Windows Vista...welcome to SUCK?

[Link19]

How will gamers react to Vista? Will they go after it fast, or stick with Windows XP for many more years on the latest and greatest hardware?

I think high end games should still support XP for a lot longer after Vista is released because Windows XP is still a good OS and uses less resources than Vista will use.

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: Link19
How will gamers react to Vista? Will they go after it fast, or stick with Windows XP for many more years on the latest and greatest hardware?

I think high end games should still support XP for a lot longer after Vista is released because Windows XP is still a good OS and uses less resources than Vista will use.

The whole game experience changes alot with Vista...

 

[Markbnj]

Yes, I am. But I shouldn't have to do that just to use the system. Launching one or two CPU hog processes on Windows virtually monopolizes the CPU and makes it take forever to be able to launch a new process, like taskmgr for killing said processes.

Get a dual core then, and you'll see a huge difference. Regardless of how many cpu intensive processes you have hogging your system, explorer.exe is not one of them, and that's where all the desktop eye candy comes from.

 

[Nothinman]

Get a dual core then, and you'll see a huge difference. Regardless of how many cpu intensive processes you have hogging your system, explorer.exe is not one of them, and that's where all the desktop eye candy comes from.

I run a dual CPU machine at home already. And not that I run Windows on it, but if I did I shouldn't have to buy hardware to deal with Windows' deficiencies. And the eye candy comes partly from the theme service, not explorer itself although I assume they have to work together.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by: jimmyj68
Maybe this is a surprise to the experts and hobbyists that populate forums like this, but we are a minority of Microsoft's consumers. The bulk of the computer users out there could care less and no less than we might imagine about processor cycles and off loading to the GPU etc. They are hooked by eye candy and enticing marketing lingo. They react to increased security and additional whiz-bang features. And - microsoft produces a very good product.

I doubt they realy even care about that.

Because if they did they would all be using OS X since OS X has much better eye candy, stability, and security then Microsoft Windows.

Most people use Windows because that's what they got with their computer and that's what works with their programs.

They also are not aware that it is in the ranks of hobbyists and experts that all of microsoft's security problems are created. Joe blow knows nothing about creating worms, viruses or trojans but is lead to believe that something is wrong with microsoft's operating systems because hobbyists and experts spend all of there time trying to break or otherwise screw up the operating system. I'm not implying that anyone here does that, but I'm saying that microsoft targets mainstream consumers of prebuilt systems. it has to defend itself against the minority of consumers that live to wreak havoc on the operating system and to bash microsoift.

I realy doubt that virus writers and worm makers are doing it to 'bash microsoft'.

For instance a lot of people make lots of money from spam. Worms attacking people's computers on broadband connections allows a lot of low-cost bandwidth to unscruplious people who buy these 'botnets' and use them to distribute advertisements.

Also most of these 'hobbiests' your talking about are 12-16 year old children that hang out way to much on their computer and use large numbers of Windows computers like a playground. They purchase and obtain scripts and code from 'black hat' hackers that use flaws in operating systems to a purposefull end.. like stealing credit card information or spoofing bank websites. Or redirecting traffic to spammer's websites and things like that.

These 'black hat' hackers go around undetected, when they want to, generally because they don't trash the computers they use, they don't use software that turns up on anti-virus scans.

They also have all these armies of kids running around doing the electronic equivelent of graffity and petty vandalism which people concentrate (and hides the activities of the realy dangerous people) because: A, it's a nuisiance.. B, it's obvious and C, they think thats the extent of problem when its not.

 

[wiredbuzzguy]

Originally posted by: Rilex
This thread reaks of "I saw a picture of the cover of a book, and it looked so gawd-awful the book must suck!".

So eye candy slows down your system a little. I'm certainly not a M$ fan, but some things that we're calling eye candy might actually turn out to be useful features, like the new folder system.

 

[SnoMunke]

Originally posted by: wiredbuzzguy

Originally posted by: Rilex
This thread reaks of "I saw a picture of the cover of a book, and it looked so gawd-awful the book must suck!".

So eye candy slows down your system a little. I'm certainly not a M$ fan, but some things that we're calling eye candy might actually turn out to be useful features, like the new folder system.

New folder system? Please explain...

 

[Link19]

Originally posted by: bsobel

Originally posted by: Link19
How will gamers react to Vista? Will they go after it fast, or stick with Windows XP for many more years on the latest and greatest hardware?

I think high end games should still support XP for a lot longer after Vista is released because Windows XP is still a good OS and uses less resources than Vista will use.

The whole game experience changes alot with Vista...

How will it change? Will it change in such a way that upgrading will be immediately necessary?

 

[Xonoahbin]

I just might get Vista. It looks decent, would just have to get rid of some of the crap. Then again, my opinion sucks because I'm still running 98 and anything looks better than 98.

 

[Nothinman]

How will it change? Will it change in such a way that upgrading will be immediately necessary?

Not immediately, game developers wouldn't be that stupid. But I could see them making certain features only working on Vista.

 

[PingSpike]

What are the new features of windows vista, that benefit me? All I hear about is eye candy, and that cool file system thats not even going to be in initial release.

My problem with microsoft lately isn't that their products are bad. Its that their products are not better then their last one. Why should I spend money on something that offers no real benefits over the something that I already have. Make no mistake, vista will sell well. But it'll take more than just a new desktop design that I end up turning off anyway to make me want to upgrade.

On a side note, what is with microsofts obsession with changing desktop layout every new OS cycle? Your average computer user can barely turn their computer on, and probably just barely has figured out how to do basic things in windows 98...and then with windows XP its "surprise! We moved everything around on you so you get to learn it again!" You'd think they'd stick with one default layout, with additions, if they really wanted their OS to be friendly to users.

I mean, when most users don't know how to right click...why do you want to pull the rug out from under them? Yeah, yeah...I know you can turn it all off but its on by default, like its a feature.

 

[gsellis]

A couple of points...

To enable that "eye candy", MS has had to rewrite how graphics are handled. Vista will understand scaling beyond 96dpi. Vista will understand wide gamut. So, Vista will invade and maybe exceed Apple's video presentation. The GPU will also gain an OS controller, so the chance of pausing a game, switching to something else (including another intensive game), and going back to the game without losing the display qualities is much improved. Video memory will also be paged to real memory and even the pagefile if required.

TC is NGSCB from what I got (Next Generation Secure Computing Base). NGSCB has been delayed until Blackcombe. But TC is not just about preventing you from music and video (Blu-Ray vs HD-DVD comes into this too and part of the recent rebellion against the higher restrictions in Blu-Ray). Part of the additional goals include prevented untrusted devices or processes from getting access to your system. Unknown USB devices could be prevented from attaching. Devices or processes could be prevented from using the network devices. So, that is also about preventing 'unauthorized' components from using the system without permission. In theory, even with an administrator account, Sony's rootkit should not have been able to attach to the CD devices (Cisco's Security Agent would do that now if the rule was in place).

System installation will also be streamlined, but that is behind the scenes and only excites OEM/VARs and enterprise OS installers.

 

[Jingato]

Who doesn't like eye candy? Personally, I love the fact tat all the eye candy is there. I can't stand the look of any windows OS before XP. I'm on the computer a lot, so I'd like to enjoy what I'm looking at. Any body who is complaining about it should get a clue. You can turn most of it off. And if you're so conserned about it using system resources, get a better computer. If you don't like they way it looks, tha's fine. That's your opinion. But just remember that is can be changed, so don't bash them for including the eye candy for people that enjoy it. It would be the same as me bashing them for including options to turn off the eye candy, even though I want it on. It's just stupid.

 

[Seeruk]

Originally posted by: SnoMunke
I have been seeing alot of screenshots of Windows Vista (no I have not installed any Betas), and everything I see so far makes me think Windows is full of ALOT of unnecessary eye-candy CRAP! I can just image when I first install Vista (if I haven't bailed ship and gone over to the dark side - Linux) I will be spending the first hour turning eye-candy sh!t off...no wonder there are high memory requirements for this OS...

IE7's look simply SUCKS! Way to many buttons, sliders, info bars, etc...

Soooooo

Let me get this right... you are bitching about an OS you aint even installed? You are complaining about a visually appealing GUI you havent even used? You think 512mb is high memory requirements in an era of 1gb of RAM costing £45??

Oh dear :roll:

 

[spherrod]

Originally posted by: Seeruk

Originally posted by: SnoMunke
I have been seeing alot of screenshots of Windows Vista (no I have not installed any Betas), and everything I see so far makes me think Windows is full of ALOT of unnecessary eye-candy CRAP! I can just image when I first install Vista (if I haven't bailed ship and gone over to the dark side - Linux) I will be spending the first hour turning eye-candy sh!t off...no wonder there are high memory requirements for this OS...

IE7's look simply SUCKS! Way to many buttons, sliders, info bars, etc...

Soooooo

Let me get this right... you are bitching about an OS you aint even installed? You are complaining about a visually appealing GUI you havent even used? You think 512mb is high memory requirements in an era of 1gb of RAM costing £45??

Oh dear :roll:

Some people just like to complain - IMO Vista is shaping up quite nicely

 

[kamper]

Originally posted by: jimmyj68
Maybe this is a surprise to the experts and hobbyists that populate forums like this, but we are a minority of Microsoft's consumers. The bulk of the computer users out there could care less and no less than we might imagine about processor cycles and off loading to the GPU etc. They are hooked by eye candy and enticing marketing lingo. They react to increased security and additional whiz-bang features. And - microsoft produces a very good product.

They also are not aware that it is in the ranks of hobbyists and experts that all of microsoft's security problems are created. Joe blow knows nothing about creating worms, viruses or trojans but is lead to believe that something is wrong with microsoft's operating systems because hobbyists and experts spend all of there time trying to break or otherwise screw up the operating system. I'm not implying that anyone here does that, but I'm saying that microsoft targets mainstream consumers of prebuilt systems. it has to defend itself against the minority of consumers that live to wreak havoc on the operating system and to bash microsoift.

What? So security shouldn't matter to people who don't know how to write exploits? That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. It's the non-savvy people who need the proper security the most (and don't try saying that the average joe is capable of maintaining a safe, internet connected xp machine). The 'ranks of hobbyists and experts' are the ones who actually have a hope of maintaining a secure machine on their own.

So let's not raise a stink about "eye-candy" and bash microsoft. Their target market doesn't even know what "eye-candy" is.

p.s. As a hobbyist, I'm not concerned with eye-candy or CPU cycles or any of the other highly technical aspects of the arguments against Vista. I like building computers and snazzy new operating systems. So I try to keep my computer technically capable of utilizing the whiz-bang stuff and go from there. That's all Dell and Gateway minimally do at the low end of their product base. Your avarage consumer loves it.

So as an enthusiast you feel that the most important aspect of an operating system is that it looks fancy and has marketing-friendly security features that make you feel all warmy and fuzzy? You would fit into the non-*nix apple crowd very well.

 

[Link19]

Vista will be a mediocre OS. It won' be bad, but it won't be anything special either.

Here is what concerns me most. If the RAM requirements get higher for each new MS OS release, that means less raw RAM to run resource intensive applications. Why not just stick with XP? For instance, digital video editing and some new games already take advanatge of large chunks of RAM. SO if you have 2GB of RAM and are running Windows XP, those foreground applications like games and digital video editing will be able to utilize almost all of that 2GB of physical RAM, since Windows XP only takes up 120MB of RAM just for the OS to run efficently. Now with Vista, it seems that the OS may take up 512MB just for the OS to run. So in Vista,m those applications would only be able to utilize 1.5GB of the 2GB of physical RAM in your system. But with Windows XP, tyhey would be able to utilize 1.88GB of the 2GB of RAM in your system. Is this something to be concerned about with Vista?

It certainly won't matter for applications that don't benefit from using tons of system RAM, but for foreground applications that do, it seems Vista will be a total waste until the standrad amount of RAM in computers exceeds 4GB. What do you think?

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: Link19
Vista will be a mediocre OS. It won' be bad, but it won't be anything special either.

Here is what concerns me most. If the RAM requirements get higher for each new MS OS release, that means less raw RAM to run resource intensive applications. Why not just stick with XP? For instance, digital video editing and some new games already take advanatge of large chunks of RAM. SO if you have 2GB of RAM and are running Windows XP, those foreground applications like games and digital video editing will be able to utilize almost all of that 2GB of physical RAM, since Windows XP only takes up 120MB of RAM just for the OS to run efficently. Now with Vista, it seems that the OS may take up 512MB just for the OS to run. So in Vista,m those applications would only be able to utilize 1.5GB of the 2GB of physical RAM in your system. But with Windows XP, tyhey would be able to utilize 1.88GB of the 2GB of RAM in your system. Is this something to be concerned about with Vista?

It certainly won't matter for applications that don't benefit from using tons of system RAM, but for foreground applications that do, it seems Vista will be a total waste until the standrad amount of RAM in computers exceeds 4GB. What do you think?

I'm not sure exactly where you are getting those numbers.

The amount of memory consumed by the Windows Kernel itself will not really change much. Remember, unused ram is wasted ram. If running perfectly an OS would consume nearly all the ram in a box. Keep in mind that just because ram is being used doesn't mean it can't be immediately reused. You want your OS to cache up things that you may soon use - it makes things snappy. If it happens you decide to do something else, that memory can be freed up in a couple cycles tops.

But yes, any more modern OS is going to consume more resources than an older one. Features don't come completely free. Just remember we aren't talking moore's law here. Loosely stated, computer power doubles every 18 months. It may be near 54 months (3x18) since XP was released but Vista's requirements aren't going to be 8 times as steep (2^3). Relatively speaking Vista will put less demand on today's computers than XP did when it was released.

 

[racerjon777]

i have tested the pre-release of beta 2, and its about as stable as my grandma....and she has no legs. not really, but u get the point. i will say it looks sexy....but there is a reason it says beta.

My main concerns...i couldnt for the hell of me find the "run" button....no command prompt....nothing....i was pissed to say the least...BUT! It does start FASTER than XP due to some new advance in the way it shuts down....aparrently it does some hybrid of Hibernate and Sleep...but hey, all i know is that it starts up fast and looks good.

Besides the obvious missing admin tools, everything seems to move smoothly...here are the Specs of the system it was tested on..

Athlon XP 2200+
2x512 Crucial pc 3200
geforce FX 5500 256mb Agp
200gb Maxtor PATA hdd.

My system aint the greatest in the world, well as of last year it was, lmao...but now-a-days its nothing compared to thies Athlon 64 and FX-60's you see now...

Basically it ran fine on a lower end model computer, which tells me it isnt just gonna be for the higher end user...itll be for that new dell grandma bought last year, or the system your son in collge built off of newegg for under 500 smackers. im happy. but i woudnt buy it simply because XP is great....i know it...and its plenty sexy enough for me. plus i dont wanna shell out 500 bucks for Vista..hehe.

 

[stash]

My main concerns...i couldnt for the hell of me find the "run" button....no command prompt....nothing....i was pissed to say the least

Run is removed from the start menu by default, in favor of the search bar on the start menu. I usually end up hitting windowskey+r out of habit, which still brings up the normal run dialog. You can also turn run back on with a check box on the start menu options.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: racerjon777
My main concerns...i couldnt for the hell of me find the "run" button....no command prompt....nothing....i was pissed to say the least...

Just type your command in the address bar. Should be clever enough to do what you want.

 

[nweaver]

So if Vista is more then eye-candy, what is it going to do for a power user (non gaming) that XP doesn't do? (just a quick punch list of a few things)

 

[stash]

There are over 2000 new features in Vista. XP had a little over 1000.

 

[kamper]

Originally posted by: STaSh
There are over 2000 new features in Vista. XP had a little over 1000.

Do you work in the marketing department or something? He asked what a few features were, not how many could possibly be counted.

 

[stash]

What makes you think I was responding to nweaver's post?