Whenever I think of programming on Linux, I think of twiddling with text files is some guru text editor like vim. Probably wrong, but I bet a lot of people think that and that might be why they're still on Windows. It is nice to be able to drag-and-drop, manage databases, debug, and make an installer all in one IDE. If people don't think that is available on Linux, why move?
Microsoft's anwer to Java? How about C#, which I'm always reading people bash as a clone of Java.
you really need like 386M or 512M of video RAM to get the full effects of Vista and get Vista games
No. I play HL:2 on a system with 1GB of RAM and a 256MB video card. Runs fine. Vista runs fine of my laptop with integrated graphics from 2005. No Aero glass, but I have it dropped even further down to W2000 style. Vista runs WELL on slow machines with a simple theme.
Mac OSX has almost the same requirements as Vista, it runs better in 4G than 2G and needs a lot of memory for the graphic effects.
This may be true, but I will suggest that 2GB is not really needed for Vista. I have a gaming computer with 1GB and it is FAST. I think the main reason people computers are slow is the anti-virus or anti-spyware software they have running all the time, 2, or 3, or even 4 programs at a time. All those programs scanning every file that is accessed--is it any wonder they are slow?
Also you will want more RAM to allocate to virtual machines to run VirtualPC 2007 and XP in a virtual machine with at least 512M to 1G allocated to system RAM for the virtual machine. That is to run software that Vista won't run in the XP virtual machine.
I'm not sure what you are babbling about VPC for...please name the software that won't run in Vista. There are VERY few incompatible mainstream programs. Also, there is no XP virtual machine in Vista. Lots of the APIs are backwards compatible so that all the calls programs need are still there.
What admin tools are missing? Also, it is possible that Vista was hitting the HDD to pre-emptively load stuff into cache. Unless you looked at the awesome Resource Monitor and saw that it actually was reading the swap file, in which case it could still be loading stuff into RAM.
Did you install Windows 2000 after the other two? If so, then you probably had to re-do the boot loader after that anyways. So it's not easy, unless you do W2000 first, which leaves you relying on GRUB or something to know how to boot W2000.
Agreed. Probably the thing I find most funny is how many stories there are on/. about how another application has finally been copied as a Linux app. Just like this story.
Ever try to install Windows alongside an existing OS? Not easy, if it's even possible. But yes, I also hate that the OP's comment was modded down.
The way I see it, it's good that we have a mostly homogeneous OS market. Makes it easy for a lot of people. And right now we have just enough competition from OSX to keep Windows under some pressure. And there is just enough from Linux on the server side to push out good server products from Microsoft. I see no need for desktop linux.
Most (all?) Xbox 360 games can be output at HD resolutions. Look at all computer games: they don't use 25GB of storage but they still have up to 2560x1900 resolutions (or whatever those huge LCDs run). So you don't need "HD" discs to have HD output. Hell, you could probably put a few seconds of "HD" video on a floppy disk.
The "HD" discs are just providing more storage so that they can have more music, more cutscenes, more textures, etc.
I run Vista on 1GB also, and it plays HL2 just fine with a Radeon X600 (and AMD X2 3800). No problem there.
Oh yes, I also do dev work on a 1.5GB 1.6GHz P-M machine. In Visual Studio 2008, which if you actually used you would know has been released for quite some time now. It runs fine.
Also, if you had actually used VS2005 on Vista you would have seen a dialogue box that pops up everytime you launch the program recommending that you run it as an administrator for maximum functionality. It took me all of 2 minutes to find this out way back when Vista was still in RC1. And yes, I would hope Vista blocks debugging for non-admin apps. I'm not a security expert, but this sounds like a good way to keep processes out of what they are not supposed to have their noses in. BTW, this dialogue box is also featured in VS2008!
I was not reading slashdot so much in the XP release days, so I can't compare this to then, but I CAN tell you that the only people I hear complaining in real life about Vista are people who wouldn't know the answer if you asked whether they use web-based e-mail or an application. Not the kind of people I listen to for opinions on cutting edge OSes which, surprise, contain CHANGES.
I use it every day. On two computers. I find it to be a very functional OS. I have a dual core desktop with 1GB of RAM, Radeon X600, which runs fine even for gaming up to the HL2 class of games (meaning HL2 works fine). No surprise there.
I also have it on my Toshiba R15 tablet. It is a 1.6GHz P-M with 1.5GB of RAM, and Vista runs VERY well on this system. Admittedly I have the graphics dropped down to W2000 style, but it was still snappy with Aero Basic (Intel chipset won't run Glass). Battery life is maybe slightly shorter than in XP, but still ~3 hours average use.
I use XP every day at work. It works fine. I have been using only Vista on my computers since RC1 came out, it also works fine, and I DO recommend it.
I found that the subscript and superscript functionality alone made Office 2007 "worth it." Maybe there were keyboard shortcuts in Office 2003, but I never found them. In Office 2007 I don't have to click Format -> Font -> Check the little box -> click OK, I can just click the superscript button which is always right there. Or even better, it had a tooltip that told me the keyboard shortcut for it, so now I always use that.
Also, the formatting of headings, adding a cover page, etc. are all excellent features that I never found in Word 2003. And the bibliography stuff absolutely kicks ass. It is so good that after I saw a video demo of it I actually wanted to write a paper for school again just so I could use it.
Windows Vista and Windows Server 2008 come with IPv6 turned on. If you have such an OS (with a webserver) you can see this by going to [::1] (may need to put http:/ in front of it).
So I presume the real switch will have nothing to do with Microsoft. It will happen when DNS servers start giving people IPv6 addresses (along with v4 addresses, and it will use the preferred one). Then the full switchover happens when DNS servers stop giving out IPv4 addresses or all the IPv4 capabilities are turned of in routers/switches.
Slashdot Mirror
Whenever I think of programming on Linux, I think of twiddling with text files is some guru text editor like vim. Probably wrong, but I bet a lot of people think that and that might be why they're still on Windows. It is nice to be able to drag-and-drop, manage databases, debug, and make an installer all in one IDE. If people don't think that is available on Linux, why move?
Microsoft's anwer to Java? How about C#, which I'm always reading people bash as a clone of Java.
OK, you proved wrong one of my points.
Your post is full of BS.
you really need like 386M or 512M of video RAM to get the full effects of Vista and get Vista gamesNo. I play HL:2 on a system with 1GB of RAM and a 256MB video card. Runs fine. Vista runs fine of my laptop with integrated graphics from 2005. No Aero glass, but I have it dropped even further down to W2000 style. Vista runs WELL on slow machines with a simple theme.
Mac OSX has almost the same requirements as Vista, it runs better in 4G than 2G and needs a lot of memory for the graphic effects.This may be true, but I will suggest that 2GB is not really needed for Vista. I have a gaming computer with 1GB and it is FAST. I think the main reason people computers are slow is the anti-virus or anti-spyware software they have running all the time, 2, or 3, or even 4 programs at a time. All those programs scanning every file that is accessed--is it any wonder they are slow?
Also you will want more RAM to allocate to virtual machines to run VirtualPC 2007 and XP in a virtual machine with at least 512M to 1G allocated to system RAM for the virtual machine. That is to run software that Vista won't run in the XP virtual machine.I'm not sure what you are babbling about VPC for...please name the software that won't run in Vista. There are VERY few incompatible mainstream programs. Also, there is no XP virtual machine in Vista. Lots of the APIs are backwards compatible so that all the calls programs need are still there.
You are comparing a laptop and a desktop. There are no laptops that run at 550 watts. WTF???
What admin tools are missing? Also, it is possible that Vista was hitting the HDD to pre-emptively load stuff into cache. Unless you looked at the awesome Resource Monitor and saw that it actually was reading the swap file, in which case it could still be loading stuff into RAM.
Did you install Windows 2000 after the other two? If so, then you probably had to re-do the boot loader after that anyways. So it's not easy, unless you do W2000 first, which leaves you relying on GRUB or something to know how to boot W2000.
Agreed. Probably the thing I find most funny is how many stories there are on /. about how another application has finally been copied as a Linux app. Just like this story.
Ever try to install Windows alongside an existing OS? Not easy, if it's even possible. But yes, I also hate that the OP's comment was modded down.
The way I see it, it's good that we have a mostly homogeneous OS market. Makes it easy for a lot of people. And right now we have just enough competition from OSX to keep Windows under some pressure. And there is just enough from Linux on the server side to push out good server products from Microsoft. I see no need for desktop linux.
Most (all?) Xbox 360 games can be output at HD resolutions. Look at all computer games: they don't use 25GB of storage but they still have up to 2560x1900 resolutions (or whatever those huge LCDs run). So you don't need "HD" discs to have HD output. Hell, you could probably put a few seconds of "HD" video on a floppy disk.
The "HD" discs are just providing more storage so that they can have more music, more cutscenes, more textures, etc.
I run Vista on 1GB also, and it plays HL2 just fine with a Radeon X600 (and AMD X2 3800). No problem there.
Oh yes, I also do dev work on a 1.5GB 1.6GHz P-M machine. In Visual Studio 2008, which if you actually used you would know has been released for quite some time now. It runs fine.
Also, if you had actually used VS2005 on Vista you would have seen a dialogue box that pops up everytime you launch the program recommending that you run it as an administrator for maximum functionality. It took me all of 2 minutes to find this out way back when Vista was still in RC1. And yes, I would hope Vista blocks debugging for non-admin apps. I'm not a security expert, but this sounds like a good way to keep processes out of what they are not supposed to have their noses in. BTW, this dialogue box is also featured in VS2008!
I was not reading slashdot so much in the XP release days, so I can't compare this to then, but I CAN tell you that the only people I hear complaining in real life about Vista are people who wouldn't know the answer if you asked whether they use web-based e-mail or an application. Not the kind of people I listen to for opinions on cutting edge OSes which, surprise, contain CHANGES.
I use it every day. On two computers. I find it to be a very functional OS. I have a dual core desktop with 1GB of RAM, Radeon X600, which runs fine even for gaming up to the HL2 class of games (meaning HL2 works fine). No surprise there. I also have it on my Toshiba R15 tablet. It is a 1.6GHz P-M with 1.5GB of RAM, and Vista runs VERY well on this system. Admittedly I have the graphics dropped down to W2000 style, but it was still snappy with Aero Basic (Intel chipset won't run Glass). Battery life is maybe slightly shorter than in XP, but still ~3 hours average use. I use XP every day at work. It works fine. I have been using only Vista on my computers since RC1 came out, it also works fine, and I DO recommend it.
I found that the subscript and superscript functionality alone made Office 2007 "worth it." Maybe there were keyboard shortcuts in Office 2003, but I never found them. In Office 2007 I don't have to click Format -> Font -> Check the little box -> click OK, I can just click the superscript button which is always right there. Or even better, it had a tooltip that told me the keyboard shortcut for it, so now I always use that. Also, the formatting of headings, adding a cover page, etc. are all excellent features that I never found in Word 2003. And the bibliography stuff absolutely kicks ass. It is so good that after I saw a video demo of it I actually wanted to write a paper for school again just so I could use it.
Windows Vista and Windows Server 2008 come with IPv6 turned on. If you have such an OS (with a webserver) you can see this by going to [::1] (may need to put http:/ in front of it).
So I presume the real switch will have nothing to do with Microsoft. It will happen when DNS servers start giving people IPv6 addresses (along with v4 addresses, and it will use the preferred one). Then the full switchover happens when DNS servers stop giving out IPv4 addresses or all the IPv4 capabilities are turned of in routers/switches.
You were partially right though: IPv6 is not turned on by default in XP and Server 2003, but can be turned on for geeks: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/network/ipv6/ipv6faq.mspx