Columns Chicks dig RAM

All this stuff about computers getting faster so "it's OK" makes my blood boil.

I don't own a PC for the unimaginable privilege of running Windows. I own a PC to run Premiere, Photoshop and After Effects. If the PC gets faster, the purpose of that increase is to make Premiere, Photoshop and After Effects go faster. Not so that some dunderheads at Microsoft can make the windows vanish in a fading, blurring puff of ********.

Phil

 

Given your first sentence, would it actually make any difference to your opinion? As it seems to me that you've already made up your mind about it all, but I'm game.

I really like the way the Start Menu works now, with layers unfolding within the same space (like the folder-view in XP). Once you get un-used to the XP style of menues spreading half way across the screen, it actually makes more sense to do it that way. I also like the way you can hit the start key, and start typing in text will just bring up results taken from all across your computer. This also works from anywhere within the system and makes finding something specific much easier. I like the changes made to the audio-system, being able to change the volumes of individual applications. For example, DVD's are relatively quiet, so you have to crank up the volume. But then in XP if msn or any other program makes a sound, it is instant death to your ears but Vista lets you change the volume of these other applications to a more reasonable level. Obviously I also think the new Aero UI absolutely gorgeous.
As for security, I do genuinely think it is massively improved. Admittedly as a power user, I *do* find most of the changes annoying on occaision. UAC can pop up a little too much, although mainly while setting up your system. I've also found that Vista doesn't like even an admin making changes to files in the program files folder (more specifically, C:\x86 Program Files under Vista x64). Firstly it doesn't actually show you it as standard, it shows a virtual folder, and switching to the real one trips UAC. If you want to change any files in there, you have to make a copy into a user-area, edit it and copy it back (which again trips UAC). This all means that a virus can't get into there and start changing files unless the user is an idiot and literally gives it an OK (as it would trip UAC). Presumably this also works with files in C:\Windows, although I had no reason to check. If you've ever tried to do anything useful in Linux, or Unix (I believe, never used it myself) these sorts of restrictions should be pretty familiar. In fact, having used Ubuntu (6.10 iirc) as well as Suse and Fedora..6 (?) I find Vista's approach much less frustrating.

Finally, the bits of Vista I don't like. Game Explorer, don't really see the point of it. It is kinda cool having all (or most) of your games in there, but Games for Windows titles are only accessible through this (they're not supposed to make *any* other shortcuts), and I went through installing Beyond the Sword 3 or so times before I figured that one out...
Under Vista I also tend to get crackling audio occaisionally. Whether this is Vista being rubbish or Creaive not making decent drivers for the X-Fi's I can't say for sure, although I suspect Creative over Microsoft who are well known for poor drivers.

 

I couldn't be bothered to type out a new list but here's a post I made a while ago with some new stuff (there's more than that).

http://forums.bit-tech.net/showpost.php?p=1516616&postcount=9

 

I just wanted to comment on the "Chicks dig ram" thing. I remember my friends and I joking about this way back too. We got it from Penny Arcade, I don't know about your friend.



Circa December 12th, 2000.

 

Awesome post, welcome to the forums.

 

If that was directed at me, my Athlon XP 2600+ on a ASUS A7N8X-X motherboard with 1GB no brand RAM and GeForce FX 5600 with 128MB RAM handles Vista just fine, thank you

 

I buy RAM and super fast processor to run my applications, not whatever the application need to work on.
And btw, Xp didnt increase the performance required as much as Vista... if you consider it being the follow up to Win2k

 

Thanks! As for my position on Vista, I think it will be good, but for my needs, it's just not ready yet. I truly wanted to use it for my HTPC, but I couldn't get any sort of hardware acceleration out of my Geforce 8500GT for MPEG2 and OTA HDTV, no matter what I tried. Maybe it's Nvidia's fault and not Microsoft's, but I would have 60-90% CPU usage as opposed to around 10-15% in XP. My Athlon 64 X2 4600+ should be powerful enough on the processor side, but HD video stutters when using media center. It's unfortunate because I prefer the interface and many of Vista's features over XP, but that one thing keeps me from using it.

As for my main rig, I'll probably upgrade to Vista sometime next year when I pick up a 2nd gen DX10 card. I also figure drivers will have matured quite a bit and it'll be an easy move. For me it really goes back to what was said in that "Functionality not included" article from a while back:

http://www.bit-tech.net/columns/2007/05/26/functionality_not_included/1

I think I did the same thing with XP, although, I jumped over pretty quick. I was using WinME back then, so I was definitely open to something else. I also skipped 2000, although I tried it later in an attempt to save resources.

 

Me too, try Cyberlink PowerDVD, they have an mpeg2/mp4 hardware accel. decoder in there which works wonders. I tried some HD content before and it was stuttery as hell and 90% CPU, now it's about 20% and as smooth as Relix all oiled up.

 

Hey guys,

I just figured I'd wade into some of these questions a bit. First of all, anyone with a 3.06GHz P4 and 1.75GB of RAM should NOT be seeing any real "slowdown" in Vista. I'm sorry, it's not THAT bad. Which is part of my point - the whole idea that "this will crash my computer cuz itz such a HOOOOOGG!!!111oneone!!" is a bit...unrealistic.

As for why Vista IS improved...I think there's a list that would have been far too long for a column. There are posts all over this forum, in this thread and others, reviews across the net that explain about handy features like:

SuperFetch, the (HUGELY) improved search functions, a greatly improved execution structure that creates protected areas for each thread, thus preventing general crashes due to individual program issues, kernel protection, degrees of security protection ranging from "Think for me" to "Just do what I tell you" (seriously, HOW many people STILL complain about UAC without realizing they can turn it off?!), dis-integration of Internet Explorer from the way it was in XP where it was into just about everything, a group of choices to pay for what you need and not just 50 million features you never would, the lack of hardware "locks" and point system (HUGE for those of us who switch hardware regularly), an entirely new driver model that actually makes sense, DX10, ....

I could go on. But I think I have proven my point. There are a host more of optimisations, benefits and little "tweaks" without even getting into the GUI features that Nexxo mentioned or just HOW well the search works now, as others have mentioned. And you know what, I'm typing on a mac and I run Linux regularly on one of my PCs, so I'm well aware of *THEIR* organisational features.

As for putting all of that in the article to explain WHY I like Vista, I think it would have added unnecessary length. There are countless reasons to like the change, and I've been explaining them for a long time, so I'm tired of sounding like a broken record. However, I'm also tired of hearing the same old arguments.

I had more thoughts on this but am in between things at the moment, so I'll revisit again when I think there's more that I need to say

 

I've been saying this for ages, and no-one listens.

/me goes off in huff

 

In essence you are right. Vista should be able to last for years to come. The problem that I see lies in gaming. All these gamers around the world were expecting this massive performance boost, better graphics with DX10, and a better interface in an OS that does pretty much everything.

Now I'll give Vista a few things. Having used the Ultimate version I must say it is very good. It's great for keeping everything on one PC. Music, video's, documents, it's all well organized and makes sense. The Look is sleek, shiny, makes a guy smile and it really rocks that the tool bars carry across everything. Also the graphics with DX10 are better. Not a whole lot but they are. You're just hard pressed to be able to see it.

One of the things that frustrated me when I moved to Vista is that I had to lower the settings on all of my games. That sucked. Everything stuttered. Granted I have 1 gig of ram and was running full aero on a AMD 3200 64 but nevertheless my experienced suffered.

 

I don't see any problems with it other than using more resources than XP and previous, but as it has been explained already, every new OS uses more resources - and not just Windows. Bear in mind that Vista has just been released and like Brett has said, it needs to run the new hardware being released for the next 6 years or so. With this in mind its not surprising that there is a noticable performance decrease as the hardware we use now will be ancient by then. Look what happens when you install XP on 2000/2001 hardware - its noticeably slower.

Software/hardware vendors not having made everything fully Vista compatible doesn't exactly help things, but its not going to happen overnight. XP has had 6 or so years to mature and for vendors to get to grips with it - Vista has not.

So for those who dislike it, don't complain, just don't use it yet. Give it a year or two, everything will be smooth and work as it should. And by then the hardware even PC World sell will be able to run it at a decent speed.

 

One thing that's worth noting about DX10 is that there are no "true" DX10 games on the market yet - everything you've seen so far was originally a DX9 game and has been ported to DX10 after the game was released. BioShock is the first that will have DX10 support from the outset and hopefully it'll show more promise than CoH, CoJ and Lost Planet on the graphics front.

Call Of Juarez is one game that does show quite a big difference, but I didn't personally think it was a good game the first time I played it (when it came out in Europe), so playing again with DX10 isn't particularly compelling for me.

 

> First of all, anyone with a 3.06GHz P4 and 1.75GB of RAM should NOT be seeing any real "slowdown" in Vista.

Tell me, then, why anyone would expect to see slowdown. This is not mediated by machine spec. Either it hogs more, or it doesn't - and since we know it does, the point remains.

Windows was "fixed" in win2k. It hasn't yet lived down the reputation of the 95/98 era stuff, which was genuinely unreliable. But NT kernel versions of Windows have been perfectly usable, at any level, for years. The only reason I went to XP from 2K is that my software demanded it. XP does nothing, literally nothing, not one single thing for me that 2K didn't do. That's the only reason I shall go from XP to Vista, and I'll curse and swear about the waste of computer juice that I'll be forced to put up with to do it. If there was any functionality reason to do it, Microsoft would be screaming about it. They aren't, because there isn't. A better search function is emphatically not worth even the slightest loss of performance. As I said before, the core problem here is that there is really nothing more you can do with Windows. It's finished; it's complete, mature, done with. Adding more stuff clearly isn't either helpful or necessary. The only reason it's being done is so Microsoft don't end up going horribly down the tubes.

Years ago, I said that 2K was probably going to be the best version of Windows that would ever be released. It's becoming increasingly clear I was right.

Phil

 

Honestly, on my sig system vista runs my games faster then xp does. I have a dual boot set up with fresh copy of vista and xp and COD2 runs faster in vista then XP by a noticeable amount. Maya is a little slower in vista then XP though, i assume thats because it uses OpenGL vs DirectX.

 

i remember before is streamlined my XP cd, that has no service packs, that when i connected to the internet or did something a little "extra" it would die or catch viruses and other stuff like someone with terminal aids, with SP1 or SP2 it becomes much better.

windows ME = years of development and very bad OS.

vista = relatively nice OS, better than XP in most areas but is still laking somethings that other OS already have, it is a jewel that needs polishing..... and maybe that will come with the updates.

 

So, wait, by your logic my laptop (which in no way, shape, or form will ever come near to BF2, never mind run it) shouldn't even be able to handle the install for vista, never mind actually being able to run it? What about the fact that an A64 +3500 with 512mb of DDR2700 hasn't been rebooted in well over a month, yet has exactly zero slow-down, despite the fact that it is used daily for games, videos, music, web-surfing, photo editing, and pr0n?

Vista, when used without a large stick shoved into your CPU HSF, runs well on almost all modern hardware (even that of 2-3 years ago) without any realistic issue. Period.

 

Hmmm.
Okay, for gamers:

I switched from 98 to XP, because of lack of drivers for 98.
98 was faster on the same hardware, but more unstable (bluescreens)
Win2000 was not really an option as some games didn't run on it.
XP is stable now, and the reason to eventually change to vista will be the same as before: lack of XP support. (for instance: no DX10 hardware support)

For non gamers:
The last two companies I work(ed) for (both neither small nor unsuccessfull) both run entirely on Win2000. Why change?

Xir

 

> Vista, when used without a large stick shoved into your CPU HSF, runs well

Yes, you blithering idiot, but I'm not here to run Vista, I'm here to run applications and from those it steals performance.

What on earth do you do for fun, fire up Aero and sit there dragging windows around, grinning at the pretties?

Gah!

Phil