TetsuoShima Posted November 17, 2007 Share Posted November 17, 2007 XP was great for consumers when it arrived, it replaced millenium which was horrible, for businesses it wasn't that much better, as they'd been using windows 2000 instead. Of course, smart consumers had been using that too. :D In the long run Vista WILL replace XP, whether we want it to or not. In the short run, there's no hurry. Vista isn't that bad and a lot of bad stuff has allready been fixed, lots more work to do though and XP is still more stable. As for 98 running on new computers, I'm sure it will, but I'm even more certain, you won't find the necessary drivers to make it actually worthwhile and I think you can forget about multiprocessor support too (not entirely sure about that though). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cbosdell Posted November 17, 2007 Share Posted November 17, 2007 I've used it off and on for over a year and it's been my only OS since January. Besides it hogging way more disk space than it should I haven't had any problems with it and overall it's a great improvement to xp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dBLOOD Posted November 17, 2007 Share Posted November 17, 2007 I have installed it twice, first time it was going well, despite my computer hardware (built-in vga using system memory). Second time it was slow, I did not really understand why, though it was installed on a sata drive, first time it was on pata. I think it would go well on a modern computer though. I like its memory handling, boot was for me faster as on XP, though I have never been playing under vista, so probably this is why I think about it as a good one, I heard it has got problems with games, especially modern ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USWhoFan Posted November 24, 2007 Share Posted November 24, 2007 Here is a lighthearted review of Vista I found: http://www.theblimp.blip.tv/scripts/flash/showplayer.swf?autostart=true&enablejs=true&feedurl=http://theblimp.blip.tv/rss&file=http://www.theblimp.blip.tv/rss/flash/345491&showplayerpath=http://www.theblimp.blip.tv/scripts/flash/showplayer Although not entirely untrue. :cyclops: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TFMF Posted November 24, 2007 Share Posted November 24, 2007 I must say, I've been using vista for a few days now (On my new laptop), and I'm loving it :D At first, it was very slow. Took ages on initial startup, but after installing all the updates, it was much faster. Now it's probably as fast as XP was (If not faster). There are some very nice new features in Vista. I'm using an Integrated graphics card, and I can still use Aero - still fast! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbbb Posted January 26, 2008 Share Posted January 26, 2008 Is it faster than XP? Myself I was never a fan of XP. It takes up too much memory and resources, is too slow and seems to crash much more often than win98. If Vista works out and they fix all the bugs (ie make it more stable and faster than any previous version of windows) then this can be the cure to XP and the blue screen of death problem that was so prevalent in win95/98/2000pro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dBLOOD Posted January 26, 2008 Share Posted January 26, 2008 I just kinda tricked vista up today... works fine for me, a bit slow, but fine... Aero goes well too... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carnifex Posted January 26, 2008 Share Posted January 26, 2008 Vista is already obsolete.. Windows7 comes out in 2009 and Vista won't even be in a decent usable state i=before then so Vista is rather pointless. Either way I'd NEVER touch Vista.. it's far to instrusive, bloated with 'features' like hardware polling and DRM (what sucusseful business model can get away with assuming that all of their customers are criminals??) not to mention removing control from the user and giving it to Redmond.. I'll tell my machine what it can and can't do, not some faceless corporate entity.. The only pluses Vista has is it's security, which is dubious and can be compensated for on any machine by a third party app, and the shiny's (and I already have them in my Black XP).. Vista is less than useless. When I MUST change from XP (and it'll be supported, or at least compatible up to 2014) then I'll be moving to Linux.. Wine will be past v1,0 by then and gaming won't be such an issue (that's IF they still develop pc games by then.) Vista can suck my globes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TetsuoShima Posted January 27, 2008 Share Posted January 27, 2008 It's been guessed that the next windows will be 2H 2009, but that definately is no certainty, considering MS's trackrecord concerning releases. I do wonder if windows 7 will be to Vista what XP was to 2000, that would be nice. :) (ie. a smaller upgrade to get some things working better, while sacrificing as little performance as possible). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carnifex Posted January 27, 2008 Share Posted January 27, 2008 (ie. a smaller upgrade to get some things working better, while sacrificing as little performance as possible). Not really wanting to nitpick, TetsuoShima, but the specs needed to run Vista have been artificially inflated because of all the hardware polling the OS does (persistant and constant hardware inter communication, just to make sure that your don't run anything that they don't want you to).. with out all that excess work that os has been estimated to be able to run 5 times faster.. the hardware specs alone when run with something like apple's os of linux and even XP blows Vista's performance out of the water. The OS doesn't NEED all that extra horsepower to function the way it does.. it just utilises more to control what you do with your hardware and software through artificial limitations. I'm hoping W7 (which is based on something called MinWin.. a drastically stripped down version of the kernal) uses a completely different architecture to Vista, which I think it does. Vista bombed and I think MS will be looking for a way to restore some faith in their software, otherwise the mass (relatively speaking) migration from Windows will get worse and MS will lose even more of their market share. Although if I speak for the freedom of future computing in general I have to hope that W7 is worse than Vista.. that way their will be more developers willing to develop for Apple and Linux because their market will be bigger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TetsuoShima Posted January 27, 2008 Share Posted January 27, 2008 (ie. a smaller upgrade to get some things working better, while sacrificing as little performance as possible). I'm hoping W7 (which is based on something called MinWin.. a drastically stripped down version of the kernal) uses a completely different architecture to Vista, which I think it does. Vista bombed and I think MS will be looking for a way to restore some faith in their software, otherwise the mass (relatively speaking) migration from Windows will get worse and MS will lose even more of their market share. Although if I speak for the freedom of future computing in general I have to hope that W7 is worse than Vista.. that way their will be more developers willing to develop for Apple and Linux because their market will be bigger. Hmm, in terms of cpu cycles, Vista doesn't use all that much more than XP, it depends on how you look at it of course. In terms of memory, it's a giant waste, but then again, history show that for each subsequent OS, MS manages to consume at least 50% more memory. As for minwin when talking about win7, from what I read, what they're trying to do, is cut as much stuff out of the core kernel and put it in seperately, in the end this will probably mean even more memory usage (maybe not entirely logical, but knowing MS...), this will mean better control of MS about what goes on in the OS, you're basically making more building blocks to build about the same thing. The total size of the OS will definately not decrease unless they also cut a lot of features, the kernel is just a very small (very important) part of the OS. I wouldn't be so supportive about Apple btw. Apple is the worst company (in terms of user freedom) in the world, their level of monopolisation is far worse than Microsoft's. If it were up to me, I'd hope they went bankrupt asap, I'm totally against their lock-in business model. Linux is another matter of course, world would be paradise if more 'casual entertainment developers' build stuff for Linux, noone would need MS any longer. But unfortunately, Linux greatest strength is it's greatest weakness, open source and splinterisation (is that even a word?) of the whole movement, so many distros, so much chaos (compared to single company business models, it's not really a business model, but to say it with tfmf's words: mehhh . :p). Too many people are used to windows, children learn windows, ... by the time they grow up to learn about Linux, they're no longer in the mood to learn all the differences. And no mistake, Linux is harder to get running as you want than windows, a lot of manual stuff to do on almost every installation, people don't like that (aside from the few computer geeks). Anyway, I'm hoping w7 is better than vista, so I can skip vista entirely. :) I'm not even going to put any hope on MS influence diminishing much over the next few years, they simply have too many business interests in this area, they're not going to let it slip, in fact, in the server business (generally Linux' stronghold), Microsoft is stronger than ever, gaining marketshare every year. Oh, one last thing, about the hardware polling, you can blame the mpaa and hdcp for that hardware control, they wouldn't want to you to watch a blue-ray movie on full res via a vga output, now would they. Heh, sooner or later drm on movies is gonna go the same way as drm on music, down the drain... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carnifex Posted January 27, 2008 Share Posted January 27, 2008 Oh, one last thing, about the hardware polling, you can blame the mpaa and hdcp for that hardware control, they wouldn't want to you to watch a blue-ray movie on full res via a vga output, now would they. Heh, sooner or later drm on movies is gonna go the same way as drm on music, down the drain... Yep, absolutely.. I just didn't want to drone on any more than I already had. :P In terms of cycle, well, I'd probably have to disagree with you on that point. because the only measurements we have are in terms of percentages and while my XP install idles at between 4 and 7% when I tried Vista, it idled at between 26 and 32%..on the same hardware, to me that's quite significant. As for the Apple thing, when I said 'open' I was really talking about having a valid sufficiantly supported alternative to MS, rather than open in the terms of Linux. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiggy Posted January 27, 2008 Share Posted January 27, 2008 Ah a chance to slate Mac's.now your talking........... A graphics designers tool if you ask me. If you've ever met a graphic designer you`ll know that to have a three button mouse would overwhelm their very small brains. The only reason Mac is still here is because mummy and daddy keep on buying their little brats the latest IPOD for hundreds of pounds a pop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TetsuoShima Posted January 27, 2008 Share Posted January 27, 2008 In terms of cycle, well, I'd probably have to disagree with you on that point. because the only measurements we have are in terms of percentages and while my XP install idles at between 4 and 7% when I tried Vista, it idled at between 26 and 32%..on the same hardware, to me that's quite significant. wow, you sure you've got all the right drivers installed there? both pc's i'm currently using have xp installed, but 1 idles between 0 and 1 %, the other between 1 and 3. No idea about Vista, but +25% seems a bit excessive while doing nothing. Maybe it's trying to optimise the filesystem or sumtin or indexing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbbb Posted January 28, 2008 Share Posted January 28, 2008 Macs have never had an easy time compared to IBM compatibles and their successors, the microsoft windows PCs. I have used macs for some time but have never owned one. The whole closed-proprietary software thing gives me pause. If I can't use my favorite programs on a mac then really, what point is there for me to buy a mac? I've always been more of a fan for PCs even though many people say macs are easier to use. DOS could be hard to get into for some but I always liked it. It gave you performance. Fast. That was more important for me than pretty graphics like those on the mac. Although Microsoft can be slow at acquiring mac-like graphics, I think we can all say that eventually, windows does catch up to macs when it comes to graphics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carnifex Posted January 28, 2008 Share Posted January 28, 2008 In terms of cycle, well, I'd probably have to disagree with you on that point. because the only measurements we have are in terms of percentages and while my XP install idles at between 4 and 7% when I tried Vista, it idled at between 26 and 32%..on the same hardware, to me that's quite significant. wow, you sure you've got all the right drivers installed there? both pc's i'm currently using have xp installed, but 1 idles between 0 and 1 %, the other between 1 and 3. No idea about Vista, but +25% seems a bit excessive while doing nothing. Maybe it's trying to optimise the filesystem or sumtin or indexing? Yep all drivers were present and correct with no conflicts... the system was fine apart from running slow. Vista just does far too much behind the scenes to by resource ecnonomical.... to much going on that I didn't call for. Out of curiosity, as were talking percentages.. what specs are you using? I'm running a 3500+ with 2 GB of ram. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TetsuoShima Posted January 28, 2008 Share Posted January 28, 2008 one is an old athlon xp 3000+ 1gb, the other an intel 6420 and 2gb, i do keep close tabs on what stuff runs in the background Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbbb Posted January 29, 2008 Share Posted January 29, 2008 Can you turn some of these off in Vista? 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