I think the "4x min rec" standard is a pretty good rule of thumb. So just like we all rolled our eyes at the XP 128MB at first and told our less gifted friends and family they really wanted 512MB, that now 2GB is the real sweet spot for Vista. Which is not to say that 1GB is terrible, of course, just not what I'd get for myself if I was out buying a new Vista machine. . .
Another FUD-smearing "OMG Vista sux0rz" from the media...
- Thread starter Albuquerque
- Start date
The shoddy isnt the games, being they have no problems anywhere else, and no one has ever complained about them except for Vista. As for driver support it is partly MS's fault on the driver problem, drivers need to meet DX10 spec yet they havnt had the DX10 Devloper kit out very long. And your argument about NT5 driver is flawed, the driver model of NT5 is very much similar to that of NT4 with a few tweaks owing to why NT4 drivers worked on 2000 in the beginning of its life and still work on 2000 if you cant find a 2k Driver for a certain peice of hardware, no such ability in Vista since RC1 has existed. The used to part is simple enough, the Documents folder while in the same place has been rearaged and anyone upgrading to vista will have hell with it, i know i did when i did it, MP10 couldnt find my music because it wasnt in the Vista Music directory, it was in My Documents\Documents\My Music where it was under XP and vista doesnt move it to the My Documents\My Music folder, it jsut leaves it where it was and MP10 cant find it till ya move it. Same thing with the pictures, upgrading to vista will leave everything about My Documents in the wrong spot. Add that to the file menu being hidden by default and you tell me how a normal person will figure out how to use it. The interface is the same, but they made it so idiot proof that only a power user can do anything except play games and listen to music on it.
I's a shame, really.Talking about the brute force.
Vista has apparently been cracked, story here : http://digg.com/microsoft/Vista_cracked_totally_by_Paradox_Microsoft_s_in_trouble_now
I still wont be touching it anyway, pre SP1.
It will be interesting now, how Microsoft counter-acts this.
If Vista was really uncrackable, it would have moved a lot more teenagers towards Linux. That would have been much nicer.
I dont agree, I dont know why alot of users talk about Linux, when the topic of M$ comes up, that Linux will be better.
I've used Windows XP since it was in beta. I've installed Linux countless times and it just isnt ready for the primetime.
Anyway, I dont want to get into a which ever one is better. Dont have time for that.
When Linux is a viable solution, then I will be using it Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.
Legend
I doubt it. Microsoft targets teenagers, in the form of OEM deals and restrictions to make sure every PC bought by a parent gets Windows. MS also targets students via very cheap student versions to make sure anyone studying IT gets hooked into MS products, and that MS products are often what is specified by teaching organisations.
So you somehow think, because the code has never broken before, that it's somehow perfectly fine? Is there perhaps room in your logical thought process to conceptualize a place where shoddy app code + shoddy previous OS code = functional until now? To have someone rationalize this outcome with "16-bit support is broken in Vista" is ludicrous at best.
Perhaps if we were talking about DX10 games you'd have a logical leg to stand on. But we're not. So you're off-track by another nautical mile. Come back to the discussion at hand, please...
Oh really? Yeah, back when 2000 was still in BETA stages you could hack a few NT4 drivers to work, but it wasn't a universal thing, and they've LONG since put a stop to that. And what about using XP drivers in Vista? Humorously, it works about as well as NT4 drivers on 2000 did, but hey -- according to you, it's still an option, so why discount it?
The rest of your post is drivel at best; MP10 has no issue playing media from wherever you stuff it on your drive. If you can't figure out how to import your library files, that's an indication of end-user error and not operating system error.
Once again, you have shown yourself to present blatent falsehoods and uneducated opinions as fact. As such, I am no longer discussing this topic with you either. I once told a moderator on this forum that I would never have use for the ignore feature in this UBB; I may owe that moderator a beer in the near future.
That's just an unfounded blanket statement. Linux works at least as well as Windows. Some things are worse, some are better.I dont agree, I dont know why alot of users talk about Linux, when the topic of M$ comes up, that Linux will be better.
I've used Windows XP since it was in beta. I've installed Linux countless times and it just isnt ready for the primetime.
Anyway, I dont want to get into a which ever one is better. Dont have time for that.
If you were to say, that Linux is no alternative because the applications people want and are used to only run on Windows, and that as such the support for new stuff is better, ok.
But don't get me started about Office, security, stability and generally installing and updating things with apt.
Apt is what Windows installers, Stream and Windows Updates would hope to become one day.
Last edited by a moderator:
True, but it depends on what you're trying to do, doesn't it? Try to explain to my mother how to install a driver for her scanner on Windows, and now do the same thing on Suse, Debian or Redhat. You are stil lright in that some things are better, but for the Jane Doe user community, there's a reason why *Nix still isn't anywhere close to Windoze.
As for security and stability, I have only this to offer: you're only as "secure and stable" as the end user. Linux gets a great break because the only folks building these systems are serious tech-savvy folks. Windows gets a sad kick-to-the-beanbag because any idiot can set up Windows, and if the proper actions aren't taken, that Windows install can be vulnerable to attack.
Further, the completely computer-illiterate users that make up most of the Windows installed base really can't be bothered or just aren't savvy enough to understand how NOT to open every email, or click on popup banners, or otherwise keep themselves out of trouble.
The trick is to find an OS that doesn't need a technoguru to install, yet is idiot-resistant enough to keep most of the idiots safe. Linux can't claim the former, and Windows can't claim the latter. Hopefully some day...
On any Debian variant like Ubuntu, you simply start the install manager GUI, and have it take care of everything. Depending on the one you use, simply clicking "update all" is sufficient most of the time. No need to select the right driver, clicking "OK", "Next", "Yes", "OK", or whatever either.
You cannot get more easy and user friendly than that.
It takes me much less time to set up Linux than Windows to my specs. And Linux takes much less manual work on average.
Linux is actively maintained. You don't have to buy a new version to get up to specs again.
Linux sound just like the ticket for them.
Ubuntu, today.
Well, sounds like I need to download Ubunto and check it out then Last I checked, it wasn't anything near that easy. I will have to get back up to speed...
Last I checked, it wasn't anything near that easy. I will have to get back up to speed...
Mac OS X.
A lot of people use Mac as an example of a new OS that is impervious to attacks, I don't think that's really the case. Mac OS'es have been susceptible to attack for a very long time.
I think Macs are "protected" more at the moment simply because there are several orders of magnitude less Mac's than there are Windows PC's. As Mac's grow in popularity, so will the large target painted on every workstation for would-be hackers. And why not? What percentage of the entire PC installed base do Macs constitute versus Win platforms? Last I recall, although I could be wrong, Macs were less than 10% -- and at one point, were less than 5%.
Once they're any sort of mainstream platform that is trusted in business enough to contain sensitive and/or confidential data of any magnitude, they'll start becoming hax0r fodder.
All my opinion of course.
With Mac OS X, I never tried to say they are invulnerable. Overall they have significantly more right than wrong when looking at things from a wholistic approach. They share many of the security benefits of Linux/Unix, AND have the user friendliness portion down to a science. Every OS should strive for that.
True on the user friendliness front, even back in the day of System 5 and 6 (when I had most of my Mac-time) it was pretty straightforward and user friendly.
The *nix model is inherently more secure, for many reasons. The security model is straightforward and consistent, and strict separation of privileges and user modes has been with it from the start. And it's OpenSOurce, which means that everyone can have a peek. Compared to Windows, where the whole security model is a mess, and many different privilege modes are used behind the screen to do single tasks.
But even *nix isn't invulnerable, especially when you misuse "dosu". It's like the difference between Internet Explorer and Firefox.
One of the nicest thig abouut *nix from a technical POV isthat just about anything is distributed and that you can seamlessly add (attach) resources on different computers together.
But anyway, I agree that MAC OS X is the best of both worlds (it uses a *nix kernel as well), and the most user friendly.
But even *nix isn't invulnerable, especially when you misuse "dosu". It's like the difference between Internet Explorer and Firefox.
One of the nicest thig abouut *nix from a technical POV isthat just about anything is distributed and that you can seamlessly add (attach) resources on different computers together.
But anyway, I agree that MAC OS X is the best of both worlds (it uses a *nix kernel as well), and the most user friendly.
Yes. It is.
flippin_waffles
Newcomer
I've been using Vista for a couple months now, and I have to say, i'm pretty impressed with it also. Everything is so much more responsive than it was with XP. I attribute that performance gain to SuperFetch, but i'm not completely sure that's the only reason. Best of all, it's very immersive, and basically just very pleasant to use. I also like the idea of all my ram actually being utilized. In XP, I was always tweaking here and killing services there to try and get more performance. That seems like a non-issue with Vista. Instead of my very expensive ram sitting there doing nothing and being lazy, it's being put to work. The only time my ram would get a workout in XP was playing some games or some apps, whatever. It's awesome that Vista is smart enough to learn which things I use most, and preload them in ram, instead of having to load them off my harddrive on demand. And the coolest thing of all for me so far, is sleep mode. The darn thing comes out of sleep before my monitor does.
IMO it's a very big improvement and very enjoyable.
The darn thing comes out of sleep before my monitor does. IMO it's a very big improvement and very enjoyable.
Most of the additional "responsiveness" can be attributed to the kernel and it's ability to prioritize and multi-thread IO requests. For all previous WIndows OS'es, IO requests had "uber priority" and were allowed to walk all over everything. Further, they were always limited to the first logical ACPI-enumerated processor in the system. So if a process had the lowest priority possible but somehow ended up creating a ton of IO traffic, it would take over your PC's world. Or if a process had access to all 16 cores in your system and was given UBER-priority by you, all the IO requests would be handled by the 1st logical processor in the system and as such would likely bottleneck hardcore.
Hence the whole "grinding to a halt" when your machine was heavily disk-utilized (defrag, virus scan, paging to disk, etc). Lame.
Vista prioritizes IO threads now, and also spreads them evenly across all CPU's in the system. The only time that IO gets "uber" priority is if the kernel goes into a memory panic, which almost never happens unless you're on a 256mb machine with WAY too much open, and then only the memory management IO gets that priority.
Makes the OS "feel" a whole lot better, especially when you're multitasking.
flippin_waffles
Newcomer
Cool, thanks for the info! :smile: Yeah, so the improvements are most definitely noticable.
Similar threads
