Discuss among yourselves........
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,308301,00.html
Just for the record, I agree.
Ed
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,308301,00.html
Just for the record, I agree.
Ed
Adding Fuel to the Fire.....
- Thread starter Euphod
- Start date
It's a valid arguement......
Like XP when it first came out there were 2 sides, those that stuck with 98/2k and those that loved XP. Now in 2007 we see the same thing, except this time with XP and Vista.
Those that are sticking to XP like fly paper claim it's the most stable OS and Vista's not worth the upgrade. I will admit it is quite stable compared Vista, also Vista may or may not be worth upgrading to. That all depends on what you do. For most games though you are stuck upgrading to Vista. Why? XP will no longer be updated by Microsoft, the biggest update would be DX10 which won't be available to XP user, BUT will be required in many new games to run them at their full potential.
Those that have changed to Vista say it's great. I will admit the GUI (Graphical User Interface) LOOKS great, I do enjoy the side bar and it's many options. However it all comes at a cost. On a stock install Vista will suck up 650MB of system RAM (and for you people that have 1GB that's nearly 75%, not leaving near enough to run other applications). This does compare to when XP came out and it sucked up nearly 512MB back when everyone had 256MB and 128MB. Another pressing issue is the security. Vista will ask you for permission, sometime to the point of insanity. I don't like it personally, but considering the stupidity I've had to deal with with XP it can be very helpful, it does alert the user to things installing they may not want or need.
Personally: Vista is ok and for a brand new computer you will want it (along with 3.5GB RAM-4GB). But for anyone already running XP, stick with XP. If you're a gamer get Vista, you'll need it anyways. Vista has its ups and downs, but so did XP when it came out.
Like XP when it first came out there were 2 sides, those that stuck with 98/2k and those that loved XP. Now in 2007 we see the same thing, except this time with XP and Vista.
Those that are sticking to XP like fly paper claim it's the most stable OS and Vista's not worth the upgrade. I will admit it is quite stable compared Vista, also Vista may or may not be worth upgrading to. That all depends on what you do. For most games though you are stuck upgrading to Vista. Why? XP will no longer be updated by Microsoft, the biggest update would be DX10 which won't be available to XP user, BUT will be required in many new games to run them at their full potential.
Those that have changed to Vista say it's great. I will admit the GUI (Graphical User Interface) LOOKS great, I do enjoy the side bar and it's many options. However it all comes at a cost. On a stock install Vista will suck up 650MB of system RAM (and for you people that have 1GB that's nearly 75%, not leaving near enough to run other applications). This does compare to when XP came out and it sucked up nearly 512MB back when everyone had 256MB and 128MB. Another pressing issue is the security. Vista will ask you for permission, sometime to the point of insanity. I don't like it personally, but considering the stupidity I've had to deal with with XP it can be very helpful, it does alert the user to things installing they may not want or need.
Personally: Vista is ok and for a brand new computer you will want it (along with 3.5GB RAM-4GB). But for anyone already running XP, stick with XP. If you're a gamer get Vista, you'll need it anyways. Vista has its ups and downs, but so did XP when it came out.
Don't you think its funny.....
Don't you think its funny how Intel and AMD design faster and faster chips only to be slowed to a crawl by the stupid OS designed by Micro$oft. This was true of win98, (we skip win2000 be it was a total piece of junk), XP, and now Vista. Better have newest fastest machine that you can afford to run Vista which will run no better than the older XP machine you run now.:hehe:
Don't you think its funny how Intel and AMD design faster and faster chips only to be slowed to a crawl by the stupid OS designed by Micro$oft. This was true of win98, (we skip win2000 be it was a total piece of junk), XP, and now Vista. Better have newest fastest machine that you can afford to run Vista which will run no better than the older XP machine you run now.:hehe:
I assume you mean Windows Millennium and not Windows 2000 as Windows 2000 was one of the most stable and useable versions of Windows ever released.
Regards
Phil
Well, until XP came out
The only major problem with 2000 was a lack of drivers for legacy hardware. Many old Windows NT drivers didn't work with it (though with 2000's plug'n'play, it somewhat made up for it, unless, of course, there was no driver for the hardware you had. Lost a good scanner that way, as well as a printer). Still, light years ahead of NT AND 98. Many consumers weren't familiar with it because they got suck(er)ed down the ME path, rather than upgrading to a full 32 bit OS.
XP was a gussied-up 2000 with a few new bells and whistles. Not that that's a bad thing (except for the extra memory needed because of the prettier interface). Both 2000 and XP are pretty much rock solid.
Vista's main drawback is the amount of resources it consumes doing nothing more than looking pretty (sounds like a lot of women I know). Watching your apps whiz by in full 3D sure as heck looks neat, but is it really necessary? The same with live previews of minimized apps on the toolbar. Just update the view when I mouse over it, don't actually have it running in realtime, and you save a ton of resources. Oh, and that annoying confirmation thing can be turned off (mine went away about 4 minutes after installing Vista). Of course, if you do, don't blame the OS if you catch something.
The problem is, nobody (meaning the major computer manufacturers) are installing the 64 bit version of Vista, with all its inherent advantages (well, except for the driver shortage, of course), and from their installation media, there's no way to upgrade to it. You'll have to buy a whole additional vista license to get your machine past that nasty 2GB ram hurdle...
if you ask me, they were trying to imitate OSX. that is the first i can think of (i may be wrong however) with catchy graphics. Im not really sure why microsoft thought we NEEDED this fancy yet completely useless and wasteful feature. sure it looks cool, but when your trying to run games, build layouts, shoot demons, blow up empires....that last thing you need is task manager trying to zip around the screen 15 times, do a back flip, and spin into view when you hit Ctrl + Alt + Delete when your game locks up.
I don't have vista....and Will not get it until i am forced to....which by the looks of it, will hopefully be a very long time
...change is good, if it don't change so fast...
8) I'm practically an XP expert, and have the 100%-A grade, in my CIT class, on my first test to prove it...from just 8 months of using XP, from "scratch." XP is that user friendly!
The OS Windows Vista, is only practical if you have a world class computer(3 out of 5), and it's about five years old, and wish to buy a new computer, at less than a thousand dollars.
The big thing about WinVista, is User Accounts Control(UAC). If you have a competent Internet security, you won't need UAC, and can disable it.
Any, and all utilities, must be installed off the .exe file, by right click, Run As Administrator. That pretty much takes care of program compatibility, especially for Auran Trainz.
Very few programs, today need "Run in WindowsXP mode."
Windows Vista Home Premium, is a great OS, however the default UAC provision disallows any changes, setting up all users as User Accounts. This prevents changes not only from any Network setup, but also Internet Intrusions, trying to hack you.
WindowsXP, could be configured with User Accounts, but who would put up with that?
8) I'm practically an XP expert, and have the 100%-A grade, in my CIT class, on my first test to prove it...from just 8 months of using XP, from "scratch." XP is that user friendly!
The OS Windows Vista, is only practical if you have a world class computer(3 out of 5), and it's about five years old, and wish to buy a new computer, at less than a thousand dollars.
The big thing about WinVista, is User Accounts Control(UAC). If you have a competent Internet security, you won't need UAC, and can disable it.
Any, and all utilities, must be installed off the .exe file, by right click, Run As Administrator. That pretty much takes care of program compatibility, especially for Auran Trainz.
Very few programs, today need "Run in WindowsXP mode."
Windows Vista Home Premium, is a great OS, however the default UAC provision disallows any changes, setting up all users as User Accounts. This prevents changes not only from any Network setup, but also Internet Intrusions, trying to hack you.
WindowsXP, could be configured with User Accounts, but who would put up with that?
Last edited:
Well until XP came out and was patched with various upates
XP was very unstable when it first came out. I remember losing hours trying to get hardware and software working in XP that worked fine in 2000.I have Vista on my laptop and not by choice. I have turned off as much extras as I can find and it now looks and feels almost like XP. There are still two items that I really hate in Vista, the new start menu and the navigation methods in windows explorer. Not to mention the much slower network and the lack of support for older programs such as 3d studio max 5. I have no problem running Trainz (all versions) on it though.
I still rate XP as a far superior operating system to Vista. Maybe one day I will get used to Vista, probably when I am forced to use it at work. One thing I will never willingly use though is Office 2007.
Regards
Phil
Well one our UK computer mags stated that Windows 7 is due in 2009 (I don't know if that is real or Microsoft time) so I think another mag's comment that Vista is to XP as ME was to 98 may not be far wrong. I for one, see no reason to go the Vista route and prefer to wait to see what Windows 7 will turn out to be. Maybe by that time Linux may have evolved into a non-techie user friendly system.
There are worlds of difference between mac os and windows os so not a fair comparison really and no this isn't a diss. Windows is actually a program running on top of DOS or so I'm told. The mac os is actually a real os so go figure.
Cheers
AJ
95 and it's siblings were technically very large graphical interfaces for DOS, vs. NT based technology which has DOS (and more recently "Command Prompt") implemented into it for scripting purposes.
I agree that XP is better then Vista in fact Vista is terrible
. I've made some posts on this in one of the topic - the one on MSTS X2 I think...As someone said, it seems Microsoft follows this strategy:
Beta - actual pre-alpha
Release - alpha
SP1 - beta
SP2 - release
What is happening to Vista is what happened to XP except much worse
It seems to me Microsoft started off on the wrong foot. When they started creating GUI's for their OS's, people started producing software for them too. This led to the requirement of the NT system being implemented from there on, as without it software would not function. Now Microsoft can't rebuild their operating system, because doing so means throwing out software compatibility.
So Microsoft's only option now is to upgrade... upgrade... upgrade... add.. add.. add.... They can't change the system so they have to change the way it looks. It's the only way they'll be able to make money off of it.
When I think of Vista I think only of games and graphics, obviously. My only concern is the implementation of DX10, which is required for certain features.
Cheers,
John
So Microsoft's only option now is to upgrade... upgrade... upgrade... add.. add.. add.... They can't change the system so they have to change the way it looks. It's the only way they'll be able to make money off of it.
When I think of Vista I think only of games and graphics, obviously. My only concern is the implementation of DX10, which is required for certain features.
Cheers,
John
Just 2 cents, vista is more than a pretty GUI. And I'll leave it at that.
Actually, most of the imporvements are within the GUI. Like the search feature. And no, don't say it copies spotlight, what matters is how usable and easy an OS is.
@AJ_Fox: You are half correct. The latest version of Windows runs on the NT kernel, not DOS like Me/98 and earlier.
This versus will probably subside like it did with XP after a while. You have to face it, every next Windows release is going to use more resources. 95 used more than 3.0, XP used more than 98/2000, and of course Vista uses more than XP. and I agree with omber on the "Beta - actual pre-alpha, Release - alpha, SP1 - beta, SP2 - release" thing.
Actually, most of the imporvements are within the GUI. Like the search feature. And no, don't say it copies spotlight, what matters is how usable and easy an OS is.
There are worlds of difference between mac os and windows os so not a fair comparison really and no this isn't a diss. Windows is actually a program running on top of DOS or so I'm told. The mac os is actually a real os so go figure.
Cheers
AJ
@AJ_Fox: You are half correct. The latest version of Windows runs on the NT kernel, not DOS like Me/98 and earlier.
This versus will probably subside like it did with XP after a while. You have to face it, every next Windows release is going to use more resources. 95 used more than 3.0, XP used more than 98/2000, and of course Vista uses more than XP. and I agree with omber on the "Beta - actual pre-alpha, Release - alpha, SP1 - beta, SP2 - release" thing.
Well a couple of months back I went for a new better pc as I felt I needed it to get the best out of Trainz. I bought it from a big pc company here and noticed that you could still have XP Home Media instead of Vista Premium so that was great and went for that. There have been issues on gaming with Vista and i know that it works fine for some but not for others whereas the same gneral situation doesn't happen with XP.
Seems that the level of Vista takeup is not what MS expected and I suspect that many users probably were more inclined to expect an improved version of XP. This includes the business world where many companies were not convinced on Vista to want to swithc. Thankfully in practice we can use XP for a while even when MS pulls the plug on it.
Seems that the level of Vista takeup is not what MS expected and I suspect that many users probably were more inclined to expect an improved version of XP. This includes the business world where many companies were not convinced on Vista to want to swithc. Thankfully in practice we can use XP for a while even when MS pulls the plug on it.
...the bottom line...
8)...yes, money makes the world go around...but then I think of the change(s) made to TRS, between '04 and '06.
Point being, change, vs client acceptance, and by the way, TRS2006 is way so more accepted, than it was when it was released...even Euphod runs '06!
I guess, that if you give folks time to learn how to use the product, then you've crossed the pond!
I'll cry to tell you, that Vista supports Dx9c, as well as Dx10
8)...yes, money makes the world go around...but then I think of the change(s) made to TRS, between '04 and '06.
Point being, change, vs client acceptance, and by the way, TRS2006 is way so more accepted, than it was when it was released...even Euphod runs '06!
I guess, that if you give folks time to learn how to use the product, then you've crossed the pond!
I'll cry to tell you, that Vista supports Dx9c, as well as Dx10
Sorry I didn't make that too clear. When I said the implementation of DX10 I meant for the graphics engine of games.
For instance, Crysis. I've played the Crysis demo, and all I can say is... wow... what a game. A definite buy.
But there is a dark side to Crysis. There will be split servers, those for DX9 and those for DX10. DX9 servers will not be allowed to run physics because of the server side load. DX10 servers will. Being that the only reason I would buy the game would be for the physics, and the multiplayer with the use of those physics, naturally I would want to join a DX10 server.
However, I'm not sure whether Vista will be required to join one. A DX10 card will, for sure, be required, but Vista? I can already use the physics in the DX9 mode, and by way of a hack for the game that is quickly spreading around the net, am able to run DX10 quality under the DX9 engine.
Cheers,
John