I'm actively testing Win7, and although I don't have build 7000 (still on 6801), I can tell you that pretty much all those nags don't go through to real, live and in-place systems yet. Even though I've activated mine with a legitimate key, it thinks it's an unauthorised copy (which is true enough, I guess), but when I click the nag to authenticate it, it just goes to a Vista authentication page and fails miserably.
That antivirus one is the first I've seen that actually contains a real Windows 7 page. I haven't seen it before, because I routinely don't install AV software.
I guess we should probably wait until the beta is officially available before doing any meaningful bitching about software not working with it.
I'd like an iPod Touch, I really would. However, but 80GB iPod 5.5G can hold a metric fuckload more data than any of the iTouches available, so I'm sticking with it.
Why bother with a 9" screen when you can only have a handful of movies & TV shows that can take full advantage of it?
I think he might actually be referring to Vista's... interesting tendency to allocate ~33-50% of your physical memory upon boot.
I have 6GB installed in my machine, and it's currently using 2.25GB to run Firefox with a handful of tabs, VLC, Windows Explorer, Winamp, and the Sidebar. God only knows how it uses that much to do so little, but I'm not fussed - it's not as if RAM is expensive these days.
An interesting note though - I worked out a while ago that these days, you pay more per chip in a packet of potato chips than you do per megabyte of RAM. Go figure.
How can you get "the advantage of a clean boot" and NOT loose data?
by tightening the data up? I'm not sure what sort of advantage "loose data" is anyway - isn't "loose data" generally considered to be a security risk of some sort?
How to spot somebody who's never used Vista (or run it for five minutes before saying "I don't like it, it's different!"):
Lets see why Vista was a train wreck: A) It ran pathetically slow B) It renamed things for no apparent reasons and C) It had too much DRM and other crap. I think that anyone could have told you that it wouldn't go over too well. It wasn't because of things developed that "wouldn't go over well in the marketplace" it was the idiot Ballmer trying to push his agenda that is killing MS over developing decent software.
a) What are you running it on? A P-133? If you'll remember, XP was pretty damned slow when it first came out. Slower, in fact, than Vista (comparatively speaking)
b) Like what? Are you talking about the "My Documents" to "Documents" transition? Like how XP moved your docs folder from C:\My Documents to %user%\ ?
c) Did you really expect Microsoft to not include DRM in Vista? They're in a pretty hard place; they have to bow to multiple governments demands as to what they can and cannot include in their OS. Not only that, but they'd get their arses sued off by the media companies, who would then release their own DRM stuff that would only bog Windows down even more.
Funnily enough, it's only Microsoft that's at the mercy of these organisations... I don't see Apple getting yelled at for including iChat, iMovie, iLife, Quicktime, GarageBand and iTunes with their OS. I also don't see nearly as many users bitching about the actual restrictive DRM in their OS as there are about the unintrusive (WGA notwithstanding) DRM in Vista.
Now, there's MS bashing, and there's MS bashing. I am personally sick of seeing "waaa Vista sucks" posts all over the internet. Did you know that you pay more per chip in a bag of potato chips than you do per megabyte of RAM these days?
Think about that. Suck it up and buy some more RAM and enjoy Vista the way it was supposed to be used - XP ran like shit on less than 64MB of RAM, so why is Vista bashed for having the same comparative requirements?
Actually, yes. Load and Reload are a pair of excellent albums.. just because they're not balls-out thrash metal doesn't automatically disqualify them from any quality races.
As I've said many times (just not here..), if any other band had released those two albums, they would have been hailed as musical geniuses.
St. Anger, on the other hand... no thanks, I burned my CD of that (literally) and purged the hard drive the MP3s were stored on.
...and for what it's worth, I think Death Magnetic is a pretty good album (aside from the name), and The Unforgiven III is one of the best songs Metallica has ever written... it's just a shame they decided to give it such an awful name.
What's to stop you from putting any other OS you want on there?
You're the one complaining about how Vista won't run on your 10-year-old systems, and you can't afford to upgrade for it. I just wanted to point out that it's not as expensive as you might think; $400 (Australian dollars!) is nothing, compared to how much Dell and the like want to charge for a "Vista Capable" PC.
If your current computers are working fine for you, then fine, don't come in and complain about Vista not working for you... but I guarantee you that even XP will run much better with 1GB of RAM in there.
I don't think I can even buy a 40GB hard drive any more, and as I pointed out higher up on this page, actual potato chips cost more than megabytes of memory these days.
Building the guts of a computer that can run Vista really really well is hilariously cheap!
I mean I hate to sound like a condescending better-off-than-you person because I used to be a student and hated people talking like that to me, but 1GB RAM is what, $30? A 2GB DIMM of DDR2 is ~$50AUD. An 80GB drive is ~$60AUD. A respectable CPU is less than a hundred dollars, a motherboard to match it is about the same price, and a GPU to run Aero nicely is about another fifty or so.
So, that's what... less than $400AUD for a fairly decent machine
Even less if you buy 2nd-hand.
On a 486 with decent memory, it was hard to tell the difference in performance between 95 and 98.
Yes. They both ran like dogs on such a low-specced system. I'll bet you wouldn't find much difference between XP and Vista on a 486, either... assuming you could get them to run on one.
Actually, yes I have. I'm not the sort of internet troll that likes to make random off-the-cuff statements about stuff they haven't used.
I use Vista 64bit almost exclusively at home, on an Athlon X2 4800+, 3GB RAM and a 256MB GeForce 7600GS videocard. (all that adds up to a rating of 4.9)
I will admit that it ran like a dog when I only had 1GB on RAM in there, but RAM's cheap these days. Actual potato chips are more expensive than RAM these days. I remember paying $200 for 32MB of EDO RAM back in the day, and now $200 will buy me 256 times that, but I digress... my point is that there's almost no excuse for not upgrading your machine to adequately run the thing.
The old argument of "I shouldn't need to upgrade to run my old programs" doesn't really hold sway - if you just want to run your old programs, why did you get a new computer at all?
In response to the 'slow' criticism, well... I'm just not seeing it, sorry. Sure, it takes a while to start up & shut down, and SP1 took the better part of a lifetime to install, but beyond that, everything is as zippy as I'd expect it to be. I guess I just must have a magic system, huh?
If so, I think you may be mistaken. The only people who think Vista is an improvement are the RAM manufacturers and other upgrade vendors.
Search
Virtual Folders
Stacks (see search, really)
Graphics subsystem (you can't argue that DWM is worse than GDI/GDI+ surely!)
Filesystem improvements (they really should have bumped the NTFS version to 6.0 for Vista)
Explorer shell/file manager improvements
Ease of Use improvements
...and that's just scratching the surface of the visible improvements.
I mean reall, the only people that are giving Vista shit in this thread so far evidently have no used it, or have not used it for very long. A few hours on a weekend once? Come on, give me a break... I didn't write off Linux because it was complicated to install back in Red Hat 5.2 days, or when Ubuntu wouldn't give me Xorg goodness before 6.06...
God, this feels horrible, but I have to defend Microsoft/Windows here a bit
Windows 98 was slower than Windows 95, running on the same hardware
Windows XP was slower than Windows 98, running on the same hardware
Windows Vista is slower than Windows XP, running on the same hardware.
Does anybody see a pattern here? Most people thought XP was rubbish for the first couple of years that it was out for, and now those same people are proclaiming it to be Microsoft's best OS to date.
Vista does a lot of things right, and improves on XP in many, many areas, it's just dogged by this idea that it's crap because you can't run it on your P3-800 and it won't work with your dot-matrix printer from 1977.
Ugh, that felt terrible, I need to go play with Ubuntu for a few hours now....
The first natural harmonic of a 5kHz tone would indeed be 10kHz, but the second would be 20kHz, and so on.
Every sound has a whole raft of natural overtones and harmonics, individual to itself. A 1kHz tone's harmonics are at 2kHz, 4kHz, 8kHz, etc. It's therefore really quite disingenuous to just state that the "first harmonic is at 10kHz"
I don't think that the problem is that GMail's spam filters are declining, it's that the spammers are getting better at avoiding them.
That said, in the last three years, I've had maybe five or ten spam messages sneak through the net. Pretty good, if you ask me, and the fact that it can 'learn' is even better, unlike rival offerings (or at least, where they were before I converted to Google)
...and we in Australia thought AWAs were bad news! A few years of the Nielson Workplace Agreement down here would have had everybody gagging for AWAs as sweet relief!
FISA? What is this? TFA only mentions it by the acronym and doesn't even descrive it. As a non-American, I'd like to know just what the fuss is about without being pummeled by a senseless acronym.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll bet the folks who work on the 64 bit version are scratching their heads wondering why they bother!
Yes, we are. We're also chucking heartily at anybody running the 32bit version and bitching about how shit Vista is.
I'm actively testing Win7, and although I don't have build 7000 (still on 6801), I can tell you that pretty much all those nags don't go through to real, live and in-place systems yet. Even though I've activated mine with a legitimate key, it thinks it's an unauthorised copy (which is true enough, I guess), but when I click the nag to authenticate it, it just goes to a Vista authentication page and fails miserably.
That antivirus one is the first I've seen that actually contains a real Windows 7 page. I haven't seen it before, because I routinely don't install AV software.
I guess we should probably wait until the beta is officially available before doing any meaningful bitching about software not working with it.
I'd like an iPod Touch, I really would. However, but 80GB iPod 5.5G can hold a metric fuckload more data than any of the iTouches available, so I'm sticking with it.
Why bother with a 9" screen when you can only have a handful of movies & TV shows that can take full advantage of it?
Wake me up when they put hard drives in iTouches.
I think he might actually be referring to Vista's... interesting tendency to allocate ~33-50% of your physical memory upon boot.
I have 6GB installed in my machine, and it's currently using 2.25GB to run Firefox with a handful of tabs, VLC, Windows Explorer, Winamp, and the Sidebar. God only knows how it uses that much to do so little, but I'm not fussed - it's not as if RAM is expensive these days.
An interesting note though - I worked out a while ago that these days, you pay more per chip in a packet of potato chips than you do per megabyte of RAM. Go figure.
How can you get "the advantage of a clean boot" and NOT loose data?
by tightening the data up? I'm not sure what sort of advantage "loose data" is anyway - isn't "loose data" generally considered to be a security risk of some sort?
Lets see why Vista was a train wreck: A) It ran pathetically slow B) It renamed things for no apparent reasons and C) It had too much DRM and other crap. I think that anyone could have told you that it wouldn't go over too well. It wasn't because of things developed that "wouldn't go over well in the marketplace" it was the idiot Ballmer trying to push his agenda that is killing MS over developing decent software.
a) What are you running it on? A P-133? If you'll remember, XP was pretty damned slow when it first came out. Slower, in fact, than Vista (comparatively speaking)
b) Like what? Are you talking about the "My Documents" to "Documents" transition? Like how XP moved your docs folder from C:\My Documents to %user%\ ?
c) Did you really expect Microsoft to not include DRM in Vista? They're in a pretty hard place; they have to bow to multiple governments demands as to what they can and cannot include in their OS. Not only that, but they'd get their arses sued off by the media companies, who would then release their own DRM stuff that would only bog Windows down even more.
Funnily enough, it's only Microsoft that's at the mercy of these organisations... I don't see Apple getting yelled at for including iChat, iMovie, iLife, Quicktime, GarageBand and iTunes with their OS. I also don't see nearly as many users bitching about the actual restrictive DRM in their OS as there are about the unintrusive (WGA notwithstanding) DRM in Vista.
Now, there's MS bashing, and there's MS bashing. I am personally sick of seeing "waaa Vista sucks" posts all over the internet. Did you know that you pay more per chip in a bag of potato chips than you do per megabyte of RAM these days?
Think about that. Suck it up and buy some more RAM and enjoy Vista the way it was supposed to be used - XP ran like shit on less than 64MB of RAM, so why is Vista bashed for having the same comparative requirements?
That, and Win9x was Windows 4.x
But he doesn't any more, right? So why keep hating on him if he posts interesting articles?
I don't get it - why does everybody hate Roland?
Actually, yes. Load and Reload are a pair of excellent albums.. just because they're not balls-out thrash metal doesn't automatically disqualify them from any quality races.
...and for what it's worth, I think Death Magnetic is a pretty good album (aside from the name), and The Unforgiven III is one of the best songs Metallica has ever written... it's just a shame they decided to give it such an awful name.
As I've said many times (just not here..), if any other band had released those two albums, they would have been hailed as musical geniuses.
St. Anger, on the other hand... no thanks, I burned my CD of that (literally) and purged the hard drive the MP3s were stored on.
...all I get is a fat load of nothing. I disable AdBlock, and I get an ad for Lotus Notes. I refresh and I get an ad for Windows Server 2008. WTF?
What's to stop you from putting any other OS you want on there?
You're the one complaining about how Vista won't run on your 10-year-old systems, and you can't afford to upgrade for it. I just wanted to point out that it's not as expensive as you might think; $400 (Australian dollars!) is nothing, compared to how much Dell and the like want to charge for a "Vista Capable" PC.
If your current computers are working fine for you, then fine, don't come in and complain about Vista not working for you... but I guarantee you that even XP will run much better with 1GB of RAM in there.
I don't think I can even buy a 40GB hard drive any more, and as I pointed out higher up on this page, actual potato chips cost more than megabytes of memory these days.
Building the guts of a computer that can run Vista really really well is hilariously cheap!
I mean I hate to sound like a condescending better-off-than-you person because I used to be a student and hated people talking like that to me, but 1GB RAM is what, $30? A 2GB DIMM of DDR2 is ~$50AUD. An 80GB drive is ~$60AUD. A respectable CPU is less than a hundred dollars, a motherboard to match it is about the same price, and a GPU to run Aero nicely is about another fifty or so.
So, that's what... less than $400AUD for a fairly decent machine
Even less if you buy 2nd-hand.
Windows 2K wasn't a consumer-oriented OS, remember? I also didn't mention WinME because I had no experience with it.
Yes. They both ran like dogs on such a low-specced system. I'll bet you wouldn't find much difference between XP and Vista on a 486, either... assuming you could get them to run on one.
That would be because unlike most people around these parts, I don't slag off (or even comment on to any great extent) a product I have not used...
I've blocked it from my memory ;)
Actually, yes I have. I'm not the sort of internet troll that likes to make random off-the-cuff statements about stuff they haven't used.
I use Vista 64bit almost exclusively at home, on an Athlon X2 4800+, 3GB RAM and a 256MB GeForce 7600GS videocard. (all that adds up to a rating of 4.9)
I will admit that it ran like a dog when I only had 1GB on RAM in there, but RAM's cheap these days. Actual potato chips are more expensive than RAM these days. I remember paying $200 for 32MB of EDO RAM back in the day, and now $200 will buy me 256 times that, but I digress... my point is that there's almost no excuse for not upgrading your machine to adequately run the thing.
The old argument of "I shouldn't need to upgrade to run my old programs" doesn't really hold sway - if you just want to run your old programs, why did you get a new computer at all?
In response to the 'slow' criticism, well... I'm just not seeing it, sorry. Sure, it takes a while to start up & shut down, and SP1 took the better part of a lifetime to install, but beyond that, everything is as zippy as I'd expect it to be. I guess I just must have a magic system, huh?
By "many, many" do you mean "more than none"?
If so, I think you may be mistaken. The only people who think Vista is an improvement are the RAM manufacturers and other upgrade vendors.
Search
...and that's just scratching the surface of the visible improvements.
Virtual Folders
Stacks (see search, really)
Graphics subsystem (you can't argue that DWM is worse than GDI/GDI+ surely!)
Filesystem improvements (they really should have bumped the NTFS version to 6.0 for Vista)
Explorer shell/file manager improvements
Ease of Use improvements
I mean reall, the only people that are giving Vista shit in this thread so far evidently have no used it, or have not used it for very long. A few hours on a weekend once? Come on, give me a break... I didn't write off Linux because it was complicated to install back in Red Hat 5.2 days, or when Ubuntu wouldn't give me Xorg goodness before 6.06...
God, this feels horrible, but I have to defend Microsoft/Windows here a bit
Windows 98 was slower than Windows 95, running on the same hardware
Windows XP was slower than Windows 98, running on the same hardware
Windows Vista is slower than Windows XP, running on the same hardware.
Does anybody see a pattern here? Most people thought XP was rubbish for the first couple of years that it was out for, and now those same people are proclaiming it to be Microsoft's best OS to date.
Vista does a lot of things right, and improves on XP in many, many areas, it's just dogged by this idea that it's crap because you can't run it on your P3-800 and it won't work with your dot-matrix printer from 1977.
Ugh, that felt terrible, I need to go play with Ubuntu for a few hours now....
What you just said makes no sense.
The first natural harmonic of a 5kHz tone would indeed be 10kHz, but the second would be 20kHz, and so on.
Every sound has a whole raft of natural overtones and harmonics, individual to itself. A 1kHz tone's harmonics are at 2kHz, 4kHz, 8kHz, etc. It's therefore really quite disingenuous to just state that the "first harmonic is at 10kHz"
I don't think that the problem is that GMail's spam filters are declining, it's that the spammers are getting better at avoiding them.
That said, in the last three years, I've had maybe five or ten spam messages sneak through the net. Pretty good, if you ask me, and the fact that it can 'learn' is even better, unlike rival offerings (or at least, where they were before I converted to Google)
...and we in Australia thought AWAs were bad news! A few years of the Nielson Workplace Agreement down here would have had everybody gagging for AWAs as sweet relief!
FISA? What is this? TFA only mentions it by the acronym and doesn't even descrive it. As a non-American, I'd like to know just what the fuss is about without being pummeled by a senseless acronym.
Yeah. This issue, coupled with the fact that both parties in our state are a bunch of morons, is prompting me to vote Liberal at the next election...