vista. what do you guys think about it?

Wesley1357

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
374
is it good, is it really good? how is vista? what about the insides, is it faster, stable, will you buy it when it is for sale? :)
 
it won't be out until later in 06' to the public anyway, but my take on it is that it's a slighly better os than xp is. i won't go for it until early 07' probably.
 
I haven't kept up with my Vista news, just that I know that it won't ship with the WinFS file system, won't have the Monad shell, and recommended specs are far above anything my current computers have. I'll just stay with XP until I make the full transition to a *nix system. I don't have the money to throw down for dual cores and new vid cards and whatever.

Oh right, and I hate the name 'Vista'
 
Did they not mess up with that name? "Vista" does sound weak to me. :)
 
Haha pretty much. They clipped nearly everything out of Longhorn/Vista that were the initial selling points.
 
What do I think about it? I think 7/7 of my main computers agree linux is better
biggrin.gif



Honestly at this point all I see more flashy graphics requiring even greater bloated hardware requirements with not much gain in functionality. Marketing ++
 
qb4ever said:
>>>>>>>>>
Honestly at this point all I see more flashy graphics requiring even greater bloated hardware requirements with not much gain in functionality. Marketing ++

My thoughts exactly.

- Function before Fashion ! -
:D
 
The only current feature of Vista that's at all appealing to me is that it shuts down all background processes when gaming. If I get it I'd probably use it when gaming, but for nothing else. The near future is a good time to learn *nix imho.
 
Well after using the beta2 (which still has some memory leaks and slow downs and the usual bugs), I'll say that if they can iron out most of the issues before it hits shelves it will be a very solid operating system. The UI is ten times better and ten times faster for accessing your files and information than the current build of XP. Search function has improved vastly, it's almost like Google desktop speed now, and it looks much better also. Don't knock it until you've seen it in action, or used it. The public beta will be out soon if I am not mistaken, so I urge you to check it out if you're thinking it sucks.

Seems like they're actually DOING things to make this OS more user-friendly.
 
I'm dying to get my hands on the public beta and start playing with it and the new UI changes. Same goes for Office 12. I'm a technology whore though, i just like playing with new things. :p
 
I liked the idea of a SQL based file system, and in the server release I believe, actually having a functional terminal window.
 
reading the posts, i am glad to hear that vista is going to run things faster. it seem like in all new versions of windows everything gets slower.
i personally like the new cool looking fonts.
 
been using linux for more than 18 months now, i see nothing thats going to change that - even if Vista were free.

the only selling point i would be interested in is a database filesystem...which isn't happening. Tenor for KDE4 sounds a lot like how I want my computer to function, we'll have to see how well that works.
 
FlatLine84 said:
I liked the idea of a SQL based file system, and in the server release I believe, actually having a functional terminal window.
Funny, cmd.exe is pretty damned functional to me. Add SFU and some Win32 GNU CLI tools, and I don't even have to switch to Linux for most of my favorite CLI tricks.

MTB2Live said:
the only selling point i would be interested in is a database filesystem...which isn't happening.
It is happening, just not at the time of release. ;)
 
I won't judge Vista until it's been out for at least a year, however I do think that Vista (worst Windows OS name ever...) has a lot of potential, far more than Win2k vs WinXP (NT 5.0 vs NT 5.1).


In other news, today I'm upgrading to WinXP, four years after it was released :p
 
my view is the stuff Vista is shipping and equally all those things that got delayed are all present and available to linux deskyops NOW

now since Vista is demanding some outlandish PC spec's for stuff that doesn't exist yet (or the stuff that does is extreamly expensive)

What the hell is Vista doing with all that perforance!!!! when linux can do it now and well!!!!

I dont want to hear "but PC next year with those kind of spec will be as cheap as PC's now"
That still doesn't explain why it needs such stupid specs and Linux can do it NOW

I want my RAM and CPU time for my stuff NOT for MS stuff!!!!
 
eeyrjmr said:
my view is the stuff Vista is shipping and equally all those things that got delayed are all present and available to linux deskyops NOW

now since Vista is demanding some outlandish PC spec's for stuff that doesn't exist yet (or the stuff that does is extreamly expensive)

What the hell is Vista doing with all that perforance!!!! when linux can do it now and well!!!!

I dont want to hear "but PC next year with those kind of spec will be as cheap as PC's now"
That still doesn't explain why it needs such stupid specs and Linux can do it NOW

I want my RAM and CPU time for my stuff NOT for MS stuff!!!!

As much as I love windows, I definatley have to agree with you, windows has always been a bit cluncky, I hope that vista brings a new direction....
 
cuemasterfl said:
If I install Vista, it won't screw up my existing XP installation, right? :eek:

What do you mean by screw up? If you install Vista on a seperate partition from your XP installation, you can boot between the two and not worry about overwriting XP if you don't want to.
 
No matter how "clunky" Windows may seem to some, I will NEVER make the switch to Linux. I don't care if Linux has some of those features NOW. I've wasted so many days trying to get Linux to even install properly that I can't be bothered with it any longer.
 
cuemasterfl said:
No matter how "clunky" Windows may seem to some, I will NEVER make the switch to Linux. I don't care if Linux has some of those features NOW. I've wasted so many days trying to get Linux to even install properly that I can't be bothered with it any longer.

Ok..... I don't know what you were trying to install it on, or what distro, but I don't see what problems you could've ran into, it seems to be very easy to set up.
 
FlatLine84 said:
Ok..... I don't know what you were trying to install it on, or what distro, but I don't see what problems you could've ran into, it seems to be very easy to set up.

I have to agree with this. You have the good old LFS and Gentoo installs (me being a Gentoo user). But linux installation has come a long way and it is all but painless now.

So much so that a clan mate of mine, a complete OS-noob (for lack of another term) screwed his WindowsXP up (how I dont know, Windows has come along way since 98, but still got a long way to go).;

He wanted some data off his computer, I got him to install Fedora painlessly and he backed up his data.

Use Windows if you want, Try linux if you want.
The fact is I actually held off a major computer upgrade (new MoBo, CPU, 2Ggi RAM - the works!!!, was gonna do it in Jan) BUT I do want to check out Vista so I decided to hold off to Nov2006 (so I get a better idea of what is needed).

I am just questing why does MS need soo much computer power to do stuff that linux can do now on a computer spec abt 1/3 of that that MS are stating?
There is no need
 
Looks very nice but Microsoft needs to fix all that has become wrong with Windows XP.

Great article in Maximum PC about this and the reasons why they will not get far if they don't change thigs around.
 
Repeat after me: "A system policing OS is a bad thing." All the DRM I'm hearing about just turns my stomach.

Hopefully I'll be fully converted to Linux within a year. I'm still playing with different distros to determine my favorite flavor.
 
A druken monkey can install Linux - it's so easy. Gentoo is the only exception.
 
elation said:
Repeat after me: "A system policing OS is a bad thing." All the DRM I'm hearing about just turns my stomach.
Amen to that! But Microsoft is only half of the problem. Intel is also supporting all of this Big Brother stuff with the Fritz chip & Palladium movement etc. We just installed a new HP server that has the deny code execution chip available. If enabled, Windows Server 2003 w/SP1 will only allow authorized and "signed" code to execute on the server. On the surface it sounds good, but I can't wait until the first "signed & trusted" virus or hacker app is found.

I doubt if a movement like GNU/Linux and a distro like Debian would ever implement stuff like that... I sure hope not. One solution I guess, would be to boycott DRM based movies, music, and apps if at all possible.

Time to put my tinfoil hat back on... I think I hear black helicopters :p
 
beanman101283 said:
What do you mean by screw up? If you install Vista on a seperate partition from your XP installation, you can boot between the two and not worry about overwriting XP if you don't want to.

That's kinda what I figured. I have 2 partitions: one with 70GB (my main XP partition) and one with 8GB. The 8GB partition isn't big enough, so if I want to do this, I'll have to reformat and resize the partitions, which isn't a big deal I guess.
 
carloswill said:
A druken monkey can install Linux - it's so easy. Gentoo is the only exception.

I've tried different ones. I tried the Ubunto (Sp?) live CD, but I had no video. I tried Suse, I believe, a while back, but I had no video on that too. I don't know enough, or have time to learn, what is needed to troubleshoot/install drivers should it not work perfectly the first time. If I could find something that I know for a fact would work without me having to hunt for drivers/install them I would be more than willing to try it out. If I can at least see the screen and also have net access, that's a start. I can't do anything without video :)

My video card, btw, is a Radeon 9100.

Suggestions are more than welcome. The weekend is coming up. I might try it again.
 
cuemasterfl said:
I've tried different ones. I tried the Ubunto (Sp?) live CD, but I had no video. I tried Suse, I believe, a while back, but I had no video on that too. I don't know enough, or have time to learn, what is needed to troubleshoot/install drivers should it not work perfectly the first time. If I could find something that I know for a fact would work without me having to hunt for drivers/install them I would be more than willing to try it out. If I can at least see the screen and also have net access, that's a start. I can't do anything with video :)

My video card, btw, is a Radeon 9100.

Suggestions are more than welcome. The weekend is coming up. I might try it again.

normally Ubuntu have great support and ensure their kernel is configured very generically.
If you fialed with that Fedora is rock-solid
 
carloswill said:
A druken monkey can install Linux - it's so easy. Gentoo is the only exception.
Problem is I don't drink anymore. :p
But seriously, if the newer veresions are that easy to install I might have to give Linux
another try. Last time was several years ago so surely they have simplified things since.
 
mETRo said:
Well after using the beta2 (which still has some memory leaks and slow downs and the usual bugs), I'll say that if they can iron out most of the issues before it hits shelves it will be a very solid operating system. The UI is ten times better and ten times faster for accessing your files and information than the current build of XP. Search function has improved vastly, it's almost like Google desktop speed now, and it looks much better also. Don't knock it until you've seen it in action, or used it. The public beta will be out soon if I am not mistaken, so I urge you to check it out if you're thinking it sucks.

Seems like they're actually DOING things to make this OS more user-friendly.

I dunno but to be Honest i never used the search function in Xp to look for files, I know where everything is in my system mainly because i put it there.

All they do is move files around change the name of the administration tools and rename a few system files, slap a new GUI and give it a new name. Then they feed you the "Ohh and btw its time to upgrade from 2000 to xp or vista cause half the shit dont work anymore."

This is the Only company out there that has a os build in such manner that sometimes there is no way to make old applications work on it. Look at linux, all they do is add new support for hardware and improvements with out making you stuff not work when a new release of the kernel or OS is released. (Hope that makes Sense.)
 
cuemasterfl said:
That's kinda what I figured. I have 2 partitions: one with 70GB (my main XP partition) and one with 8GB. The 8GB partition isn't big enough, so if I want to do this, I'll have to reformat and resize the partitions, which isn't a big deal I guess.
Who told you that you had to reformat just to resize a partition?
 
j4zzee said:
Amen to that! But Microsoft is only half of the problem. Intel is also supporting all of this Big Brother stuff with the Fritz chip & Palladium movement etc. We just installed a new HP server that has the deny code execution chip available. If enabled, Windows Server 2003 w/SP1 will only allow authorized and "signed" code to execute on the server. On the surface it sounds good, but I can't wait until the first "signed & trusted" virus or hacker app is found.

yea DRM shit...i'd say the software companies/hardware companies themselves are half the problem. if that. I'd give the media companies 30% of the problem and dumb-ass uninformed polititians more concerned with funding than people's rights at least 20%...

heh i can see it now - mod chips for your computer. little socket adapters, sitting between the mobo and the chip, maybe?

this always gets me.. the hdcp monitor mess
http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/hardware/hdcp-vista.ars

on a semi-tangent, why do all these companies claim we need more powerful machines for hdtv / h.264? *nix + mplayer + athlon xp is sufficient... and that's without a r520
 
Susquehannock said:
Problem is I don't drink anymore. :p
But seriously, if the newer veresions are that easy to install I might have to give Linux
another try. Last time was several years ago so surely they have simplified things since.
give ubuntu/kubuntu a try - it's one of THE easiest installs. Fedora Core, Mandrive, SuSe are also all very mature installs (these three are GUI while ubuntu is ncurses)

assuming your'e using the machine in your sig, i'd say 98% of the hardware is supported. the 2% that doesn't work is the IDE port from the promise raid controller. I should clarify that. It will work if you change one line of kernel code and recompile the kernel for yourself, but any livecd isnt' going to support it - the PATA support in libata (the library used for SATA controllers) is still in testing, and therefore disabled by default.

btw: ubuntu/FC use gnome 2.10 or 2.12 (dependinng on which version you download)
Mandriva/SuSe/kubuntu use kde-3.3 or 3.4 depending on which version you download. the differences between 3.3 and 3.4 are rather substantial - myself a long time enlightenment user switched to kde-3.4 because i liked it SO much.
 
I don't know the names off hand, but there are plenty of free apps that will do it.
 
Susquehannock said:
^_^ - many thanx for the info :cool:

wow in a "what you think of Vista" thread we have a linux-tryer :D

have fun.

As the the PROMISE chipset and kernel. The chipset itself is supported (not to sure out of the box? it should be). What isnt is the RAID function. Since it really isn't a hardware RAID it is more "firmware" RAID. Support for this chipset was pulled from the kernel when it went to 2.6 (pissed me off I have linux+windows on the RAID with the 2.4 kernel and then I had to break the RAID to use the 2.6 kernel - worth it tho)


it is possible to use the chipset as a RAID (in userspace) but I never got it working and it is still WIP (FEdora are at the forefront of this tho)
 
qb4ever said:
What do I think about it? I think 7/7 of my main computers agree linux is better
biggrin.gif


Honestly at this point all I see more flashy graphics requiring even greater bloated hardware requirements with not much gain in functionality. Marketing ++

Then you don't know much about Vista. Don't believe the hype ... there is far more to Vista than that. Little things like WinFX (Avalon, Indigo, Windows Workflow), Monad command shell, Metro document format, full-volume encryption, user account protection, Sidebar/gadgets, enhanced IE7 with anti-phishing among other things, kick-ass breadcrumb navigation, virtual folders, easy access for editing and searching metadata, parental control for gaming, MCE in consumer (not OEM-only) editions, and a buttload of other stuff. They cut WinFS? Big whoop, instant desktop search is still in even without WinFS. What else ... oh for corporations there's a file-based compressed image format (WIM), new deployment server replacement for RIS, new WinPE based on Vista components.

And you don't HAVE to run the flashy graphics. Old ass Radeons and TNT's will run fine on slower machines without the flash. However, MS is taking the step to fully utilize mid- to high-range graphics adapters to make the user experience that much better. Is there something so wrong with that? Why should only games and rendering apps take advantage of what modern graphics adapters have to offer? Seems like a stupid limitation to me. And is only Apple allowed to have a pretty interface?

Sure the BETA interface still looks a whole lot like XP, but that doesn't mean this is XP Second Edition. MUCH of the underpinnings of the OS have changed and will change a LOT more. No I don't work for MS, I'm just sick of hearing the tired old "it's just a pretty interface that will make you spend thousands of dolalrs on a new system" comments. I've used it, and I think it kicks butt so far, for being Beta 1. Lots of room for improvement, but there is a long time until release.
 
Back
Top