TFMF Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 As many of you probably already know, Windows Vista has just been released into Western Europe. I won't exactly be rushing to PC World to buy it, although i did find an interesting article which seemed far more interesting ;) Windows Vista Hacked Within Hours Of Launch Five years in the making' date=' Windows Vista has been described by Bill Gates, head of Microsoft, as one of “the highest quality products that Microsoft has ever released.[/quote'] Someone posted a comment on the article: The sad part is' date=' well, this IS the best Microsoft can do.[/quote'] ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Megalith Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 lol thats cool kinda knew the DRM would be hacked :) within a few weeks you'll be able to get a crack that turns the whole lot off Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GorunNova Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 ... and that was a surprise because? It happened with XP, after all, and IT became the ultimate platform for DDOS attacks. Oh, wait... it's just the video DRM that got cracked. Still, it was inevitable. A lot of very smart people hate such protections, after all. Heh... 'Candian'. Nice to see these guys doublecheck their spelling before submitting articles. ;p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 so whats the main benifit between xp and vista? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TFMF Posted January 31, 2007 Author Share Posted January 31, 2007 In my opinion, the benefits are not outweighed by the negatives in buying Vista. The system requirements and security stuff in Vista is rediculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GorunNova Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 Benefits of XP over Vista? XP is only massively bloated instead of being utterly insanely uberbloated (higher idle specs than Half Life just for the OS!). It won't stop you from listening to music or watching movies if it thinks you don't have the right to do so (which includes when you try to see things on old, non-Trusted platform hardware). You don't have to upgrade everything just to run the OS / DirectX 10. I could be wrong about the no playback on non-Trusted monitors, TVs, or sound cards... but I doubt it. Feel free to correct me if that's not the case. ^^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 so can this be run on a system that has a partition and duel boot with xp on one and vista on another and would i get more out of a 64 bit processor than what i get with xp? sorry i dont know alot about this at the mo and want just afew opions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GorunNova Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 If you're running a 32-bit version of XP and get a 64-bit version of Vista, the you would get more out of that 64-bit processor... unless Vista's incredible overhead eats up all the 64-bit benefits and then some (which is probably what would happen). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wahaha Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 It can be run on dual boot if the partition you run it on is the primary or whatever. Which I think you need a partition manager program to set it up that way, which is what I did. Coz apparently there is no way in winXP to make both partitions primary system. I was in their beta test program, and gave feedback on compatibility issues, and vista has a long way to go if it's still anything like build 5600 and 5744. I just know I won't be using it anytime soon since it doesn't work well with one of the IM programs I use, and isn't compatible with most old programs, or even ones made today. It's pathetic. The 64 bit is a joke, don't even bother with it. It takes about 100MB more ram to run it, on top of the 400MB ultimate uses. And it's just a hassle to have 2 directories where 64 and 32 bit porgrams are filed under. Not to mention most software and drivers (tv tuner card, webcam) made is still only 32 bit. The only thing different is the flashy beads and cheap trinket looking desktop. The other reason being DX10, which there aren't any games out yet using that. I was running it on a AMD64 x2 3800, 1GB 800mhz ram, ATi X800 256MB x16 vid, and it ran smooooooth. It was marginally faster than XP, but when running the defrag, there was no display to show how far along it was. Maybe they've added those graphics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 I was running it on a AMD64 x2 3800, 1GB 800mhz ram, ATi X800 256MB x16 vid, and it ran smooooooth. It was marginally faster than XP, but when running the defrag, there was no display to show how far along it was. Maybe they've added those graphics. Thanks for clearing that up, sounds like you system is very close to the same spec as mine, only one thing and thats the processer which is slightly faster AMD 4000. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TetsuoShima Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 From what I read on the web, it seems so far Vista is being large outperformed by XP. Most likely due to non-optimised drivers. One of the few things that run significantly better on Vista is video encoding with a multicore processor, this is most likely caused by the improved process scheduler that's a part of Vista. Apart from that, it's all slower. Especially OpenGl which runs as if it were 2 years back (in system specs). A lot of problems so far are the result of drivers though. Vista changed a lot on that area. Sound drivers also changed a lot in requirements. Anyone with hardware accelerated audio is in for a surprise, it won't work. There is a 'Creative' project that is meant to circumvent these issues, but it still has only very limited support. As far as DRM is concerned, if Vista won't allow playback of an item, XP won't either. The difference is, that Vista gives the option of getting playback, IF you have a completely trusted platform. DRM is a big nuisance imo, which should be gotten rid off. The default action for any DRM'ed software/creative content is: DON'T PLAY. Only if certain conditions are met, it will play. It is a clear restriction of user privileges and if it were up to me, it would be illegal. Find a better way to protect you stuff, I say! It's like saying: you're all thieves, prove to me you aren't thieves. By law it should be the other way around... Then a remark about the drivers, if was mentioned in early reports that Vista won't allow unsigned custom drivers, ... well, it's not as simple as that. Vista 64-bit won't allow this, while Vista 32-bit will allow it. SO if you want to hassle around with hardware, in the short run, you'll either have to stick to 32-bit, or migrate to Linux. In the long run, you'll definately have to migrate to Linux (or pay for premium support, might get some assistance from MS to get custom drivers approved, though somehow I doubt that). Also, it appears a lot of games are 'broken' in Vista, don't ask me how, I don't know, I've never run Vista and don't intend to for the next year at least, it's just another thing that was reported on several websites. For now, Vista is waaaay to immature to succeed XP. XP is the definate OS of choice for MS addicts that want stable operation and speed (and don't have any urgent need for DX10). Linux will in the future indeed become more widespread among home users, but people know windows, how to operate it, most people don't like to learn new stuff like that, plus the majority of them don't mind all the negatives you get with it (MS OS). So it's a hard battle for Linux still, though enthousiasts would of course sooner make the switch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 Yeah I cant see myself using vista not until there are better drivers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TetsuoShima Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 More on the Vista drivers, or rather, Linux drivers... They are going the exact oposite way of MS : Kernel developers offer free Linux driver development Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Megalith Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 my 2c worth if you have Xp on a 64bit system upgrade first to XP 64 this will tie you over till vista SP1 has been released and the price has fallen before then vista is very shiny its so shiny it will hurt your eyes, your wallet and more importantly your performance ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wahaha Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 Here's the thread I started before, but the pics got wiped when the forum was hacked last time. http://forum.nitescifi.com/index.php?topic=8364.0 As for games, I think it's due to them not recognizing DX10. I had to install some DX9 drivers to get a game to work. Forgot which game I tried to play, might have been star wars, because I wanted to try it with the new dolby realtek vista surround drivers and my 8 speaker headphones. I didn't bother isntalling many programs on it since the few I tried didn't work properly, and esp had problems with my tv tuner card drivers. Couldn't get the viewing software to run even though drivers from MS vista update were installed for it. My copy doesn't expire till July 1, but I don't think I'll put it back on. Oh, and for the vista performance rater on my system CPU 4.9 RAM 4.5 AERO VID 4.7 DESKTOP VID 4.7 HD 5.6 On a scale of 5.9 max I guess. I read the file it outputs to and said it limited the score on the ram because I didn't have above 1.5GB. What bull. All the reviews say 2GB doesn't add much speed to it anyway, so 4GB would be overkill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TFMF Posted February 1, 2007 Author Share Posted February 1, 2007 I just don't see how Microsoft can justify such high demands on your system for an OS. Winodws XP had a good enough design and feel to it and was able to use far less resources. Vista seems to focus on making itself look good and it's costing a lot. Most of the problems with XP were technical related. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TetsuoShima Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 hehe, latest news indicates that in 2009 a whole new Microsoft OS will be released. One that will be quite different from Vista or XP. From the looks of things Vista is turning into what Millenium was for 98SE, compared to XP I mean. I think I'm sticking to XP 'till 2009 and see where to take it from then on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bones2097 Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 haha only 2 years.. lol that was around the time i was thinking of switching.. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kyran Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 Why switch doesn't xp do everything you need ? vista won't let you back up your dvd's so how am i gonna send them round the house ? rewire it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GorunNova Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 Who's for betting that this new windows that'll happen in 2009 will actually happen in 2012, and have entirely new APIs that force everyone to upgrade or not be able to run stuff? Baah... they're trying to instill an 'upgrade or else' scheme to force people to keep paying them in order to be able to use their programs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now