Windows To Vista, or not to Vista..

im no expert in software, but i can tell you this for sure: DirectX is not pure software. it is an API layer between hardware and software. so you can say it's a software, but in reality, it's completely different from, say, Word. even shader programming is a whole new world away from DirectX.

the difference in 64bit is stibility and speed.
i switched from 32bit Vista to 64bit Vista on my quad core and the speed difference is very noticeable. not only everything is much, much smoother, all applications seems to run faster.

and do you know why Bittech only uses 64bit Visat SP1 for testing now? because they adapt. what makes human different from animals? we adapt

 

airchie: what version of Vista do you use? Home basic? or Premium or above? Someone correct me if im wrong but theres a pretty big difference between basic and the others? I use Premium personally, it came with my laptop.

 

Home Basic is a extra light version of Vista. The only main visible feature that Home Basic gives you is instant search and Direct X10 ... not even Aero is given to you. So in reality Basic edition is the worst buy for the price and what you get ratio.

 

Vista is the same thing all around. It's just a question of how many features are enabled/installed based on your license. There is, of course, some difference between 32bit Vista and 64bit Vista, but then again that difference is also there when you compare 32bit XP and 64bit XP.

The major difference between 64bit XP and 64bit Vista is that MS actually made an effort this time around. The 64bit era is upon us (memory is dirt cheap and even graphics cards come with 1GB of memory these days), wether MS likes it or not. The 32bit address space is severely limiting these days, so there really is/was no other option.

Now, if MS could have put the interests of its customers before the interests of socalled "premium content providers" (you know who you are) Vista might actually have become a decent product. As it stands it's more like a coat of paint on top of a DRM-modified XP/Win2K kernel.

I put this question to you: If Vista really had a brand new kernel, how can it be that you can still run 16bit software on it? (that's Vista 32bit, I'm talking about)

All the good stuff that was supposed to be included in Vista was dropped by the wayside bit by bit. WinFS, anybody?

As for the eye candy, there's nothing there that couldn't be done with WindowBlinds/ObjectDesktop. Actually, even Linux has superior eye candy (ever seen Compiz or Beryl?).

Also, it *is* possible to run XP (and earlier) in non-administrative mode. Vista just forces it upon you.

Therefore I still stand by my initial comment. If not for DX10 (which is software and *only* software) there would be no (real) need for Vista.

Sorry in advance, if I offend someone's feelings.

/az

 

you answered your own question.

64bit is re-written, with XP 64bit like an early Alpha of it.

 

On any reasonable spec. hardware, it has to be Vista. I get so sick of the 'lets knock Vista' attitude - mind you, here in Europe there is a very powerful "lets knock anything Microsoft make" attitude, particularly within the EU legal juggernaut.

YMMV, but my experience of Vista is almost entirely positive. I was trying to tidy up my cousin's computer last week. a 1.8GHz Pentium, 256MB ram, and running Windows 2000 ( a cast-off from a relative's medical practice). Reminded me of how far we've come.

Can I also say that I installed the original 32BIT Vista RC1 on an Athlon XP2200 / 512MB ram Shuttle SFF dating from 2003 (with a 128MB 9600 Radeon AGP card). It ran happily, and with a little bit of encouragement ran the Aero interface.

Quite frankly - I don't know what the fuss is about. Vista works for me.

 

Not quite. 32bit NT 5.x has WoW (that means "Windows on Windows", not that other thing... ) for running 16bit applications, while 64bit NT has much of the same for 32bit applications. Still, my question remains. Microsoft tries to sell us Vista as an altogether different beast, be it the 32bit or the 64bit incarnations. Yet, under the hood most of it is the same. What's different isn't necessarily different for the user's benefit; actually much of what's different is for the user's detriment.

I've got absolutely nothing against Microsoft. I do have something against Microsoft being the errand boy of the entertainment industry *and* behaving like it's for the benefit of the customer, when they're actually making things worse. I guess I have to be thankful that at least they haven't implemented "Palladium" completely (so far).

I have that, probably foolish, hope, that some time soon someone at Microsoft sees the light and returns Windows to what it was. An operating system for personal computers, not the entertainment center that is currently being forced upon us.

 

You REALLY don't need 1GB for graphic card. But I think we got what you are saying,

What are you talking about?!?! I don't follow.

Wow... you really never used Vista.

Actually about 80% of Windows NT5.1 (which is based on the original NT1) has been reprogrammed.
Vista 64-bit is unable to run 16-bit application. And Vista 32-bit doesn't run properly (slower than previous version of Windows) 16-bit apps.
So Yes, if you only run 16-bit application, avoid Vista. But I don't think you do, unless you insist in still using a Windows 3.1 or DOS application.

ALL? more like a few that is not very useful. As for WinFS so far I don't see why it can't be perform with a software. You don' need a special disk format to do this. It won't be up to speed, that is true, and won't be THAT flexible (if Microsoft allows it to be flexible, which is mostly likely something that will never happen) In any case, it's not a killer feature that would make you jump to Vista eitherway. What other features was doped on Vista? Oh yes, all the features that cause sever securit7y wholes in the system, and not having anymore (finally!) Internet Explorer integrated in Windows explorer. How about PC-to-PC synchronization, yea that is nice... nope it was replaced with Sync Center, and you can use Briefcase as well.

Yes, you are correct, why use our powerful GPU's where it was shown to be significantly more powerful than a CPU in performing task like graphical drawing, and calculations as proven with Folding@Home, when you use your CPU! Niiiice.
CPU is designed to run applications, NOT drawing! In result your CPU is going to be eaten by WindowsBlinds/ObjectDesktop.

Sorry, XP account system is terrible. If I run a software put my settings, it will change the settings of the other users. File associations is decided by the administrator. Every time I try this, I always have software that runs it's setup, because it things that the software is miss installed. So what do you do. Run as Admin the program.. ok that works... no, as the program will run from the Admin account, so it won't touch the user set under limited. Ok so upgrade his account to Admin, and revert back limited once the program setup does what it has to do. Fine, but when you go back to your account, Surprise! you have the same problem. This is just one of many problems, and the reason why everyone runs as Admin under 2000/XP.
Vista has a per account registry, if I decide to run my movies with WMP11 and my father account decides himself (without the need of any admin rights) to run the same video format with Winamp. No problem! I don't even have to put my admin password. You have 2 folders. Yes 2, not 1 millions like in XP (example. How many folders you have that called Application Data in XP). One if per user based which allows application to set per user settings, and the other one is shared for all users called Program Data in C:\.

Moreover because the accounts are organized in... well organized profiles, you can backup your profile (one folder) and all your settings are with you. Next time you re-install Windows Vista, or move to a new computer, just past your profile and all your applications will be configured just teh way you want it. This is something that XP can't do.
Moreover, Vista comes with PC-backup system and PC complete backup system, to backup automatically, at the time you want, all your needed files. With a Complete-PC backup, you can restore your Windows the way it was with all your program installed. It's like a disk image.

 

Vista was late even though they didn't include these things. We waited for it for many years already! If they'd have included them it still wouldn't be launched...


Also, I noticed this in a link...

WTF, LOL? He can't even spell correctly.

 

As usual, you don't get the point, GoodBytes. And it gets more and more obvious that you seriously don't have a clue as to what you're talking about.

You might want to read up on the internals of Vista. Have a look here. It's an updated version of this text. It may be a bit hard to swallow, but then again, the truth often is.

As for WindowBlinds/ObjectDesktop, this again shows your ignorance since these utilities have offloaded desktop rendering to 3D graphics cards for years now.

Sadly (for me) I know way more about Vista than I care to. I have to, since the applications our company is writing need to run on Vista too.

I'm done arguing on this issue. It's like talking to a brick, ie. a waste of my time.

Again, sorry to offend anyone...

 

As you recall, the DRM thing in Vista was said for many years before Vista was released. That is not my problem if you decide to ignore it.
This documentation acts like if you don't have everything DRM you won't be able to play any peace of DVD. I had a Geforce 6600GT 128MB which was released way before the DRM requirement, and everything still plays, even DRM protected HD movies. The only thing I expect to nowt play is Blue-ray and HDDVD movies.

NO! It renders partially (effects like shadows) on the GPU. Aero is rendered entirely on the GPU except for the contents of the windows and applications of course. You think I never used this tool? I used to make skins! Crappy ones I must say... but that was when I was yong and inexperience, and ended up something I don't like very much todo. But when I was in XP I had the latest version of WindowsBlind, and I did see frame dropout in games, and even on my slower computer (AMD Athlon XP 2500+ Geforce FX 5900, 1GB of RAM) it sometimes cause my movies (even on DVD) to skip here and there. Even Stardok admit it:

Stardock says:

FAQ in Startdock:

Even the system, specs says you need 1Ghz to have everything run smoothly.

It's all on their site, and you say I am wrong?!

 

[joke!]Hmmm, I wonder if Goodbytes is really Steve Ballmer in disguise...[/joke]

Seriously though, Goodbytes, there are people out there who don't like Vista. There are also people out there who don't like coffee, or Pringles, or the particular make of car that you drive. It's personal preference. I've said on these forums before that I use Linux mainly, XP for gaming and boot into Vista occasionally. My wife's laptop runs Vista, and for some reason, it keeps forgetting the Wi-Fi settings. XP and Linux don't give me any problems with Wi-Fi, so Vista must be bad right?

Not really. It looks nice, but runs slow. The software she needs to use runs okay on it. My install of Vista runs fine (it should do given the system specs), but I prefer Linux.

You getting all abusive and defensive about Vista isn't making anyone like Vista, or you, incidentally. You make some good points, but they're buried in the ranting. So, take a deep breath and pause before clicking on the Submit button, re-read your post and then think how you would think if you read it on the forum.

I'm not having a go, just trying to help, that's all.

Andy

 

Hehe, Sheilder has it right, personal preference is what its all about.

Also, he's got it right about needing to take a deep breath.
The main reason I kept coming back to this thread was to make you go off on a major fanboy uber-rant with every post.
I honestly don't like Vista, and this 'project mojave' thing wouldn't change that.
And your ranting and condescending posts won't change anyone's mind either.

But, it did make me smile.

 

Nothing like a bit of good, old-fashioned trolling to keep a thread going

You're not in Torry by any chance - we could call you the Troll fae Torry!

 

this isn't fair that Vista-haters gang up on GoodBytes. he is telling the truth, like it or not.

sure, it's personal preference, but some of your facts are wrong, and going around stating wrong facts is not the way to go. Vista is a great OS, yet people don't reconise it. GoodBytes is only correcting people.

and your arguement can also be turned towards you, GoodBytes likes Vista, it's personally preference. he is simply stating the facts of why he likes Vista. no reason for you to attack him.

 

You know it!

Hehe, fraid not.
My official residence is in BoD but I usually stay at bird's place in west end of town.

I wouldn't say we're ganging up on him.
We're just disagreeing with his opinions.

He's stating his opinion.
Just because he says it, doesn't make it truth, no matter how much you may agree with his opinion.

Which ones?

I agree

In your opinion

Some do, like you and GoodBytes

Saying that is like saying people aren't entitled to their opinion.
GB and yourself think that Vista is awesome, which is fine with me.
However, its GB that has called me a liar and has dismissed my opinion continually.

I could be turned against me if I had ever said that he wasn't entitled to his opinion.
I've never even said his opinion was wrong, just that it was an opinion I didn't share.

And he's welcome to.
What I take exception to is him trying to assert his opinions as facts and trying to say anyone who doesn't like Vista is 'wrong'.

Again, I never attacked him.
Quite the opposite in fact, he's the one attacking anyone with a view that differs from his.
Its ok, I'm a big boy, I won't cry about it.

 

good advice, but in the online world, seems like an attack.

wrong facts you ask? one example would be: "DirectX is software".

if everyone is entitled to their own opinion, why can't anyone be entitled to voice their advice?
all the way from start of this thread, use 64bit Vista before juding is the advice. (i can even add, go compare 64bit XP and 64bit Vista, for 4GB or 8GB users, like myself)

 

Just wondered

Lived for 5 years in Culter, then 2.5 years in Garthdee (when I went back to Uni for a second degree).

Good memories of my Aberdeen days - modding then was putting more ram and a double-sided drive in my Atari ST!

(and also getting a research grant that included £5K for an IBM PC, RAM upgraded to 1MB (from the standard 640K), 10MB hard drive and a 14" green screen monitor. OS was MS-DOS 5.0, and I used it primarily for Dbase III)

LOL - I think of that spec (and my Atari ST GUI - Mac-like at a fifth of the price), and wonder why we're splitting hairs over Vista v. XP. Either way, we've come a long way!

My own take is that Vista is nice, but not essential. Whilst I've made it run on 5 year old hardware, I really think it should only go on relatively recent gear, otherwise it will struggle

My desktop PC is a dual boot / (seperate drives) Vista Home Premium (64 bit) and XP Pro (32 bit) - Only use XP for a couple of legacy apps, and one quite unusual USB controller (Native Instruments B4 drawbar controller) which will just not play nice with Vista.

Laptop is a dual-core Inspiron 9400 which is getting an HD upgrade shortly - 32 bit Vista going on there, and looking to buy one of the wee Advent (MSI Wind clones) from PC World, to use with my USB OBDII car fault-code reader, which doesn't work with Vista yet (or more to the point, the software doesn't)

Both the kids have XP, but I might put Vista on new machines I build for them (think it will give me tighter user account control). But if the 14 year old doesn't start tidying her room, she won't see a new PC until Windows 7 sees the light of day

 

Vista x 64 @ home
Xp @ work

on the whole, dispite the issues with drivers etc - at first and the really annoying folder view, it thinks everything is a dam picture. I get on with it very well. But to be fair the home one is net and gaming pc.

 

Maybe on its own, but in context with the rest of my post, not so much.
I even tried to make sure he realised it wasn't a personal attack by saying so directly.

It is software.
Show me something that directly says its anything but software.
If it wasn't software, it would have to be hardware and its not.
Hardware is labelled as 'directX compatible'.

They are.
Its when their advice is contrary to someone else's but they suggest it as if there is no alternative that bothers me.
I've never said that anyone can't have an opinion or offer advice.
If they offer, IMO, stupid advice and false knowledge, I feel compelled to speak up.

As I said, I used 64-bit briefly when it was still buggy so have no frame of reference.
However, since I'm using laptops with 2GB RAM and integrated gfx, 64-bit doesn't offer any major benefits to me.

For users like yourself, with what appears to be pretty beefy systems, 64-bit is deffo the way to go.
64-bit Vista or 64-bit Linux or any other 64-bit OS is the only question.

And yeah, XP64-bit should never have been released.
It was utter crap and I'm glad 64-bit Vista has improved on it significantly.