP (which I seriously doubt Microsoft will let it happen even if it is not hard at all), Vista will lose about the only reason that I might consider using it. I can always use the 64 bit version of XP later on, for the additional RAM support and so on... I actually like OpenGL more, and there's EAX that won't work with Vista at all...

At this moment, most machines won't run Vista as well as they did with XP. I think saving that money and getting a hard drive with a Flash buffer, or a flash hard drive will do more for your I/O performance than Vista can with loading things up. For people that game, future-proofing your video card for DirectX10 isn't such a good idea in my opinon, and I would lean toward only buying the cards when games are made with DirectX10 in mind... besides, Intel's 45nm core should be coming up during the time, making your money go that much further.

Theclow · 2007-02-03, 02:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeijiSensei

The reality is that, with the exception of gaming

So why can't linux run games?(I'd hate to be offtopic in my own topic but I'm in the dark here.)

Tiberium Wolf · 2007-02-03, 02:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Theclow

So why can't linux run games?(I'd hate to be offtopic in my own topic but I'm in the dark here.)

Linux can run games if the ppl bothered to make games for it. Most ppl are using windows, so it's natural that game developers makes games for windows. Since most games are for windows then most ppl will be using windows. Rather simple logic!

Anyway there's another thing. Lot's of ppl get scared (well not exactly scared so dunno what word to use) when they see cmd line screens. Windows is more user friend for the normal average person that don't know squat of computers and don't have time to waste. This feature and that feature... do you really think they care?

panzerfan · 2007-02-03, 06:09

Linux is a better choice if you don't mind hunkering down on codes. You have to do a hefty amount of reading and maybe play around with some C programming to do the 'fun' stuff on Linux (which might not be so fun for everyone). It is getting better, but as said by Tiberium Wolf, it isn't for the normal consumer normally (even Ubuntu has a steeper curve). I like now I don't have to think on XP actually...

Firms like id does make Linux variant of their games (Quake), but if you want know the origin of Tiberium, you wouldn't be able to get to it without a trusty copy of Wine...

bayoab · 2007-02-03, 09:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Syaoran

What I hate are the so called security features. Why do I've to click 10x to get a program installed or copy / edit an file in \Program Files\ ?
Another thing... After 3 days my system already got infected with adware and weird IE7 plugins since my version of Symantec Antivirus (not Norton) couldn't be installed on Vista O.o
Wasn't this supposed to impossible on Vista?

No. While the security on Vista is much hardened over XP, nothing protects the computer against the user. If the user truely wants to screw their system up, they will go ahead and do so. It is perfectly possible to do this especially if you install something which you believe is safe but really isn't.

npal · 2007-02-03, 09:27

Vista's serious flaw is its price, if you ask me. It's more serious than driver unavailability, software incompatibility, not even DRM and the like. Every new Windows OS had incompatibilities and driver problems in the beginning and that got fixed eventually. And if you look at newer hardware support in Linux, it's totally miserable and it's the developers' fault for always going the Windows-only way. As of now, if you buy a new motherboard with a new HD sound chip, or a Creative X-Fi, you don't have sound in Linux. Not at all, not even through some sort of emulation, nothing. And if you ask me, sound is the most important aspect in switching from Windows to Linux. I know Linux is a competitive workstation, but I hate the silence

Thankfully, my mobo has an older ALC850 chip, so I get to hear SOME sound. Bleeding-edge support sucks in Linux more than it does in Windows. You can't really blame the developers for that, they'll make things for what's sure profit instead of trying to change the market by giving options to users to want to try something that's not Windows.

So anyway, every OS has flaws for some reason, and new versions have more, but new versions get corrected sooner than later. The big issue is the price. Linux is free and if you have a bleeding-edge system, it's very good, if you can get used to its quirks as you got used to Windows' quirks. And it's free. Microsoft is trying to push people to buy something that doesn't really offer much more than XP (not only that, it's a new OS, it's bound to have many flaws in the beginning) at a ridiculously high price. It's ridiculous paying 300$ or so for a HOME version of an OS. Not only that, it's now inconvenient to use an Vista upgrade version DVD for a clean install. Essentially, they're trying to milk you to the last drop for whatever reason they can find.

The whole Vista undertaking is an affront to loyal Microsoft customers like me.

The OEM versions prices are equally high considering that I believe, activation-wise, they have more limitations that the regular version.

SeijiSensei · 2007-02-03, 10:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by npal

As of now, if you buy a new motherboard with a new HD sound chip, or a Creative X-Fi, you don't have sound in Linux.

I assume these devices have the DRM hooks built in that Vista requires, or you won't have sound with Vista, either.

Epyon9283 · 2007-02-03, 11:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeijiSensei

I assume these devices have the DRM hooks built in that Vista requires, or you won't have sound with Vista, either.

The hardware doesn't require DRM hooks to produce sound in Vista. It only needs it if Vista needs a protected path for DRM encumbered media.

viper · 2007-02-03, 12:10

Vista OEM prices aren't that high. Infact, they're quite low in comparison to prices of WinXP Pro SP2 OEM prior to Vista release.

I thought the only sound issues X-Fi has with Vista is that MS removed Direct3D Sound API from Vista, causing alot of games to not be able to play in surround sound.

Syaoran · 2007-02-03, 14:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by bayoab

No. While the security on Vista is much hardened over XP, nothing protects the computer against the user. If the user truely wants to screw their system up, they will go ahead and do so. It is perfectly possible to do this especially if you install something which you believe is safe but really isn't.

Do you imply I'm that stupid to click on dialer.exe or something I get from internet!? No, that Bar888 thing got installed by IE7 without even asking me about it! And that with default IE7 settings. Not modified by me or something else. And I haven't been surfing on warez sites. You can get warez in much safer and faster ways than websites or P2P.

ryomakun · 2007-02-04, 18:48

Right now i am enjoying the stability i have with my XP.
I myself is thinking if i should buy Vista or Not. Leaning towards XP since i am quite afraid of the instability/compatibility issues of Vista. The only thing making me want to buy Vista is the "Crowd" I don't want to be the only person who doesn't know how to use the Vista. =_= You know what i mean, like if a friend talks about vista, i will be like," Uh huh..... yup , oh i see."
And besides alot of people keep asking me too if vista is worth it, (coz they know i'm computer literate, Software Programmer) =) -____- Vista sure know how to ruin people's life.

Ledgem · 2007-02-05, 04:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by ryomakun

The only thing making me want to buy Vista is the "Crowd" I don't want to be the only person who doesn't know how to use the Vista. =_= You know what i mean, like if a friend talks about vista, i will be like," Uh huh..... yup , oh i see."

I know the feeling. I initially really liked the look of Vista's eye candy, but I think most of us are practical here and realize that eye candy alone is a ridiculous reason to switch. And if you want eye candy, the Mac OS fans can give you plenty of it (and increasingly, Linux users as well - check out the Beryl project that Syaoron has mentioned on this and other threads).

It's an interesting concern as well, to not be "literate" in a mainstream OS. I went through Windows 95, 98, ME (bleh), and XP when I was younger and not as busy - each new OS was relatively exciting, and I don't remember a learning curve. Now, the prospect of a new OS is near terrifying, because I don't have the time to troubleshoot program incompatibilities or learn where the new settings are. At the same time, is that concern really valid? I think back to my experience with Apple machines: I'm not a Mac person, but I use Macs at work. It took a few minutes for me to learn how to install Opera, and I sure don't know many of the keyboard shortcuts like I do with Windows, but I can function perfectly fine. I've even done basic troubleshooting for my sister's Apple system. It's a foreign OS to me, but the experience makes me think that if you're versed in computers, you can still get by.

I guess it may come down to what the Mac people have been saying all along. I can pick up a Mac and, without doing power-user tasks, use it relatively easily. It's what one of Apple's claimed selling points has always been. If Vista will really be more different than XP, then I guess that for the first time we Windows users will get to experience whether Microsoft is as good as Apple. Those of us who grew up on Windows wouldn't be able to make that assessment, since we've already been broken in on the OS and all of its quirks.

As for Linux, it's not there yet. Two years back I experimented with Ubuntu, and it took me close to an hour to get Opera installed. The reason is that Opera isn't open-source and wasn't in the software repositories; installing anything else is pretty much just a matter of a few clicks. As I mentioned before, I am planning to shift my systems over to Linux once XP becomes obsolete.

2007-02-02, 17:32	Link #21
Tiberium Wolf Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Age: 44	We will need to to Vista side sooner or later. It has always been like that. The games and the apps will move to the new system and then what? You still stay in old OSs? This remembers me time ppl were complaining about the switch from divx to xvid or this recent h264 issue. If majority of ppl that do the games and apps start making software for vista only you only have 1 option. I am not telling that Vista is worth buying now. Just wait a few months to see what direction it's taking. It's not like it's imperative to buy it now. PS: mac, linux, etc all sux. EVERYONE PLS SUPORT MS AND BILL GATES! __________________

2007-02-02, 17:35	Link #22
killmoms Former Triad Typesetter Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Washington, DC Age: 39	Vista is... well, it's just not necessary at the moment. It's interesting, and there's some good stuff in it, but I personally find the Mac more compelling. Tiger was shipping 2 years ago with features just now arriving in Vista. I personally find the new Aero appearance kinda schizophrenic and un-integrated. Some stuff is neat (like the fact that they're compositing with DirectX), but then they go waste it on needless, usability-reducing things like blurry transparency. Hint to Microsoft: Apple learned in 2001 that too much transparency makes shit hard to read. And don't even get me started on Flip3D, which is a gimmicky toy compared to Apple's Exposé. Even Microsoft's own former director of platform evangelism Lenn Pryor was saying in June of 2004 that "Tiger is like a free pass to Longhorn-land" (Longhorn being Vista's old code name). And Jim Allchin, former Vice President of Longhorn development (retired on Vista launch day) has been saying that Microsoft had "lost their way" with Vista, and that he would buy a Mac if he was not working for Microsoft (I wonder if he showed up at the Seattle Apple Store in the last few days? ). There is some good stuff in Vista that isn't in OS X yet, of course. Network searching of indexed volumes is one. Of course, that's coming to OS X in three or four months when 10.5 Leopard arrives—Spotlight will be able to search computers on the network as well as the local machine. And there's lots of other really neat stuff coming in Leopard—Time Machine (like Vista's Volume Shadow Copy, but in a form your average user can easily use), a whole new amazing file system called XFS, real-time genuine resolution independence for the UI, QuickLook in Spotlight, virtual desktops (been in UNIX for years, finally in OS X), full 64-bit and 32-bit support in ONE version of the OS (no need for separate ones like Vista)... plus some other stuff we haven't even heard about yet. And don't get me wrong, I have Windows on a second partition on my Mac Pro. I boot it up every once in a while to play some games, since there's so much more developer support there (gotta go where the users are). But I do it less and less. I just bought an Xbox 360 and a DS, and I've been gaming more on those platforms than my Mac. I can stream all my music to my Xbox right from my Mac, no need for Windows or WMP11. So, it's nice to have around, but by no means necessary for what I do with my computer 95% of the time. __________________ thrillmoms.com - You know it. @killmoms - I say things.

2007-02-02, 20:57	Link #26
martino makes no files now Join Date: May 2006	In my opinion, Windows 2000 was one of the best and most stable operating systems that M$ have ever put on a shelf (from my own experience, I mean 2000 runs damn fast compared to XP). Since Windows NT started off what they've been basically doing was adding more features to it, and not actually changing the inner workings of the system (which I believe are rather bad, but some changes need to be done in order to move on). It's like putting newer and newer layers of paint onto a wall without removing/changing what's underneath it to support it and eventually it will break. I see this the same as with Vista, and probably even the next M$ OS after it. Windows NT core with more addons which will eventually bring the core of the OS down at a certain point. What would help M$ would be to rewrite the core from the bottom to the top. The main points of Vista are DX10 and the Aero thingy (after all it's NT again), which are what? Just more addons, no big change in the way the OS works. They even dropped WinFS lol... (maybe coming later on, lol again). What I'm hoping is that Windows will crack as soon as possible so that M$ will have to rethink their approach and strategy (yes, I'm mean and evil). -I'm an anti-M$ person by the way, but I tried to keep this is as neutral as possible... And yes, M$ will eventually stop support for their older OS, but that takes time... Linux is very nice, and very good indeed. However the customer base of M$ is so massive that...well, you know what I want to say. Also, as someone mentioned earlier hardware and software support isn't as good on Linux and on M$ (which will hopefully change in the course of time). Furthermore, Linux is not for newbies. It does come with so much software preinstalled that it makes you wonder whether you actually need to download something. And that's where you have to compile the source and/or install bloody RPMs (and all the rest that is out there). These are not easy tasks though... P.S. I hope I haven't hijacked this thread... __________________ "Light and shadow don't battle each other, because they're two sides of the same coin" Last edited by martino; 2007-02-02 at 21:07. Reason: typo

2007-02-02, 23:47	Link #28
Vexx Obey the Darkly Cute ... Author Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ... Age: 66	I really don't recommend to my clients that they pursue Vista for now. Historically, users are better off waiting for the SP1 or later packs and letting "early adopter" fanatics catch all the fire unless they have a thorough testing lab. Its already been established that Vista breaks many applications that depend on hooks that are no longer available. There also appear to be driver availability issues (network and sound subsystems, for example). Basically, if you're buying a new "off the shelf" computer or laptop, then its been tested with Vista (we hope) and you're probably okay (though I'd test all the applications that matter to you first). Unless you don't mind potentially screwing up all your games, communication tools, graphic packages and such... I'd really advise against upgrading to Vista (unless you have access to a test box to try everything on). Currently, I still run a Win2K box for my officework and communications, I have a separate XP box I use for games and another box that runs Ubuntu for the home server/gateway. I home-build all my systems anyway so I figure my next box will get a Vista (see the recent Penny Arcade cartoon for a funny take on the versions) and that will become my gamebox. I see no reason to move my work into the XP box until the win2K OS is no longer supported (and at that point I may already have moved my workbox to Ubuntu anyway). I guess the moral is: they don't call it bleeding edge technology for fun __________________ "It Really IS Rocket Science", Novel series rough drafts; vol. 1 thru vol. 3 complete Volume 4 in work, Visit the thread for short stories!

2007-02-03, 00:21	Link #29
panzerfan Name means little... Graphic Designer Join Date: Dec 2004	Personally, should DirectX10 ever become available to XP (which I seriously doubt Microsoft will let it happen even if it is not hard at all), Vista will lose about the only reason that I might consider using it. I can always use the 64 bit version of XP later on, for the additional RAM support and so on... I actually like OpenGL more, and there's EAX that won't work with Vista at all... At this moment, most machines won't run Vista as well as they did with XP. I think saving that money and getting a hard drive with a Flash buffer, or a flash hard drive will do more for your I/O performance than Vista can with loading things up. For people that game, future-proofing your video card for DirectX10 isn't such a good idea in my opinon, and I would lean toward only buying the cards when games are made with DirectX10 in mind... besides, Intel's 45nm core should be coming up during the time, making your money go that much further. __________________ It would be enough for the depressing things in life to only exist in reality. It is because that I think the birth of a story... is from people dreaming of a happy ending. ~Misaka Shiori

2007-02-02, 18:36	Link #23
Syaoran Inactive Member Join Date: Dec 2005	After playing with a vista trial for 3 days, I've reinstalled Windows XP on that box. The only interesting feature in Vista was its speed. For some applications it was impressive how fast they started, compared to XP. Even on a clean install Firefox takes more time to start. Networking in Vista also improved. They should add the same to XP SP3 to make everyone happy What I hate are the so called security features. Why do I've to click 10x to get a program installed or copy / edit an file in \Program Files\ ? Another thing... After 3 days my system already got infected with adware and weird IE7 plugins since my version of Symantec Antivirus (not Norton) couldn't be installed on Vista O.o Wasn't this supposed to impossible on Vista? As for eye candy, it doesn't beat my laptop running Linux with XGL/Beryl enabled. \(^_^)/ It doesn't even affect performance very much when working with it... except 100% CPU during compiling... but that's the same without XGL.

2007-02-02, 19:51	Link #25
Tursiops_G Technoid Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Connecticut, USA Age: 66	As was the case with ALL Prior Versions of Windows, Being an "Early Adopter" has it's Pitfalls... You will be MUCH better off to WAIT at least until the First "Service Pack" Distribution is released, IMHO... Windows NT 3.5 wasn't decent until Service pack 2 (SP3 at EOL)... Windows 95 finally got it's act together with OSR2 (OSR2.1 at EOL)... Windows NT 4.0 needed Service Pack 2 (SP6a at EOL)... Windows 98 did the same with SE (now EOL)... Windows ME was an Abortion... :P Windows 2000 needed Service Pack 1 before it was at all usable, and is actually quite decent at Service Pack 4 (now EOL)... Windows XP needed to be at SP1 before it was decent, Currently at SP2. (Will there be an SP3 before it goes EOL? Who Knows...) As the old saying goes: "Patience is a Virtue"... -Tursiops_G.

2007-02-03, 06:09	Link #32
panzerfan Name means little... Graphic Designer Join Date: Dec 2004	Linux is a better choice if you don't mind hunkering down on codes. You have to do a hefty amount of reading and maybe play around with some C programming to do the 'fun' stuff on Linux (which might not be so fun for everyone). It is getting better, but as said by Tiberium Wolf, it isn't for the normal consumer normally (even Ubuntu has a steeper curve). I like now I don't have to think on XP actually... Firms like id does make Linux variant of their games (Quake), but if you want know the origin of Tiberium, you wouldn't be able to get to it without a trusty copy of Wine... __________________ It would be enough for the depressing things in life to only exist in reality. It is because that I think the birth of a story... is from people dreaming of a happy ending. ~Misaka Shiori

2007-02-03, 09:27	Link #34
npal I desire Tomorrow! Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: As far away from reality as possible Age: 41	Vista's serious flaw is its price, if you ask me. It's more serious than driver unavailability, software incompatibility, not even DRM and the like. Every new Windows OS had incompatibilities and driver problems in the beginning and that got fixed eventually. And if you look at newer hardware support in Linux, it's totally miserable and it's the developers' fault for always going the Windows-only way. As of now, if you buy a new motherboard with a new HD sound chip, or a Creative X-Fi, you don't have sound in Linux. Not at all, not even through some sort of emulation, nothing. And if you ask me, sound is the most important aspect in switching from Windows to Linux. I know Linux is a competitive workstation, but I hate the silence Thankfully, my mobo has an older ALC850 chip, so I get to hear SOME sound. Bleeding-edge support sucks in Linux more than it does in Windows. You can't really blame the developers for that, they'll make things for what's sure profit instead of trying to change the market by giving options to users to want to try something that's not Windows. So anyway, every OS has flaws for some reason, and new versions have more, but new versions get corrected sooner than later. The big issue is the price. Linux is free and if you have a bleeding-edge system, it's very good, if you can get used to its quirks as you got used to Windows' quirks. And it's free. Microsoft is trying to push people to buy something that doesn't really offer much more than XP (not only that, it's a new OS, it's bound to have many flaws in the beginning) at a ridiculously high price. It's ridiculous paying 300$ or so for a HOME version of an OS. Not only that, it's now inconvenient to use an Vista upgrade version DVD for a clean install. Essentially, they're trying to milk you to the last drop for whatever reason they can find. The whole Vista undertaking is an affront to loyal Microsoft customers like me. The OEM versions prices are equally high considering that I believe, activation-wise, they have more limitations that the regular version. __________________

2007-02-03, 12:10	Link #37
viper Member Join Date: Nov 2003	Vista OEM prices aren't that high. Infact, they're quite low in comparison to prices of WinXP Pro SP2 OEM prior to Vista release. I thought the only sound issues X-Fi has with Vista is that MS removed Direct3D Sound API from Vista, causing alot of games to not be able to play in surround sound.

2007-02-04, 18:48	Link #39
ryomakun Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2006	Right now i am enjoying the stability i have with my XP. I myself is thinking if i should buy Vista or Not. Leaning towards XP since i am quite afraid of the instability/compatibility issues of Vista. The only thing making me want to buy Vista is the "Crowd" I don't want to be the only person who doesn't know how to use the Vista. =_= You know what i mean, like if a friend talks about vista, i will be like," Uh huh..... yup , oh i see." And besides alot of people keep asking me too if vista is worth it, (coz they know i'm computer literate, Software Programmer) =) -____- Vista sure know how to ruin people's life.