It seems vista is going to be replaced by Windows 7

[curlycrouton]

Anyone noticed that Windows are starting to look more and more like Mac OS X?

 

[Xelioth]

I quite like vist though...

as do I, but can you honestly say that Vista is a good OS?

I quite like a number of the features but even I have to admit that asking if we're sure every tiem we do anything gets old. and while I like the graphics DX10 gives us, the fact that vista runs graphic drivers so crappily that I crash to desktop and then crash the whole computer trying to get back to the desktop from the game is just lame. sure, the crashes aren't THAT numerous and there are only certain things that vista asks for permission for, but seriously, the fac that these major problems exist AT ALL is a black mark against the OS.

I'll be glad for an OS that runs well as opposed to Vista, which runs MOSTLY well.

Never had any of those problems so yeah its a good OS for me.

that's another thing with Vista. it seems to be schizophrenic. I have very few problems with it, but there are definitely some problems. others can barely use the OS at all and switch back to XP immediately, and nearly every computer user has a completely different experience. I would love to know why.

 

[BlueMage]

RAM not being used, is RAM going to waste. Prefetch the shit out of my system and leave maybe 10% of RAM free, so I know I'm getting full bang for my buck.

Some of you folks are barking up the wrong tree. The linux you would install on an old DOS-era beast isn't what you'd install on the latest, you-beaut quad-core beast (naturally, on the newer one you'd install Vector Linux, and you'd install Vector Light on the older one) but by the same token, you wouldn't install Vista on an aging machine - you install it on hardware appropriate.

I'm amazed by this constant "but it won't work on my older hardware!" line - my only response is "no shit." If your old system is still working fine, great, stick with it. But when it dies (and it will eventually die) don't cling to it crying and screaming - move on.

Can...can I hug you?

I've been using Vista since the late betas and release candidates, and it only took a few months after release to be my primary OS. No, it didn't change that much from XP UI-wise, but it made the personal file organization make a lot more sense, and added a few convenient features.

Under the hood, it is MUCH better. More stable, more secure, more efficiently uses high end hardware, as well as little known features like a significantly improved and expanded ability to use folder junctions and move your user files.

Eggo: I agree with 99% of what you say, but the belligerent, argumentative, holier-than-thou attitude is not the way to convince people of anything. Us PC guys have to stick together, but I'm finding it difficult.

I know mate, I know. I just get so bloody sick of all this "Vista is shit, Vista sucks, Vista raped my dog!" all the damn time. Half these fools haven't even used it and the other half go in expecting it to not live up to their (ridiculous) expectations and, lo and behold, they find themselves not disappointed! Whodathunkit?

I had a guy at work today complaining about how Vista kept eating his wife's Wifi connection. On a desktop. With a USB dongle for enabling Wifi. My response? "No shit your wifi's crapping out - third-party wifi hardware is notorious for working when it feels like it. Wireless is for laptops, wires are for desktops." but no, as far as he was concerned, this was all because of Vista.

It just shits me.

Also, Jman1236, go play STALKER Clear Sky on DirectX9, at high res and with lots of pretty effects. Then try it on DirectX10 and tell me that DX10 runs slower. I will call you a liar sir.

 

[BlueMage]

My argument against this point relates to the fact that Xerox, in the 1970s, managed to get a GUI working on a system with only 128kB of RAM. OK, the Xerox Alto wasn't particularly useful, even fully upgraded to 512kB of RAM, but it did prove that a well-programmed graphical user interface only needed the sort of memory that I would have difficulty fitting a large Word document into.

Look mate, I'm not going to deny that an elegant and efficient program is the ideal solution, and that pretty much all programmers have become lazy with the abundance of power available on current hardware. But by the same token, if it's not used, it's wasted.

Yeah, sure, Vista's pre-fetched RAM system works more quickly than the system in Windows XP. But that only accounts for the greater memory usage, not for the higher amounts of hard drive space needed or the fact that the minimum specifications call for a 32MB graphics card, without Aero.

Who in all the Hells, in this day and age, runs any modern system on ANYTHING less than that? Hell, ONBOARD is at least at that spec if not better. On the most low-end mobos you can get.

That last one is the thing that really gets me annoyed about Vista. Hard drives are getting less expensive, memory is dirt-cheap, but that sort of graphics capability should never be a necessity of an operating system.

And why not? Why shouldn't an OS be GUI-driven and have a graphically-complex GUI to boot?

Also, I really want an open-source operating system, and that's going to happen with Windows when hell suddenly drops to -40 degrees Celsius.

Careful, some layers are frozen ... but I digress.

Vector plays quite nicely with Vista, and Vista with Vector. Both have their strong points, both have their weaknesses. Games are NOT Vector's strong point, and DirectX10 shits all over the results of DirectX9. And no, I don't care if it's getting backported to XP. I don't give a flying fuck. I don't want to have to dick around to get the fancy effects. I want to be able to install my game, tweak a few bits and pieces here and there, and get what I paid for. Vista gives me that - XP with DX10 hacked in does not.

 

[BlueMage]

That last one is the thing that really gets me annoyed about Vista. Hard drives are getting less expensive, memory is dirt-cheap, but that sort of graphics capability should never be a necessity of an operating system.

And why not? Why shouldn't an OS be GUI-driven and have a graphically-complex GUI to boot?

For reasons of reliability, a GUI-driven OS has never been favourable for critical applications. Having a layer below the GUI is the way that UNIX has been doing it since the development of the X Window System, and statistics for the reliability of UNIX-based systems show that they tend towards higher reliability than GUI-driven OSes. OK, Windows has been a lot more reliable since they started building it on WinNT, but if it freezes, there's no possibility of switching to a virtual terminal, typing in "kill -9 " as there is with a UNIX-based OS.

Granted. But Server 2008 can either be installed as a full install or as what MS calls a Server Core, which replaces the GUI with a CLI. I personally haven't played with that for reasons of bosses standing over my shoulder. But that's for critical applications - for normal, everyday use (and home users fall under that, hell, most business users fall under that) a GUI-driven OS is the way to go.

Of course, if I had my way at work, every single laptop would be running Vector and then Win XP within Virtual Box. Yes, XP. Because PLC manufacturers are dipshits when it comes to upgrading their software.

 

[kubinschu]

I wonder how much enforced DRM will be in the new windows?

 

[PatientGrasshopper]

You know, this whole argument would be rendered pointless and/or non-existent if Microsoft could just release software that is fully functional and bug-free for once. You'd think with 3-5 years between releases, the fact that most versions are built over the previous (thus a fuckload less work to do), and that Microsoft has more money than God, Buddha, Alah, and Warren Buffet combined, they could make something that fucking works straight out of the box, no?

Oh but then they wouldn't make enough money because people wouldn't come backfor repairs as often.

 

[crimsondynamics]

I've had my share of good and bad experiences with Vista: My wife's Vista Basic is rock-solid, as well as one of my work PCs, which uses the Enterprise edition.

I recently decided to upgrade from XP32 to Vista64 for my gaming PC - and make use of 8gb of ram - so I bit the bullet, bought two new hard drives, and set about installing a spanking-new 64-bit OS into my rig.

Two weeks and a handful niggling issues later, I'm back with my previous XP32 install.

All I want in Windows 7 - and seeing how the Dreamcast was running Windows CE with only the required kernels, this is well within the realm of possibility - is a version specifically targeted at gamers. Keep it lean and mean, thank you Microsoft. Don't make me go into the OS to disable services and remove gigabytes of bloat that I don't need (I've cleaned out and optimized my XP so that it occupies 480mb on the hard drive with only 40 processes loaded at any given time.

 

[BlueMage]

I've had my share of good and bad experiences with Vista: My wife's Vista Basic is rock-solid, as well as one of my work PCs, which uses the Enterprise edition.

I recently decided to upgrade from XP32 to Vista64 for my gaming PC - and make use of 8gb of ram - so I bit the bullet, bought two new hard drives, and set about installing a spanking-new 64-bit OS into my rig.

Two weeks and a handful niggling issues later, I'm back with my previous XP32 install.

All I want in Windows 7 - and seeing how the Dreamcast was running Windows CE with only the required kernels, this is well within the realm of possibility - is a version specifically targeted at gamers. Keep it lean and mean, thank you Microsoft. Don't make me go into the OS to disable services and remove gigabytes of bloat that I don't need (I've cleaned out and optimized my XP so that it occupies 480mb on the hard drive with only 40 processes loaded at any given time.

I will admit, I'm surprised to hear of a Vista Basic install that's working well - I've found that, due to the hardware it's usually placed on, it tends to lose a bit when compared to the other flavours.

 

[crimsondynamics]

I will admit, I'm surprised to hear of a Vista Basic install that's working well - I've found that, due to the hardware it's usually placed on, it tends to lose a bit when compared to the other flavours.

I'm just as surprised as you are, given my own experience with Vista Ultimate - but yes, it's still hanging on with nary a glitch.

I risked getting Vista for her notebook (there were XP options) because I figured, hey, if it's under warranty for three years, might as well have her call tech support when something goes wrong instead of telling me to fix her computer all the time.