73 Replies. 4 pages. Viewing page 2.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 ] Older >
 |
| 53. |
No subject |
Nov 9, 2006, 16:56 |
ventry |
|
|
LOL
The same old shite as when XP was due for release.
In 1.5 to 2 years you'll all be using Vista just like you're now using XP.
With the possible exception of a few radical "burn Bill penguin heads"
The whole "wailing and moaning" process will repeat itself when the next MS OS is due for release.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 52. |
Re: No subject |
Nov 9, 2006, 11:50 |
Tim |
|
|
UAC: Well I had to turn it off in RC2 simply because there's an issue with RegSvr32.exe and UAC in that build - as this affects developers i'm assuming that will be resolved in the final. That was really my only issue with it really tho - it was far less annoying (and far less frequent) than the public Beta. Things will improve as software is a: made to run without admin rights and b: aware of UAC.
I am going to make the effort to not run as root (admin) on my home PC with UAC on - whether this will work for me in the office when i'm developing is hard to say. I guess i'm classified as an 'expert' user but, still, I can see the point in not running everything with admin priviledges all the time: it's how we got into such a mess with Windows in the first place isn't it?
This comment was edited on Nov 9, 11:52. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 51. |
Re: No subject |
Nov 9, 2006, 11:01 |
MMORPGHoD |
|
|
Is there anyone here that can actually use Vista on a daily basis without disabling User Access Controls? Or is it turned off by default now..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 50. |
Re: No subject |
Nov 9, 2006, 10:21 |
wtf_man |
|
|
I need details on this stuff, anyone have any decent links that go into specifics?
How about right from the horse's mouth?: http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2006/oct06/10-04SoftwareProtection.mspx
Customers that use genuine Windows Vista product should expect, and will get, an enhanced set of features that will not work on non-genuine or unlicensed versions of Windows Vista. Customers using genuine and licensed copies of Windows Vista will have access to Windows Aero and Windows ReadyBoost features, as well as full functionality of Windows Defender and extra optional updates from Windows Update. Computer systems that do not pass validation will not have access to these features, although they will still have access to critical security updates.
Ok... the words "shut down" might have been a little strong.... but "cripple" is accurate.
Sorry... I don't agree to give that type of control to ANYONE .
This comment was edited on Nov 9, 10:23. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 49. |
No subject |
Nov 9, 2006, 10:01 |
TorTorden |
|
|
Still, if you're going the RC1 route don't expect it to be bug-free but that said it wasn't unstable etc. Be careful about installing third-party drivers - even from big names like nVidia and ATI.
Well I am installing this in the same manner I grabbed and installed Sun Solaris a while back. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
----------------------------
Yes, I abuse grammar by opening my mouth. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 48. |
Re: No subject |
Nov 9, 2006, 09:14 |
Yakuza |
|
|
This is the first I'm hearing of all of these horrible probelms with vista. built in rootkits? MS can remotely fuck your system over?
I need details on this stuff, anyone have any decent links that go into specifics?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 47. |
Re: No subject |
Nov 9, 2006, 09:05 |
Jim |
|
|
God help us...each day a Mac and a console sounds more like the way to go...
Already have the Mac, but if gaming comes down to having to play consoles then I'd rather just get out of gaming altogether. I just can't do games on consoles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 46. |
Re: hehe, |
Nov 9, 2006, 08:23 |
Tim |
|
|
Well I am downloading RC1 from Mircrosofts sites and RC2 was only released as a update instead of as a bootable dvd iso. RC2 was also only released for a few downloads and is no longer hosted by MS.
Since I indeed intend to be dual booting, getting that bootable install dvd is a must, in fact I have no reason yet to buy vista, and gaming sure isnt a good enough reason.
Sorry you're quite wrong - RC2 was just as bootable as RC1 (in fact every build has been) and wasn't released as an 'update'. I did a clean install of RC2 after formatting RC1 off the drive a couple of weeks back..
Still, if you're going the RC1 route don't expect it to be bug-free but that said it wasn't unstable etc. Be careful about installing third-party drivers - even from big names like nVidia and ATI.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 45. |
No subject |
Nov 9, 2006, 08:20 |
Brainp0wa |
|
|
Ok, so how about a Halo2 PC release date now please.
edit: stupid smileys...
This comment was edited on Nov 9, 09:37. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 44. |
Re: hehe, |
Nov 9, 2006, 07:57 |
TorTorden |
|
|
RC2 is far better (have used both and am on RC2 now)
Well I am downloading RC1 from Mircrosofts sites and RC2 was only released as a update instead of as a bootable dvd iso. RC2 was also only released for a few downloads and is no longer hosted by MS.
Since I indeed intend to be dual booting, getting that bootable install dvd is a must, in fact I have no reason yet to buy vista, and gaming sure isnt a good enough reason.
399$ for the gaming oriented version with a EULA that makes me want to puke. No thank you, I'l rather buy a revolution for gaming and convert to linux. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
----------------------------
Yes, I abuse grammar by opening my mouth. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 43. |
Re: Great. Just...fricken...great |
Nov 9, 2006, 06:41 |
Jerykk |
|
|
The XP people will now overtake the Windows 2000 people in the signal-to-noise whine.
Except the Win2k whiners were completely justified in their complaints. There wasn't (and still isn't) any reason why a game that runs on XP shouldn't work on 2K. The only reason why some games only work on XP is because the installers have OS-checks. Back when I used 2K, I managed to bypass these checks and the games would run fine. So really, there is no good justification to preventing games from running on 2K.
Sure, you can argue that by officially limiting the game to one OS, tech support, QA, etc, becomes much easier. Unfortunately, that's a lousy excuse. XP and 2K share the same fundamentals and if something doesn't work on 2K, there's a very good chance it won't work on XP for the same reason(s). And if tech support really wants to be lazy, they can just refuse to offer support to people not using XP. No need to have arbitrary OS-checks during installation. As for testing, like I said before, 2K and XP are fundamentally the same, so testing on one of them pretty much ensures that it'll work on the other.
So yeah, I'd still be using 2K if there weren't so many BS OS-checks during installations.
This comment was edited on Nov 9, 06:41. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 42. |
Re: No subject |
Nov 9, 2006, 06:33 |
Tim |
|
|
From what I've seen and read, Vista will actually have worse performance than XP. Now, that may be due to beta drivers or whatever but if not, Vista definitely has problems. I'm also not a big fan of the huge icons, useless animations, transparencies, etc. Just reminds me of Macs, which is never a good thing.
Feeling like i'm working for MS or something (come back my Amiga I miss being the outsider!) but:
You can turn that all off. No really. You can make it look like Windows 2000 if you so wish (shudder), change the icon size etc etc.
Performance is a relative thing - if you're working on the desktop then Vista has some benefits: drawing is far more efficient (each window has it's own state and doesn't redraw unecessarily) and because the GPU is doing the work of painting those pixels then CPU actually has less to do. In practice this means switching between apps is punchy, running 3d in a window doesn't have huge context switching penalties and the whole thing feels snappy and responsive (at least to me with several visual studios open). It also means nasty software goes bang in a sort of warm fuzzy way - the window simply dims and you're told the apps died. I quite like that (as a dev) as I can still see what state the window was in when it died (but that's me).
Game performance is another thing entirely - personally I think this is driver related (we should be in a better position by shipping date) and DX10 should have a performance jump again (as it's more efficient).
This comment was edited on Nov 9, 06:34. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 41. |
Great. Just...fricken...great |
Nov 9, 2006, 06:32 |
Goofball_Jones |
|
|
Now we get to hear for the next 5 or 6 years all the people that saying "I use XP. XP is great. What, this game won't install on XP? Why no XP support for this? XP was the greatest OS to come from Microsoft"
The XP people will now overtake the Windows 2000 people in the signal-to-noise whine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 40. |
Re: hehe, |
Nov 9, 2006, 06:24 |
Tim |
|
|
Downloading the RC1 now, sigh.
RC2 is far better (have used both and am on RC2 now) and really it's staggering how much Vista has come along in the past few months - the public beta should never of been released as many people still believe that's the state of affairs with Vista now.
Yeah it's not perfect, but overall I prefer it to XP and once the gaming performance catches up (hint: drivers suck right now, DX10 stuff yet to come) i'll switch entirely at home. I'm using Vista fulltime at work now and i'll be installing the RTM within the week (when it's on MSDN). There's a lot to love about Vista - the problem is most of it's under the covers (so to speak) and has longer term benefits compared to XP.
No need to panic, dual boot if you want to be cautious - but sometimes I get a little bored of the 'fashionable' POV on boards (i.e. slam Vista) as my experience of it (first hand) somewhat differs. Each to his own I suppose 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 39. |
Re: No subject |
Nov 9, 2006, 06:10 |
Jerykk |
|
|
From what I've seen and read, Vista will actually have worse performance than XP. Now, that may be due to beta drivers or whatever but if not, Vista definitely has problems. I'm also not a big fan of the huge icons, useless animations, transparencies, etc. Just reminds me of Macs, which is never a good thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 38. |
Re: No subject |
Nov 9, 2006, 05:57 |
KBenna |
|
|
For a single user desktop Pc to require 512mb of memory just to run is a joke. Only one PC in our office came close to the min reqs for Vista, and I've got Vista Beta2 running on it. ( without the flash gui because none of our desktops have DX9 cards, why should they it's an office!)
What do we get for giving the OS all that memory and processor?
A slower and more cumbersome OS!
I re-read that bit about 20 times. Beautiful. That right there pretty much sums up why I think Vista will be MS's undoing.
Clearly, Vista is a gaming-only OS. No office PC that runs MS programs is going to be running Vista...it simply can't. I think this will be fun to watch.
BTW, I'll be in the back playing Ultima 7 Serpent Isle on my PC running DOSbox, ok? Yeah.
-----------
I disagree, because they said the same about 95,98, 2000, XP. It's plain and simple evolution. Otherwise we will still be stuck with DOS and playing Ultima 7 In a couple of years 512MB Ram will be nothing, it already is... at our company all the work stations has 1GB ram on XP.
Consumers will always want new stuff. better graphics smarter effects more services.
Just think about all the services running in the background that you dont even see, you dont know about it until it breaks or is taken away.
The EU crusified MS for not giving enough choice to its consumers, now that MS is giving more options - ie. if you dont want Media Center just dont buy the version of Windows supplying it - Now that there are options, everybody is crusifying MS for giving too many options... so what is it now that you want?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 37. |
No subject |
Nov 9, 2006, 05:35 |
Icewind |
|
|
For a single user desktop Pc to require 512mb of memory just to run is a joke. Only one PC in our office came close to the min reqs for Vista, and I've got Vista Beta2 running on it. ( without the flash gui because none of our desktops have DX9 cards, why should they it's an office!)
What do we get for giving the OS all that memory and processor?
A slower and more cumbersome OS!
I re-read that bit about 20 times. Beautiful. That right there pretty much sums up why I think Vista will be MS's undoing.
Clearly, Vista is a gaming-only OS. No office PC that runs MS programs is going to be running Vista...it simply can't. I think this will be fun to watch.
BTW, I'll be in the back playing Ultima 7 Serpent Isle on my PC running DOSbox, ok? Yeah.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 36. |
Re: MS lost the plot |
Nov 9, 2006, 04:39 |
KBenna |
|
|
I don't now what you lot are bitching about, if you don't like it, don't buy it. As for all the security holes hackers will exploit - ALL O/S will have holes, its just that Windows are used by MILLIONS and therefore have greater appeal to hacker. Why would a hacker hack an OS that only ten people in the world uses, versus a O/S that 100 of millions use?
If there was a linux OS that was as popular as Windows - that O/S will also get hacked the shit out of it, and you guys will also bash it to death.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 35. |
MS lost the plot |
Nov 9, 2006, 04:11 |
Dante_uk |
|
|
Someone should point MS Here
Clearly they have forgotten what an Operating System is suppose to do.
It's a platform to run 'Application Programs' on.
For a single user desktop Pc to require 512mb of memory just to run is a joke. Only one PC in our office came close to the min reqs for Vista, and I've got Vista Beta2 running on it. ( without the flash gui because none of our desktops have DX9 cards, why should they it's an office!)
What do we get for giving the OS all that memory and processor?
A slower and more cumbersome OS!
And transparent window requiring DX9 hardware and 128mb memory - KDE 3.5 can do that on an S3 class video card, In fact I have Suse 10.1 running inside a MS virtualPC with transparent windows turned on!
My main home PC runs XP fine, it could run Vista but it would most likely be slower, so whats the point?
Biggest problem is most people only know one Operating System and thats Windows, they think this shit is normal and acceptable - It isn't - MS write poor, resource hungry bloated programs. Just compare IE7 to Firefox or Opera - IE has less features as standard, less secure, it's not really faster(slower than Opera) and the update it's self is twice the size. Opera and FF can be installed cleanly into a folder so you can run different versions for web testing, IE is so Dependant on windows .dlls that's not possible - does that dependance allow it to be smaller ? No - Of course it loads faster than FF or Opera, that's because half it's .dlls are already loaded in memory at boot time.
Bottom line is if you're a windows user stick with XP unless you're running a top of the line PC and don't mind the OS using more resources than any sane Desktop OS has a right to use.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 34. |
Re: No subject |
Nov 9, 2006, 04:07 |
Jerykk |
|
|
Personally I'd rather have the people selling pirated stuff shot.
Fair enough. Though, if you are dumb enough to either knowingly pay for pirated stuff or be fooled into doing so, I think a bullet or two is in order.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
73 Replies. 4 pages. Viewing page 2.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 ] Older >
|
|
Twitter 
