OS of Choice - Part II

Files are terrible in all versions of Windows. Lots of developers have tried figuring out the best way to allow programs to have access to it's files but not clutter things. Linux had a good one for a while when they hid everything in an invisible layer, but I haven't seen that in years.

Apple has the best right now where "programs" are actually specialized folders that have everything that the program needs. Programs don't make any files outside of that package with the exception of documents. That makes drag and drop installation and removal instead of having to go through that stupid Windows Install Wizard.

Microsoft has had that Program Files folder for 15 years, it's time that they got rid of it.

Oh oh, even worse than Program files... has anyone ever written an app for the Solaris OS? *shutters*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Yeah, none of us can understand why Vista 64-bit can't run Vista 32-bit software. The Intel processors have a built in compatibility mode. Both OSX and Linux still have some old 32-bit programs and they run just fine. I'm really surprised that Microsoft didn't just rip off the compatibility code, both Linux and OSX are open source :P

---

I have yet to install any program on Vista x64 that hasn't worked because it was 32-bit software. All 32-bit should software should be compatible. If it's not, it's not because it's 32-bit software running on a 64-bit operating system. Unless the software strictly relies on 32-bit drivers, then yeah, I guess unless some type of 64-bit drivers, the software wouldn't work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blade5x

I have yet to install any program on Vista x64 that hasn't worked because it was 32-bit software. All 32-bit should software should be compatible. If it's not, it's not because it's 32-bit software running on a 64-bit operating system. Unless the software strictly relies on 32-bit drivers, then yeah, I guess unless some type of 64-bit drivers, the software wouldn't work.

---

I'm not sure if you're agreeing or disagreeing with my post :? OSs can switch drivers on the fly and there are very few drivers in 64 bit that don't have a 32 bit equivalent.

Most software problems are happening because idiot programmers shove pointers into integers because they expect them to be the same size. If they leave them as pointers than they will work. The compiler will take care of that, and even if it doesn't then... a 32 bit pointer will fit in a 64 bit register :P

A well written OS shouldn't make a difference in whether the software is 32 or 64 bits, but Linux and OSX are both 64-bit OSs exclusively, but both have support for older programs that are 32-bit.

There are rumors of a Google OS, if they release one that will certainly stir up the marketplace.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninja9578

There are rumors of a Google OS, if they release one that will certainly stir up the marketplace.

---

They use a customised Ubuntu in-house, but in-house it will always remain. Android is as close as it gets to a Google OS, but that's for mobile devices only (and is more of an API).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninja9578

There are rumors of a Google OS, if they release one that will certainly stir up the marketplace.

---

It's not really in Google's nature to produce an OS

Like most open-source companies
They're core business is selling services, not products
(I know there's a few exceptions, but mainly)

the rumours, were about Android
which is a mobile phone API framework on top of Linux

macs rock my world I just got my first one last year and I love it in case you didn't notice my name its MACINTOSHpie.


Oh yeah and I do know that google is coming out with android, an os for phones. Google said they were going to make a gphone but ended up making android. The sdk is out now I downloaded it but its not as easy to use as the iPhone sdk. I live my iPhone I'm writing this on it right now!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by macintoshpie

Google said they were going to make a gphone but ended up making android.

---

They never said that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by macintoshpie

I live my iPhone I'm writing this on it right now!

---

I can tell by the typo :P

Wtf? People ACTUALLY prefer Vista? :?

What is the world coming to?

I doubt it, they are probably people who bought a new computer and didn't feel like spending the $90 for the "downgrade."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninja9578

I doubt it, they are probably people who bought a new computer and didn't feel like spending the $90 for the "downgrade."

---

Or maybe people are realizing Vista isn't in the same state it was a year ago? It works, it's that simple.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blade5x

Or maybe people are realizing Vista isn't in the same state it was a year ago? It works, it's that simple.

---

Actually, my father has Vista. It boots slow as hell (fast computer too, Pentium 4 Quad 2.80 GHz, 3 GB RAM), runs slow as hell, and asks permission for EVERYTHING. Even with SP1, it sucks ass..

Get this, it even blocked iexplore.exe (Internet Explorer). :?

wtf?

If he's got a Pentium 4, that's the problem. Most likely an older slower hard drive as well. Vista is not meant for older hardware. If he's got a Core 2 Quad (but there are none at 2.8GHz by default) then I'd be angry at it's performance as well. As far as boot time goes for me, on a E6600 dual core with 4GB of RAM, it's about half the time that XP32 took to boot. Granted, XP had more "shit" on it, but they both have about the same to load at boot.

If he doesn't want permissions, he could just disable UAC.

If IE is blocked, checked if the Windows firewall blocked it. He may have accidentally blocked it. Sometimes when a program is updated, the firewall will not recognize it, and a message will come up asking whether or not to allow it access to internet.

I'll admit, for the basic computer user, Vista is an annoyance. There's a few security features that will drive a person crazy. But these slowly go away. UAC is no where near as active as it was when I first installed Vista, or maybe I'm just used to it now, I don't know.

I just don't see any benefits whatsoever
now, believe me
I do try to be unbiased about this sort of thing
and I accept that any new product can (and will) have teething problems

but at the end of the day, people deal with these because there is some sort of perceived benefit "in the end"

I just don't see this benefit
I just don't see any benefit to Vista whatsoever
in fact, I think if anything, it's worse than when it was released

Now, I don't really have any experience using Vista at all - about 30 mins on someone else's machine, that's it
but I think I can make quite valid "technical" points all the same (you may not agree)

Now, you say Vista is not suitable for "the basic computer user"
that's about 90% of the Windows demographic

Purchasing a new operating system, plus a hardware upgrade just to achieve the same level of responsiveness as you had before is crass
and people refuse to do it

"Ah !!", you say
gamers - that missing 10% who will swing the tide in Vista's favour

Granted, they are going to have far beefier machines than the 90%
but they generally want to use all that extra horsepower for games, not to support a heavier OS
this is the world of overclocking and per-game tweaked graphics drivers

look on any gaming forum, and it's full of people complaining about losing 10 frames / sec compared with XP

DirectX 10 is a no-go'er
Vista was released 18 months ago
It's already half way through it's life-span
and to date, a mere 22 games have support for directx10
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ctX_10_support

12 of those are not released yet, so support is speculative (based on press releases)

All in all, whether you're a
corporate (work) user
home user
gamer
whatever

what does Vista offer in terms of improvements?

Nicely said. I agree completely. DirectX 10, what was Microsoft thinking? Do I have to go get Alex's big FAIL smiley again? :P

Halfway through it's life? That's an incorrect statement. Windows 7 is scheduled to be released in 2010, in Microsoft release date time that's 6 or 7 years away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ynot

what does Vista offer in terms of improvements?

---

It has a nice feature for turning your computer into a paperweight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Halfway through it's life? That's an incorrect statement. Windows 7 is scheduled to be released in 2010, in Microsoft release date time that's 6 or 7 years away.

---

well, based on MS's current schedule

Vista released 2007
Win7 scheduled for 2010
equals 3 year life-span for Vista
18 months being half way

yes, there are likely to be delays
but on the other hand, I think they'll want to shelve vista as quickly as possible.
(there's no way MS can compete in the mobile or ultra-portable market with Vista - they need something light-weight, and sooner rather than later, or they'll lose the low end completely)

Based on current schedule, it's half-way through

OH, I thought you were talking about real time schedule. Vista was supposed to only take 3 years to complete too :P

If they push out Windows 7 as quickly as possible they'll run into the same crap that they did with Vista: an unfinished OS.

If Windows 7 flops then Microsoft will be hanging on by a very thin thread and probably get crushed by something else.

Quote:

---

What does Vista offer in terms of improvements?

---

There isn't much. But if you're building a new a system, it's pretty clear to me after using the OS that Vista is the way to go, when having to choose between purchasing XP32 or Vista (64-bit).

- Integrated search bar
- SuperFetch gives the system a better response, and works better with more memory.
- It looks better. Yes I actually do care heh. Ubuntu/Linxus has the eye candy, but I don't have the time to become proficient at using it.
- Much more secure
- 64-bit support. (As in better support than XP64)

None of these make the OS upgrade worth it, but if you are building a new machine, 64-bit Vista is the way to go if you need a Windows OS. Vista is a heavier OS, but so what? Today's hardware (and I'm not even at the ultra high end by today's standard) can run it no problem. It's people trying to run it on yesterday's hardware (built for XP) that are having the problems.

Even today's laptops with dual core chips and 2GB of RAM will run Vista fine. Integrated graphics still have problems running Aero smoothly, but of course people want the nice looks, and will complain about the slow response of it on the integrated chip. Though the be honest, on a laptop I'd prefer to have XP.

Quote:

---

DirectX 10 is a no-go'er

---

Only because we have yet to see a single game that runs off DX10 only. What happens when you throw DX10 on top of DX9? More code to process, making everything run more slowly. Vista is partly to blame for this, as not many are willing to use it over XP32. Making a game DX10 only will cut off a lot of the gaming market. I have mixed feelings on DX10. It still has yet to take off and will probably not become mainstream until next year.

I'm not a heavy gamer, I just HATE slow computers. I'm not naturally an impatient person, yet I have no problem using Vista. The only performance hit I've seen is in some games, the frame rates can be 5-10% slower than those on XP. Which... is minimal. It's not until you enable DX10 that you see the very large performance hits, most likely for the reason I stated previously.

I'll say it again, Vista is fine. Comments like:

Quote:

---

It has a nice feature for turning your computer into a paperweight.

---

Are old, mis-informed and biased, and even trolling to an extent if the person has never had a sufficient amount of experience with the OS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blade5x

Are old, mis-informed and biased, and even trolling to an extent if the person has never had a sufficient amount of experience with the OS.

---

I was referring to the bug that put it into an infinite loop of boot, crash, reboot, crash, reboot...


DX10 will not take off because game companies want to make games that are heavily optimized and run on multiple platforms. They can't make a DX10 and GL version and have them both be fully optimized.

Remember, Windows isn't even close to being the largest gaming platform, I think it's third. Wii has a massive lead and PS2 is behind that, both are OpenGL only. That's pushing game developers away from DirectX.

DX gave OpenGL a run for it's money, but in the past few years OpenGL has pulled far ahead and with the release of OpenGL 3 approaching I don't see it gaining any ground even with the improved pipeline.


As for Vista's requirements, they are still much much higher than they should be. Both Linux and OSX are more powerful in almost every aspect and they take far less power. I have a laptop that could run Compriz at full speed with everything turned on, but couldn't handle Aero. Please to explain?


You said 64-bit support, that's completely false, Vista has no 64-bit support.
It's either entirely 64-bit or entirely 32-bit. There is no support for both. Weird because the processor has a built-in 32 bit mode :?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KitsumiChan

Actually, my father has Vista. It boots slow as hell (fast computer too, Pentium 4 Quad 2.80 GHz, 3 GB RAM), runs slow as hell, and asks permission for EVERYTHING. Even with SP1, it sucks ass..

Get this, it even blocked iexplore.exe (Internet Explorer). :?

wtf?

---

I have a picture on my computer from when windows said "A potentially malicious program is attempting to access your computer. Name: Files and Settings Transfer Wizard. Publisher: Microsoft Corporation. Allow/Deny"

:chuckle:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wasup

I have a picture on my computer from when windows said "A potentially malicious program is attempting to access your computer. Name: Files and Settings Transfer Wizard. Publisher: Microsoft Corporation. Allow/Deny"

---

Yup, Vista is a joke. :content:

I like vista.. i only use my pc for forums and porn so its kinda irrelevant :)

Forums and....porn? o__o

Porn sites on Windows? Bye bye registry :tonguewiggle: