Vista?

TeeJayHoward

TeeJayHoward

Limpness Supreme
Joined
Feb 8, 2005
Messages
12,271
Short, sweet, and to the point:

Microsoft, if I wanted something that looked like MacOS X, I would have purchased a Mac. While I admire your efforts to make my computing experience a more interesting one, I would much prefer it if you worked on adding features I desire, rather than restructuring my graphical interface. It is my opinion that more money should have gone into WinFS, and less into Aero. After a close examination of the Vista OS in it's Beta stage, I have gone instead with Windows XP Pro x64, and sincerely doubt I will be upgrading in the near future.
 
STFU :rolleyes:


If you don't like the damn OS then simply don't install it rather than start bashing it! What do you exctly want? that Microsoft make an OS specifically for your needs to please you? I personally love the looks of Vista and so do many other people! :rolleyes:
 
This thread...



...why?

Kyle isn't Microsoft. And don't address an entire company, especially here. How stupid. Not everyone at MS is working on Vista. Complain to MS directly. I'm sure they have a wastebasket that isn't quite full.
 
MaXimus666 said:
If you don't like the damn OS then simply don't install it rather than start bashing it! What do you exctly want? that Microsoft make an OS specifically for your needs to please you? I personally love the looks of Vista and so do many other people! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Actually, I can, and did, do both. (Not installing it AND bashing it.) Yes, I do expect the product I am/would be paying for to meet my needs. I did not state that I found the visual aspect of Vista to be displeasing, simply that I felt more time should have been spent on features which would benefit consumers, and less on glam and wow-factor.

GJSNeptune said:
This thread...why?
Click to expand...
I felt that more effort needed to be put into this OS, and I had hoped to find others who shared my sentiments.

GJSNeptune said:
And don't address an entire company, especially here. How stupid. Not everyone at MS is working on Vista. Complain to MS directly. I'm sure they have a wastebasket that isn't quite full.
Click to expand...
Exactly the reason I am complaining here, instead of Microsoft. This community is known for being incredibly geeky and interested in things such as operating systems. It is the kind of place MS execs (Or their equivilent spider programs) would go to look for feedback on the OS. I'm unsure what you mean by adressing the company as a whole being a stupid thing to do. I'm well aware of the fact that not everyone at MS is working on Vista. I never claimed otherwise, nor did I suggest that MS should pull resources from, say, PR to support Vista.
 
Scream And Fly said:
If you want DX10, you'll have no choice but to run Vista.
Click to expand...
That is a good point, and one I had not yet considered, as, at this time, DX10 is not mainstream. Is there any information that suggests MS will not release DX10 for older OS's?
 
TeeJayHoward said:
That is a good point, and one I had not yet considered, as, at this time, DX10 is not mainstream. Is there any information that suggests MS will not release DX10 for older OS's?
Click to expand...

I don't think that they will. I think i remember reading it somewhere.... But who knows....???
 
To be honest, I'm not sure your solution for your dislike of vista is practical. I can appreciate not being fond of it, but the gui is among the least important parts of the OS. Vista will enjoy better driver and software support than the 64-bit XP ever will. The practical solution for anyone right now, would be to use the 32-bit version of XP or 2k, untill either they had a pressing need to switch to Vista, or Vista's first service pack is eventually released and tested.

With the price of everything gaming going up, now might be a good time for gamers to switch their phylosophies into a more consol driven direction anyways. An existing PC can preserve functionality with Linux very well.
 
The product isn't even RETAIL yet. Your experiences with it are from a BETA stance.
You cannot be judgmental on a product that is bound to change in the time between its BETA release and the actual RTM release.

I'm sure you can disable all the fancy Aero crap, and still get a respectable, reliable operating system. I'm excited about Windows Vista. In my opinion, its about time. Windows XP has been out for a long time now, and current hardware has exceeded its operating capacity. Its full of security holes; new ones discovered and exploited what seems to be on a daily basis.
 
Scream And Fly said:
If you want DX10, you'll have no choice but to run Vista.
Click to expand...
/thread.

No really. I'd guess 80%+ here are games. You *will* buy Vista.

jlbenedict said:
The product isn't even RETAIL yet. Your experiences with it are from a BETA stance.
Click to expand...
QFT.
 
jlbenedict said:
The product isn't even RETAIL yet. Your experiences with it are from a BETA stance.
You cannot be judgmental on a product that is bound to change in the time between its BETA release and the actual RTM release.

I'm sure you can disable all the fancy Aero crap, and still get a respectable, reliable operating system. I'm excited about Windows Vista. In my opinion, its about time. Windows XP has been out for a long time now, and current hardware has exceeded its operating capacity. Its full of security holes; new ones discovered and exploited what seems to be on a daily basis.
Click to expand...
While I understand that the product is Beta, from everything I've read and heard, the features I was looking forward to will NOT be implimented in even the final release. Yes, I'm sure I'll be able to disable the "fancy Aero crap" and have my happy-go-lucky interface from Windows 95, but the fact of the matter remains, the "fancy Aero crap" was implimented, and features I'd like to see (WinFS, Mountable .ISO images, etc) were not.

Your stance on the new security holes doesn't makes sense referencing Vista. A new OS should have MORE security flaws than an existing, patched one, not less. It will take some time to iron them out, and, given said time, it will probably be more secure, but as it stands now, even the release canidate will most likely exibit several new flaws.

Phoenix86 said:
I'd guess 80%+ here are games. You *will* buy Vista.
Click to expand...
I *will*, will I? :D

Has anyone heard any news on Vista-Only games? I somehow doubt developers would release games which would not run on existing hardware. Remember, even your shiny new SLI'd 7950 setup is not DX10 compatible.

Edit: Now, a year or two down the road, when the OMGWTFSP1.5 is out, and MS finally does come around to adding the dodads and thingamagigs I want, I will probably invest in the new OS. By that time, the first DX10-only games should be on the market, or perhaps just games which run smoother and look better in DX10-mode. I'll need a complete system overhaul by that time, and so my XP x64 choice (which works with all of my existing hardware perfectly fine, thank you) is validated. Just felt I should explain myself a bit better.
 
TeeJayHoward said:
Has anyone heard any news on Vista-Only games? I somehow doubt developers would release games which would not run on existing hardware.
Click to expand...

Halo 2 PC will only work on Vista, but Bungie has stated that DX9 cards will still be able to run the game (only in Vista, however).
 
I myself would favor an OS with less graphical eye candy and bloatware, more security, and lower system requirements.

In my mind the OS doesnt need to "look pretty", it needs to run software quick and stable and secure. The OS is just an added layer sucking resources out of the hardware underneath the hood, resources no longer available to the programs I need to run.

Visually Vista does nothing for me. The added security interests me, but the "pretty look" means nothing to how well it's going to run my software.

If I do make the upgrade, I can guarantee with almost 100% confidence that I'll be turning off all the eye candy for better performance and lower system overhead.

Function over form in my book.
 
TeeJayHoward said:
That is a good point, and one I had not yet considered, as, at this time, DX10 is not mainstream. Is there any information that suggests MS will not release DX10 for older OS's?
Click to expand...


For what reason? They would lose money if they let you get it for a mac, linux, or even WinXP. They get more money if you buy Vista and get DX10.
 
I agree with Limahl, for the average PC user, sure you would want a new OS to look pretty. But for most enthusiast who stretch every last dollar and volt for performance in apps and FPS in games, scrap the pretty shit, and get it runnin'.

About security, I think that Vista will be much more safe than XP has been and is now. They know where the threats are in their previous OS, and they know where they might come from in the future. Sure, there will always be threats, and nothing is going to be 100% secure if it connected to this beatiful web thing, but they have had a long time to iron out flaws that were inherent in XP, and they factored that into Vista. They WILL have to patch it, but hackers will have a harder time exploiting Vista over XP guaranteed.
 
TeeJayHoward said:
I *will*, will I? :D
Click to expand...
Yes, yes you will. ;)

Gamer? Check.
Need to upgrade your video card to DX10? Nope.
Forced to buy Vista to play *some* game you want in the future for DX10 software? Check.

AOEIII (like Halo2, this is also a MS game) is a XP only game.

Seeing a trend FTW. You will likely run vista within a year of release. Depends on how soon you want ZYX game that requires DX10.
 
TeeJayHoward said:
After a close examination of the Vista OS in it's Beta stage, I have gone instead with Windows XP Pro x64
Click to expand...

i sure hope you're an msdn subscriber who has had this vista build for a while and not some troll claiming to have done a "close examination" after one freaking day
 
TeeJayHoward said:
I did not state that I found the visual aspect of Vista to be displeasing, simply that I felt more time should have been spent on features which would benefit consumers, and less on glam and wow-factor.
Click to expand...

Real control through group policy and a file based new imaging system that is patchable in place without needing to be installed. Now that's time wasted on "glam and wow factor".

I'm glad they didn't do anything but "glam and wow factor" that I'll be using every day to keep 3000 machines up and operating. :rolleyes:

WinFS is "glam and wow factor" window dressing compared to a mostly fixed security design that'll be in the hands of my end users helping to protect them from themselves.

Aero actually reduces the core processor time spent on drawing the interface on a machine with what an enthusiast would call a base vid card. The extra "glam and wow" factor actually frees up processor time for real work by finally moving away from a 2d bitmap based interface drawing process little changed from the Windows 3.1 days to offloading almost the entire responsibility to a device designed specifically for handling 3-D display processing. Making it pretty actually made it faster. What a waste to spend time on that!
 
belmicah said:
I agree with Limahl, for the average PC user, sure you would want a new OS to look pretty. But for most enthusiast who stretch every last dollar and volt for performance in apps and FPS in games, scrap the pretty shit, and get it runnin'.
Click to expand...

Vista uses less CPU processing time using Aero on hardware supporting it than trimming back to the base interface on the same hardware. Using the 3-d hardware on the vid card for blending and determining what is visible is what reduces the processing time as opposed to doing 2-d bitmap composites. The composites require all items to be rendered whether they are visible or not and then blending all the rendered objects with only accelerated 2-D drawaing functions being performed on the vid card like XP does. All the visible and alpha blending is done by the CPU itself in the XP drawing mode. Those CPU intense fuctions are handled by the vid card in Aero.
 
I appear to have been misinformed with regard as to which components the Aero interfaces utilizes. If it does, indeed, reduce the CPU usage, than it's a good thing - I'm assuming it also offloads the texturing to the video card, not utilizing massive amounts of system memory for this?

As for the features designed to "protect users from themselves", I've rarely found one that's anything more than a restrictive annoyance to a power user. I could understand it's usefulness in a corporate situation, however. Could someone state an example of such a feature?
 
TeeJayHoward said:
I appear to have been misinformed with regard as to which components the Aero interfaces utilizes. If it does, indeed, reduce the CPU usage, than it's a good thing - I'm assuming it also offloads the texturing to the video card, not utilizing massive amounts of system memory for this?
Click to expand...

Yep! If you check out the Vista recommended hardware lists, then they suggest video cards with lots of RAM. 256MB for reasonably high resolution displays, actually (which is of course annoying some people, who have 128MB X800s that MS is recommending they upgrade while the latest integrated Intel solutions are perfectly well approved).

As for the features designed to "protect users from themselves", I've rarely found one that's anything more than a restrictive annoyance to a power user. I could understand it's usefulness in a corporate situation, however. Could someone state an example of such a feature?
Click to expand...

Sure, it's called UAC (User Access Control). Basically, any time you try to make any of a number of changes to the system, you have to click on an "approve" box, if the account you're using was created as an administrator one (that is, even if your account is an "administrator" one, it'll still run in User mode until admin. priveleges are needed). If the account is a User one- like those in most corporate networks- then you'll have to have an administrator input their password to get it to function.

This has been responsible for breaking some applications (anything with Starforce, for starters), and creating tons and tons of popup windows from others. On the other hand, it vastly improves security and stability. There's going to be a lot of pain though, as old software needs to be updated to run outside of administrator mode and in-house apps that haven't been updated in forever are updated.
 
nessus said:
Vista uses less CPU processing time using Aero on hardware supporting it than trimming back to the base interface on the same hardware. Using the 3-d hardware on the vid card for blending and determining what is visible is what reduces the processing time as opposed to doing 2-d bitmap composites. The composites require all items to be rendered whether they are visible or not and then blending all the rendered objects with only accelerated 2-D drawaing functions being performed on the vid card like XP does. All the visible and alpha blending is done by the CPU itself in the XP drawing mode. Those CPU intense fuctions are handled by the vid card in Aero.
Click to expand...

True, but I'm not paying big bucks for a high end video card to run an OS, I'm paying big bucks for a high end video card to render the graphics of whatever program I need to run. I mean sheesh, is Vista gonna be the Doom3 of operating systems? If ya don't have a $500 video card, don't bother with it?

Also, in order for that to happen, you need high end hardware. What about the poor user who's running old stuff but needs the security features? He doesnt care how pretty it is, he needs results, not fluff.

Aero is fluff designed to grab consumer attention like any good eye candy will. Aero means nothing to how well the OS will run. I mean honestly, how many people sit and stare at the OS all day? The OS doesnt need to look pretty, it just needs to work.
 
masteraleph said:
Sure, it's called UAC (User Access Control). Basically, any time you try to make any of a number of changes to the system, you have to click on an "approve" box, if the account you're using was created as an administrator one (that is, even if your account is an "administrator" one, it'll still run in User mode until admin. priveleges are needed). If the account is a User one- like those in most corporate networks- then you'll have to have an administrator input their password to get it to function.
Click to expand...
sudo for Windows? How the snark did I not notice this while running Vista?
 
Limahl said:
Also, in order for that to happen, you need high end hardware. What about the poor user who's running old stuff but needs the security features? He doesnt care how pretty it is, he needs results, not fluff.
Click to expand...

Then run it in Classic mode. No one is forcing you to run Vista with Aero.
 
masteraleph said:
Yep! If you check out the Vista recommended hardware lists, then they suggest video cards with lots of RAM. 256MB for reasonably high resolution displays, actually (which is of course annoying some people, who have 128MB X800s that MS is recommending they upgrade while the latest integrated Intel solutions are perfectly well approved).
Click to expand...
64MB for up to 1280x1024 or 1440x900
128MB for up to 1920x1200
256MB for over 1920x1200

I don't think video memory will really be a problem for most people using 3D accelerated Aero. ;)

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/getready/capablefootnotes.mspx
 
nessus said:
Aero actually reduces the core processor time spent on drawing the interface on a machine with what an enthusiast would call a base vid card. The extra "glam and wow" factor actually frees up processor time for real work by finally moving away from a 2d bitmap based interface drawing process little changed from the Windows 3.1 days to offloading almost the entire responsibility to a device designed specifically for handling 3-D display processing. Making it pretty actually made it faster. What a waste to spend time on that!
Click to expand...


Windowblinds already does this. Yet (almost) everyone still bashes it and says that it makes Windows run slow, except for the people that have actually used it.

As for Vista, I just hope they get their CPU/mem usage/stupid startup apps under control. Otherwise, I'm completely satisfied with XP with WB5.
 
Windows XP has been around for what, 5 years? I remember when XP was released everyone bitching because it was such a memory hog. There were head-to-head fps comparisons between Windows 98 and XP in gaming (possibly even here at [H]ardocp?) Now 512MB of ram is standard, hell all 4 of my computers have a gig. Even Doom3 can now be run on a $100 video card.

Hardware is going to continue to advance and get cheaper, and the fact is that Vista is not targeted towards people running outdated hardware. Hell my main rig is a year and a half old, and more than meets the requirements. I for one look foreward to my expensive graphics card getting some use where I spend most of my time on my computer, which is on the desktop. My 64bit capable processor? I haven't ever run it in 64 bit mode, and don't intend on wasting money on a 64 bit OS until I know that it will be supported with drivers and software, as will certainly be the case with Microsoft's new flagship OS.
 
masteraleph said:
Then run it in Classic mode. No one is forcing you to run Vista with Aero.
Click to expand...

I plan to. It doesnt change the fact that they are putting in all this effort to make Vista look pretty when all it needs to do is be secure and run stable.

My friend laughingly compared it to putting a designer dress on a pig thats destined to be someone's BBQ dinner. It doesnt need to look pretty, just taste good with sauce. ;)
 
Limahl said:
I plan to. It doesnt change the fact that they are putting in all this effort to make Vista look pretty when all it needs to do is be secure and run stable.

My friend laughingly compared it to putting a designer dress on a pig thats destined to be someone's BBQ dinner. It doesnt need to look pretty, just taste good with sauce. ;)
Click to expand...

the main reason they redesigned the graphics engine for vista was stability... WDDM creates a seperate cache that produces the image the video card then renders, thereby eliminating redraw on windows. Additionaly, by redesigning the engine they were able to move the graphics drivers to the user area memory addresses further seperating it from the kernel in an effort to reduce the #1 cause of windows crashes(graphics drivers)

beeing pretty is just a bonus to those changes.
 
TeeJayHoward said:
sudo for Windows? How the snark did I not notice this while running Vista?
Click to expand...

Yea. You did a REAL close examination of Vista to have missed that one. :rolleyes:

Vista has a lot of great features, such as this. The visual aspects are awesome, I like them. Go to the Digital Artwork form and look at some desktops. It doesn't matter if you're running Linux or Windows, people love to configure their PC's to look "pretty". The Sidebar is sweet. I love the new GUI.

The little things make this OS nice. DX10 is ONLY on Vista. FSX is XP for now, with a Vista patch coming soon after (enabling DX10). That right there is a BIG reason for me to upgrade to Vista. I'm a huge Flight Sim enthusiast.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top