General
07 May 09
08 May 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Crowleyit makes me chuckle when people complain about the 'instability' and 'problematic' vista (which is hands down the most secure & stable windows yet), AND install a beta or a RC. I mean, COME ON!?!?
...They needed this OS to be good and make people forget about the Vista debacle.
I like very much what I see in win 7. but really, it's ridiculous to ignore the very same problems in one OS but not the other.
you're old enough to remember how everybody was crazy about longhorn beta, how much better it was compared to XP. well now it's here, and quite a lot of people dismiss it as crap. completely regardless to it being rock solid where as XP crashes every now and then. -and some day, when win 7 finally arrives, it'll be 'crap' as well, and the 'next one' will be liquid gold.
you probably also remember how it was exactly the same deal when XP stepped ahead of win2000.
AND when win2000 stepped ahead of NT 4.
it'll never change, and win 7 will be deemed crap when it'll ship just like all its successors. instead of it being much better, WHEN it'll be ready. now it's just work in progress.
08 May 09
1 edit
Originally posted by wormwoodWhat? Did I complain? Did you read my posts or did you just see the words Vista and debacle?
it makes me chuckle when people complain about the 'instability' and 'problematic' vista (which is hands down the most secure & stable windows yet), AND install a beta or a RC. I mean, COME ON!?!?
I like very much what I see in win 7. but really, it's ridiculous to ignore the very same problems in one OS but not the other.
you're old eno ad of it being much better, WHEN it'll be ready. now it's just work in progress.
Vista was a PR debacle for MicroSoft and no matter how many bugs were ironed out by the stabilising SP1, many people still have the perception that Vista will kill any PC that shows weakness...
08 May 09
1 edit
Originally posted by wormwoodI do suspect that when & finally arrives, it will have a multitude of issues as with every OS that has come out. (Yes Linux lovers, even first releases there weren't perfect, just easier to customize if you know code).
it makes me chuckle when people complain about the 'instability' and 'problematic' vista (which is hands down the most secure & stable windows yet), AND install a beta or a RC. I mean, COME ON!?!?
I like very much what I see in win 7. but really, it's ridiculous to ignore the very same problems in one OS but not the other.
you're old eno ad of it being much better, WHEN it'll be ready. now it's just work in progress.
But I am comparing apples to apples here. I downloaded and installed vista as its beta and its RC1. I had huge issues and compatibility problems from hardware not supported nor would ever be supported for vista, to software and games that vista flat would install properly nor let run if it was installed at all. I am not having these issues here, with the same software. I can't say the same about the hardware as I was forced to change what wouldn't run for something that could.
Now I am playing with the Beta on a laptop that I use for toying around with. so no major loss if anything should happen. But from what I've seen so far. comparing both RC's 7 still leads the pack. Even you have said that 7 looks good so far.
There are a ton of positives so far for 7, and no matter how secure vista was, user friendly it's not, and there has been no argument from anyone there.
08 May 09
Originally posted by Crowleyoh sorry, I did miss the PR part. but anyway I was wondering about the vista debacle phenomenom in general, that's why it was the only part I quoted.
What? Did I complain? Did you read my posts or did you just see the words Vista and debacle?
Vista was a [b]PR debacle for MicroSoft and no matter how many bugs were ironed out by the stabilising SP1, many people still have the perception that Vista will kill any PC that shows weakness...[/b]
08 May 09
2 edits
Originally posted by wormwoodNo worries, I didn't specifically say PR.
oh sorry, I did miss the PR part. but anyway I was wondering about the vista debacle phenomenom in general, that's why it was the only part I quoted.
I also think MS learned alot from their Vista mistakes - and there were many - more so than a product like XP from my experience.
I can't remember XP fatally crashing once in the, what, 7 years I've been running it.
I couldn't really live without running Windows, so I have high hopes for 7. I don't think XP will cut it for another 5 years 😛
08 May 09
Originally posted by KJCavalieryes yes, of course. but vista ISN'T beta, and hasn't been for years. THAT's the whole point.
I do suspect that when & finally arrives, it will have a multitude of issues as with every OS that has come out. (Yes Linux lovers, even first releases there weren't perfect, just easier to customize if you know code).
But I am comparing apples to apples here. I downloaded and installed vista as its beta and its RC1. I had huge issues and compatibility ...[text shortened]... ecure vista was, user friendly it's not, and there has been no argument from anyone there.
I understand trying out betas, and simply working around the problems. it makes sense, you get new functionality for the cost of added instability, incompatibility and insecurity. it's a voluntary choice. but, when people do that AND complain about an existing working solution with none of those extremely critical problems, it's just completely illogical.
08 May 09
Originally posted by CrowleyI haven't had a single problem with Vista since SP1 came out. I think it's way better than XP now. And after SP2 comes out, it'll be even better.
What? Did I complain? Did you read my posts or did you just see the words Vista and debacle?
Vista was a [b]PR debacle for MicroSoft and no matter how many bugs were ironed out by the stabilising SP1, many people still have the perception that Vista will kill any PC that shows weakness...[/b]
I think Vistas rep is not deserved anymore. It is solid and much better than XP
08 May 09
Originally posted by uzlessAbsolutely, Vista SP1 works great.
I haven't had a single problem with Vista since SP1 came out. I think it's way better than XP now. And after SP2 comes out, it'll be even better.
I think Vistas rep is not deserved anymore. It is solid and much better than XP
Still a resource hog - but stable.
Public perceptions is a different kettle of fish, though. Many people still believe Vista is evil. They will also continue to believe this, as these days its so fashionable to knock MS.
08 May 09
2 edits
Originally posted by Crowleyyeah, vista x64 takes 1.2gb ram idle on my machine (6gb ram), which it pretty silly. (although it took only a couple of hundred mbs on my previous machine with only 1gb of ram, and I never had problems unless my processes took multiple gigs of memory, like chessbase does. so I guess the allocation is quite dynamic after all...)
Absolutely, Vista SP1 works great.
Still a resource hog - but stable.
but, 6gigs of ram cost only 100e these days. which is next to nothing. so not having your memory slots maxed out isn't really a good idea.
btw, while putting together this computer, I ran into a test with 3gb vs 6b of ram combined with 32bit software (on x64 vista, because 32bit OSs can't handle more than 3-3.5gb ram because of the address space runs out), and the results were quite surprising:
now, obviously a piece of 32bit software isn't written to use more than 3gb of ram, so you wouldn't expect any gains from 6gb. but it turns out that it's absolutely not true! the same exact software on same computer, got huge gains from having 6gb of ram. from 20%-200% gains (I'll try to look the link up...). that's quite shocking improvement.
okay, found it:
http://www.corsair.com/_appnotes/AN811_Gaming_Performance%20Analysis_6GB_vs_3GB.PDF
08 May 09
Originally posted by wormwoodWeird, I'll have to check that out.
yeah, vista x64 takes 1.2gb ram idle on my machine (6gb ram), which it pretty silly. (although it took only a couple of hundred mbs on my previous machine with only 1gb of ram, and I never had problems unless my processes took multiple gigs of memory, like chessbase does. so I guess the allocation is quite dynamic after all...)
but, 6gigs of ram cost onl ...[text shortened]... it:
http://www.corsair.com/_appnotes/AN811_Gaming_Performance%20Analysis_6GB_vs_3GB.PDF
Although it doesn't bother me really - I don't play any games, except some little things on the net - and all this with only 1GB DDR667!
I think a 32bit OS can address the full 4GB?
08 May 09
Originally posted by Crowleyyep, 4gb for 32bit, but around 400-800mb gets hogged by the system and you're generally left with around 3.2-3.6gb...
Weird, I'll have to check that out.
Although it doesn't bother me really - I don't play any games, except some little things on the net - and all this with only 1GB DDR667!
I think a 32bit OS can address the full 4GB?
(same here with gaming, chess is the only game I play...)
08 May 09
Originally posted by KJCavalierWhen our Windows XP finally gives up the ghost we're going over to a Mac.
I am toying wtih this now, and have actually heard some good things about it. Anyone else checking this one out?
Enough is enough. However much Microsoft try to copy Apple's apps, the Windows OS simply can't seem to handle things.
Yay for no 5 minute boot-up or shutdown!