bit-tech.net

Chicks dig RAM

Comments 1 to 25 of 119

Reply
Veles 19th August 2007, 15:32 Quote
My gf keeps saying it just XP with a prettier interface and doesn't know the point of it. I keep trying to explain that there's more to it than that under the hood and she insists "it doesn't effect her" Probably because I'm not too great at explaining it as I've no idea of the inner working of an OS. But then again, there is the point that MS could be feeding us an inferior OS for all I know, we could have another ME. I doubt that's the case though.

I won't be buying Vista for now, I'm waiting to see how WinFS turns out, I heard they're adding it in SP1, I'm pretty tired of the folder system, it was fine back in the day when you had hardly any files, but now with the tinterweb, the amount of stuff the average user downloads is huge, and it's just not really a good way to organise files anymore. You either have one folder filled with everything, which makes it very difficult to find anything, or you have tons of folders to keep stuff organised, but you have the problem now that many files could go in different folders. That's one thing I like the sound of in OSX.
identikit 19th August 2007, 15:40 Quote
We 'tag' things online, why can't we do the same in our OS? Why does a file have to 'belong' inside a single directory? Why is there a desktop? I think software design has a long way to go.
Tim S 19th August 2007, 15:43 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by identikit
We 'tag' things online, why can't we do the same in our OS? Why does a file have to 'belong' inside a single directory? Why is there a desktop? I think software design has a long way to go.

I agree with what you're saying and you can certainly do that with Photos in Windows Vista... there's still a long way to go though. :)
Ramble 19th August 2007, 15:50 Quote
I've heard nothing about WinFS in SP1, and it's more likely that Giuliani will forget about 9/11 than WinFS being shipped with SP1. The project is basically dead (although parts of it survive in MSSQL).
Maybe Windows 7 will have something similar to WinFS.

Why can't you just use the built in search..?
Fod 19th August 2007, 16:05 Quote
nicely written article, although a mention and brief explanation of superFetch (the thing responsible for 'hogging' RAM mostly on vista) wouldn't have gone amiss.
identikit 19th August 2007, 16:05 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramble
Why can't you just use the built in search..?

Because (for want of a better word) it's crap. Why do we have to search anyway? Shouldn't everything be easy to find? Plus to find it you need to know it's name. Windows relies on the fact you know the names of your files and where they are. For instance your financial documents would probably be named finances_06-07^2.xlsl and be in a folder 'Financial' in 'My Documents'. Why? Can't we have tagged files, with dynamic tagging.

Maybe the OS could change as per user task? Not profiles per se, but Work/Play modes.

(Maybe Microsoft should hire me dammit!)
Veles 19th August 2007, 16:08 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramble
Why can't you just use the built in search..?

That's not the problem, I know where everything of mine is, it's just putting it there and clicking though all the folders (or typing in the overly long file path) is the problem. You've got to admit, after using something along the lines of Picassa2, the folder system seems like a horrible choice.
nemesis80 19th August 2007, 16:23 Quote
Quote:
if it wanted to get bigger and richer by peddling re-dressed start bars, it would be releasing them yearly (or at least bi-annually) instead of employing thousands of the world's best programmers to only release one effort after six years.

Ehrm, win ME?...
Ramble 19th August 2007, 16:24 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by identikit
Because (for want of a better word) it's crap. Why do we have to search anyway? Shouldn't everything be easy to find? Plus to find it you need to know it's name. Windows relies on the fact you know the names of your files and where they are. For instance your financial documents would probably be named finances_06-07^2.xlsl and be in a folder 'Financial' in 'My Documents'. Why? Can't we have tagged files, with dynamic tagging.

Maybe the OS could change as per user task? Not profiles per se, but Work/Play modes.

(Maybe Microsoft should hire me dammit!)

We do have tagged files, and the search (in Vista) searches that as well.
Have you used the search in Vista? It's miles better than Spotlight.
identikit 19th August 2007, 16:47 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramble
Have you used the search in Vista? It's miles better than Spotlight.

Yes I have (way back in RC1 days), looking at it now it looks like they've added some features. I'll have to find a demo PC with it on to see for sure. I can't remember it being contextual, as the results it served me back were always pants.
Phil Rhodes 19th August 2007, 16:57 Quote
See, now, that's a really well written article. It doesn't, however, answer one fundamental question: if I were to go out and buy Vista tomorrow, what would I actually get out of it? Well, I'd get an OS that took slightly longer to boot, ran my applications slightly more slowly, used a lot more system resources, and didn't support a lot of my rather specialist video editing hardware.

Yes, Microsoft have a very serious problem, which is that there really isn't a lot of point in embellishing Windows further. It's a very mature, very capable piece of software - I'm no unqualified basher, believe me. I recognise the achievement of bringing (most of) the world's computers together under a common standard, and I recognise the difficulties necessarily presented to corporate ethicists by the fact that standardisation means that exactly one outfit gets to have all the money in this field.

But from my perspective, you're still being incredibly vague on exactly what I'd get out of it. Security, you say, somewhat vaguely. Well, since I have a quarter of a clue, I have never had serious security problems under any version of windows - I've seen exactly two virii, ever, both under win2k, and neither of which made it past AVG.

No. Really. What do I get out of it? There's people on this very forum comparing notes on exactly how little performance shortfall they've manage to achieve. That's some marketing effort from MS. Not only are people not screaming about the performance shortfall - they're actually proud of how much they've managed to minimise it. That takes some real brass neck.

Phil
quack 19th August 2007, 17:10 Quote
What's a start bar? I don't think I have one of those! I have a start button and a task bar though. :p
Veles 19th August 2007, 17:20 Quote
But look at the computer of John Smith, and you'll see them running a PC with Norton AV, and filled to the brim with viruses and spyware, people like us who can actually look after a PC are in a minority, most people thing their PC is just getting old, so they'll need a new one, when they buy the new one they then transfer the infected files over to that one, the cycle continues. MS don't make OSes for the tech heads, they make it idiot proof, an idiot proof OS is a very difficult thing indeed.

One point the article is making, is that back in the day when XP was released, people were saying exactly the same things, "this eats up too much resources", "this is only a fancy UI upgrade", "this runs everything like ****". All Vista needs, like XP, is time for the developers and PC hardware to catch up, once everything has settled down, and everything is working fine, and it becomes the standard, you'll stop hearing people complain about how much RAM it uses and how little of an improvement it is over XP.

MS weren't gonna keep slapping plasters onto windows 95 forever you know, otherwise they'd be like those chavs who stick a V6 into a Saxo, sure, it might be really powerful, but the chassis isn't designed for it, you'd have been better off saving your money and buying a proper car.
Nexxo 19th August 2007, 18:25 Quote
I wonder how many people who criticise Vista have actually spent some time with it... I have, and I must say that it certainly has a few improvements over XP in how the GUI works --and I'm not just talking about it looking pretty. It is actually a bit more intuitive to use.
iwod 19th August 2007, 18:32 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
I wonder how many people who criticize Vista have actually spent some time with it... I have, and I must say that it certainly has a few improvements over XP in how the GUI works --and I'm not just talking about it looking pretty. It is actually a bit more intuitive to use.

All the way from beta till a few months ago I have been using Vista. There are a few things that it definitely improved and more intuitive to use. But those are very minor changes in my opinion and doesn't add up to its flaws. Control Panel ( Links Hell? ) And the new Start Menu are two of them.

Under the hood it is all good. Direct X 10, WPF, upcomig XAudio 2, better memory management etc. But UI wise i think it has definitely gone a step backward.
Glider 19th August 2007, 18:33 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
I wonder how many people who criticise Vista have actually spent some time with it... I have, and I must say that it certainly has a few improvements over XP in how the GUI works --and I'm not just talking about it looking pretty. It is actually a bit more intuitive to use.

Exactly... Most people spend too few time to make a conclusion. I myself tried Vista and liked it. Don't get me wrong, it's still not my cookie, but compared to XP it is a huge improvement.
Kipman725 19th August 2007, 18:36 Quote
you basically like vista because it justifies your way over powered PC, that prior to vista you were feeling slightly sheepish about the power consumption of? you keep saying that vista is better but why is it?
Cupboard 19th August 2007, 18:53 Quote
Quote:
I didn't buy 4GB of RAM to see 256MB used, nor did I buy a quad-core processor to see three sit idle and one sit at 20% load.
Quite right, but neither did you buy it for Vista, you bought it for gaming or video editing or so you could say that you have 4GB of RAM and a Quad core processor. Vista only needs 1GB, and will run on a single core processor with Intel Graphics

I have used Vista since RC1 and in general I am pleased, but then I don't mind having the occasional problem, and can usually sort them out. Vista is however a huge problem for the not so computer literate: my granddad bought a new computer with Vista and has had loads of problems, his printer wouldn't work, ViaVoice wouldn't work etc etc, and he had to bring it on holiday so I could sort it out for him. So IMO it is not ready for general release, or needs to have a prominent health warning on the box for people like him.
KypD 19th August 2007, 18:58 Quote
It's obvious Vista isn't just a pretty new face, but you assert that it's a GOOD thing to be taking up more resources, because it's pointless to have 4gb and use a tiny fraction. Now this is all fine and dandy, of course hardware's capabilities will expand exponentially, but the vast majority of users won't upgrade for QUITE some time. I don't want to install Vista on my current mediocre setup (3.0p4, 6600gt, 1.75gb) and then instantly have a more sluggish......everything.

For example: My friend's girlfriend purchased a new laptop about a month or two before vista came out. I forget the exact specs but it was a pretty swanky piece of equipment, and ran BF2 easily. She then took it somewhere to have Vista installed, and she HATES using it now. (she IS computer savvy btw) She doesn't hate it because of the GUI or functionality, but because it takes forever to even open internet explorer.
Phil Rhodes 19th August 2007, 19:12 Quote
All this stuff about computers getting faster so "it's OK" makes my blood boil.

I don't own a PC for the unimaginable privilege of running Windows. I own a PC to run Premiere, Photoshop and After Effects. If the PC gets faster, the purpose of that increase is to make Premiere, Photoshop and After Effects go faster. Not so that some dunderheads at Microsoft can make the windows vanish in a fading, blurring puff of bullshit.

Phil
Laitainion 19th August 2007, 19:15 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kipman725
you basically like vista because it justifies your way over powered PC, that prior to vista you were feeling slightly sheepish about the power consumption of? you keep saying that vista is better but why is it?

Given your first sentence, would it actually make any difference to your opinion? As it seems to me that you've already made up your mind about it all, but I'm game.

I really like the way the Start Menu works now, with layers unfolding within the same space (like the folder-view in XP). Once you get un-used to the XP style of menues spreading half way across the screen, it actually makes more sense to do it that way. I also like the way you can hit the start key, and start typing in text will just bring up results taken from all across your computer. This also works from anywhere within the system and makes finding something specific much easier. I like the changes made to the audio-system, being able to change the volumes of individual applications. For example, DVD's are relatively quiet, so you have to crank up the volume. But then in XP if msn or any other program makes a sound, it is instant death to your ears but Vista lets you change the volume of these other applications to a more reasonable level. Obviously I also think the new Aero UI absolutely gorgeous.
As for security, I do genuinely think it is massively improved. Admittedly as a power user, I *do* find most of the changes annoying on occaision. UAC can pop up a little too much, although mainly while setting up your system. I've also found that Vista doesn't like even an admin making changes to files in the program files folder (more specifically, C:\x86 Program Files under Vista x64). Firstly it doesn't actually show you it as standard, it shows a virtual folder, and switching to the real one trips UAC. If you want to change any files in there, you have to make a copy into a user-area, edit it and copy it back (which again trips UAC). This all means that a virus can't get into there and start changing files unless the user is an idiot and literally gives it an OK (as it would trip UAC). Presumably this also works with files in C:\Windows, although I had no reason to check. If you've ever tried to do anything useful in Linux, or Unix (I believe, never used it myself) these sorts of restrictions should be pretty familiar. In fact, having used Ubuntu (6.10 iirc) as well as Suse and Fedora..6 (?) I find Vista's approach much less frustrating.

Finally, the bits of Vista I don't like. Game Explorer, don't really see the point of it. It is kinda cool having all (or most) of your games in there, but Games for Windows titles are only accessible through this (they're not supposed to make *any* other shortcuts), and I went through installing Beyond the Sword 3 or so times before I figured that one out...
Under Vista I also tend to get crackling audio occaisionally. Whether this is Vista being rubbish or Creaive not making decent drivers for the X-Fi's I can't say for sure, although I suspect Creative over Microsoft who are well known for poor drivers.
Ramble 19th August 2007, 19:26 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kipman725
you basically like vista because it justifies your way over powered PC, that prior to vista you were feeling slightly sheepish about the power consumption of? you keep saying that vista is better but why is it?

I couldn't be bothered to type out a new list but here's a post I made a while ago with some new stuff (there's more than that).

http://forums.bit-tech.net/showpost.php?p=1516616&postcount=9
Tacodaemon 19th August 2007, 19:36 Quote
I just wanted to comment on the "Chicks dig ram" thing. I remember my friends and I joking about this way back too. We got it from Penny Arcade, I don't know about your friend.

http://www.penny-arcade.com/images/2000/20001222h.jpg

Circa December 12th, 2000.
Tim S 19th August 2007, 19:43 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tacodaemon
I just wanted to comment on the "Chicks dig ram" thing. I remember my friends and I joking about this way back too. We got it from Penny Arcade, I don't know about your friend.

http://www.penny-arcade.com/images/2000/20001222h.jpg

Circa December 12th, 2000.

Awesome post, welcome to the forums. :)
Glider 19th August 2007, 20:04 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kipman725
you basically like vista because it justifies your way over powered PC, that prior to vista you were feeling slightly sheepish about the power consumption of? you keep saying that vista is better but why is it?

If that was directed at me, my Athlon XP 2600+ on a ASUS A7N8X-X motherboard with 1GB no brand RAM and GeForce FX 5600 with 128MB RAM handles Vista just fine, thank you ;)
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums