AnimeSuki Forums

Potatochobit · 2007-02-05, 05:53

i have always been extremely pleased with windows XP. i was lucky and skipped some of the junk windows like windows ME. the one i had prior to XP was 2000 and XP is far better. at first it was annoying since not all programs were compatible between 2k and XP back then, but now XP is the standard. in the future vista might be good, but let some other guys mess with the hassle. once u buy a new computer in a year or two u can get one with windows vista. if you just bought a computer in the last 6 months you might consider upgrading.

apple is great for graphic designing and such, but its not a good choice for a gaming PC. you will find most apple design programs are better than the same one on PC. and there are more utilities and programs available.

killmoms · 2007-02-06, 17:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Potatochobit

apple is great for graphic designing and such, but its not a good choice for a gaming PC. you will find most apple design programs are better than the same one on PC. and there are more utilities and programs available.

Well, if your main focus is PC gaming, then... duh. However, my Mac Pro makes for an excellent gaming PC. It's fast as all hell. It's just overpriced if that's your main activity. But for me, it's not—the main reason I got it was to have a very fast OS X box for HD editing and compositing. The fact that it's also quite adept w/ PC games is a nice bonus.

Likewise, if you just play the occasional game but are usually doing other productivity tasks, a Mac is probably a better pick. It's easier to use and has great bundled and available apps for most tasks (lots of good free ones for download too), and if you need to you can set up a Boot Camp partition with XP for the occasional Windows-only game quite easily.

Vexx · 2007-02-08, 11:46

Be aware that Vista's legal use framework does not allow for use under a "virtualization" under many conditions. So if you use your machine for business or work purposes, be sure to understand under what conditions you can install Vista. Of course, the legal use framework changes daily as various Fortune 500 companies start dealing with the details and screaming at Microsoft

I'd just say stick with XP or win2K until you buy a machine that comes with Vista (and hope like hell your applications run on it).
Except for laptops, I build my own machines anyway so I rarely actually *buy* a new machine so much as continually piecemeal upgrade hardware. So I'm going to avoid Vista until support for XP and win2K is shut off or I need more machines than I have now (and even then I keep playing with Ubuntu to see if I can switch easily).

Ledgem · 2007-02-09, 09:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vexx

Be aware that Vista's legal use framework does not allow for use under a "virtualization" under many conditions.

I was just reading Slashdot, and there's something about Microsoft requiring a sort of "tax" if you want to use Vista for virtualization. The restrictions you mentioned may still apply, but now you also need to pay extra to use Vista for those purposes.

Quote:

(and even then I keep playing with Ubuntu to see if I can switch easily).

Also fresh from Slashdot (meaning relatively old news now, I guess), Linspire will now be based on Ubuntu rather than Debian. Yes, Ubuntu is Debian-based, but I hear it's based off of the bleeding-edge Debian releases (perhaps derived from the Unstable binaries, or whatever they're called) and that they've even been criticized by the Debian developers for developing a bit too far. Who knows.

I think it's good news: Linspire (and their alternate version, Freespire) were originally touted as being the most likely distribution to become big on the home-user desktop environment. They are also the only distribution to have license to use some proprietary codecs. If Linspire and Ubuntu are teamed, it may be one of the first real steps toward making Linux a viable alternative to Windows.

Dnous · 2007-02-09, 19:33

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.

For what reason would the OS protect itself against the user, and how do you protect an OS from a stupid user? By limiting his access. If Vista actually comes with extra annoying options, without the possibility to disable it. It will be nothing more than a extra annoying version of XP, with serious stupid requirements for hardware. With Windows you don’t have as much control as Linux, but the difference can be disregarded. But with Vista Microsoft is really pushing things. And I for starters won’t buy it, maybe when Microsoft becomes less paranoid about Premium Content I might even think about it.

SeijiSensei · 2007-02-09, 19:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ledgem

I was just reading Slashdot, and there's something about Microsoft requiring a sort of "tax" if you want to use Vista for virtualization. The restrictions you mentioned may still apply, but now you also need to pay extra to use Vista for those purposes.

Just to make it clear, the "tax" to which Ledgem refers is the additional amount required to buy the premium editions of Vista that include a license to use the software in a virtualized environment. I don't know which of the 57 varieties of Vista includes such a license, but it's definitely not in Home Basic, for instance.

Ending · 2007-02-10, 10:51

Quote:

I'd just say stick with XP or win2K until you buy a machine that comes with Vista (and hope like hell your applications run on it).

Why on earth would anyone want to buy Vista with their new comp when a) "hope your apps work on it", b) it's more expensive than XP, and c) it still requires quite a bit of patching? Vista is a new software, after all.

IMO, it's just better to lay back, see what comes, and be happy with XP. If you absolutely must upgrade, Linux is also a valid option for those who like to fiddle with their comp. Vista doesn't really have anything "new" and worth buying anyway.

Liddo · 2007-02-10, 15:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wordplay

Why on earth would anyone want to buy Vista with their new comp when a) "hope your apps work on it", b) it's more expensive than XP, and c) it still requires quite a bit of patching? Vista is a new software, after all.

IMO, it's just better to lay back, see what comes, and be happy with XP. If you absolutely must upgrade, Linux is also a valid option for those who like to fiddle with their comp. Vista doesn't really have anything "new" and worth buying anyway.

granted there isnt that much anyone likes about it.. if your going to play games your going to need it decently soon as most game producers are already making DX10 games. crysis is a DX10 game. and so is halo2. and no you cant put DX10 in windowsXP MS designed it so that DX10 only works on vista and any hacks or work around or whatever arent going to be as good as the orginal.

***relentlessflame*** · 2007-02-10, 18:53

Well, for a different perspective I guess, I've been using Vista RTM nearly-exclusively on my two desktops and work laptop for over a month now (it's available as part of my MSDN subscription). I did fresh installs of Vista Ultimate on all three machines. So, I'm not sure if I can really answer the "Is Vista really worth it?" question of the thread, but I can relay some of my personal impressions after using it for all my day-to-day and work activities for the last month+. I'll try to give it to you raw, and you can draw your own conclusions.

Some overall impressions:

I like the updated interface, especially the (IMO greatly-improved) Start Menu. When you have dozens and dozens of programs installed, using the instant search is way way better and faster.
I also like the Aero interface effects, and find the Sidebar pretty useful (I use and glance at the calendar, weather, and currency gadgets all the time).
Overall system stability has been at least as solid as XP for day-to-day operations. I'd even say that it "feels" a bit faster than a freshly-installed XP for the most part.
The integrated Windows Update system is much better and seems more responsive
They also block unsigned programs from starting automatically at startup, which is a Good Thing.
In terms of driver support, by mid-January I had working drivers for all my devices and accessories on both computer.
In terms of application compatibility, all the programs I use are now rated "compatible" and most function as well as they ever did on XP. The only exception I can think of is the Albatross18/Pangya game, which starts now but has some serious bugs, but that's not exactly mission-critical

Some of the things I like most are actually carry-overs from XP or have since been ported back. For example:

The updated Remote Desktop app remembers your settings by server. It's about time!
Windows Live Search is now completely integrated into the OS -- this was a no-brainer as well.
IE7 is, of course, a big improvement over IE6 and seems to perform a bit better on Vista than its XP counterpart
Having Media Center integrated into the Ultimate Edition was a good idea. Haven't used it extensively yet, but it seems to work pretty well for what it's intended to do.

Of course, there are also some annoyances...

I don't hate UAC (User Account Control) as much as some (though it is somewhat annoying), but sometimes it just plain blocks some things from installing properly or working.
Thanks in part to UAC, I had a hell of a fun time trying to get AppLocale to install and work. I should really write a step-by-step guide for it. But, if you use AppLocale a lot, you'd be better-served turning UAC off for now. At least all the fonts were installed by default.
UAC also gives you the VirtualStore issue for your legacy apps. Getting apps to no longer write to Program Files is a good idea, but it could get pretty confusing pretty quick, so I was glad I ran into it now before I have to troubleshoot it for customers later.
They split the Network dialogs into a three seperate screens (the "Connect" Wizard, the Networking and Sharing Center, and the Network Connections screen). And when you click "Network" you actually get none of those, but rather the list of computers in your domain/workgroup. This is just confusing.
The integrated defrag utility has ditched its entire interface for some reason (apparently you can still get it through the command-line, though...). The only choice you have now is to schedule automatic defrags on all your drives on a regular basis. You can't even pick which drives to schedule -- it's all or none. At least Diskeeper released a Vista version now...
The new audio stack in Vista does give me application-specific audio-level settings, which is nice, but doesn't give me independant control of my sound card's line-in and other ports. This could just be a Creative driver issue, though.

So, what problems have I run into? Well, I guess it's not entirely dissimilar to some of the sorts of issues I had with XP when I installed it on launch day way back when. Here's a list of the things I can remember as they come to me.

If you install Windows on a SATA drive but have a PATA drive connected, Vista will always make your first PATA drive your System partition for no good reason, and without asking you. If you try to remove that PATA drive, Vista will not boot even though Windows itself isn't on that drive. I've yet to find a solution to that one (short of reinstalling), but gave up trying.
On only one of my computers, the Vista boot DVD takes an amazingly long time to boot up, for reasons that must be hardware-related somehow, as the same disc works great on other computer and switching discs doesn't help.
The WMI database just up and corrupted on me one day, and the only solution that all my experimenting and research came up with was to re-install in Repair mode (called "Upgrade").
After said "Upgrade", I had a heck of a fun time trying to get Daemon Tools to work again, but that's probably mostly their fault. Eventually it got stuck in a boot loop that the startup repair wizard couldn't fix (which I could only get through by booting from the slow-as-sin boot DVD), so I had to go into the repair console (also on the boot DVD) and manually delete the .sys file that was causing the problem from the System32\Drivers folder.
Vista silently deprecated one of its supported VPN protocols in Vista (MS-CHAP v1), which means that I can't connect to the Cisco Pix firewall at work right now. Maybe Cisco will come up with a firmware update, or maybe we'll get it reconfigured, but it's sort of weird they just happened to drop that one and left other even older ones. Oh well...

Well, I guess that's all I can think of for now. So, is Vista worth it? For my purposes, I'm sticking with it. A few trials through fire aren't more than I expected (though, of course, they always happen at the worst possible times

) For most people, I think it's stable enough for every day use, but the upgrade case is certainly less than it was for XP for people who were still on 98SE at the time.

SeijiSensei · 2007-02-10, 19:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by relentlessflame

Vista silently deprecated one of its supported VPN protocols in Vista (MS-CHAP v1), which means that I can't connect to the Cisco Pix firewall at work right now.

MS-CHAP v1 has well-known insecurities and should have been dropped long ago. v2 is somewhat better, but still not all that secure. See Bruce Schneier's analysis here.

These days I'm using OpenVPN which employs SSL encryption. It has implementations for most major platforms including Windows, Linux, the various BSDs, and OS/X.

panzerfan · 2007-02-11, 02:52

I think that it will take a few months before all the driver support have matured on Vista. Basically, by SP1 Vista should be worthwhile... and by the time, hardwares will be much better than now to drive Vista. So nobody should be in the rush to upgrade, and one should have a new computer with Vista SP1 to get optimal performance from the looks of it (I hope so, for my Visual Studio 2005 and Vista wern't so happily married)

Ikematsu · 2007-02-11, 11:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tiberium Wolf

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?

Don't forget the fact that most people running Linux are used to software being open-source (meaning for free). I really can't blame companies like UbiSoft for not porting games like 'Splinter Cell' to Linux, because not only rewriting Windows-Code to portable code isn't very easy when you have houndreds of source-files but also because the extra work for making it portable (even from scratch) costs more than making it Windows-Only compatible.
-Ikematsu

Epyon9283 · 2007-02-11, 14:15

If the game makers used cross-platform libraries and toolkits (opengl, sdl, etc.) then porting would be easier.

Syaoran · 2007-02-11, 18:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Epyon9283

If the game makers used cross-platform libraries and toolkits (opengl, sdl, etc.) then porting would be easier.

They'll have to... OpenAL is already a starter, since a few features will be dropped in DirectX 10. DirectSound is one of them, meaning SoundBlaster cards that came with AEX, A3D and what other things they invented won't be useable anymore, 'cause DirectX will force the system go through the Vista driver & sound model instead of directly to the hardware. If a similar evolution occurs to Direct3D, OpenGL will get a new life.
I think it's a good evolution, since you won't need to mess with Wine or Cedega to run your games on linux. Just downloading a binary to replace the .exe and there you go

Same game, same sound, same graphics on a totally different OS and minimal costs for the publishers.

Lavabyle · 2007-02-11, 18:21

Well it seems all of you gus will be waiting 2 or more years to get it. However, i was hoping to buy a Windows OS computer within the next few months, and they seem to all run with Vista -.- I'm not a big fan of Mac or Unix systems, so i was wondering what i should do T.T

panzerfan · 2007-02-11, 23:35

(Hmm... maybe try to order a computer, san operating system and try to get a cheap XP if you insist on MS operating system?)

bobmarleypeople · 2007-02-12, 12:33

You may have seen the adverts on TV "Wow" is the word they're using to describe it. Sure, it may look pretty with the Alt+Tab thing and the new start menu, but there's a hell of a lot of problems with this operating system. For starters, you need a stupidly fast and powerful computer in order to get all these nice features working. You'll need a pretty damn fast processor, along with loads of RAM. Fortunately, for the latter part, you can use a USB flash drive as extra RAM if you want. **cue cumulative WTF around the world** yeah. A pretty stupid idea I suppose but hey, watcha gonna do. Next problem: administrator privileges. Whenever you try to install something or something tries to change a setting, the screen blanks out leaving a box in the middle saying "do you want to allow this". You can't even cancel a windows update without it going "are you sure". Then there's the really big thing, program compatibility. 90% of the programs you use on Windows XP probably won't work on Vista. One big BIG program that doesn't work properly with Vista is iTunes. Apparently, sometimes if you connect your iPod, your files will get corrupted, the iPod firmware (the internal software) may also break, iTunes library also has problems but lets not go there. According to what you've probably heard, Vista is "safer". Is it balls. It's Windows! It's crap! It's a new operating system so there's plenty of loopholes in it. To be honest, Windows XP is also crap, but it's still safer than Vista. Finally, there is of course, the price. Vista is a hundred pounds for home basic and that's just the upgrade. The home basic edition is apparently crap and the only edition work having is home premium and that's 200 odd pounds. Of course, if you look hard enough, there'll be plenty of sites and torrents where you'll be able to get Vista from. In fact, the beta copies and the RC (release candidate) versions will probably stay circulating the internet along with a patch that stops the time limit (I haven't seen it yet, but I bet there will be one). If you're gonna get Vista at all, I'd wait 6 months since then, Microsoft will have got rid of the major bugs and the price will be a little bit cheaper (kinda like XP). But, since it's Microsoft and since it's Windows, expect security updates every month for the next decade and then the next version of Windows comes out and it starts all over again **sighs**. (Note: I know all this from being a BETA tester for Microsoft since they're too lazy to kill bugs themselves. Man it was difficult to remove it afterwards.

IRONY JUST IN
Microsoft is already working on the next version of Windows and, according to an article on slashdot, we may see it as early as 2009. Codenamed Vienna, the next Windows version will be coming only two and a half years after Vista's launch. So now there's even less reason to get Vista. Just skip a generation. I'll be on my Mac with Mac OS X Leopard ^_^

Ending · 2007-02-12, 14:14

Quote:

our going to need it decently soon as most game producers are already making DX10 games

Only the ones Microsoft has bought to itself. Others will 100% sure make their games compatible with XP, since it will control majority of the market for a long while yet. It's the same as with browsers: no one wants to make sites that work only on specific setups (e.g: "800x600, IE, Java, Flash, cookies, DX10"). It's common sense: why anyone would want to close out 90% of their potential customers?

Plus, I recently read an article which clearly stated that Vista is *slower* than XP, since it has more background tasks. Or in other words: background-clutter, resource-hoggers, BSOD spammers, and bloat. Even the much hyped "Aero" -look isn't anything special, since all you need to customize the look of XP is a special program. I prefer WindowBlinds.

Let's not forget the prices either:
1) Vista Ultimate UK: 521 € per copy in average. Has to be repurchased if you change your hardware too much.
2) WinXP Professional UK: 385 € per copy in average. Yours to keep no matter what.

Both packages include everything the OS has to offer, so the difference is whopping 136 € from a already expensive product. What did they say about PS3 costing? 500 €. With the price of Vista you could buy one of the most expensive consoles available today. Ridicilous. In comparison, SuSe Linux 10.1 costs just 58 euros. Free if downloaded from the net.

edogawaconan · 2007-02-12, 14:21

Why do people always complain when there's software incompatibility in Vista? That's perfectly normal, as when Windows XP first launched, there're also many programs that're not compatible.
AND 90% of programs I tried on beta 2 works fine. (the rest being anti-viruses, firewalls, virtual drives, broken codecs, etc - programs that have high chance of being incompatible with *every* new windows, not only from XP to Vista)
ReadyBoost do increase multi-tasking performance, so it isn't stupid at all

as for future windows, they also do that with XP, and that's not new at all. (never trust their 'may see it as early as 2009', I remember seeing same thing for 'Longhorn')
...and there's no need to buy full version, just buy upgrade ones, as it can be installed without need of earlier Windows version

*edit to above me:*
- I also read an article which stated shows (in benchmarks) that Vista is *not* slower than XP for most instances (link)
- Vista Utimate vs XP Pro? not a good comparation. Ultimate has everything while XP not. And IIRC, their licensing scheme is updated so it doesn't need to be repurchased if you change your hardware too much
- for Aero, not the 'look' that interest me, it's the composition engine (for me, at least. and it can't be replicated in XP)
- BSOD spammers... yes, if you try installing some incompatible Vista drivers (that means most of drivers available, LOL, and same case for early Win XP)

***relentlessflame*** · 2007-02-12, 16:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeijiSensei

MS-CHAP v1 has well-known insecurities and should have been dropped long ago. v2 is somewhat better, but still not all that secure. See Bruce Schneier's analysis here.

These days I'm using OpenVPN which employs SSL encryption. It has implementations for most major platforms including Windows, Linux, the various BSDs, and OS/X.

Yeah, I figured as much. Not necessarily blaming them for deprecating it, more annoyed at Cisco for still relying on it even in their latest firmware (as of a few months ago). Switching to a software VPN solution is probably what we'll do, but it just feels silly not to use the features of the hardware we just recent bought new. Oh well... the only thing I sort of wish for Vista's part is that it had given an error message of some sort (like, "this VPN gateway relies on deprecated protocols" or something), rather than just plain not working. But oh well.

And yeah, to agree with edogawaconan, there seems to be a lot of exaggerations and misinformation about Vista out there still. Application Compatibility isn't a big problem in my experience. I even have no problem with my iPod or iTunes or anything like that. And as I mentioned earlier, it does seem faster and stable (other than those few annoyances I noted above). I'd also agree that this isn't all that different than early-XP days, since I was one of those people who installed XP on day-one as well.

2007-02-08, 11:46	Link #43
Vexx Obey the Darkly Cute ... Author Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ... Age: 66	Be aware that Vista's legal use framework does not allow for use under a "virtualization" under many conditions. So if you use your machine for business or work purposes, be sure to understand under what conditions you can install Vista. Of course, the legal use framework changes daily as various Fortune 500 companies start dealing with the details and screaming at Microsoft I'd just say stick with XP or win2K until you buy a machine that comes with Vista (and hope like hell your applications run on it). Except for laptops, I build my own machines anyway so I rarely actually buy a new machine so much as continually piecemeal upgrade hardware. So I'm going to avoid Vista until support for XP and win2K is shut off or I need more machines than I have now (and even then I keep playing with Ubuntu to see if I can switch easily). __________________ "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!

2007-02-10, 18:53	Link #49
*relentlessflame* 　 Administrator Join Date: Dec 2003 Age: 41	Well, for a different perspective I guess, I've been using Vista RTM nearly-exclusively on my two desktops and work laptop for over a month now (it's available as part of my MSDN subscription). I did fresh installs of Vista Ultimate on all three machines. So, I'm not sure if I can really answer the "Is Vista really worth it?" question of the thread, but I can relay some of my personal impressions after using it for all my day-to-day and work activities for the last month+. I'll try to give it to you raw, and you can draw your own conclusions. Some overall impressions: I like the updated interface, especially the (IMO greatly-improved) Start Menu. When you have dozens and dozens of programs installed, using the instant search is way way better and faster. I also like the Aero interface effects, and find the Sidebar pretty useful (I use and glance at the calendar, weather, and currency gadgets all the time). Overall system stability has been at least as solid as XP for day-to-day operations. I'd even say that it "feels" a bit faster than a freshly-installed XP for the most part. The integrated Windows Update system is much better and seems more responsive They also block unsigned programs from starting automatically at startup, which is a Good Thing. In terms of driver support, by mid-January I had working drivers for all my devices and accessories on both computer. In terms of application compatibility, all the programs I use are now rated "compatible" and most function as well as they ever did on XP. The only exception I can think of is the Albatross18/Pangya game, which starts now but has some serious bugs, but that's not exactly mission-critical Some of the things I like most are actually carry-overs from XP or have since been ported back. For example: The updated Remote Desktop app remembers your settings by server. It's about time! Windows Live Search is now completely integrated into the OS -- this was a no-brainer as well. IE7 is, of course, a big improvement over IE6 and seems to perform a bit better on Vista than its XP counterpart Having Media Center integrated into the Ultimate Edition was a good idea. Haven't used it extensively yet, but it seems to work pretty well for what it's intended to do. Of course, there are also some annoyances... I don't hate UAC (User Account Control) as much as some (though it is somewhat annoying), but sometimes it just plain blocks some things from installing properly or working. Thanks in part to UAC, I had a hell of a fun time trying to get AppLocale to install and work. I should really write a step-by-step guide for it. But, if you use AppLocale a lot, you'd be better-served turning UAC off for now. At least all the fonts were installed by default. UAC also gives you the VirtualStore issue for your legacy apps. Getting apps to no longer write to Program Files is a good idea, but it could get pretty confusing pretty quick, so I was glad I ran into it now before I have to troubleshoot it for customers later. They split the Network dialogs into a three seperate screens (the "Connect" Wizard, the Networking and Sharing Center, and the Network Connections screen). And when you click "Network" you actually get none of those, but rather the list of computers in your domain/workgroup. This is just confusing. The integrated defrag utility has ditched its entire interface for some reason (apparently you can still get it through the command-line, though...). The only choice you have now is to schedule automatic defrags on all your drives on a regular basis. You can't even pick which drives to schedule -- it's all or none. At least Diskeeper released a Vista version now... The new audio stack in Vista does give me application-specific audio-level settings, which is nice, but doesn't give me independant control of my sound card's line-in and other ports. This could just be a Creative driver issue, though. So, what problems have I run into? Well, I guess it's not entirely dissimilar to some of the sorts of issues I had with XP when I installed it on launch day way back when. Here's a list of the things I can remember as they come to me. If you install Windows on a SATA drive but have a PATA drive connected, Vista will always make your first PATA drive your System partition for no good reason, and without asking you. If you try to remove that PATA drive, Vista will not boot even though Windows itself isn't on that drive. I've yet to find a solution to that one (short of reinstalling), but gave up trying. On only one of my computers, the Vista boot DVD takes an amazingly long time to boot up, for reasons that must be hardware-related somehow, as the same disc works great on other computer and switching discs doesn't help. The WMI database just up and corrupted on me one day, and the only solution that all my experimenting and research came up with was to re-install in Repair mode (called "Upgrade"). After said "Upgrade", I had a heck of a fun time trying to get Daemon Tools to work again, but that's probably mostly their fault. Eventually it got stuck in a boot loop that the startup repair wizard couldn't fix (which I could only get through by booting from the slow-as-sin boot DVD), so I had to go into the repair console (also on the boot DVD) and manually delete the .sys file that was causing the problem from the System32\Drivers folder. Vista silently deprecated one of its supported VPN protocols in Vista (MS-CHAP v1), which means that I can't connect to the Cisco Pix firewall at work right now. Maybe Cisco will come up with a firmware update, or maybe we'll get it reconfigured, but it's sort of weird they just happened to drop that one and left other even older ones. Oh well... Well, I guess that's all I can think of for now. So, is Vista worth it? For my purposes, I'm sticking with it. A few trials through fire aren't more than I expected (though, of course, they always happen at the worst possible times ) For most people, I think it's stable enough for every day use, but the upgrade case is certainly less than it was for XP for people who were still on 98SE at the time.

2007-02-11, 02:52	Link #51
panzerfan Name means little... Graphic Designer Join Date: Dec 2004	I think that it will take a few months before all the driver support have matured on Vista. Basically, by SP1 Vista should be worthwhile... and by the time, hardwares will be much better than now to drive Vista. So nobody should be in the rush to upgrade, and one should have a new computer with Vista SP1 to get optimal performance from the looks of it (I hope so, for my Visual Studio 2005 and Vista wern't so happily married) __________________ 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

2007-02-11, 23:35	Link #56
panzerfan Name means little... Graphic Designer Join Date: Dec 2004	(Hmm... maybe try to order a computer, san operating system and try to get a cheap XP if you insist on MS operating system?) __________________ 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

2007-02-12, 12:33	Link #57
bobmarleypeople Inactive Member Join Date: May 2006	You may have seen the adverts on TV "Wow" is the word they're using to describe it. Sure, it may look pretty with the Alt+Tab thing and the new start menu, but there's a hell of a lot of problems with this operating system. For starters, you need a stupidly fast and powerful computer in order to get all these nice features working. You'll need a pretty damn fast processor, along with loads of RAM. Fortunately, for the latter part, you can use a USB flash drive as extra RAM if you want. cue cumulative WTF around the world yeah. A pretty stupid idea I suppose but hey, watcha gonna do. Next problem: administrator privileges. Whenever you try to install something or something tries to change a setting, the screen blanks out leaving a box in the middle saying "do you want to allow this". You can't even cancel a windows update without it going "are you sure". Then there's the really big thing, program compatibility. 90% of the programs you use on Windows XP probably won't work on Vista. One big BIG program that doesn't work properly with Vista is iTunes. Apparently, sometimes if you connect your iPod, your files will get corrupted, the iPod firmware (the internal software) may also break, iTunes library also has problems but lets not go there. According to what you've probably heard, Vista is "safer". Is it balls. It's Windows! It's crap! It's a new operating system so there's plenty of loopholes in it. To be honest, Windows XP is also crap, but it's still safer than Vista. Finally, there is of course, the price. Vista is a hundred pounds for home basic and that's just the upgrade. The home basic edition is apparently crap and the only edition work having is home premium and that's 200 odd pounds. Of course, if you look hard enough, there'll be plenty of sites and torrents where you'll be able to get Vista from. In fact, the beta copies and the RC (release candidate) versions will probably stay circulating the internet along with a patch that stops the time limit (I haven't seen it yet, but I bet there will be one). If you're gonna get Vista at all, I'd wait 6 months since then, Microsoft will have got rid of the major bugs and the price will be a little bit cheaper (kinda like XP). But, since it's Microsoft and since it's Windows, expect security updates every month for the next decade and then the next version of Windows comes out and it starts all over again sighs. (Note: I know all this from being a BETA tester for Microsoft since they're too lazy to kill bugs themselves. Man it was difficult to remove it afterwards. IRONY JUST IN Microsoft is already working on the next version of Windows and, according to an article on slashdot, we may see it as early as 2009. Codenamed Vienna, the next Windows version will be coming only two and a half years after Vista's launch. So now there's even less reason to get Vista. Just skip a generation. I'll be on my Mac with Mac OS X Leopard ^_^ Last edited by bobmarleypeople; 2007-02-12 at 12:35. Reason: Irony just in

2007-02-05, 05:53	Link #41
Potatochobit Certified Organic Join Date: Dec 2005	i have always been extremely pleased with windows XP. i was lucky and skipped some of the junk windows like windows ME. the one i had prior to XP was 2000 and XP is far better. at first it was annoying since not all programs were compatible between 2k and XP back then, but now XP is the standard. in the future vista might be good, but let some other guys mess with the hassle. once u buy a new computer in a year or two u can get one with windows vista. if you just bought a computer in the last 6 months you might consider upgrading. apple is great for graphic designing and such, but its not a good choice for a gaming PC. you will find most apple design programs are better than the same one on PC. and there are more utilities and programs available.

2007-02-11, 14:15	Link #53
Epyon9283 Geek Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: New Jersey Age: 40	If the game makers used cross-platform libraries and toolkits (opengl, sdl, etc.) then porting would be easier.

2007-02-11, 18:21	Link #55
Lavabyle A Ninny Moose Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Loitering around Age: 31	Well it seems all of you gus will be waiting 2 or more years to get it. However, i was hoping to buy a Windows OS computer within the next few months, and they seem to all run with Vista -.- I'm not a big fan of Mac or Unix systems, so i was wondering what i should do T.T

2007-02-12, 14:21	Link #59
edogawaconan Hi Fansubber Join Date: Aug 2006	Why do people always complain when there's software incompatibility in Vista? That's perfectly normal, as when Windows XP first launched, there're also many programs that're not compatible. AND 90% of programs I tried on beta 2 works fine. (the rest being anti-viruses, firewalls, virtual drives, broken codecs, etc - programs that have high chance of being incompatible with every new windows, not only from XP to Vista) ReadyBoost do increase multi-tasking performance, so it isn't stupid at all as for future windows, they also do that with XP, and that's not new at all. (never trust their 'may see it as early as 2009', I remember seeing same thing for 'Longhorn') ...and there's no need to buy full version, just buy upgrade ones, as it can be installed without need of earlier Windows version edit to above me: - I also read an article which stated shows (in benchmarks) that Vista is not slower than XP for most instances (link) - Vista Utimate vs XP Pro? not a good comparation. Ultimate has everything while XP not. And IIRC, their licensing scheme is updated so it doesn't need to be repurchased if you change your hardware too much - for Aero, not the 'look' that interest me, it's the composition engine (for me, at least. and it can't be replicated in XP) - BSOD spammers... yes, if you try installing some incompatible Vista drivers (that means most of drivers available, LOL, and same case for early Win XP) __________________ >2014 >blog Last edited by edogawaconan; 2007-02-12 at 19:05.