Sure, DX10, >4gb of ram, etc are things that COULD be backported to work in XP. They haven't been.
If you feel like running win2k server on your desktop, go for it.
Within 18 months you'll see computers shipping with 4gb. Going on past history, Vista will be with us as the major Microsoft OS for between 2-6 years - at which point we'll be using desktops with 8gb of ram. Sorry, XP isn't going to cut it.
Look, i'm not making the argument that internally, vista is less efficient than XP, that technologies that are relevant couldn't be backported to XP or available with third party apps. That's not the point i'm trying to make.
The point is, they're included as standard, within 18 months you'll need several of the features, moving forwards, there's no ongoing support for XP. You can stick your head in the sand and ignore those facts and downgrade to XP, then figure out in 18 months to 2 years that you're fucked, you can switch to OS/X or Linux, or you can run Vista. On modern hardware, the apparent performance to the end user is as near to indentical to XP that it doesn't matter.
Having a cry about Vista being bloated or different to use and downgrading to XP isn't going to help anyone - least of all the users doing it:D
... don't be ashamed of it, acknowledge that there are areas to be fixed, and see how it goes.
If there's any good points to the project, it will either survive, or be integrated into something else, either way software (on the whole) will progress.
Hiding it away never to see the light of day benefits no one...
system restore: it's now been upgraded to snapshot anything you want - so i can for example go back to a version of a file from 3 days ago. this is a BIG feature that i'm shocked there is not more noise about - it will be a big win for those corporate users who delete/overwrite shit on their laptop while working away and expect to be able to get it back
more than 4gigs of RAM. yes, XP64 can do it, but it's a stillborn product
directX10. yes, this could probably be ported to XP or 2k. but it hasn't been. suck it up:D
Now, as to the kernel issues.... i have noticed no perceptible difference in performance between XP and vista apart from disk i/o. I haven't benchmarked, but i haven't felt the need to. The amount of time spent "in the kernel" when running apps would be pretty small anyway i would wager. Plus, since i've been running vista, hardware as moved on anyway - I've got an extra 2 cores to run with. It still plays all my MP3s, and i can rip my own CDs with no DRM...
Whoever rated this "troll" needs their moderator access revoked. Seriously. There's more FUD from the ass-clowns on here than i've seen from microsoft in the past 12 months - seriously.
I've probably installed Linux about as many times as my/. ID, and love it to bits. But that doesn't change what vista is. It's a step in the RIGHT direction from microsoft. Most of the shit people bitch about with XP has been attended to. Sure resource usage is up. Resources are cheap - if you want to keep running your Pentium 2, then don't fucking upgrade to Vista and expect it to work.
AS to an OS being extremely lightweight and being simply for controlling hardware - i used to agree. However, in this day and age, hardware is far, far cheaper than programmer time and effort. An OS needs to support APIs to make programming easier (eg, OpenGL, OpenAL, DirectX, X11,.net, whatever). Do you *need* them to program with? Of course not. But, why spend 90% of your programming effort re-inventing the wheel, when you could use a built in library, take 90% less programming time, 90% less debugging time, and reap the shared memory benefits when running alongside other apps?
This is why operating systems are getting "fatter". Linux is as well - just try and run a modern dist on a 486 with 4mb of ram (my first linux box) and see where you get.
Not being a Vista user, I am puzzled at how MS seemed to have got the UAC feature so wrong, given the length of time they spent developing it.
Big tip: they didn't.
You need to click a UAC prompt to run a couple of things that require admin/system access.
That's all. I can go days or weeks without seeing a single UAC dialog if I choose. If you're setting up a machine and installing drivers or software then sure, you'll get prompted. That's the WHOLE FUCKING POINT - to ensure the system change was instigated by the user, and not some random rogue process. UAC is *NO DIFFERENT* to being prompted for your admin password in any linux distribution by KDE or gnome - except you don't even need to enter your password, if you're an admin user.
The UAC bitching is from 'tards, plain and simple. Tards who will turn it off, and then complain that they ran a trojan and got owned. Suck shit:D
I have 8 GBs of ram and Vista caches 4GBs most of the time. That tends to piss me off.
What would you rather it do with that RAM, just leave it unused? You do realise it can dynamically allocate RAM for use out of it's cache, right? In the meantime, it's speeding up your disk access...
Yeah, yeah. I love flame wars. But seriously, why do people even bother with Vista?
Because it runs more of my existing software than Linux or OS/X, doesn't crash (yes, really), looks and feels better than XP, and runs just as well as XP on my hardware?
Look, I love linux as much as the next guy (FreeBSD more so), but until I can run the games I want to play on Linux, it's not a starter as my sole OS. And yes, I'm a Transgaming subscriber, and no it doesn't work with a lot of the games I want.
... and even that was crap:D I warezed it (off a friend), and even so I didn't bother to keep it installed more than say 45 minutes. I would not even bother wasting the bandwidth to download any of the NFS series. NFS 1 was pretty cool because the graphics were a revolution. Every one since has been... "meh".
I have had *zero* issues playing ripped music, dvd content,.isos, etc - no problem creating them either, i use vista ultimate on my media centre PC to rip stuff straight to iso with zero issues...
The DRM is totally optional, and with the lack of HDCP capable hardware on the market, it's turned out to be largely irrelevant anyway.
More like "my 12 year old is too retarded to deal with change in her life, i need to sue someone... who has money? Ahh... steve!"
Even if you don't normally use floppies anymore, you're crazy not to have at least a single drive and a few blank floppies lying around somewhere. There's always one scenario like this which continues to make them a critical tool. This happens very, very rarely, but it does still happen.
Floppy drive i'll never use = $15au, box of disks i'll never use, 4/10 of whic will piss me off because they don't work anyway = $7. New motherboard = $150. Probability of needing floppies = pretty fucking remote. I haven't used floppies other than for a scsi driver in winxp install on one machine since 1996 (slackware 3.1 downloaded onto floppies, joy).
THink i'll run the risk of buying a new motherboard if it fucks up:)
Depends how big your disk cache is, and what the internal status of processes is. They trade off writing to disk for better performance when actually being used. Performance when shutting down is not a concern - why do you care how long it takes to shut down anyway? Set machine to shutdown and walk away... no need to sit there waiting for it:D
Because waiting for machines to boot whenever you go to use them sucks balls. Trying to play media off your media centre box on another pc on the network, and realising it's not powered up, sucks balls...
You see, the reason they load all that crap is because usually you would use them from within KDE - and ALL the kde processes would be using the same copys of kio, etc.
We're not in 1995 any more. Invest in more than 128mb of RAM (i'd suggest 2gb - it's cheap and makes a difference) and just run KDE if you regularly run KDE apps, or gnome if you run gnome apps.
Am posting this from within a FreeBSD vm running KDE in 256mb, and it's perfectly usable...
Welcome to 2007. Sure, in the past record labels were required to get the word out there. But in the day and age where some extremely disturbed idiot can put up a video on youtube and become an instant celebrity worldwide (yes, chris crocker, i'm talking about you) - they're no longer required.
Tell me, what can they do for a band's publicity now that the band can not do in their own time?
Personally I think that bands are going to end up with some sort of subscription model - eg, pay $5/month or $2/month or whatever and get exclusive access to content on their site - video, audio, news, chat with the band, etc. Tie it in with some sort of fan-forum login (which will stop people sharing their account) and there you go.
No need to put DRM on the content, as that's not exactly what you're selling in this instance - you're selling membership of an online community...
Slashdot Mirror
Just wait until .net 3.0 or 4.0 is not available for your platform, and more apps start being written for it though.
Or games using directX 10.
But, fine - stick with XP, and we'll see who's able to run things in 18 months, and who had to shell out for vista anyway :D
It ran fine.
That machine was purchased in 2002.
If you think that the breakage problems in vista are bad, then it's a shame you were using linux back in the mid to late 90s...
If you feel like running win2k server on your desktop, go for it.
Within 18 months you'll see computers shipping with 4gb. Going on past history, Vista will be with us as the major Microsoft OS for between 2-6 years - at which point we'll be using desktops with 8gb of ram. Sorry, XP isn't going to cut it.
Look, i'm not making the argument that internally, vista is less efficient than XP, that technologies that are relevant couldn't be backported to XP or available with third party apps. That's not the point i'm trying to make.
The point is, they're included as standard, within 18 months you'll need several of the features, moving forwards, there's no ongoing support for XP. You can stick your head in the sand and ignore those facts and downgrade to XP, then figure out in 18 months to 2 years that you're fucked, you can switch to OS/X or Linux, or you can run Vista. On modern hardware, the apparent performance to the end user is as near to indentical to XP that it doesn't matter.
Having a cry about Vista being bloated or different to use and downgrading to XP isn't going to help anyone - least of all the users doing it :D
If there's any good points to the project, it will either survive, or be integrated into something else, either way software (on the whole) will progress.
Hiding it away never to see the light of day benefits no one...
I don't know what version of vista you're running, but i rename files as I please and don't get prompted.
Now, as to the kernel issues.... i have noticed no perceptible difference in performance between XP and vista apart from disk i/o. I haven't benchmarked, but i haven't felt the need to. The amount of time spent "in the kernel" when running apps would be pretty small anyway i would wager. Plus, since i've been running vista, hardware as moved on anyway - I've got an extra 2 cores to run with. It still plays all my MP3s, and i can rip my own CDs with no DRM...
I've probably installed Linux about as many times as my /. ID, and love it to bits. But that doesn't change what vista is. It's a step in the RIGHT direction from microsoft. Most of the shit people bitch about with XP has been attended to. Sure resource usage is up. Resources are cheap - if you want to keep running your Pentium 2, then don't fucking upgrade to Vista and expect it to work.
AS to an OS being extremely lightweight and being simply for controlling hardware - i used to agree. However, in this day and age, hardware is far, far cheaper than programmer time and effort. An OS needs to support APIs to make programming easier (eg, OpenGL, OpenAL, DirectX, X11, .net, whatever). Do you *need* them to program with? Of course not. But, why spend 90% of your programming effort re-inventing the wheel, when you could use a built in library, take 90% less programming time, 90% less debugging time, and reap the shared memory benefits when running alongside other apps?
This is why operating systems are getting "fatter". Linux is as well - just try and run a modern dist on a 486 with 4mb of ram (my first linux box) and see where you get.
Big tip: they didn't.
You need to click a UAC prompt to run a couple of things that require admin/system access.
That's all. I can go days or weeks without seeing a single UAC dialog if I choose. If you're setting up a machine and installing drivers or software then sure, you'll get prompted. That's the WHOLE FUCKING POINT - to ensure the system change was instigated by the user, and not some random rogue process. UAC is *NO DIFFERENT* to being prompted for your admin password in any linux distribution by KDE or gnome - except you don't even need to enter your password, if you're an admin user.
The UAC bitching is from 'tards, plain and simple. Tards who will turn it off, and then complain that they ran a trojan and got owned. Suck shit :D
What would you rather it do with that RAM, just leave it unused? You do realise it can dynamically allocate RAM for use out of it's cache, right? In the meantime, it's speeding up your disk access...
Yeah i'm sure you'll get better performance with DX10 games on XP than vista too.
Because it runs more of my existing software than Linux or OS/X, doesn't crash (yes, really), looks and feels better than XP, and runs just as well as XP on my hardware?
Look, I love linux as much as the next guy (FreeBSD more so), but until I can run the games I want to play on Linux, it's not a starter as my sole OS. And yes, I'm a Transgaming subscriber, and no it doesn't work with a lot of the games I want.
You're going to need to get Vista next year anyway. If not, then pull your finger out and switch to Linux or OS/X - XP is a DEAD END.
I'm sure all 3 of you XP64 using gamers out there must be pissed.
... and even that was crap :D I warezed it (off a friend), and even so I didn't bother to keep it installed more than say 45 minutes. I would not even bother wasting the bandwidth to download any of the NFS series. NFS 1 was pretty cool because the graphics were a revolution. Every one since has been ... "meh".
The DRM is totally optional, and with the lack of HDCP capable hardware on the market, it's turned out to be largely irrelevant anyway.
More like "my 12 year old is too retarded to deal with change in her life, i need to sue someone... who has money? Ahh... steve!"
Floppy drive i'll never use = $15au, box of disks i'll never use, 4/10 of whic will piss me off because they don't work anyway = $7. New motherboard = $150. Probability of needing floppies = pretty fucking remote. I haven't used floppies other than for a scsi driver in winxp install on one machine since 1996 (slackware 3.1 downloaded onto floppies, joy).
THink i'll run the risk of buying a new motherboard if it fucks up :)
... to check for hardware failure - or failure of a device to init properly. be it due to damage, power surge, etc.
Depends how big your disk cache is, and what the internal status of processes is. They trade off writing to disk for better performance when actually being used. Performance when shutting down is not a concern - why do you care how long it takes to shut down anyway? Set machine to shutdown and walk away... no need to sit there waiting for it :D
Because waiting for machines to boot whenever you go to use them sucks balls. Trying to play media off your media centre box on another pc on the network, and realising it's not powered up, sucks balls...
I'm close :D
As to sacrificing usability... i find stuff like kioslaves far more "usable" than the brain damage that is inflicted by the gnome usability team...
We're not in 1995 any more. Invest in more than 128mb of RAM (i'd suggest 2gb - it's cheap and makes a difference) and just run KDE if you regularly run KDE apps, or gnome if you run gnome apps.
Am posting this from within a FreeBSD vm running KDE in 256mb, and it's perfectly usable...
Tell me, what can they do for a band's publicity now that the band can not do in their own time?
Personally I think that bands are going to end up with some sort of subscription model - eg, pay $5/month or $2/month or whatever and get exclusive access to content on their site - video, audio, news, chat with the band, etc. Tie it in with some sort of fan-forum login (which will stop people sharing their account) and there you go.
No need to put DRM on the content, as that's not exactly what you're selling in this instance - you're selling membership of an online community...