Originally Posted by scq no more RAW Image Thumbnails. XP had it via a PowerToy, I can't see why a modern operating system like Vista can't. It's really inconvenient when I want to take a look at my shots through Explorer without having to boot up into a program.
It comes from manufacturers drivers now, install it and you'll get the thumbnails.
It amuse me to see loads of people complaining about programs crashing, drivers problem and putting the blame on Microsoft.
It has got nothing to do with Microsoft. Drivers are from 3rd party companies. Remember, they HAD access to Vista beta for a whole YEAR so they had plently of time to update their drivers.
But no, they didn't bother and wait until it got released. Then most companies said their drivers will be ready in mid-April, 3 months after Vista got released.
So, the story is... update all of your drivers (when it's released) and applications and you won't have any problems.
I think for the most part, nobody wants Vista to be NICE and to WORK.
Having run XP in its various guises on PCs over the last 5 years, installing countless times to verious levels of hardware, i found Vista to be the easiest yet.
You cannot compare Mac OSX to Vista when MacOSX is designed for one CD drive, one graphics chipset, one hard drive, one motherboard config. Its EASY for apple engineers to write an operating system for such a small hardware base, Microsoft have done a sterling job over the years supporting every last bit of random hardware under the sun - we shouldn't get upset when one month after launch you have to boot into XP to run a game that was designed for XP.
I have a comment on Vista performance though. Nobody seems to have picked up on the simple and plain facts.
Once its installed and you get ovewr the hardware issues (remember this isn't linux - for the most part its ONE google search and a driver download - if not just using the CD that came with your motherboard and the windowsupdate website) then Vista runs so much smoother and faster than XP.
The 3D interface gives your desktop a 'real' feeling, the fact that its graphically accelerated and 'live' means no more waiting for things to happen. If somethign needs some processor power, then it can have it, but the user interface doesn't force you to wait, rather just gets on with feeding you pretty windows and smooth movement instead of hourglasses and blank explorer windows.
If you dont like the breadcrumbs way of doing things, if you dotn like change, then why are you actually bothering with Vista at all? Thats the main reason why i embrace the new technnology, its gonna take a lot longer than a month for it to become the norm, when Henry Ford released the model T in 1904 many 'experts' said that driving a car was too complicated for your average person to learn, now 100 years later, we are in a similar situation with computers.
Take 'prefetch' for example. Vista hads received a lot of brad press from typ-happy slashdotters and diggers who want to see a nice low 130MB memory footprint when running nothing but windows on idle. THeres a big question here, WHY? Ok, so XP can do it, but what that means is when you click on Firefox.exe you actually have to wait for it to load into memory. What prefetch does is learn which programs you use more often, and preload their resources into memory ahead of time, in a really clever way. SO when i click on Firefox, i get firefox in a matter of half a second or so, compared to 4 or five seconds in XP. This difference may not seem a lot, but its actually very very clever. Your memory footprint might be 450-500MB (or rather around 50% of your physical memory) but then whats the point of buying a gig or two of ram if all you want your computer to use is just 130MB? When you launch a game or run an intensive program - prefetch turns itself off - you're not getting any performance drop - only a performance GAIN where you need it - in day to day productivity and speed. My computer now flies, i get things done in a way that i didn't think possible before, and its down to Vista being a lot better at these things than XP. Pure and simple.
The other thing to reme,mber is this is a FIVE YEAR UPDATE>
Never before have we been using a single operating system for as long as XP - that bodes well for microsoft, but it also gives Vista a chance to really change the way we think and push the expectations a step further - without change we won't acheive anything.
All in all, vista is a change, and a welcome one. Those who dont notice the difference, don't bother, loads of people stuck with windows 98 after 2000 and ME were released, let them eat cake, the truth is we'll all be using it before long, and if you dont like it, then you could always eat apples whilst visiting the penguins!!!
Originally Posted by BioSniper The interface changes is one of the primary reasons I am not switching over to Vista any time soon.
I will wait for SP1, just like I did with XP, it usually fixes things that people complain about :)
On a side note, is there any way to turn off all the fluff in Vista, so that it looks more like 2k? Just that when I was in beta if you switched to "classic mode" it never actually turned ALL of the stuff off, things like the menus on the left of explorer windows (something I really don't like) always remained on.
Also what's the deal with "clear type" remaining on in certain parts even if you turn it off? it just makes text look all fuzzy.
i have the perfect answr for you...
Install Windows 2000.
If thats what you want, why not stick with it? I'm being serious!!!
If you dont like driving ferraris and you're likely to put a 1.2 fiat punto engine into it, why not just buy a punto in the first place.
Originally Posted by Veles If they hadn't dropped WinFS, and it was as good as I was hoping, I'd buy this in a heartbeat, but now I don't really see why I should bother paying and going through the hassle of the activation crap. Probably the biggest turn off for me is the draconian activation process.
Not sure what to do now, I love gaming, so I need a windows PC really, but I really can't stand folders anymore.
How's clicking "Activate online now" once and reading "Txs, activation completed" or some such is draconian?
I'm very happy with Vista. All of my hardware worked out of the install. I only had to d/l the new nVidia drivers for the 8800GTS. The DVD burner functionality is more than decent, no more need for Nero. The Firewall is decent, no more need of ZoneAlarm. Windows Defender is decent, no more Spypot or AdAware. My internet connection just worked after the install, the only tinkering I had to do with it was clicking on "Configure Internet Access" or something like that. It defrags prediodically, so no need to bother about it. The Search works. UAC works pretty well, I too can let my fiancee use the rig with no worries. The Sidebar works better and with more functionality than my old Samurize config, and I get much more mileage of my widescreen monitor than with XP + Samurize.
Performance is more or less the same that with XP, the only complaints I have is that the DVD burner seems to hog 100% of my dual core CPU resources when copying the files to a temporary folder (a bug?), and that the indexing functionality, although very useful, seems to hog my CPU too whenever I open a folder that I have manually told the SO to index, leaving the system unresponsive for some seconds (perhaps an .avi related bug too, I have to check it).
Originally Posted by Ramble I've actually used OS X for a not inconsiderate amount of time
Well, i retract my assumption. I'm surprised you came to that conclusion though, the Dock, for me, completely pisses all over the start menu and task bar and is also the opinion of most mac users in the office here :)
SB live? Lets see, they still sell them at Walmart (with XP only drivers [rolleyes] ). I've got one sitting on the kitchen counter that I thought I would need for a project and ended up never using because I don't have any XP machines aside from the lappy. This was a sales decision on creative's part and well deserving of the hammering they are taking for it.
Nice little article there on vista, i think each one i read i build up more opinions on vista's GUI. I think everyone has small issues with vista, the movement of add/remove programs as you said is an annoyance although not a major one, driver support is sketchy and the 10% performance hit are probably the 3 major issues for most people. But not for me.
For me the major issue is the GUI itself, it releives me that i can move back to a 2k look, as i use on xp now, what is'nt a releif is that i cant use litestep.
That's a shot of my old version, the new versions got a lot more on it but i dont actually have a screeny available right now, it consists of 9 overall colour themes, 128 eye animations to the center logo using flash, 10 shortcut groups, a dual start menu (litestep and standard start), program shorts and multi desktop support (bottom right), winamp, cli, vol control all in a one flick tray on the taskbar top edge, and all of the lower taskbar is hideable if need be. Plus it has full dual screen functionality with another set of workspace and status displays not shown in that shot, rather than explorer in xp and from what i hear vista aswell which has always been useless at dual screen GUIs. But litestep currently has no support under vista, although i have heard of some people getting it to work the performance hit is enough to make you cry.
For me a truly customisable GUI is the one thing i absolutely cannot be without, most people wont need it, but i could never go back to something that was'nt as functional as i can make it. And litesteps just the tip of a very large iceberg, i've yet to look into all the programs i use, windowblinds (apparently yes its ok), bootskin, logostudio, cursorxp (presumably yes). Of course as usual winlogon and bootskin changes can be done manually, cursor packs can be installed without the need for third party software aswell, and i'm sure someone will mention other GUI replacements such as the ObjectDesktop series or even 3DDesktop. For me litestep is the epitomy of functionality, which fits perfectly into the gaps between other GUIs presented by various OSs, the only thing i can think of being better is a combination of 3DDesktop and Litestep, that would be heaven. I've played around with probably about 80% of the GUIs available for windows in various flavours, but this ones always going to be the one i fall back on.
I've played around with vista with aero and with the classic 2k look, to me its just bland and relatively functional as with all the windows OS, the underlying tools are still where you expect them, the securities a bit tighter, and theres some things in odd places to get used to. It's basically a good OS and later this year i doubt i'll have much choice but to move to it fully, but i wont be making that leap until i can do it on my terms when it comes to the GUI.
I disagree. In my experience (And I've been using Vista a LONG time) most things work, I've rarely come across something that doesn't outright work. Even some crappy school software works fine.
Also, the article stated base functionality, not the functionality you get after spending 30 hours installing software.
I'm going to guess you've never used Vista for a length of time, because just stating things with no evidence in a single line about an entire operating system doesn't come across as considered.
Although, I do visit a number of sites where hatred for Vista is high, and as a self-confessed MS fanboy I do my best to destroy the opposing arguments.
sure I haven't used vista but I used the beta (microsoft bob) so get the genral idea ;)
I'm a fan boy of no OS I have run practiacaly everything at some time or another, which is more than most so called "enthusiasts" can claim. By been a fanboy you are cheating yourself... it's rather like riligious fanatisism.
I guess I'm more bitter than most as I thought with all there reasources M$ could have actualy made a revolutionary OS wheras it seems more like a graphical refresh of xp with all the worst features of Xp like the horible UI made even more extreme. It's also massivly expensive, windows got to where it is now by been the cheap OS for the massess and now it's had massive above inflation price hikes.
Been pretty impressed with vista so far, but i do agree about the UI. Its terrible! I get lost just trying to find network related information. Ah well, i'll find my way round eventually. Not very impressed with vista using half my system ram when its doing nothing though...
Isnt the Mac dock that silly thing that has loads of icons on.. much like the "quick start bar" that has been in windows since 95? (and you can make your start bar hide its self .. much like the dock...)
Originally Posted by Kipman725 I'm a fan boy of no OS I have run practiacaly everything at some time or another, which is more than most so called "enthusiasts" can claim. By been a fanboy you are cheating yourself... it's rather like riligious fanatisism.
Maybe 'm using the wrong word. Microsoft enthusiast is more descriptive, since I've actually used all three major OSs and I base my opinions on the evidence gleamed from using them.
It's not as if I hate Linux or something (I love Gentoo).
Seems slightly more sluggish with programs opening and closing than I am used to with my XP install. Few other things seem extra fiddly - but it could grow on me. I need more time to explore the functions and tweaks.
After purchasing my new gaming system, C2D E6600 with a 8800GTS for the soul purpose of gaming, I've decided to stick with XP Pro, and not jump on the Vista bandwagon. Why? Because I honestly can't be f'd figuring out which version of Vista to get, only to then have to learn my way around the new user interface. Not to mention forking out a heap of money for the new OS, which has nothing really new over my current install of XP along with all of the app's I've already installed and setup.
Speaking of the old software & hardware, is it 100% supported under Vista? Well, it works 100% on XP, so if it ain't broke, don't fix! Especially with reports of slower FPS on Vista when compared to XP when it comes to games. Most of my time is spent either playing games, or recording and composing music, which I can achieve in XP just fine.
With that, I'll be formatting my old box soon enough, and I'll be sticking Ubuntu on it. When was the last time you tried Linux? Mine was about 5 years ago, and I ran away screaming from it... So I thought it was about time to check out the scene again, and oh my, how things have changed for the better. :)
2 important facts about Ubuntu really took hold of me.
1) It's free
2) It's simple to use.
By simple, I mean that I downloaded the Ubuntu ISO, burnt it to CD. Reset my PC and booted from the CD, and.. that's it. A couple of minutes loading time, NOTHING MANUALLY CONFIGURED AT ALL, and I was surfing the web (using firefox!!!) as soon as the OS had fully loaded. NOTE, that I didn't even install the OS, it just booted up from the CD!!!
So yeah, back on topic, Living with Vista? Hopefully not... I like my money in my wallet, kthx.
I will have to agree with the article in full swing. Though the point I think people are missing is the need to upgrade an already working system to an operating system that may cause issues. It would never occur to me to replace a working install of XP with a less compatable version of windows. Sure I have Vista installed on a secondary drive but what other use can I find for it despite to show off to friends. Sometimes you have a hard enough time finding drivers for windows XP.... I dont even want to think about the lengths you have to goto for vista. Personally I will wait till vienna.
If anyone can see the similarities here:
Windows 1-3 > Windows 95 > Windows 98 > Windows ME
Windows NT > Windows 2000 > windows Xp > Windows Vista
... just waiting for Vienna. Ive decided to let Windows ME, I mean Vista blow over.
Originally Posted by BurningFeetMan After purchasing my new gaming system, C2D E6600 with a 8800GTS for the soul purpose of gaming, [...]
So yeah, back on topic, Living with Vista? Hopefully not... I like my money in my wallet, kthx.
May I ask what's the point of a 400 GPU if not for DX10? I you are never going to get Vista, you may as well sell the GTS and get a 7900GTX or somesuch. Less heat, less energy consumption, similar performance in DX9 games at normal resolutions...
Originally Posted by Shepps Not very impressed with vista using half my system ram when its doing nothing though...
why not?
In XP, it might sit there only using 120MB of ram, but what that means is when you load something, the 'spare' ram has to be loaded with data.
With vista, (and this will only happen after you've been using it for a while) it loads the programs YOU use most often, and when you need to clear the RAM, i.e. when running a game, it pages that data off.
Adding a second GIG of ram would help with the paging issue, but for most things, its now actually using my hardware, and thats what i bought it for.
Also, key thing to remember, and security minded, is the fact that th RAM is used on a random basis, i.e. when a program is loaded, it uses whatever bit of ram is free, and a different bit each time. This is for security reasons, disabling malicious code from running from unexecuted data in RAM.
Its complicated, and most won't even notice, but its a big step forward.
EDIT: good point made by warrior_rocker... why upgrade if nothing is broken?
Its a sad fact but really did everyone expect EVERYTHING to work beautfully? If so why? Why woudl MS want to keep supporting stuff that really shouldn't have been supported in XP when really they want us all to move on to new hardware and new functionality.
BTW - Add/Remove Programs IS in the control panel, its called 'Programs and Features' and works arguable a lot better than in XP, it includes drivers as well as programs and is constantly updating.
Anyone else notice the little things that are MASSIVELY improved?
Like, when you put in a CD in XP and click on My Computer, you have to wait for the CD to initialise BEFORE you can click on ANY icon in my computer, and in some case before the icons even appear - now, loading a CD times out the CD drive icon in 'Computer' but still allows you access to other items in the list. Its a million and one little improvements like this that make Vista a valid switch for anyone who ENJOYS using their computer.
Originally Posted by BurningFeetMan I've decided to stick with XP Pro, and not jump on the Vista bandwagon. Why? Because I honestly can't be f'd figuring out which version of Vista to get, only to then have to learn my way around the new user interface.
I say wait for SP1.
- By then their will more features and/or improved features, and more bugs fixed.
- Hardware manufactures will finally release proper Driver support.
- Software "manufactures" will finally be forced to make software that should have been done properly since WinXP (isn't that the reason why most people is not using a limited account?!? For me yes.). In effect UAC will stop be annoying.
- Maybe a Tweak UI might be released, and you can edit some interface stuff. We have to wait and see.
Vista is failing, because software and hardware company were too lazy to look at their device/software with Vista public beta. Which was the MAIN point of it.
At least thanks to many many beta testers, Vista is not bombarded with bugs (TRUST ME Vista RC1 was HORRIBLE. However RC2, seamed at the same level of XP SP2 fully updated. And the final versions, has bug fixes that was never fixed since the original WinNT!)
that kind of says what i feel about vista, and it follows along with what most of the Apple fans are saying. Essentially, Microsoft's achilles heel is the fact that it has to support a whole legacy contingent of hardware and software.
You can't put OSX Tiger onto a G3 Mac. But you can put vista onto a three year old Pentium 4, or even a pentium 3 for that matter. It also supports - out of the box - more hardware configurations than any other OS has ever done before. The fact that some things dont work, is merely a hiccup.
If we wanted revolution, ie, winfs and all the other radical changes that WERE planned and then binned, we would have had to deal with an even longer list of things that no longer worked. Its a choice.
I recall perfectly that When XP came out... most people had WIn98.
Windows XP was extremely buggy, at a point where MS had to pay you to install it. When people upgraded to XP... most application failed to even run. Yet, for some strange reasons people did not complain as much. Maybe because less people had the internet?!?! Who knows, but people were using Windows XP pre SP1, and very very very very little said on the topic of switch to Linux or Mac OS, even back then Mac OS was clearly better.
Windows XP has a million editions too:
- Windows XP Home upgarde
- Windows XP Home
- Windows XP Pro upgarde
- Windows XP Pro
- Windows XP Pro 64-bit edition
- Windows XP Media center
- Windows XP Tablet PC edition.
WOW, 7 versions!
Yet no one complains... when MS add 1 more version.. it's "OMG they are millions of version, NO one will know what to pick!!!" Come one.. stop with the BS guys.
In fact I see no one saying how great that FINALLY you get get tablet PC functionality and 32/64-bit version into all editions. With XP, if you have a tablet PC with a 64-bit processor and you want to use WinXp 64-bit (to run 64-bit applications) or want media center... why should anyone drop tablet PC functionality for it. I see no one complaining....
Windows Vista is the first OS (in MS windows series), were by default it optimizes for launch (under XP it only does it at first run... but the second you install your drivers and so on... you see that the startup that used to be nearly instant, takes forever to startup. Also, Vista auto-defrag, update, check for anti-spy/mal-ware is all done automatically. For you guys your don't care in most part, but for many of million of users, that don't even know what disk defrag is... will make BIG difference with Vista.
Vista was A LOT to offer (MUCH MUCH more then when XP came out from Win98 (that's 2-3 (if you count WinMe) versions spaced out)). Yet, for some reasons many of you guys, look at the cover of Vista and judge. You should discover and use for at LEAST 1-2 months before making judgment.
I used Vista since it was Beta1 (still got the iso file), under public beta..
At the begging I was like most of you guys, but now I'm under XP (as public beta ended), And I CAN SERIOUSLY can not live with XP anymore. It's crap, buggy, slow, unresponsive when you lunch big applications, And I REALLY need 2 monitors. Then with Vista thanks to it's transparency, preview on Alt+tab and windows flip. I'm perfectly fine with my 17inch CRT 1280x1024 screen. And FINALLY Internet Explorer is not included anymore in the OS. That means when you lunch big applications, you can still lunch something else in the same folder, or continue to browse around. Also it fixes MANY MANY bugs.
Comments 51 to 74 of 74
It comes from manufacturers drivers now, install it and you'll get the thumbnails.
It has got nothing to do with Microsoft. Drivers are from 3rd party companies. Remember, they HAD access to Vista beta for a whole YEAR so they had plently of time to update their drivers.
But no, they didn't bother and wait until it got released. Then most companies said their drivers will be ready in mid-April, 3 months after Vista got released.
So, the story is... update all of your drivers (when it's released) and applications and you won't have any problems.
Having run XP in its various guises on PCs over the last 5 years, installing countless times to verious levels of hardware, i found Vista to be the easiest yet.
You cannot compare Mac OSX to Vista when MacOSX is designed for one CD drive, one graphics chipset, one hard drive, one motherboard config. Its EASY for apple engineers to write an operating system for such a small hardware base, Microsoft have done a sterling job over the years supporting every last bit of random hardware under the sun - we shouldn't get upset when one month after launch you have to boot into XP to run a game that was designed for XP.
I have a comment on Vista performance though. Nobody seems to have picked up on the simple and plain facts.
Once its installed and you get ovewr the hardware issues (remember this isn't linux - for the most part its ONE google search and a driver download - if not just using the CD that came with your motherboard and the windowsupdate website) then Vista runs so much smoother and faster than XP.
The 3D interface gives your desktop a 'real' feeling, the fact that its graphically accelerated and 'live' means no more waiting for things to happen. If somethign needs some processor power, then it can have it, but the user interface doesn't force you to wait, rather just gets on with feeding you pretty windows and smooth movement instead of hourglasses and blank explorer windows.
If you dont like the breadcrumbs way of doing things, if you dotn like change, then why are you actually bothering with Vista at all? Thats the main reason why i embrace the new technnology, its gonna take a lot longer than a month for it to become the norm, when Henry Ford released the model T in 1904 many 'experts' said that driving a car was too complicated for your average person to learn, now 100 years later, we are in a similar situation with computers.
Take 'prefetch' for example. Vista hads received a lot of brad press from typ-happy slashdotters and diggers who want to see a nice low 130MB memory footprint when running nothing but windows on idle. THeres a big question here, WHY? Ok, so XP can do it, but what that means is when you click on Firefox.exe you actually have to wait for it to load into memory. What prefetch does is learn which programs you use more often, and preload their resources into memory ahead of time, in a really clever way. SO when i click on Firefox, i get firefox in a matter of half a second or so, compared to 4 or five seconds in XP. This difference may not seem a lot, but its actually very very clever. Your memory footprint might be 450-500MB (or rather around 50% of your physical memory) but then whats the point of buying a gig or two of ram if all you want your computer to use is just 130MB? When you launch a game or run an intensive program - prefetch turns itself off - you're not getting any performance drop - only a performance GAIN where you need it - in day to day productivity and speed. My computer now flies, i get things done in a way that i didn't think possible before, and its down to Vista being a lot better at these things than XP. Pure and simple.
The other thing to reme,mber is this is a FIVE YEAR UPDATE>
Never before have we been using a single operating system for as long as XP - that bodes well for microsoft, but it also gives Vista a chance to really change the way we think and push the expectations a step further - without change we won't acheive anything.
All in all, vista is a change, and a welcome one. Those who dont notice the difference, don't bother, loads of people stuck with windows 98 after 2000 and ME were released, let them eat cake, the truth is we'll all be using it before long, and if you dont like it, then you could always eat apples whilst visiting the penguins!!!
i have the perfect answr for you...
Install Windows 2000.
If thats what you want, why not stick with it? I'm being serious!!!
If you dont like driving ferraris and you're likely to put a 1.2 fiat punto engine into it, why not just buy a punto in the first place.
How's clicking "Activate online now" once and reading "Txs, activation completed" or some such is draconian?
I'm very happy with Vista. All of my hardware worked out of the install. I only had to d/l the new nVidia drivers for the 8800GTS. The DVD burner functionality is more than decent, no more need for Nero. The Firewall is decent, no more need of ZoneAlarm. Windows Defender is decent, no more Spypot or AdAware. My internet connection just worked after the install, the only tinkering I had to do with it was clicking on "Configure Internet Access" or something like that. It defrags prediodically, so no need to bother about it. The Search works. UAC works pretty well, I too can let my fiancee use the rig with no worries. The Sidebar works better and with more functionality than my old Samurize config, and I get much more mileage of my widescreen monitor than with XP + Samurize.
Performance is more or less the same that with XP, the only complaints I have is that the DVD burner seems to hog 100% of my dual core CPU resources when copying the files to a temporary folder (a bug?), and that the indexing functionality, although very useful, seems to hog my CPU too whenever I open a folder that I have manually told the SO to index, leaving the system unresponsive for some seconds (perhaps an .avi related bug too, I have to check it).
Well, i retract my assumption. I'm surprised you came to that conclusion though, the Dock, for me, completely pisses all over the start menu and task bar and is also the opinion of most mac users in the office here :)
For me the major issue is the GUI itself, it releives me that i can move back to a 2k look, as i use on xp now, what is'nt a releif is that i cant use litestep.
http://www.buckrogers25.com/DesktopScreenie.jpg
That's a shot of my old version, the new versions got a lot more on it but i dont actually have a screeny available right now, it consists of 9 overall colour themes, 128 eye animations to the center logo using flash, 10 shortcut groups, a dual start menu (litestep and standard start), program shorts and multi desktop support (bottom right), winamp, cli, vol control all in a one flick tray on the taskbar top edge, and all of the lower taskbar is hideable if need be. Plus it has full dual screen functionality with another set of workspace and status displays not shown in that shot, rather than explorer in xp and from what i hear vista aswell which has always been useless at dual screen GUIs. But litestep currently has no support under vista, although i have heard of some people getting it to work the performance hit is enough to make you cry.
For me a truly customisable GUI is the one thing i absolutely cannot be without, most people wont need it, but i could never go back to something that was'nt as functional as i can make it. And litesteps just the tip of a very large iceberg, i've yet to look into all the programs i use, windowblinds (apparently yes its ok), bootskin, logostudio, cursorxp (presumably yes). Of course as usual winlogon and bootskin changes can be done manually, cursor packs can be installed without the need for third party software aswell, and i'm sure someone will mention other GUI replacements such as the ObjectDesktop series or even 3DDesktop. For me litestep is the epitomy of functionality, which fits perfectly into the gaps between other GUIs presented by various OSs, the only thing i can think of being better is a combination of 3DDesktop and Litestep, that would be heaven. I've played around with probably about 80% of the GUIs available for windows in various flavours, but this ones always going to be the one i fall back on.
I've played around with vista with aero and with the classic 2k look, to me its just bland and relatively functional as with all the windows OS, the underlying tools are still where you expect them, the securities a bit tighter, and theres some things in odd places to get used to. It's basically a good OS and later this year i doubt i'll have much choice but to move to it fully, but i wont be making that leap until i can do it on my terms when it comes to the GUI.
sure I haven't used vista but I used the beta (microsoft bob) so get the genral idea ;)
I'm a fan boy of no OS I have run practiacaly everything at some time or another, which is more than most so called "enthusiasts" can claim. By been a fanboy you are cheating yourself... it's rather like riligious fanatisism.
I guess I'm more bitter than most as I thought with all there reasources M$ could have actualy made a revolutionary OS wheras it seems more like a graphical refresh of xp with all the worst features of Xp like the horible UI made even more extreme. It's also massivly expensive, windows got to where it is now by been the cheap OS for the massess and now it's had massive above inflation price hikes.
More secure etc = all good reasons to upgrade.
Isnt the Mac dock that silly thing that has loads of icons on.. much like the "quick start bar" that has been in windows since 95? (and you can make your start bar hide its self .. much like the dock...)
Maybe 'm using the wrong word. Microsoft enthusiast is more descriptive, since I've actually used all three major OSs and I base my opinions on the evidence gleamed from using them.
It's not as if I hate Linux or something (I love Gentoo).
Seems slightly more sluggish with programs opening and closing than I am used to with my XP install. Few other things seem extra fiddly - but it could grow on me. I need more time to explore the functions and tweaks.
http://badvista.fsf.org/what-s-wrong-with-microsoft-windows-vista
Speaking of the old software & hardware, is it 100% supported under Vista? Well, it works 100% on XP, so if it ain't broke, don't fix! Especially with reports of slower FPS on Vista when compared to XP when it comes to games. Most of my time is spent either playing games, or recording and composing music, which I can achieve in XP just fine.
With that, I'll be formatting my old box soon enough, and I'll be sticking Ubuntu on it. When was the last time you tried Linux? Mine was about 5 years ago, and I ran away screaming from it... So I thought it was about time to check out the scene again, and oh my, how things have changed for the better. :)
2 important facts about Ubuntu really took hold of me.
1) It's free
2) It's simple to use.
By simple, I mean that I downloaded the Ubuntu ISO, burnt it to CD. Reset my PC and booted from the CD, and.. that's it. A couple of minutes loading time, NOTHING MANUALLY CONFIGURED AT ALL, and I was surfing the web (using firefox!!!) as soon as the OS had fully loaded. NOTE, that I didn't even install the OS, it just booted up from the CD!!!
So yeah, back on topic, Living with Vista? Hopefully not... I like my money in my wallet, kthx.
If anyone can see the similarities here:
Windows 1-3 > Windows 95 > Windows 98 > Windows ME
Windows NT > Windows 2000 > windows Xp > Windows Vista
... just waiting for Vienna. Ive decided to let Windows ME, I mean Vista blow over.
May I ask what's the point of a 400 GPU if not for DX10? I you are never going to get Vista, you may as well sell the GTS and get a 7900GTX or somesuch. Less heat, less energy consumption, similar performance in DX9 games at normal resolutions...
why not?
In XP, it might sit there only using 120MB of ram, but what that means is when you load something, the 'spare' ram has to be loaded with data.
With vista, (and this will only happen after you've been using it for a while) it loads the programs YOU use most often, and when you need to clear the RAM, i.e. when running a game, it pages that data off.
Adding a second GIG of ram would help with the paging issue, but for most things, its now actually using my hardware, and thats what i bought it for.
Also, key thing to remember, and security minded, is the fact that th RAM is used on a random basis, i.e. when a program is loaded, it uses whatever bit of ram is free, and a different bit each time. This is for security reasons, disabling malicious code from running from unexecuted data in RAM.
Its complicated, and most won't even notice, but its a big step forward.
EDIT: good point made by warrior_rocker... why upgrade if nothing is broken?
Its a sad fact but really did everyone expect EVERYTHING to work beautfully? If so why? Why woudl MS want to keep supporting stuff that really shouldn't have been supported in XP when really they want us all to move on to new hardware and new functionality.
BTW - Add/Remove Programs IS in the control panel, its called 'Programs and Features' and works arguable a lot better than in XP, it includes drivers as well as programs and is constantly updating.
Anyone else notice the little things that are MASSIVELY improved?
Like, when you put in a CD in XP and click on My Computer, you have to wait for the CD to initialise BEFORE you can click on ANY icon in my computer, and in some case before the icons even appear - now, loading a CD times out the CD drive icon in 'Computer' but still allows you access to other items in the list. Its a million and one little improvements like this that make Vista a valid switch for anyone who ENJOYS using their computer.
for eveyone else, just stick with XP and....
http://www.psistar.co.uk/images/stopwhining.jpg
:p
- By then their will more features and/or improved features, and more bugs fixed.
- Hardware manufactures will finally release proper Driver support.
- Software "manufactures" will finally be forced to make software that should have been done properly since WinXP (isn't that the reason why most people is not using a limited account?!? For me yes.). In effect UAC will stop be annoying.
- Maybe a Tweak UI might be released, and you can edit some interface stuff. We have to wait and see.
Vista is failing, because software and hardware company were too lazy to look at their device/software with Vista public beta. Which was the MAIN point of it.
At least thanks to many many beta testers, Vista is not bombarded with bugs (TRUST ME Vista RC1 was HORRIBLE. However RC2, seamed at the same level of XP SP2 fully updated. And the final versions, has bug fixes that was never fixed since the original WinNT!)
that kind of says what i feel about vista, and it follows along with what most of the Apple fans are saying. Essentially, Microsoft's achilles heel is the fact that it has to support a whole legacy contingent of hardware and software.
You can't put OSX Tiger onto a G3 Mac. But you can put vista onto a three year old Pentium 4, or even a pentium 3 for that matter. It also supports - out of the box - more hardware configurations than any other OS has ever done before. The fact that some things dont work, is merely a hiccup.
If we wanted revolution, ie, winfs and all the other radical changes that WERE planned and then binned, we would have had to deal with an even longer list of things that no longer worked. Its a choice.
Windows XP was extremely buggy, at a point where MS had to pay you to install it. When people upgraded to XP... most application failed to even run. Yet, for some strange reasons people did not complain as much. Maybe because less people had the internet?!?! Who knows, but people were using Windows XP pre SP1, and very very very very little said on the topic of switch to Linux or Mac OS, even back then Mac OS was clearly better.
Windows XP has a million editions too:
- Windows XP Home upgarde
- Windows XP Home
- Windows XP Pro upgarde
- Windows XP Pro
- Windows XP Pro 64-bit edition
- Windows XP Media center
- Windows XP Tablet PC edition.
WOW, 7 versions!
Yet no one complains... when MS add 1 more version.. it's "OMG they are millions of version, NO one will know what to pick!!!" Come one.. stop with the BS guys.
In fact I see no one saying how great that FINALLY you get get tablet PC functionality and 32/64-bit version into all editions. With XP, if you have a tablet PC with a 64-bit processor and you want to use WinXp 64-bit (to run 64-bit applications) or want media center... why should anyone drop tablet PC functionality for it. I see no one complaining....
Windows Vista is the first OS (in MS windows series), were by default it optimizes for launch (under XP it only does it at first run... but the second you install your drivers and so on... you see that the startup that used to be nearly instant, takes forever to startup. Also, Vista auto-defrag, update, check for anti-spy/mal-ware is all done automatically. For you guys your don't care in most part, but for many of million of users, that don't even know what disk defrag is... will make BIG difference with Vista.
Vista was A LOT to offer (MUCH MUCH more then when XP came out from Win98 (that's 2-3 (if you count WinMe) versions spaced out)). Yet, for some reasons many of you guys, look at the cover of Vista and judge. You should discover and use for at LEAST 1-2 months before making judgment.
I used Vista since it was Beta1 (still got the iso file), under public beta..
At the begging I was like most of you guys, but now I'm under XP (as public beta ended), And I CAN SERIOUSLY can not live with XP anymore. It's crap, buggy, slow, unresponsive when you lunch big applications, And I REALLY need 2 monitors. Then with Vista thanks to it's transparency, preview on Alt+tab and windows flip. I'm perfectly fine with my 17inch CRT 1280x1024 screen. And FINALLY Internet Explorer is not included anymore in the OS. That means when you lunch big applications, you can still lunch something else in the same folder, or continue to browse around. Also it fixes MANY MANY bugs.