I don't particularly like depending on their servers. So when their log on server in Seattle (or wherever it is) is down, even if my game server is up I can't play. And you can't do LAN games anymore which I liked. But maybe those are just gone with today's landscape.
Which is why you should install xp if you want to run windows programs. I understand running wine on a linux install so you can keep a couple of windows apps. I run it because I like to fool around on counterstrike. But If you want to run 95% windows programs, just install windows for Pete's sake. Don't blame linux for having to add some bloat to run another OS's programs. I bet someone here has some numbers for how much bloat it takes for windows to run linux apps, assuming that is possible.
Your right, I was in a hurry and posted a little flippantly to keep it short. I forgot how personal folks around here tend to get. I didn't mean to insult your ego.
But still, I think your experience with Vista has been way above the norm. My own experience has been that while setups for in home, normal/everyday users has not been any worse or more frustrating than almost any other OS I deal with, the corporate and especially the development platforms have been extremely painful.
As far as gaming systems go, and I have both PC and consoles, I maintain that if you are going to build the vendor specific software for vendor specific hardware, you have essentially bought a console anyway.
And yes, because the charge for it, they have failed in some ways. I really don't have any specific death wish for MS, but if they are going to charge the prices they charge, I expect better quality. Same for OS X.
And finally, I actually do bitch about the *nix distributors who charge when unstable stuff gets released as part of their distribution, and I also don't mind at least giving my opinion, to the ones that don't, although I don't fault them to the same degree.
KDE 4.0 and 4.1 are not meant to be perfect in every way. They are meant to establish a new scheme of APIs and a new design dynamic. It is a big overhaul that is in its beginnings.
And Vista isn't? Are you new or just Slashdotted?
If MS had come out and said, "Hey, look at this cool new stuff we are coming out with. Try it out for free." Less people would slam MS/Vista.
If you are going to charge for and attempt to force people into something, it should be held to the higher standard.
Vista is supposed to be a workstation solution ready for every day production use right now.
It is more stable than XP, more secure than XP, easier for business to deploy (mind numbing easy even), and unless you are trying to get it to run on 512mb, outperforms XP.
Where has Vista failed in this?
I get the whole SlashDot we hate MS, but from a Window's user or business user standpoint, where does Vista fail? There are the mindless ramblings of several people's friend of a friend stories; however, outside of the 'we wish' slashdot world, most Vista users are more than happy and would fight over going back to XP.
Holy cow, what planet are you doing IT for?
You are not forced to upgrade to KDE 4.x, but Vista is required for some of today's games and applications because they don't run in earlier versions. This is the difference.
What games run KDE again? Short of a few desktop games, they are not running 'via KDE', therefore, how would the KDE version have any reference on this?
Vista has a new gaming API, and even in the non-DX10 area included things needed for Windows Live out of the newer networking APIs (i.e. Halo2 Vista only 'originally' release).
Outside of that, games that are Vista only are too few and far between, which is sad because game makers have pulled back full DirectX10 support and instead are delivering hybrid games that have a DX9 engine with some DX10 enhancements turned on. (XBox 360 games are closer to pure DX10 than most DX9/DX10 hybrids being released now.)
We have yet to see a DX10 game that is fully DX10, which will be Vista only.
If a game requires a 'new' version of OpenGL are you going to argue the game is bad?
The difference here is DX10 goes past the basic libraries of OpenGL and older DX9. Since, yes, DX10 does expect the OS to be Vista because it relies on the OS handling GPU scheduling, virtualization, etc.
OpenGL has no OS dependance it can rely on, and can be both good and bad. We know the good side of this, but on the bad side, the level of features or performance it can offer is limited as it can't expect anything from the OS in new technologies. Unlike DX10 that can expect the OS to handle GPU RAM for the application and virtualize it no matter how much on card VRAM there is. DX10 can also do things like flip physics code off to the GPU or shaders and not have to worry about the rendering suffering or halting, as the OS is multi-tasking the GPU for DX10.
This is why DX10 is a change in technology that is unlike previous versions, as it DOES EXPECT the OS to be capable of doing more for it at a core driver level and also where DX10 splits from being anything like DX9 or OpenGL and becomes a driving force in the demands of the OS sitting under it.
Think of DX10 like the XBox 360, don't be pissed because a new game requires the new system.
Besides, you do realizes the same thing happens in the OSS and OpenGL world? Often a game may still run, but when you factor the OpenGL to OS to GPU numbers, unless your OS is newer and your GPU is newer, the game won't manage 1fps, but it will 'technically' run... Would rather have MS been shady about this aspect that XP can't do things DX10 games expect, and then just let users find out how horribly the game plays on XP running a kludged version of DX10? Maybe they should have, so you couldn't bitch about it...
Slashdot Mirror
I don't particularly like depending on their servers. So when their log on server in Seattle (or wherever it is) is down, even if my game server is up I can't play. And you can't do LAN games anymore which I liked. But maybe those are just gone with today's landscape.
Which is why you should install xp if you want to run windows programs. I understand running wine on a linux install so you can keep a couple of windows apps. I run it because I like to fool around on counterstrike. But If you want to run 95% windows programs, just install windows for Pete's sake. Don't blame linux for having to add some bloat to run another OS's programs. I bet someone here has some numbers for how much bloat it takes for windows to run linux apps, assuming that is possible.
Your right, I was in a hurry and posted a little flippantly to keep it short. I forgot how personal folks around here tend to get. I didn't mean to insult your ego. But still, I think your experience with Vista has been way above the norm. My own experience has been that while setups for in home, normal/everyday users has not been any worse or more frustrating than almost any other OS I deal with, the corporate and especially the development platforms have been extremely painful. As far as gaming systems go, and I have both PC and consoles, I maintain that if you are going to build the vendor specific software for vendor specific hardware, you have essentially bought a console anyway. And yes, because the charge for it, they have failed in some ways. I really don't have any specific death wish for MS, but if they are going to charge the prices they charge, I expect better quality. Same for OS X. And finally, I actually do bitch about the *nix distributors who charge when unstable stuff gets released as part of their distribution, and I also don't mind at least giving my opinion, to the ones that don't, although I don't fault them to the same degree.
KDE 4.0 and 4.1 are not meant to be perfect in every way. They are meant to establish a new scheme of APIs and a new design dynamic. It is a big overhaul that is in its beginnings.
And Vista isn't? Are you new or just Slashdotted?
If MS had come out and said, "Hey, look at this cool new stuff we are coming out with. Try it out for free." Less people would slam MS/Vista. If you are going to charge for and attempt to force people into something, it should be held to the higher standard.
Vista is supposed to be a workstation solution ready for every day production use right now.
It is more stable than XP, more secure than XP, easier for business to deploy (mind numbing easy even), and unless you are trying to get it to run on 512mb, outperforms XP.
Where has Vista failed in this?
I get the whole SlashDot we hate MS, but from a Window's user or business user standpoint, where does Vista fail? There are the mindless ramblings of several people's friend of a friend stories; however, outside of the 'we wish' slashdot world, most Vista users are more than happy and would fight over going back to XP.
Holy cow, what planet are you doing IT for?
You are not forced to upgrade to KDE 4.x, but Vista is required for some of today's games and applications because they don't run in earlier versions. This is the difference.
What games run KDE again? Short of a few desktop games, they are not running 'via KDE', therefore, how would the KDE version have any reference on this?
Vista has a new gaming API, and even in the non-DX10 area included things needed for Windows Live out of the newer networking APIs (i.e. Halo2 Vista only 'originally' release).
Outside of that, games that are Vista only are too few and far between, which is sad because game makers have pulled back full DirectX10 support and instead are delivering hybrid games that have a DX9 engine with some DX10 enhancements turned on. (XBox 360 games are closer to pure DX10 than most DX9/DX10 hybrids being released now.)
We have yet to see a DX10 game that is fully DX10, which will be Vista only.
If a game requires a 'new' version of OpenGL are you going to argue the game is bad?
The difference here is DX10 goes past the basic libraries of OpenGL and older DX9. Since, yes, DX10 does expect the OS to be Vista because it relies on the OS handling GPU scheduling, virtualization, etc.
OpenGL has no OS dependance it can rely on, and can be both good and bad. We know the good side of this, but on the bad side, the level of features or performance it can offer is limited as it can't expect anything from the OS in new technologies. Unlike DX10 that can expect the OS to handle GPU RAM for the application and virtualize it no matter how much on card VRAM there is. DX10 can also do things like flip physics code off to the GPU or shaders and not have to worry about the rendering suffering or halting, as the OS is multi-tasking the GPU for DX10.
This is why DX10 is a change in technology that is unlike previous versions, as it DOES EXPECT the OS to be capable of doing more for it at a core driver level and also where DX10 splits from being anything like DX9 or OpenGL and becomes a driving force in the demands of the OS sitting under it.
Think of DX10 like the XBox 360, don't be pissed because a new game requires the new system.
Besides, you do realizes the same thing happens in the OSS and OpenGL world? Often a game may still run, but when you factor the OpenGL to OS to GPU numbers, unless your OS is newer and your GPU is newer, the game won't manage 1fps, but it will 'technically' run... Would rather have MS been shady about this aspect that XP can't do things DX10 games expect, and then just let users find out how horribly the game plays on XP running a kludged version of DX10? Maybe they should have, so you couldn't bitch about it...
If you want a game only system, buy the fr