Chicks dig RAM

So basicly..

You wrote all the text to explain you have upgraded from 512mb to 4gb of memory...

:D

Greetings!

Give me XP with DX10 support and SuperFetch.

Originally Posted by impar
Give me XP with DX10 support and SuperFetch.

And increased security, better memory management,... You know what, let's call it Vista and sell it ;)

Originally Posted by impar
Greetings!

Give me XP with DX10 support and SuperFetch.

That would be great, wouldn't it? Better yet, let's have DOS and DX10 and SuperFetch! We can set it up to run in the extended memory. It'll be great.

The reason you won't see XP + DX10 or XP + SuperFetch (at least not properly) is because the entire premise behind those two benefits relies on a totally different HAL methodology. The hardware does not "talk" in the same way as it did in XP, hence all of the problems with drivers as the hardware companies completely snoozed through the spring and summer months while Microsoft begged them to look at the new driver model. If someone DOES succeed to port DX10 to XP, it will run with an emulated HAL in order to interface with XP's methods, which will cause some great inefficiency. You may not notice it as much with a high-spec machine, but then again, you'd not notice a problem with Vista then, either.

A few of you have said "There's just no reason to switch yet for me," and that is totally fine - stick with XP for now. My article is meant to talk to some of the flamers (some of whom have posted in this very thread) to say "it's crap because I use linux or win2k." To them, I say "If you don't feel a need for it, then use what you have a need for, but please QUIT CALLING IT CRAP just because YOU view yourself as more power-oriented/cooler/sophisticated because you like things minimalist than the 95% of computer users it's meant for."

It's these same people who say "Ooh, I use linux cause I do this, that and the other and therefore Vista sucks." No, Vista doesn't suck, it's not a resource hog for what it does, and if you use and prefer Linux for your day to day, then by all means get on with your l33t h4x0r self. But just because you use linux doesn't mean Vista sucks. And if you are such a minimalist, I hope you use just fluxbox or the CLI, because anything else is "bloat."

Compared to a bare bones 2k install or a CLI Gentoo build, Vista takes more resources. But that doesn't make it a hog, and it doesn't make it suck. It makes it targeted at computer USERS, not computer control freaks.

I beg your pardon, I'm a user. I just happen to be a user who doesn't need burping after every meal - or more to the point, it isn't about ability, it's about purpose. This is what Linux people constantly forget. I go to a computer to get things done. To do work. I don't go to a computer for the "experience" of using it, which is what Microsoft seem wedded to.

The problem with vista is not that it exists - as you say, I don't have to use it, and I assure you that I will avoid using it for as long as I feasibly can. The problem is that they make exactly one version, which is intended for people who write birthday cards in pink crayon, and then they force everyone to use it, regardless of ability, purpose or any other factor. They are therefore selling a home-user OS into ever market, and in all but one of those markets, hell yes it sucks.

Phil

unlike XP it work right off the start, i cant use Vista in its current state drivers suck and makes problems with video and audio, until thay bring out faster CPUs to compensate for the extra bits in vista and drivers that do not perform completely well yet, i Miss this one until sp1 comes out

vista it self is Nice to use but when you want to do some things you need to do more then what you should need to do

Linux is not for home users at this time its been 7 years from the last time i tyred it (and now)
all thats improved is i mite be able to get wireless cards working, the installer is GUI or live CD, its essayer to install stuff thats in the on-line install repositories
BUT there is NO safe aka safe-safe mode VGA mode so if GUI manager fails to start poor still that is and you end up with command line agane and does not restart in low res mode (not all the time any way i did repeat that safe 3 times)
most users expect things to work not take 2 days to get simple things working, at the speed its going we still got 5+ years until some thing gets done about it, to make its more user friendly

Originally Posted by Phil Rhodes
I don't go to a computer for the "experience" of using it, which is what Microsoft seem wedded to.
...
Phil

But what you're ignoring is that 95% of users DO just that. That's why MS is so wedded to it. People use their computers to play games, watch videos, look at their pictures, browse their email and do their finances. The computer is, in itself, an entertainment as well as work machine. They don't all just make cards and play with crayons, simply because they do not solely "work" on the computer.

It's that overwhelming attitude (I'm certainly not thinking you're the only one, Phil) that drives me crazy. Simply because someone does something in a different bracket than you, you view them as incapable of adult thought. Look how many in this very thread are like me, using their computers as an "experience" more than just to get work done. Many people use their computers for more than just a bit of work product, and I would dare say those who use it solely for an end result product are well in the minority nowadays.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but that's the general vibe I get from your opinions in this thread. It's easiest to argue with you, because you're here - but I think that the vast majority of Vista nay-sayers are doing so from a position of misjudged intellect. That's where you step away from it, because I think you do bring up some good points, but I have counter-reasons for pretty much all that I've heard so far. And most of the arguers aren't even 1/4 of how well thought out you are.

Of course you can always pop in a DVD into Linux - but I'm not exactly dumb when it comes to that stuff, and to get my sound working in Ubuntu was a nightmare simply because I used the HDMI out on my board. The minute you go non-standard in Linux, you're trolling through man pages and digging through semi-obscure CLI commands in order to get things working again - and that's just not conducive to day-to-day use. Once it's tweaked and working, it's great - assuming you don't decide to do something ELSE.

Many of us want systems that "just work." Lord knows I spend enough time tweaking and fiddling with computers every day that when I go to my main rig, I want it to be there - rock stable and at the ready when I want it. I want to browse my photos that I took in China or on my last photo trip effortlessly. I want to be able to jot notes without having to open text documents and the like. I want these things to be accessible and easy, even moreso than the widgets in OSX (which I personally am NOT much a fan of).

In that respect, Windows still has some room to grow - and so I'm happy with that. For you, that usability was never important, so the line "peaked" at Win2k - a no-nonsense, bare-bones, does what it needs to OS. I understand that, and I can see your point. But I'm just saying, simply because the improvements aren't to your taste doesn't make it crap - Windows is coming a long way, just in different fields than you really care about.

For that, go buy home basic when you absolutely need to - it'll still be there and dirt cheap, and you won't have to feel cheated. And there are plenty of tweaks that take all the training wheels off and make it as hardcore as you like - it's the same thing I say to people about OSX. "You think it's too controlling? It's still 'nix. Go hit the Bash Shell and edit away." Vista is still Windows, and though some options are "hidden", they're still there - and at worst, open up your regedit and edit away. :)

I agree wholeheartedly with your comments re Linux. I wish it was usable in my arena. It isn't. QED.

Otherwise, I can only reiterate my previous stance:

>But what you're ignoring is that 95% of users DO just that.

But I'm not. Vista may be fine for them. My complaint is that MS keep churning out fully-nerfed operating systems and expecting everyone to use them. Yes it's commercial neccesity, but yes it also blows goats. They simply haven't had an offering for serious users since 2K.

Phil

Originally Posted by djDEATH
not really, but i see what you're saying.

Yes really. Windows XP Professional IS the client OS for Windows Server 2003. The clue is in the name... Windows Server - for servers not workstations. Of course you can use it as such, but it is not designed for that, and that's also obvious from the price.

Originally Posted by quack
Yes really. Windows XP Professional IS the client OS for Windows Server 2003. The clue is in the name... Windows Server - for servers not workstations. Of course you can use it as such, but it is not designed for that, and that's also obvious from the price.

ok really, but i still stand by what i say, if you really want an OS like XP sans frills, server 2003 can do it. SP1 essentially makes it XP SP2 but you don;'t have to turn the shizzle off yourself, its like that out the box.

i hear ya man, didnt mean to argue.

Greetings!

Originally Posted by Da Dego
That would be great, wouldn't it? Better yet, let's have DOS and DX10 and SuperFetch! We can set it up to run in the extended memory. It'll be great.

Not really. Need a GUI.

Originally Posted by Da Dego
The reason you won't see XP + DX10 or XP + SuperFetch (at least not properly) is because the entire premise behind those two benefits relies on a totally different HAL methodology. The hardware does not "talk" in the same way as it did in XP, hence all of the problems with drivers...

Thats the excuse Microsoft said for the no-DX10 in XP.
Superfetch, MS just didnt bother implementing it.

Over here was reported that Alky Project had reached Alpha status.

Great article Brett!

I am one of those users who wants an all-in-one package, but also wants the knowledge of knowing that I'm buying a product that won't give me problems/obstacles such as other alternatives (ie Linux). I want cutting edge products/features and when I spend my hard-earned money, they better work.

I do want to consider myself hardcore in the sense that I want everything that I consider 'wasteful' turned off and everything that I find 'productive' turned on which I feel you can do with not only XP, but hopefully Vista as well, but I do agree with Phil in the sense that there still needs to be an OS for hardcore, to-the-point users that gets the job done with the most minimal background processes as possible, or let's just say a 'Gaming Only' OS that you can dual-boot alongside your 'All-in-One' OS to allow for gaming without all the 'wasteful' background processes.

Either way, I loved the article because even though Vista is going to need more resources, it's offering the end-user more in terms of features/benefits and that's the reason for it. In my opinion, OSs are like consoles; every 6-7 years, once your current hardware (even when upgraded) begins to fade in terms of l33tness you should have accumulated enough money/desire to move onto greener pastiers that will offer you more; maybe not in terms of user GUI, but in security, graphical (gaming) and accessability enhancements.

Originally Posted by Da Dego
I want to browse my photos that I took in China or on my last photo trip effortlessly.

So does my dad, who knows not a lot about computers. And windows offers to "Import" his pictures as soon as he connects his camera, so he's happy.
And then windows resizes and renames them, so he has a lower quality than his camera offered, and the sequence is no longer the one in which he took them and they're saved somewhere on his C: drive (My Pictures) instead of where he'd like them (his data drive D:). And he doesn't know why or how or where to find them.

If he however declines the "easy" import and just copies them where he knows where to find them without altering them, and clicks on them once to see them, where is that more difficult, or more basic, or user unfriendly?

I'd be completely on your side, if what windows offers you would really be effortlessly.

Allas it is not.

Xir

if it bothered you that much you could just write a script that executes that turns off all unneeded services (a 'gaming' mode).

Originally Posted by Ramble
if it bothered you that much you could just write a script that executes that turns off all unneeded services (a 'gaming' mode).

How? Where could I find this "script"? Would it work with XP & Vista?

Originally Posted by Phil Rhodes

I think the real problem with Linux, both as a user and as a developer, is that it's such a moving target. With everything, even stuff that's considered quite basic, coming as optional, configurable upgrades, it's a question of which Linux you aim for, which libraries you require, etc. Creating After Effects under Linux would be a lot more work than doing it under Windows because Linux doesn't provide - or more to the point sometimes
might or might not maybe possibly provide - the same level of services. Houses have to be put in order before seriously heavyweight media apps become workably portable to Linux.

P

thats what dependencys cover, they make that anything your package requires is also downloaded and installed

@ Da Dego

every user is unique in knowledge and expectations, which is why i fell the cliche each to there own is very fitting.

Man, all the wining about "Linux takes ages to install" is starting to irritate me... Ubuntu installs to a XP like (feature wise) environment in 20 minutes...

Also "Installing programs in Linux is hard" ... 4 words: Package manager and Google!

I also totally adore the fuss about "MS forces me to work in a child-orientated environment"... If you hate it that much, change... There are plenty others out there... But all have consequences... Either you live with them or you should STFU

Brett, what has really annoyed me is you tagging anyone who uses Linux as a "l33t h4x0r self" (or that is how I took it anyway ;) ). I enjoy using Linux, primarily because it is free, I can use it to perform my "number crunching" work far faster than the same calculations go on Windows and it does everything I need it to. (The speed increase is of the order of 10-30% depending upon the calculation, which can be alot when the calculation runs for days at a time.)

You have, to be fair, also said for people to use what works for them. I genuinely don't understand the "Windows is crap" or "Linux is crap" camps. If it works for you, then it is the best system. Linux works for me in just about everything I do, apart from Games. For that, I've got Windows and my Wii.

I actually agreed with the article and will be getting Vista for my next build (mainly because I'm getting 4GB RAM and I want to use it effectively), but I will be dual booting with Fedora so I can effectively use the processing power of the Q6600.

Oh, and I can't program to save my life. I'm going to be learning Fortran and C in the next few months, just for the hell of it, so I'm not a l33t h4x0r at all.

Anyway, rant over. Thanks for the article. I enjoyed reading it (and agreeing with most of it!)

Andy

For a forum that is supposedly populated by readers of Bit-Tech, the level of ignorance about Linux is astonishing!

- Using a modern Linux OS like Ubuntu, you don't have to worry about things like dependencies, as mentioned earlier. I've installed tons of programs on my Ubuntu installation, and have never yet had an error complaining about dependencies.

- Installation: An Ubuntu installation takes 20 minutes. If you take the Installation programs recommendations, then the most difficult question that you have to answer is which time zone you're in, and you don't have to reboot your machine 3-4 times during the installation...

- Software: For everyday stuff, the choice of software is endless. Recently I decided to switch away from the music player XMMS tha I was using in favour of something a bit more 'modern'. From the menu, I selected 'Add/Remove applications' and selected about 4 or 5 different players. I clicked on OK, and about 5 minutes of downloading later, I clicked on OK. All 5 players were then in my 'Sound and Video' menu, and I was able to try them all out before settling for Amarok - no reboot required. The only thing that Linux lacks is the breadth of games that Windows has, but that is slowly improving, and the games that are available are sufficient for my needs.

- Eye Candy: Not only do the effects knock Windows Vista's into a cocked hat, they are also practical. Things like the clone of Expose, 3D desktop and making a window semi transaparent just by using the scroll wheel are genuinely useful when you have several different programs all running at the same time. The program that does all of this, Beryl, took less than 5 minutes to set up using the 'Add/Remove applications' function.

I also enjoy the fact that all my programs updates are controlled by one update manager, which will update all the software on my machine as and when necessary. Compare with Windows, where each program has it's own update manager, and in some cases, updates managers that are running all the time whilst your computer is on (Norton, for example). And of course, no reboot is required after an upgrade.

If you are going to compare the latest version of Windows to Linux, then at least compare it to Linux as it is now, not where it was when XP was released... after all Linux is moving a lot quicker than Windows is - and the difference between Linux of today and six years ago is a hell of a lot more than Windows XP against Vista!

Originally Posted by Shielder
Brett, what has really annoyed me is you tagging anyone who uses Linux as a "l33t h4x0r self" (or that is how I took it anyway ;) ). I enjoy using Linux, primarily because it is free, I can use it to perform my "number crunching" work far faster than the same calculations go on Windows and it does everything I need it to. (The speed increase is of the order of 10-30% depending upon the calculation, which can be alot when the calculation runs for days at a time.)

You have, to be fair, also said for people to use what works for them. I genuinely don't understand the "Windows is crap" or "Linux is crap" camps. If it works for you, then it is the best system. Linux works for me in just about everything I do, apart from Games. For that, I've got Windows and my Wii.

Brett isn't Anti-Linux at all... He is however honest. Linux isn't as mainstream as Windows, and Linux often requires some more skills/knowledge then Windows does.

> Using a modern Linux OS like Ubuntu, you don't have to worry about things like dependencies

Yes, you do. Compared to Windows, it's an absolute nightmare - Ubuntu is a huge step forward for Linux, but by making wild claims like this you really do it a disservice. In my experience, you can install fairly mundane, run-of-the-mill software without too much trouble, but trying for anything advanced (anything involving firewire, for instance) rapidly becomes a nightmare of text-file and commandline hackery. It's much, much better than it ever was, but I still don't consider it really usable in my area. Your example mentioned media players. That's the sort of thing that works out OK. You want to edit video, you are comprehensively stuffed.

- Installation: An Ubuntu installation takes 20 minutes.

Granted, given that it then takes an awful lot longer to ensure all your hardware is supported. Especially on a laptop, this can be an absolute bind.

> The only thing that Linux lacks is the breadth of games that Windows has,

It's also utterly dismal in the field of media production software. GIMP is not Photoshop. Cinelerra is not Premiere. Ardour is not Protools. None of these things are more than a pale shadow of the commercial equivalents. I completely understand why, and I understand why no single back-bedroom opensource developer is ever likely to produce an equivalent to After Effects. I wouldn't expect him to. It's thousands of man-hours of work. But the fact remains that no competent equivalent exists for a lot of things under Linux, so I'm forced, once again, to use Vista.

>the difference between Linux of today and six years ago is a hell of a lot more than Windows XP against Vista!

This is certainly very true.

Phil

Originally Posted by Phil Rhodes
> Using a modern Linux OS like Ubuntu, you don't have to worry about things like dependencies

Yes, you do. Compared to Windows, it's an absolute nightmare - Ubuntu is a huge step forward for Linux, but by making wild claims like this you really do it a disservice. In my experience, you can install fairly mundane, run-of-the-mill software without too much trouble, but trying for anything advanced (anything involving firewire, for instance) rapidly becomes a nightmare of text-file and commandline hackery. It's much, much better than it ever was, but I still don't consider it really usable in my area. Your example mentioned media players. That's the sort of thing that works out OK. You want to edit video, you are comprehensively stuffed.

- Installation: An Ubuntu installation takes 20 minutes.

Granted, given that it then takes an awful lot longer to ensure all your hardware is supported. Especially on a laptop, this can be an absolute bind.

> The only thing that Linux lacks is the breadth of games that Windows has,

It's also utterly dismal in the field of media production software. GIMP is not Photoshop. Cinelerra is not Premiere. Ardour is not Protools. None of these things are more than a pale shadow of the commercial equivalents. I completely understand why, and I understand why no single back-bedroom opensource developer is ever likely to produce an equivalent to After Effects. I wouldn't expect him to. It's thousands of man-hours of work. But the fact remains that no competent equivalent exists for a lot of things under Linux, so I'm forced, once again, to use Vista.

>the difference between Linux of today and six years ago is a hell of a lot more than Windows XP against Vista!

This is certainly very true.

Phil

Maybe I should have added the disclaimer, 'in my own experience'! :o

Like I said, I've installed plenty of software on my Ubuntu installation, and I've not had an issue with dependencies. I've been using Ubuntu for about a year now. I tried RH a few years, and yes, I did have problems with dependencies and other installation nightmares.

Hardware support, yes, I'm aware that those with ATI cards and Lexmark printers for example, have real issues. Personally, I chose my hardware to support those that support Linux, and so my nVidia card, HP printer and iriver MP3 player had no problems at all. For example, setting up my printer so that I could check the ink levels from within Linux and use the card reader within the printer was no more difficult than it would have been under Windows. Hardware support is difficult if the manufacturers don't support Linux, which is why I'll give my custom to those that make the effort.

Your needs are obviously more than those of the average home user, but I would hazard a guess that for most, GIMP is a more than able substitute for Photoshop and OpenOffice for MS Office. Along with Firefox/Opera, Evolution/Thunderbird, it is quite possible for a home user to easily set up a system that does everything they require without having to spend a penny on software - provided they have the right hardware.

For those with the 'wrong' hardware, that's where ubuntuforums.org comes in...

Hey now, I'm not anti-linux. You need only look back through previous articles to find I'm the one who has been actively bringing OSS how-to articles to the front page. ;) I LIKE alternatives.

That being said, you are right that I seem to paint with a wide brush in this thread - and that's unintentional. Unfortunately, Linux is just not ready for the mainstream quite yet. And worse, many (though I have to say, very few in this forum) users of it are NOT all that helpful - you need only look over one mailing list to see plenty of "RTFM" and such. Truth is, most older linux users have lost patience and are tired of feeding lazy people - but the fact that it is different requires people have to learn it, and if you want to appeal to a general audience then catering to lazy is a full-on requirement.

I think Phil's right - there HASN'T been a Windows OS that caters to the truly hardcore since 2k. But then again, that may be Microsoft simply acknowledging it can't keep up with things like Linux in that regard - you can't build something that will be super-stable and rock solid for six years of growth, and allow it to be non-idiot-proofed at the same time. So, let the geeks edit the registries, or even let them go to Linux - the target is to make the best OS for the most people.

Which is where Xir's comment comes in - as mature as Windows is stability-wise, it has a ways to go still in intuitive usability. That is where MS sees its growth, and I think that's a good thing. In that, Vista has been a huge step forward - but that doesn't mean there aren't still many steps to go.

Originally Posted by KypD
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.

Hrmm, computer savvy AND using Internet Explorer? I don't think those two words go hand in hand...

Phil, why do you keep pushing After Effects as the end all be all app that proves how bloated Vista is? Why don't you have a render farm setup?
hell even a POS computer on the side of the road will easily offset the resources vista takes.

maybe you should read this if you don't have one setup: http://www.creativemac.com/2002/07_jul/tutorials/aerenderfarm0207305.htm

In case someone is too lazy to look at the link,

They took a dual 1GHz with 1.5GB RAM G4, and it took 50 minutes to render a project. they then added a 400MHz G4 with 960MB RAM and it took 34 minutes, they then added another 400Mhz with 448MB RAM and it took 26 minutes.

the render engine is that much more efficient than AEFX.