Windows Vista

[Shadow Wulf]

Dude! they're trying to look like MAC's OS. NOOO!!!! I hate macs!

i agree

same here

Thats funny because thats the first thing I said when I told my freinds about it.

[nachoboy]

man, why alls you hatin on the macs, yo?

it's not like macs are bad or anything. when it comes to the peeps i know what hates macs, they only hate macs because they're used to being constantly confounded by their windows compys and can't figure out how to do anything on macs because everything's too user friendly for them. i use macs all the time, and it's great.

so yeah. hecks no, i'm not gonna "upgrade" to vista. even though they are changing it to look more like a mac os.

[ravaged_warrior]

man, why alls you hatin on the macs, yo?

it's not like macs are bad or anything. when it comes to the peeps i know what hates macs, they only hate macs because they're used to being constantly confounded by their windows compys and can't figure out how to do anything on macs because everything's too user friendly for them. i use macs all the time, and it's great.

so yeah. hecks no, i'm not gonna "upgrade" to vista. even though they are changing it to look more like a mac os.

Actually... The reason I don't like Macs is because they're basically office machines that can't do anything that I'd want to use them and several users (not talking about you there, though you were a little defensive) and the makers themselves have an obnoxious elitist attitude about how much better they are than PCs when I can't find a substantial amount of reasons why.

[geekboy1500]

anyway im getting a feeling that this is going to turn out to be a "windows vs. OSX" thread

we already have one of these

not making you use it

just my opinion

[Anubis]

geekboy has a point,

All Mac fan boys, leave! This is a PC thread and we don't want a flame war here.

((besides macs are already steaming piles of crap anyways. PCs are more stable. Bite me if you think otherwise))

[Lupin]

besides macs are already steaming piles of crap anyways. PCs are more stable. Bite me if you think otherwise

You don't even want to go there. Windows get so 0wned by every other OS in terms of uptime it's not even worth mentioning. My windows boxes at work gets rebooted weekly, while I have linux machines with uptimes over 100 days.

On the other hand, Microsoft is getting better at it. I had to reboot my Win 98 box every three days or so.

[Kaebora]

All of the Windows OS's are flawed, of course, but Vista has two redeeming qualities. It throws the DOS core out the window (pun unintended), and has FAR better security features. That's more than enough to save Microsoft's reign of bad programming altogether.

Mac OS has me a bit drymouthed. I don't like the fact that you typically HAVE to hotkey your way around. They do have multi-button mouses for Macs now, but that system isn't something I'm used to either way. If I worked for a firm that required me to use a Mac, I'd sucker em up and say "Why, my good sir, Macs are my fave!" Likewise for PCs. If the boss wants it for the company, by gollie we'll use it. My personal preference will always be PC due to how customizeable the hardware and OS's are. Ease of programming use as well. Can't get into the Mac OS registry very easilly, nor save scripts for automatic changes.

A funny pic to fit the occation. Entirely out of good humor, not to be mean.


Every OS sucks. Heh.

[Lukas]

besides macs are already steaming piles of crap anyways. PCs are more stable. Bite me if you think otherwise

You don't even want to go there. Windows get so 0wned by every other OS in terms up uptime it's not even worth mentioning. My windows boxes at work gets rebooted weekly, while I have linux machines with uptimes over 100 days.

On the other hand, Microsoft is getting better at it. I had to reboot my Win 98 box every three days or so.

you guys must use your computers alot, i have a old 2002 Dell windows and it purrs like a kitten and the only changes i made was a new video card and more Ram

[Lupin]

All of the Windows OS's are flawed, of course, but Vista has two redeeming qualities. It throws the DOS core out the window (pun unintended), and has FAR better security features. That's more than enough to save Microsoft's reign of bad programming altogether.

Actually, they switched over to the NT kernel in Windows XP. (In fact I have a white paper open in another window with a disasembly of Vista, and a note saying "These red bytes haven't changed since Windows 2000".)

Can't get into the Mac OS registry very easilly, nor save scripts for automatic changes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applescrip ... n_Mac_OS_X

(I like to do dumb things like start the mp3 player before I get home from work.)

[Searif]

its simply a mac rip, right down to the compatibility(im a gamer, thats why I hate both mac and vista)

[Shadow Wulf]

its simply a mac rip, right down to the compatibility(im a gamer, thats why I hate both mac and vista)

Um isnt Vista perfect for gamers?....better graphics.

[Kaebora]

Mostly the graphics card has anything to do with that.

[Shadow Wulf]

But Vista helps improves the visuals greatly.


Look at here.
http://www.gamespot.com/features/616494 ... lk=topslot

[Scott Gardener]

I've been working with it for a few days now and have posted a full review of Vista Ultimate on C-Net.

At $270 or so for an upgrade, it's not for the faint of heart. I also made it a point to set up partitions for dual booting so I could keep my XP programs running, in case something important wasn't compatible. Since I'm blessed with an AMD Athlon64, I installed the 64 bit version. I've run into a few cases of "we don't work in 64 bit environments," but this is mostly solvable by downloading the latest versions. The biggest surprise was that Microsoft's own heavily touted OneCare doesn't support 64 bit Windows, forcing me to go back to Norton. Since both OneCare and Norton Internet Security now include licensing for up to three computers, then I can now protect my extended family. I'm a little annoyed that a few programs I paid for are no longer compatible with 64 bit, but I choose to go forward instead of downgrading back to 32 bit, because the performance boost I'm seeing is noticeable. (Granted, I'm also looking at a fresh install compared to my XP partition with two or three years worth of frag/defrag, install and uninstall, etc.) Note that if you're installing the 64 bit version, you have to do a clean install--which is funny, since you have to have an eligible upgrade already running--you can't just have the Windows XP disc on hand. So, in order to install Vista on it's own partition, I had to make a sacrificial lamb copy of XP first. Note that Vista did save the XP folder as "windows.old," and existing files were spared, so if you do a "clean" install, you keep your files, even if you have to reinstall programs. Note also that Ultimate edition is the only version of Vista that includes the 64 bit version in the package on a second disc; the other versions only include 32 bit and an order form for the 64 bit version. You can also order CD-ROMs, since Vista is packaged as a DVD-ROM. Just about any computer with the power needed to run Vista should have a DVD-ROM, if not a multi-format DVD burner.

First off, getting the box open is very confusing. I'm surprised I haven't heard more complaints.

I've got a great graphics card, an ATI Radeon X1600, so Vista gave me the Aero interface. I got to see what it looks like without it when I did a performance rating on my computer; Aero temporarily deactivated. The difference is largely cosmetic; Aero includes glasslike window borders and the ability to sort windows in a scrolling Rolladex fashion, which Mac people will almost certainly compare to iTunes. Windows also flicker and fade in and out rather than just popping up. Aero or not, Vista also has desktop gadgets that are rather nice--again, Mac people will point out that they've already got them. XP users can create a similar effect much more cheaply using programs like Stardock's Object Desktop suite, with far less strict graphics card requirements, so don't upgrade just for the looks. Some of Object Desktop's components are available in limited form as freeware.

If you're an AMD person, it's worth the upgrade for the 64 bit architecture. (Intel recently stole AMD's thunder with the Core 2 Duo processors, but AMD is about to make a comeback with a "4x4" architecture that lets you put pairs of dual core processors on a motherboard, with the promise of compatible quad core processor pairs available by the end of the year--yes, 8 core processing. You'll need Business or Ultimate edition to support dual processor, but not dual or quad core on one chip.) Various Linux distros have supported 64 bit for over a year, but installing and running Linux is not easy. (I've dabbled, but I have yet to find myself running Linux routinely. About a year back I have some posts I made while in Linux.)

A lot of "new" features aside from visual themes are also available elsewhere for cheap or free, including from Microsoft themselves. Windows Desktop Search isn't just included with Vista; you can get it for XP for free. (I've got it on my laptop.) And, Media Center 11, same story. IE7 likewise, if you're not like me a Firefox person.

If you're an early adopter and not on a tight budget, it's a worthwhile upgrade. To most people, I'd recommend the Home Premium. Home Basic doesn't add enough, and Ultimate is overkill unless you're a die-hard techie, rich, or running 64 bit and don't like waiting. Most friends and family I'd suggest waiting; I'm keeping XP Tablet PC Edition on my laptop, and I'll upgrade when it's time to get a new laptop. In about two or three years, most of us will have upgraded anyway--Mac users aside. (I do wonder how well Vista, Boot Camp, and Intel-Macs work together?)

[Kaebora]

But Vista helps improves the visuals greatly.


Look at here.
http://www.gamespot.com/features/616494 ... lk=topslot

All that article says is that XP wont be supporting DirectX 10, and most of the newest video cards. It's not that XP can't handle it, it's that Microsoft doesn't want to add the support for their older OS. It's a money making scheme, not an issue of processing ability. An Operating System only has to do with the structure of the harddrives, and how the user interacts with data before activating a program. Of course that's just in a nutshell, but it has almost nothing to do with graphics. I say "almost" because an OS is what organizes drivers for the hardware. Sure, Vista is better, but unless you want to pay top dollar for a DX10 capable video card it's not a nesessity.

My concern is more with OpenGL 2.0, as it is the renderer that animators mostly use. If 3.0 is released and not supported by XP, of course I'll have to upgrade.

In regards to 64-bit architechture, Vista's 64-bit version is way better than XP64. Just keep in mind, if a company hasn't provided the emulation software needed to run their 32-bit programs and applications, you can't use those programs. Vista64 is known to run some of these programs that wont run on XP64. There will still be issues with outdated software anyways. Vista does not support 8-bit and 16-bit applications.

[Scott Gardener]

That's the reason I kept a separate XP partition running--knowing that a new OS would have compatibility issues, particularly when jumping up from 32 to 64 bits. (I was amazed at first at how much didn't work with it, but now as I've read up on what's involved, I'm more amazed at how much does work.)

On the other hand, when XP came out, I dropped Windows 98 like a silver .999 sterling hand grenade. That puppy had to go, and the further I could throw it, the better. I kept the CD just to show XP that I was upgrade-eligible. Used it once four years ago, used it again two years ago when I migrated to a new computer, and used it again to create the sacrificial lamb XP partition to upgrade/replace with Vista. The only real use I have for Windows 9x is proof that I own it long enough to get rid of it.

XP gave us a good run, and it was a huge improvement, indeed the biggest improvement to date. The jump from XP to Vista is noticable, but I still consider the jump from 9x to XP the biggest and best.

[Kaebora]

I remember upgradeing Windows 3.1 to Windows 95. That was a blessing back then.

[Nightmare]

PPL, Vista just suck period. I would go with Fedora Core(Unix) before I went with Vista.

[Searif]

But Vista helps improves the visuals greatly.


Look at here.
http://www.gamespot.com/features/616494 ... lk=topslot

that would be great if they had games for vista that wasn't halo 2 >.< maybe in a couple of years when they have some

[Morkulv]

[Morkulv]

All of the Windows OS's are flawed, of course, but Vista has two redeeming qualities. It throws the DOS core out the window (pun unintended), and has FAR better security features. That's more than enough to save Microsoft's reign of bad programming altogether.

Mac OS has me a bit drymouthed. I don't like the fact that you typically HAVE to hotkey your way around. They do have multi-button mouses for Macs now, but that system isn't something I'm used to either way. If I worked for a firm that required me to use a Mac, I'd sucker em up and say "Why, my good sir, Macs are my fave!" Likewise for PCs. If the boss wants it for the company, by gollie we'll use it. My personal preference will always be PC due to how customizeable the hardware and OS's are. Ease of programming use as well. Can't get into the Mac OS registry very easilly, nor save scripts for automatic changes.

A funny pic to fit the occation. Entirely out of good humor, not to be mean.


Every OS sucks. Heh.

Have you ever worked with Mac OS X (the latest)? Its a huge difference between the other Mac OS' and a big improvement I think. It doesn't crash, it doesn't need firewalls and its virus-protected. Don't see why everybody hates it so much, except for the fact that is has just one mouse-button (wich is changeble, as you said).

As for games: I own Quake 3 Arena and Team Arena, Call of Duty GOTY, and Halo wich are all (legal) hybrid-CD's (means they run on both Mac OS and Windows). You just have to look better for Mac-games, thats all.

[Scott Gardener]

I've found Vista to be a worthwhile upgrade. But, I won't recommend it to everybody. Here's my opinion about who should upgrade:

Those who should upgrade now:

1. Those with Athlon64 processors, to get a 64 bit version of Windows with growing industry support

2. Anyone already buying a brand new PC computer (unless you're specifically avoiding Windows altogether and getting one running Linux)

3. People who use or want to use a PC as a media center (Home Premium and Ultimate both offer features similar to XP Media Center Edition, but more streamlined)

4. Early adopters who want bragging rights

5. Anyone using Windows 98 or, Heaven forbid, Millennium Edition. If you never upgraded to XP, you've put yourself through five years of crashing, reboots, and blue screens of death for no good reason. Don't suffer any longer. Even if you have an older machine that can't handle transparent window borders and roll-a-dex windows, the not crashing part will make the upgrade well worth it.


Those who should upgrade, but should wait a few months:

1. Gamers--some games aren't compatable with Vista, including most embarrasingly some by Microsoft. Patches will surely be put out soon.

2. Anyone who relies heavily on iTunes and an iPod but still uses a PC instead of a Mac; iTunes 7.0.2 has a few compatability issues that Apple will address, but not until after at least a few weeks of Microsoft looking bad

3. Mac users using Boot Camp or an emulator to run Windows as a second OS; compatability has yet to be established, but I'm sure it'll be established and debugged in the coming months.


Those who should not upgrade:

1. Anyone who uses a computer casually--if you just use a web browser, email, and a word processor, then there's absolutely no reason to spend $100 or more to continue doing the same thing. As I've mentioned earlier, the cosmetic enhancements like Aero can be recreated cheaply, and features like desktop search and IE7 are available for XP from Microsoft for free.

2. Anyone who's computer is working fine as is and who doesn't need to change anything in the near future. It'll be a long time before XP isn't widely supported.


Additional thoughts:

If you're a techie who likes to build your own computer, I strongly recommend getting the OEM version of Vista; you can order it from places like Newegg.com. It's the full version but priced about the same as the upgrade version. Plus, if you're building a 64 bit Athlon, you can get up front the 64 bit version rather than the 32 bit.

The biggest problem I've had is a rather amusing one. I bought partitioning software to set up a dual boot configuration between XP and Vista, to have XP available as a fall-back if something I needed didn't work in Vista. But, about the only thing that flat-out doesn't work in Vista and won't even install is... the partitioning software! I had to use it in XP to set up the Vista partition. It'll let me set up Vista on the boot choice menu, describing it as an unknown OS in an NTFS partition. But, with a bit of work, it works. Gave me a scare, though, because for a little while, I was afraid it killed my XP partition.

These aren't reasons to upgrade:

1. Because other people are doing it, or because it'll make you cool. That's how Marlboro stays in business in spite of killing off its customer base.

2. Because it'll revolutionize computer use or let you do strange and novel innovative things you've never been able to do before. In spite of the hype, it won't. It's evolutionary, not revolutionary. It won't help you with story ideas, and it won't critique your art.

3. Because new programs will only work with Vista. Not likely for at least another year or more. Even Microsoft's Office XP continued to work with Windows 98. At least a third of software today still does, covering just about any essential task. The only reasons I don't recommend continuing use of Windows 98 are lack of Antivirus and spyware protection and sheer instability.


These aren't reasons to avoid upgrading:

1. Because Microsoft is evil. Bill Gates is in the Guiness Book of World Records as the most giving philanthropist in human history. Sure, Microsoft has done some heavy-handed stuff over the years, but with a little research, Apple's track record isn't entirely pristeen, either. I can understand supporting the open source movement, but to reduce modern technology to "the little guys versus 'the man'" is too simplistic.

2. Because so-and-so running the Beta version in November 2006 installed it and its printer driver caused his Hewlett Packard Photosmart to unplug itself from the network and go out on a killing rampage, turning up days later in the news, wanted by the FBI or Scotland Yard. I'm running the final version, and it found and installed make-shift drivers for my Photosmart printer and a Soundblaster Extigy external sound card, both older appliances that weren't officially supported. Both are running just fine. And, I didn't have to restart to use them. Hardware support has been a lot smoother than software support.

[Lupin]

2. Because so-and-so running the Beta version in November 2006 installed it and its printer driver caused his Hewlett Packard Photosmart to unplug itself from the network and go out on a killing rampage, turning up days later in the news, wanted by the FBI or Scotland Yard.

That's not going to be included until SP1 anyway.

[Figarou]

My current desktop can't take Vista even if I want to add it. Since the hard drive is partitioned, I have under 15GB of space in the C drive. It was designed for the early version of XP. XP SP2 takes up more space...especially with all of those updates.


Besides...I don't need to upgrade because of this reason. (See Scott's post below)

Those who should not upgrade:

1. Anyone who uses a computer casually--if you just use a web browser, email, and a word processor, then there's absolutely no reason to spend $100 or more to continue doing the same thing. As I've mentioned earlier, the cosmetic enhancements like Aero can be recreated cheaply, and features like desktop search and IE7 are available for XP from Microsoft for free.

Windows Defender is also free.

[Midnight]

These aren't reasons to upgrade:

It won't help you with story ideas

Find me an OS that does and it will be "TTFN, XP"...

These aren't reasons to avoid upgrading:

2. Because so-and-so running the Beta version in November 2006 installed it and its printer driver caused his Hewlett Packard Photosmart to unplug itself from the network and go out on a killing rampage, turning up days later in the news, wanted by the FBI or Scotland Yard. I'm running the final version, and it found and installed make-shift drivers for my Photosmart printer and a Soundblaster Extigy external sound card, both older appliances that weren't officially supported. Both are running just fine. And, I didn't have to restart to use them. Hardware support has been a lot smoother than software support.

I've had my own issues with lack of support for older peripherals... I have a perfectly good Dexxa scanner I can't use because it's not compatible with anything after Windows 98...