Windows To Vista, or not to Vista..

glad you agree with me on XP 64bit

now, get down to business: there is not such a clear cut between software and hardware. software is considered something programmers program within a given environment (Windows, Linux, etc), hardware is the physical components.
so, let me ask this: what is a BIOS? what are drivers? and what is OpenGL, what is DirectX?

BIOS is a firmware, drivers are said to be software, but IMHO it's a higher level firmware.
and for OpenGL/DirectX. it is the code lays underneath programmers code. common term by programmers call them "API calls" where they use API built-in functions to tell the hardware what they want.

so strictly speaking, it's not as simple as saying either software or hardware, im afraid, there's a lot of layers involved.
say the radio-clock you have, what is running inside that? no, it's not software, it's firmware.

and this just shows intelligent arguing isn't about quoting the most boxes and being ignorant.
you have to take a deep breath and come to terms with what other people are saying, or do the study yourself.

 

Why is BIOS a firmware and not software, it seems to have all the properties of software to me, can you explain how it differs?

 

BIOS, as you said, is indeed classed as firmware.
As I understand it, firmware is just software which is written to perform specific functions on specific hardware.
IIRC, BIOSes are written in assembly language or machine language (which is software) and stored in eeprom chips.
The type of memory used for BIOSes is pretty similar to the type used for flash drives.
They both hold computer code, AKA software.

To use other examples, routers have firmware.
Some can be unlocked to run a new 'firmware' that is in fact just a modified linux kernel.
So saying firmware isn't software is like saying linux isn't software.

Drivers, DirectX, OpenGL, BIOS, Vista.
All examples of software.
If they're written to non-volatile memory like your BIOS or a router they may get referred to as firmware.
They're still software.

Drivers are obviously software as you can download them.
Or hack/modify them without the need of a soldering iron.
If they weren't software, they wouldn't need to be re-written for different OSes or 32/64 bit etc.
And since you're keen on wiki, the wiki definition of software includes drivers.

Well, I'd say it is as easy as saying software or hardware.
There are different layers of software (according to wiki), but everything can be classed as either software or hardware.

Thanks, I'll remember that for the future.

No need to study, I'm already fairly certain I'm right.
Your links only made me more certain.
Give me some concrete proof that drivers, DirectX etc aren't software and I might be swayed into admitting I'm wrong.
However, I think you might need to consider that it is in fact you who is due for a helping of humble pie.

 

Thanks!

 

please, world is not as simple as black and white, everyone knows that.

counter example Cheesecake: what about FPGA?
its matrix is a firm of non-volatile memory, yet it's hardware.
soon, graphics cards will have FPGA on them, drivers automatically re-configure them for each game.

just out of curiosity, what's your job?

 

There is no black and white, only varying shades of grey?
Well, with issues like morality etc maybe.
With the distinction between software and hardware, its a lot closer to black and white.

Well, its the same as any other ASIC, its hardware (as you just said).
Just because you can change the logic within it, doesn't mean its some hybrid.
A CPU is hardware that acts in a similar way to an FPGA, its just that an FPGA can have it's internal logic modified.

Sounds cool, I'll look forward to it.

Right now I'm a student doing an MSc in information Engineering and Network Management
My jobs from June 2001-July 2007 were:-
Global Administrator for a data distribution company
Accounts Manager EMEA
Global Infrastructure Support Engineer
International Support Engineer
Access Control Administrator
Distribution Team Leader
And before this I did a BSc in Computing

Why do you ask?
What do you do?

 

FPGA's are hardware, while i was providing counter examples to your definition of software.

i am doing MEng in Electronic Engineering with Computer systems in ECS, Southampton. (may i add, number 1 in electronic engineering for quite some time)
currently doing summer placement working with FPGAs. so i know all about them, i am 100% sure they are hardware, while still fitting your definition of software.

 

I don't remember giving a definition of software anywhere?

While you're obviously more knowledgeable about FPGAs than me, as I understand it, the FPGA would be fairly useless without software to be run on it.
In the same way your CPU is pretty useless without some sort of OS running on it (unless you speak fluent machine code)?

Anyway, we're straying from the point.
I said everything can be broken down into hardware or software.
I said DirectX, OpenGL, drivers, BIOS and Vista can all be classed as software.
All of which I believe are correct and are yet to be proven wrong?

 

FPGA can be used as gate arrays or transivers without the need for any firmware presence.

and here's your definition of software, classing almost everything under it.

yes, we have gone too far. sorry. just pointing out that you have to stop and read what other people have said, people know what they are on about.

now, Vista or not Vista: try a 64bit version for at least a month before judging.

 

I see.
So I'm guessing that's as close as you'd get to blurring the lines between hardware and software?
And even then, its deffo hardware, it just has some similar qualities when compared to software.

That's not a definition, I just listed a few things that I classed as software.
Its not a definition by any means.

I No need to apologise, it was mainly my trolling that brought it this far.
Anyway, I always read what others have written if I'm debating something with them.
That's why I like to do the multi-quote thing, so they know I've taken their point on board before I either agree or retort.

Not always, as this thread shows.
GoodBytes was adamant that DirectX wasn't software, that Vista was the best OS evar, that only his opinion mattered and that I was a liar who'd never used a legal copy of Vista.
DirectX is software and, IMO, Vista is worse than XP and I'm typing this on the legal copy of Vista that came pre-installed on my latest laptop.
As we've agreed though, whether you think Vista is the shizzle is down to personal preference.

Well, that will have to wait since I don't have a 64-bit version or the inclination to go spend cash I don't have on an OS I don't like (in its 32bit guise at least).
However, you guys never did answer my question.
Why is 64-bit so much better than the 32-bit version, if I'm using it on a laptop with 2GB RAM and crappy integrated gfx?
Surely they're very similar beasts with similar features etc?
Its not the speed or stability of Vista that makes me dislike it, they're not a problem since the laptop's hardware is pretty decent (other than the gfx ).
So by going 64-bit, what advantages do you think I would see over 32-bit?

 

i should correct myself:
Vista or not Vista: for newly built computers with 4GB RAM (which should be standard by now) try 64bit Vista for at least a month.

you see, Vista 64bit have a liking for RAM, 2GB is a bit limited. but, putting 64bit on it should still get you more stibility and security over xp 32bit.

the main difference between 64bit is that Vista was desiged for, this is the reason 32bit is so slow and so unstable. i don't understand, apart from the added stability, what don't you like?

btw, turn off UAC if you want to stay sane

 

my opinion: clearly NO vista. it automatically shuts down, I cannot close firefox properly, if the sidebar is loaded I cannot shutdown, and many others of this small sh.. which is really annoying but basically should't be a big deal to program correctly.

 

Before this thread I had little interest in trying Vista, and was happy to stay with XP. I think their are a lot of misinformed/biased opinions on the web in general that are bashing Vista for the wrong reasons. But as so few positive things were out their compared to all the negatives, I decided not to touch the two spare Vista Business Install discs I have, leaving the XP Pro option installed.

This thread has started to change my views, to the point I want to try Vista Business 32bit. As a 4gb Q9300 8800GT modern PC, the hardware should be up to it. My software is a little varied but mostly photography, design and web based. I'm even more interested now in Vista 64 bit and 8gb of ram, but that is something I'll hold off for a while . . . at least till I've got comfortable with Vista Business. But my next build will now likely be Vista 64 bit and 8gb.

Thankyou to all the positive experiences and informed posts about Vista in this thread - I found it very usefull and informative.

Lastly while not trying to troll - in the grey versus black and white, software or hardware discussions, I think in the context originally raised within this thread that DirectX can be fairly considered as not just an example of software, as software conjures up something more easy to change and something that can be independently changed to me - not something so ingrained within the OS. But I also appreciate the view that it is software too, just I feel that in the context being discussed I think that oversimplifys it, and is taking the thread in the wrong direction with no benefit to the original question.

 

thank you 3dHeli, oversimplification was the word i was looking for

but lets not troll on this longer. airchie

please, please try 64bit Vista on your computer, and don't forget to install SP1.

and your next building shouldn't be aiming only at 8GB, with Nehalem's tri-channel DDR3, you'd be aiming at 12GB

 

@wuyanxu is correct, beside you already have 4Gb of RAM, Windows XP or Vista 32-bit doesn't use all of it. I think it uses about 3.5GB (depends on your motherboard and computer configuration). Personally I found Vista 64-bit more finished then 32-bit. It has less annoyance, beside you unlock the full potential of your 64-bit CPU that you purchase. It's not much... but anything is nice to have, and gives you the ability to run 64-bit applications even codecs which is really nice.

 

I agree with GoodBytes, there is no reason to go straight into 32-bit if you have a 64-bit processor and more than 3GB of RAM which you already have both. There were problems with the 64-bit with software vendors and developers not developing drivers for it, but time has passed and they have cottoned on that for them to stay in business and not lose a valuable customer base they would need to start supporting 64-bit. They have now done so and especially with Service Pack 1, I can vouch that Windows Vista 64-bit is THE most stable operating system I have ever operated on. It is definately worth the £55 to purchase an OEM licence of Vista from ebuyer.com

As a photographer if you do use photoshop. Adobe will be releasing Adobe Photoshop CS4 (rumoured to be April 2009) that will run natively in 64-bit and utilise up to 8-12 GB of RAM which is great. It will also run at 10-15% faster. So you will have no slow downs due to the software using your scratch disk as your high-res photographs will all be in RAM and very speedy RAM it will be if you have DDR3.

So, take the leap of faith and go straight for Windows Vista 64-bit (minimum Home Premium) but if you are looking for Remote Desktop and Bitlock Encryption and the other Small Business features that come with Business edition and not so fussed about the Windows Media Center then go for Business. OR for an extra £20 you can go for the Ultimate edition which is what I have, and I love it.

 

I have to agree that if your machine already has 4GB of memory, your best option is Vista 64-bit or a 64-bit linux variant.
Don't bother with 32-bit Vista, will give you nothing over XP Pro IMO.

As for over-simplifying DirectX, I disagree.
DirectX is software, software that provides an easy framework for game devs to code to, saving them from having to cater for every type of gfx card on the market.
GFX cards are hardware and don't have DX 'on' them.
They're compatible with DX, nothing more.
It really is that simple tbh.

Kesa, your install sounds really messed up, I'd format and reinstall tbh.
Maybe bite the bullet and go with Linux?

Like I said, I don't find 32bit unstable or insecure.
I didn't find XP insecure though since I ran it for months on end with no anti-virus and it was fine.
Just don't run anything you don't trust tbh.

Again, I don't find it slow or unstable so what's so great about 64-bit (from my point of view)?

The things I don't like about Vista are numerous but small.
There seems to be no obvious way to make every folder in explorer view in the same way.
Whenever I hook up an MP3 player or camera etc, it always insists on using thumbnails etc and changing the columns in the 'details' view.

The networking thing on it is now a farce and is counter-intuitive to someone who actually knows anything about networking.

I just feel it caters for the lowest denominator (can't really blame them for it I guess).
I have not had much in the way of speed or stability problems though I have to say.

Heh, one of the first things I did too.

 

lol this post is still going. Vista is not that bad is just new it will become better in time. I’m glad I bought an OEM version because the whole technical data about Vista is in this post lol.

 

lol, yep, its still going...

 

from my experience is that 64bit is much more stable, i rearly have crashes on 64bit whereas when i had 32bit, after 2 boots, explorer.exe even crashed. that's why i insist on people going 64bit.
the code behind XP and Vista is similar, but still differ. i think i saw an article somewhere that XP gets hacked faster than Vista. take firewall for example, Vista's firewall is much more secure than XP's, even though they look the same.

ah, the folder view changing thing.... it is quite annoying, but it also happens in XP. only where it doesn't happen is Linux.
networking is quite easy to navigate when you get use to it. have an open mind, the world is changing.
if Vista is designed for non-computer user, then tell me what's Mac designed for? monkeys? it's always nice to have an easy-to-use OS for new computer users.

do i need to list out the things Vista offer over XP? probably not, since you'd slash every point i type. just like GoodByte's effort, just look in page 4