Sweet, I will look into VMWare. We use Virtual PC 2004 at work (and since it is free that is what I use at home.)
Originally posted by: bsobel
Vmware finally added initial support for multi-mon in Vmware Workstation 6 (I had asked them for it for some time, they finally snapped hehehehe). I had the exact same issue and am so happy their finally supporting it (you can run a vm and have it see both monitors or run multiple vm's and define with monitor each goes on).
Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
I had always thought that running dev tools in a VM would make them painfully slow. (Already slow enough sometimes doing a build.) Is that not true? Does it require a CPU with those new VM extensions in order to not incur a slowdown? (Meaning, requiring a C2D CPU.)
Originally posted by: Schnieds
Wow... VMWare workstation is $189 for a license... dang. That is a lot of cash to shell out for a virtualization app.
I just found this for Virutal PC 2004: http://blogs.msdn.com/virtual_pc_guy/archive/2005/08/17/452726.aspx
It is a workaround, but it looks like it will achieve dual monitor support. I might try that.
Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
I had always thought that running dev tools in a VM would make them painfully slow. (Already slow enough sometimes doing a build.) Is that not true? Does it require a CPU with those new VM extensions in order to not incur a slowdown? (Meaning, requiring a C2D CPU.)
Originally posted by: MrChad
Originally posted by: Schnieds
Wow... VMWare workstation is $189 for a license... dang. That is a lot of cash to shell out for a virtualization app.
I just found this for Virutal PC 2004: http://blogs.msdn.com/virtual_pc_guy/archive/2005/08/17/452726.aspx
It is a workaround, but it looks like it will achieve dual monitor support. I might try that.
Both VMWare Server and VMWare Player are freely available, and will give you all the functionality you need.
Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod
Originally posted by: Sunner
If I made a claim and backed it up with a link to a company that sells toilet paper, that doesn't make me right only because the toilet paper company doesn't directly disprove me.
You've given plenty of links, but none that back you up.
That's a horrible analogy. First of all, I found creditable links, and not any normal link. Not only that, but I found 2 sources for each topic I found. You should read the links before you comment on them.
Originally posted by: BD2003
Because you ARE wrong. Every link you gave is either outdated, beside the point, completely irrelevant, or just as wrong as you are.
For instance, if you're going to link gizmodo talking about HD not playing in 32bit vista, at least bother to look a little harder. A post from the SAME DAY, on the SAME SITE:
http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/software...n-play-hd-dvd-bluray-movies-196535.php
A linux based HD-DVD player is STILL irrelevant.
The only thing I can slightly agree with you is that Aero Glass (3D), from everywhere I've read, does appear to require PS2.0. Aero standard (2d), does not. Although I don't see that as a problem, considering PS2.0 is several years old already.
The rest of your arguments are BS semantics and sophistry, and not even worth regarding.
I shouldn't have to translate every link I give you, but in this case, I will...
The date is irrelevant because it's well within reason (2006). Not only that, but Microsoft is not going to release information about their OS twice. Giving news twice about the same thing on two different days would be pointless.
http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/vista/wi...version-wont-play-hd-movies-196427.php
They say, "Looking forward to watching HD movies when you upgrade to Windows Vista next year? Tough luck: unless you're running the 64-bit version of Vista on a 64-bit processor (like the Core 2 Duo or recent Athlons), it looks like it won't play back copy protected HD video. The culprit? Windows itself: the 32-bit version of Vista can run unsigned code, which Microsoft thinks might provide a path to intercept the video and copy it."
Then they offer links to other articles saying the same thing. I also gave 2 other links to prove this.
Blueray and HD-DVD movies are all copyrighted. Therefore, they are encrypted. If the material is encrypted, then it is protected by the DRM provided in Vista. This does not apply to home videos, obviously. But the smart ones know I'm not talking about home videos.
http://geekswithblogs.net/lorint/archive/2006/04/25/76295.aspx
I'm wrong about this one. However, I do know that one is on the way. There aren't many HD-DVD drives for computer yet anyway.
http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/188
This link explains that Windows is targeted not because it's the most used Desktop system. It goes into depth on how it's not true. Here's an excerpt.
He says, "Someone on a mailing list or discussion forum complains about the latest in a long line of Microsoft email viruses or worms and recommends others consider Mac OS X or Linux as a somewhat safer computing platform. In response, another person named, oh, let's call him "Bill," says, basically, "How ridiculous! The only reason Microsoft software is the target of so many viruses is because it is so widely used! Why, if Linux or Mac OS X was as popular as Windows, there would be just as many viruses written for those platforms!"
Of course, it's not just "regular folks" on mailing lists who share this opinion. Businesspeople have expressed similar attitudes ... including ones who work for anti-virus companies. Jack Clarke, European product manager at McAfee, said, "So we will be seeing more Linux viruses as the OS becomes more common and popular."
Mr. Clarke is wrong.
Sure, there are Linux viruses. But let's compare the numbers. According to Dr. Nic Peeling and Dr Julian Satchell's Analysis of the Impact of Open Source Software (note: the link is to a 135 kb PDF file):
"There are about 60,000 viruses known for Windows, 40 or so for the Macintosh, about 5 for commercial Unix versions, and perhaps 40 for Linux. Most of the Windows viruses are not important, but many hundreds have caused widespread damage. Two or three of the Macintosh viruses were widespread enough to be of importance. None of the Unix or Linux viruses became widespread - most were confined to the laboratory.""
http://www.theregister.co.uk/security/security_report_windows_vs_linux/#myth3
If you weren't convinced by that, I provided another link that says the same thing. Here's another excerpt.
It says, "Perhaps the most oft-repeated myth regarding Windows vs. Linux security is the claim that Windows has more incidents of viruses, worms, Trojans and other problems because malicious hackers tend to confine their activities to breaking into the software with the largest installed base. This reasoning is applied to defend Windows and Windows applications. Windows dominates the desktop; therefore Windows and Windows applications are the focus of the most attacks, which is why you don't see viruses, worms and Trojans for Linux. While this may be true, at least in part, the intentional implication is not necessarily true: That Linux and Linux applications are no more secure than Windows and Windows applications, but Linux is simply too trifling a target to bother attacking."
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/security/0,1000000189,39247736,00.htm
This is an old exploit that I spoke on earlier. The link is old, but this is still relevant because the exploit had to be fixed during beta stages. It was meant to show you that Vista runs the same kernel code as Windows XP.
Lots of controversy back then.
It says, "Microsoft earlier this month broke its monthly patching cycle to rush out a "critical" fix for Windows XP, Windows Server 2003 and Windows 2000. Vista is not listed in Microsoft's security bulletin as vulnerable, but the updates for the forthcoming OS release refer to the same page on Microsoft's support Web site for details on the security issue.
The WMF security problem drew an unusual response in the security world. One expert crafted his own fix for the problem, before Microsoft provided its security update. Industry experts called the WMF bug one of the most serious Windows flaws to date and recommended the third-party fix. Microsoft, meanwhile, said users were not under massive attack."
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/168
This article simply explains the differences between GDDR2 and GDDR3 as well as DDR1 and DDR2. It goes into depth with links and pictures; further explaining the differences between the two. It was linked to help educate you on memory. Memory doesn't manipulate data at all. This article confirms it. No need for me to quote. It's fairly straight forward and to the point.
As an admin i can lock it down far harder than any other OS, for home use though, that clicking the accept button will lead to people clicking all kinds of accept buttons.
If i were MS, i would fix that.
Originally posted by: Schnieds
Wow... VMWare workstation is $189 for a license... dang. That is a lot of cash to shell out for a virtualization app.
I just found this for Virutal PC 2004: http://blogs.msdn.com/virtual_pc_guy/archive/2005/08/17/452726.aspx
It is a workaround, but it looks like it will achieve dual monitor support. I might try that.
Originally posted by: BD2003
After having used it for the past week or so, I'm now convinced that Vista is most definitely the sh*t, and everyone should consider upgrading. For some odd reason, they seem to be downplaying the performance and reliability aspects of it, and focusing on the flashy new UI - but under the hood is where all the important aspects are.
Vista does take up more memory than XP, but that memory is put to MUCH better use.
Superfetch - This is where the biggest gains are realized. I was skeptical at first myself. It claims to do keep track of what programs you use, when you use them, and always keep them in memory. It works. I used to leave certain programs open just to keep them resident in memory...no need for such a thing anymore. The programs I use the most are ALWAYS loading from main memory it seems, no matter when I close them.
Another big benefit - it won't flush your cache when you're idle and running system utilities. On XP, I set it up to run various things while I slept - backup, defrag, virus scans, torrents etc...every morning I'd wake up to a sluggish PC because the scanners and such completely took over the system cache. XP was simple - it just kept the last files read in cache, with no care as to where they're coming from.
Right now, I could walk away from my PC, set up a scan that would destroy the cache on XP, and since I'm idle, superfetch will know not to bother caching it, and I can come back at any time during it to a perfectly responsive system, where apps still seem to load straight from memory. This is good for those of us with plenty of ram, and even better for those with little. Even with 1gb of memory, it never felt like I hit the page file for no reason. Windows has NEVER been this responsive before.
Readyboost - Another feature I was skeptical of - but it works. Very well. There seems to be some confusion as to what it is. Some say its a disk cache. Some say its virtual memory. In reality, its both and then a little bit more. I got a 2gb OCZ drive in there.
In normal app usage, the amount of disk thrashing has gone down to pretty much zero. I rarely if ever heard the drive really kick in unless I'm loading something huge, or something that I rarely access. Flash is cheap, random access is ten times faster than a hard disk, and for the 20 bucks a 1-2gb drive would cost, there is absolutely no reason not to use it.
So if superfetch doesnt happen to have what you need, the readyboost cache likely does - and it'll almost always be faster than hitting the disk. Boots and wakeups are at least twice as fast with the cache, even though I rarely do either. For laptops with low memory, it will be a godsend.
But I wanted to really push both these features, so I loaded up oblivion. The game itself takes up massive amounts of ram. Running around the world forces loads of pretty much entirely random parts of the game.
Without the readyboost cache in, with 1gb of ram, it performed similarly to XP. Always had to hit the disk to load things, even if you just were there. Quitting the game and going back to the desktop resulted in a good 30-60 seconds of thrashing just to get things loaded back into memory. The game just demands so much memory that windows HAS to forsake everything else for it.
I formatted the USB stick, and made a new, clean cache. Popped the stick in.
1st load - I expected it to load at the same rate, but I was wrong - even with an empty cache, it was faster. I suppose it was a lot easier for it to write off to the flash drive to clear needed memory, than it was to hit the disk while simultaneously trying to load the game off the disk.
Walking around, it was a lot snappier than usual. Walking into new areas was sped up a bit, walking back to old areas was sped up a LOT. 1GB is barely enough for this game, but it felt like a lot more was in there with the cache. Not quite the same as having more RAM, but much better than hitting the page file.
Quit the game, and it reloaded the desktop also a hell of a lot faster. I then went out of my way to load just about every other app I had on the system, well over 1gb of stuff, and waited a good 15 mins, to make sure as little as possible of oblivion remained in the RAM cache, but should still be in the readyboost.
Reloading was then quite a bit faster, and the best part - walking to areas that I previously been to on the previous load was still accelerated...very cool stuff. Made the game a lot more playable.
When they come out with the internal, PCI express caches, I'm sure it'll be an even bigger difference.
Those two features alone are practically worth the price of entry...but there are a few other things that stick out to me as particularly awesome.
The new task scheduler - WAY improved over the old one. I used to have to time apps out through the night, giving each one enough time to finish. Now you can sequentially schedule a list of actions, set it to begin at a certain time of night. Can also prevent it from starting if you're not idle, and then kicking in when you do eventually leave.
So every night, I can effortlessly scheduled a restore point, backup, virus scan, disk check and defrag, in order, without ever having to worry about it cutting in on me if I'm still up that late. And if I do get up that late, itll back off until I'm done using it. And because it's not screwing with the disk cache, the system is still 100% responsive whether you cut it off, or use it the morning after.
Reliability and performance monitor - It's like the task manager we wish we always had. Instead of staring at it, trying to judge what is using the most CPU etc, it can measure out average CPU over 60 seconds, tell you which app is hitting the disk the hardest, which app is clogging your internet, and which app is hogging memory etc...it's quite useful.
The reliability monitor aspect keeps track of all the bad stuff that happens. Much easier than digging through the event log, and a good portion of the stuff that seems to always crash (X-fi drivers), I was completely unaware of, as it took care of it without bothering me...which is also quite excellent.
Other features that deserve mention:
The low priority I/O does work well - I ran a manual defrag and scan while I was using it, and while it did drag a bit, it dragged much less than it would have on XP.
The sidebar widgets are pretty good, and seem to use far less memory and CPU than yahoo widgets do.
The games manager is definitely a step up from treating games like regular apps.
Built in disk imaging is sweet.
And I do dig the new UI - the glassy windows are nice, the new explorer is very good (favorites bar rules), and its no slower than XP in any way.
The photo manager is a good alternative to just using explorer as well.
I could care less about the new built in apps. Thats not what vista is about for me, and probably won't be for most people here. But if you're thinking of skipping vista cause you think it will be slower than XP, you're pretty much dead wrong. Nearly anything that does take up more resources can be disabled, as well as anything annoying (UAC and security center can go to hell), and the built in enhancements more than make up for it. I'm impressed.
Originally posted by: bsobel
As an admin i can lock it down far harder than any other OS, for home use though, that clicking the accept button will lead to people clicking all kinds of accept buttons.
If i were MS, i would fix that.
I know we started touching on this in the other thread, but serious question, what would you do instead (if silently allowing changes to machine config, as XP did in the same case, is not an option)? There are a few ways to approach this, Im very curious how you think it should be done.
Originally posted by: bsobel
As an admin i can lock it down far harder than any other OS, for home use though, that clicking the accept button will lead to people clicking all kinds of accept buttons.
If i were MS, i would fix that.
I know we started touching on this in the other thread, but serious question, what would you do instead (if silently allowing changes to machine config, as XP did in the same case, is not an option)? There are a few ways to approach this, Im very curious how you think it should be done.
Originally posted by: Markbnj
Originally posted by: bsobel
As an admin i can lock it down far harder than any other OS, for home use though, that clicking the accept button will lead to people clicking all kinds of accept buttons.
If i were MS, i would fix that.
I know we started touching on this in the other thread, but serious question, what would you do instead (if silently allowing changes to machine config, as XP did in the same case, is not an option)? There are a few ways to approach this, Im very curious how you think it should be done.
If he can answer that question he should go write a patent application, rather than disclose it here >
[/quote]Originally posted by: bsobel
Wow, your either a troll or simply can not read.
They say, "Looking forward to watching HD movies when you upgrade to Windows Vista next year? Tough luck: unless you're running the 64-bit version of Vista on a 64-bit processor (like the Core 2 Duo or recent Athlons), it looks like it won't play back copy protected HD video. The culprit? Windows itself: the 32-bit version of Vista can run unsigned code, which Microsoft thinks might provide a path to intercept the video and copy it."
Yes, which we ALL agree with. However the key phrase is COPY PROTECTED HD VIDEO. While you are posting that Vista will not play AND HD VIDEO. And ALL HD VIDEO is downsampled. Only that content which is copy protected and has downsampling turned on. Currently NO STUDIO is turning that bit on. We don't disagree that when they do, you'll need a 64bit machine to play those disks at full resolution. But your claiming you can't any HD video in 32bit Vista which is simply incorrect.
What are you talking about? You're completely denying the truth. Down sampling is not an option readily available on the media. This is something automatic in Vista. Also, I've never made it clear that it wouldn't play. I said it wouldn't run or it'll be down sampled. I've never hinted that NO HD material would play. This is something you've made up in your mind. You're twisting my words and then arguing about something I'm not even trying to say.Blueray and HD-DVD movies are all copyrighted. Therefore, they are encrypted. If the material is encrypted, then it is protected by the DRM provided in Vista. This does not apply to home videos, obviously. But the smart ones know I'm not talking about home videos.
What you said was:
We're talking about HD-DVD and BlueRay! If you are running a 32 bit version of Vista, you cannot run those formats! Nor can you hook up your BlueRay or HD-DVD player through HDCP, HDMI, Component, or even DVI into a Vista 32bit machine and get HD. It will resize the image to 420p
This is incorrect, it applies if the downsample requirement is turned on. Again, no studio is turning that on before 2010. And the only sources of video aren't just studios and home movies, there is lots of material in between. You made it clear that NO HD material would play, you were wrong.
Further, you've yet to show how the Apple and Linux platforms are dealing with this problem (they have to implement DRM as well). You can't show a single destkop linux HD-DVD player, yet your complaining about Windows.
This link explains that Windows is targeted not because it's the most used Desktop system. It goes into depth on how it's not true. Here's an excerpt.
From your OWN QUOTE "Windows dominates the desktop; therefore Windows and Windows applications are the focus of the most attacks, which is why you don't see viruses, worms and Trojans for Linux. While this may be true, at least in part, the intentional implication is not necessarily true: That Linux and Linux applications are no more secure than Windows and Windows applications, but Linux is simply too trifling a target to bother attacking."
And, again, your quotes are years old. The threat landscape has changed, the primary motivator now is fraud and identify theft. Windows destkops are targetted because thats what people run. I do agree with the above statement however, they fact that Windows is targetted shouldn't be read as Linux is just as or more vulnerable (and shouldn't read as less Vulnerable). There is just less economic gain for the attacker to go after that platform today.
This is an old exploit that I spoke on earlier. The link is old, but this is still relevant because the exploit had to be fixed during beta stages. It was meant to show you that Vista runs the same kernel code as Windows XP.
No kidding, it's the next version based on the XP 64 sp1 code base. No one ever said anything different. Point is, its a year old issue, you brining it up just shows your desperate to find ANY Vista security issue to harp on. Here's a hint, there will be more, OS's have bugs (ALL of them do).
This article simply explains the differences between GDDR2 and GDDR3 as well as DDR1 and DDR2. It goes into depth with links and pictures; further explaining the differences between the two. It was linked to help educate you on memory. Memory doesn't manipulate data at all. This article confirms it. No need for me to quote. It's fairly straight forward and to the point.
Again, re-read your original assertion. Your trying to twist the n verions of your statements to appear right. No one else in thread agrees with you, and like I, these guys also know what they are talking about.
Originally posted by: Slackware
Look, bsobel has kicked your arse from here to infinity, stop posting your stupid links that prove you more wrong, don't you ever read the links you post?
As an example VRAM is used to say Video RAM, not the actual type of memory which was actually WRAM or just RAM (WRAM was windowed ram, actually a great feature that could be implemented in slower memory to speed it up, Sram would be faster then GDDR4 or 5 if running in WRAM mode, it's a Matrox invention and a technology that they think they can survive with still, not really though), so basically you don't know that VRAM is just what you call the RAM on the video card?
Vista is a great OS, better than any other MS OS, not perfect but better than XP, i'd prefer it with Palladium (most nuts go crazy over that) but it's ok without it.
As an admin i can lock it down far harder than any other OS, for home use though, that clicking the accept button will lead to people clicking all kinds of accept buttons.
If i were MS, i would fix that.
Down sampling isn't an option that toggles on Blueray or HD-DVD. This is an automatic feature in Vista.
You are truly a tool. Listen to yourself for just a moment. The threat landscape has changed? No it hasn't! It is still the same as it has been for years.
You lost your argument.
Originally posted by: bsobel
Down sampling isn't an option that toggles on Blueray or HD-DVD. This is an automatic feature in Vista.
Look, I'm trying to keep from just calling you a complete moron here since it's obvious to everyone you have no fricken clue what you are talking about.
Down sampling IS A FRICKEN OPTION on HD-DVD and Blu-Ray. It's called the Image Constraint Token (ICT). Its the toggle that REQUIRES unsecure output channles to downgrade. Vista will ONLY downgrade on unsecure channels IF THAT SETTING IS TURNED ON BY THE MEDIA. The studios have agreed NOT now turn on that settings for a few years.
Lets review. You (now) claim the Vista will downsample only commercial HD-DVD and BlueRay disks. You claim this is not optional and Vista will do it to all disks. I've now shown you it IS optional and IS CONTROLLED BY THE MEDIA BEING PLAYED. There for it IS optional and the setting is controlled by the studios and NOT BY MICROSOFT.
Now run off, google it for yourself, learn a thing or two about what your talking about and the please just STFU. Your complete bullshit is getting old.
Ah, alright. ICT. So, I'm wrong about ICT.
Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod
Originally posted by: Slackware
Look, bsobel has kicked your arse from here to infinity, stop posting your stupid links that prove you more wrong, don't you ever read the links you post?
As an example VRAM is used to say Video RAM, not the actual type of memory which was actually WRAM or just RAM (WRAM was windowed ram, actually a great feature that could be implemented in slower memory to speed it up, Sram would be faster then GDDR4 or 5 if running in WRAM mode, it's a Matrox invention and a technology that they think they can survive with still, not really though), so basically you don't know that VRAM is just what you call the RAM on the video card?
Vista is a great OS, better than any other MS OS, not perfect but better than XP, i'd prefer it with Palladium (most nuts go crazy over that) but it's ok without it.
As an admin i can lock it down far harder than any other OS, for home use though, that clicking the accept button will lead to people clicking all kinds of accept buttons.
If i were MS, i would fix that.
Ok... Let me show you something, ok?
We are both right about Vram. But realize that GDDR isn't considered Vram.
Here is what Vram really is:
http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/V/VRAM.html
Vram existed for much older cards. It was used in Voodoo cards way back during the dino period.
Wram is indeed Windows Ram. However, it's based off old technology which was both expensive and featured bad latencies.
GDDR3/4 is based from SDRAM. SDRAM is what you said was good ram. Well, GDDR is based from it, except that it has better latencies (mainly due to it's refresh) and a much higher bandwidth.
For graphics card, memory needs to store data and get rid of it quickly. It has to do this because graphics cards deal with refreshing a lot of data at once. So, what happens is the memory acts as a buffer for the GPU. This is what I've been saying all along. I'm sorry you got the wrong idea.
Sure, Vista is MS best (probably), but it still falls short. Open your eyes and see for yourself. Windows Vista lacks features and key security elements. Your ignorance of Operating Systems doesn't make Vista any more better.
Originally posted by: bsobel
Ah, alright. ICT. So, I'm wrong about ICT.
Other than your comment that the thread landscape hasn't changed, whats left to dispute. All of your other comments where shown to be as wrong as the downsampling one.
I'm still waiting to here your qualificaitons to say that I, McAfee, Sophos, Trend, Webroot and all the others are wrong about the malware motivation now being monetary.
I don't know if my opinion on the matter matters, but i would say that most hackers are ideologically motivated.
Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod
Vram existed for much older cards. It was used in Voodoo cards way back during the dino period.
LinkyVideo RAM. DRAM with an on-board serial register/serial access memory designed for video applications.
Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod
Originally posted by: bsobel
Down sampling isn't an option that toggles on Blueray or HD-DVD. This is an automatic feature in Vista.
Look, I'm trying to keep from just calling you a complete moron here since it's obvious to everyone you have no fricken clue what you are talking about.
Down sampling IS A FRICKEN OPTION on HD-DVD and Blu-Ray. It's called the Image Constraint Token (ICT). Its the toggle that REQUIRES unsecure output channles to downgrade. Vista will ONLY downgrade on unsecure channels IF THAT SETTING IS TURNED ON BY THE MEDIA. The studios have agreed NOT now turn on that settings for a few years.
Lets review. You (now) claim the Vista will downsample only commercial HD-DVD and BlueRay disks. You claim this is not optional and Vista will do it to all disks. I've now shown you it IS optional and IS CONTROLLED BY THE MEDIA BEING PLAYED. There for it IS optional and the setting is controlled by the studios and NOT BY MICROSOFT.
Now run off, google it for yourself, learn a thing or two about what your talking about and the please just STFU. Your complete bullshit is getting old.
Ah, alright. ICT. So, I'm wrong about ICT.
Everything else, I've noticed you haven't addressed. You get excited because you actually explain the "proof" you're trying to shove down my throat? I've been doing this since the beginning with you. Oh well... Don't reply to this. It's rhetorical. I said I was done, so I'm done.