Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Hardware & Software' started by blackout, Dec 8, 2008.
No graphical problems. If your hardware is good, then graphics should be good too.
Man, this thread exploded! I'll just have a blob post.
Pesmerga: You seem to be one of those people who just loves "sticking it to the man" and claiming everything is just a big "marketing ploy" (ie, DX10 restrictions).
The thing is, is that yes, Microsoft could thereotically port DirectX 10 to XP. It can all be changed in software. However, that would require porting the new driver model from Vista to XP, as DX10 takes advantage of it. Then, that would require all graphics card manufacturers to redo their graphics card drivers, like how they had to do for Vista. People would be pissed as for a while, drivers wouldn't be as good as they once were until vendors finally were able to improve them enough.
The point is, is that doing that is not a good call. XP is ****ing 7 or 8 years old... That's ancient in the computing world! Look at how far games have come in that same time period (from like the original Halo to Crysis). MS would spend so much time and money revamping XP, and for what? So the people who are clinging to the past can stop bitching that DX10 is Vista-exclusive? That's way too much of a risk for an OS which is ending its mainstream support as of April.
A small thing which is really cool is in Vista, the new driver model, for starters doesn't require users to reboot their computer after driver installs. It installs the driver, and then restarts the graphics stack, and it's using the new driver. I belive Nvidia still uses the restart method though, due to legacy reasons with XP. Also, on XP, what happens when your graphics card driver crashes? It's basically a total mystery, as it's up to the vendor. The vendor could be smart and restart their driver. Many don't though. I remember when I had XP and my Nvidia 4600 back in the day, it used to blue screen on me every now and then. With Vista, all that happens is your screen goes black for a second, and then it comes back and there's a bubble notification that says "Your graphics card driver has crashed, but we restored it for you". That is a "small thing", but how great is that?
Also, I love your claims of how anything you can do on Vista, you can do in XP. Then you say "disregard the small stuff". Well, I'm curious then... Do you use Quick Launch in XP? If you don't, then ignore the rest of this paragraph. But if you do, realize that there was a whole bunch of bitching for a while when Microsoft took the quicklaunch away in XP RTM (and put back in as default in SP1 I believe). Sure, it's such a small thing. People will blow it off saying "Psh, it's just a shortcut on your taskbar. Big frickin whoop." The thing is, in an OS those are the things that matter! They help the user out in small ways, and greatly help productivity.
Another small thing, which as an XP user I guarantee that you have had happen is that when you are going through the programs menu and going to click on something, you've had your mouse cursor "fall off" the open program folder, and you have to go back, hover, wait for it to open and try again. Nobody ever really notices crap like that, but it's a bit annoying. In Vista, that's not even possible now since the programs menu lives inside of the start menu.
And on top of that, and I know someone has made this point, I barely even have to touch the start menu anymore. I just type in "calc", hit enter and bam it's open. I don't know about you, but I can press Win + calc + enter in like a second or two. Compare that to the time it takes for any XP user to go to Programs -> Accessories -> Calculator (while making sure your mouse cursor doesn't "fall off"!). Yes, you can do this with built in windows apps, like the calculator from Run, but even that requires an extra click to get to. It's not right at your fingertips without you having to do anything.
Then, what if you forget what a program is called? What do you do in XP? I used to just go through the entire programs menu and search for something I recognize. But what if it it's not in there? Do you start manually going through the drive? Or do you use the search function, and watch that yellow dog cheer you on? Sure, you can say it never happens to you, but that's a lie. For me, I remember I installed a program to get rid of dead pixels, but couldn't remember the name of it for the life of me. I remember it had pixels in the name, but that's about it. So in Vista, all I had to do was type in "Pixels", wait literally two seconds, and hit enter and the program was open. The OS did everything for me.
Yes, it is something which can be disregarded as "simple", but the power it gives you, and how easy it makes life is great once you've used it for a while. You being an XP user, I bet you will still blow this off. Every Vista user I know though still gets into the habit of hitting start and typing part of a program name and hitting enter. We still have XP at school, so it happens quite frequently, and is frustrating. Yes, you could double click an icon on the destop, but that assumes that you even have an icon for that program on the desktop, let alone you know where it is spatially, and on top of that, you have to hide all of your windows to get to it. In Vista, I have three shortcuts on my desktop (recycle bin, Zune, and Songbird). My desktop looks a hell of a lot cleaner than most peoples. Why would I bother cluttering up my desktop, waste time actually finding it (again, you'll probably push that off as something "small"), and when I want to open a program, I have to minimize all of my apps that I'm looking at? That's silly and unnecessary. That's one of the reasons in XP they added quicklaunch, which was another launch location. Even still, while it got rid of the problem of having to minimize your apps, it still requires you to put icons in there, and find them. In Vista, all you have to do is know at least part of the name.
Oh, and another great thing is that the search looks thorugh everything on your computer. Looking for a document at work that had to do with finance? Just type finance and Vista will find it since it searches within documents as well, and also uses image tags, etc...
No Limit- seems to be from the IT World, so Pes, even though you a normal user doesn't use a lot of those scenarios on a day to day basis, they are awesome to IT. Just because YOU don't use something, doesn't mean a crapload of people don't. For some, the things you don't care about are a make it or break it deal for people. So be a bit open minded instead of just shutting away anything he says because it has to do with IT stuff.
So yes, Vista does have, on the surface, what seem to be "small enhancements" but they are so great you can't go back. They did change a lot in Vista, everything from how the start menu works, to how the driver model works. It is also a great foundational OS to set the framework for how future Windows OS' will work. They made all of the hard changes up-front with Vista. Yes, it got a bad rep because it changed so much in computing all at once, but with Win7 people are once again excited for what MS has to offer because there is no longer that risk of everything changing. It's just a continued evolution of the Windows experience which is a great thing in my books(a big evolution especially since they are changing the Windows 7 taskbar!).
I think I covered everything I missed in the past few pages.
but still...they are pretty small features if taken into consideration that Vista was planned to have a new file format.
so i ask again...CAN YOU OR CAN YOU NOT PLAY OLD DOS GAMES ON VISTA? :hmph:
Most indubitably, my good sir!
i express my gratitude to you kind sir.
You have to use DOS Box (which I think your question was if you had to use it or not?). DOS is very outdated, so that's why you need to emulate it.
Iced-eagle has a point. A good point.
Pes, all of your posts so far are basically you screaming "LALALALALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" as we continue to point out great improvements.
Did you know the kernel and underlying OS was OVERHAULED in Vista? The user interface may be similar to XP, but that's because people were familiar with XP - it worked. User interface != Operating System.
The improved kernel allows several cool things right now (improved driver model, better security, software instead of kernel controlled sound, reducing instability, etc. etc. etc.) but more importantly it lays a foundation for Windows 7, where a more radically changed user interface will be built upon the new foundation. Sure, they could have waited until Windows 7 to release anything and released one new explosion of goodness, but hey, they needed to recoup their development costs on Vista development. They're a business.
XP was built upon the NT kernel, which was already in a mature state by Windows 2000. So XP, kernel wise, was more of an evolution from Windows 2000, and UI wise, from Windows 98. Not quite as huge of a leap as you think.
From a network administrator point of view these new features are by no means small, they are huge. From a regular user's perspective the new security features also are not small, they are fairly efficient.
I couldn't tell you as I don't play old DOS games, I'm spoiled with fancy new graphics. If you have a dos game you would like me to try on vista pm me the file and when I get a second I'll see if it runs.
For anyone that is trying to argue with pes you are making a good effort but I wouldn't waste your time, he likes to troll just for the sake of trolling. I had 2 hours of sleep the night prior to yesterday, if I had my full nights sleep I probably would have known better than to get in an argument over this with him.
We have a winner!
That's an argument the uninformed use.
"Given the new features in the driver model and hardware ( with GPU task switching, GPU memory management and more ) all of which require kernel support - hoisting a driver layer like that on XP is rewriting it to be Vista."
Win7 uses the same drivers as Vista just like the 95/98 and 2000/XP combo's do. I'm expecting a much smoother beginning to Win7 than what Vista had.
I think Vista uses about the same DOS emulation that XP does so the DOS games that run under XP should do so under Vista, but I'm not sure. Either way DOSBox is better alternative.
XP is pretty perfect. Vista has tried to become an upgraded version but still struggles with many Third Party software, which can be annoying when newly installed games etc slam you into a BSoD loop.
I'm on XP at the moment and I'm not planning to upgrade until Windows 7.
Probably, but I wouldn't bank on their not being problems.
Apple pumps billions into marketing too.
Maybe. Although after the marketing disaster that Vista was I suspect MS will be much more careful this time around.
I've used my vista laptop for over a year now, not one crash, and not one incompatible piece of software found thus far.
I've played the orange box, bioshock, call of duty 4 on it and not one single problem. Ever.
I think the trick is having the correct hardware.
Vista isn't as bad as everyone makes it out to be. Just be informed about the hardware decisions you make, and everything will be A. O.K. As for software, the only things I haven't been able to run are some older 32 bit device drivers, and that's because I'm on x64.
QYB about vista. for reals
There are simple ways to avoid everything you said from this paragraph down. Organization, and a dock. I can honestly say that after using vista for ~ 8 months that I have only once ever used Vista's search, and it didnt find what I was looking for. And im not sure what you mean the "program folder" but I assume you mean the "All Programs" button in XP's start bar. Frankly I dont miss enough to give a damn about it, but I think vista's method takes more time than going back through the "all programs" menu (which you can click on, you dont have to hover over it and wait, thats would be stupid of you). If I am looking through the program folders for an app, when I open a folder in vista it pushes all the other folders down, off my screen, so I need to close it all back up to look in a different folder. That is more annoying to me than what you said.
Also, if you want to get to your desktop quickly to launch something from a shortcut there, you can just hit the "windows key + d" shortcut and it will minimize everything. Hitting it again will bring everything back.
Holy shit, I feel like an idiot for not knowing that. I can't imagine how much time I would have saved in the past having known that.
Indeed. I think there is usually a "view desktop" button in the quicklaunch by default that does it too.
Heh, I always use Windows + D to go to desktop, have done for years, however I had no idea that pressing it again, restored your windows
This is probably a good thread to ask this: is there any reason not to install Vista 64 bit? I currently run Vista 32 bit but wanna have the freedom to upgrade my memory beyond 4 GB. It's all free to me so cost is no consideration. I don't have any legacy hardware for which there are no 64 bit drivers.
Well hot ****ing damn.
Runs good enough with 2gb.
tapping the windows key opens the start menu
Win-m minimizes your current window
win-r opens the run prompt
win-l logs off or locks your computer if its passworded
win-e opens My Computer
win-f opens the search
alt-prtscrn screencaps the current window
alt-f4 closes current application
ctrl-tab switches between open windows
Ctrl-t opens new tap
ctrl-tab switches to the next tab to the right
ctrl-w closes current tab
K, thats all i feel like writing down.
I may find win-e and win-d of some use. I already use most of the rest.
Also you'll probably find this more useful in Vista, but since ctrl-alt-del opens that giant thing up, if you just want the task manager use ctrl-shift-esc
Even still, if I hover or a click, it still takes longer to do this than to type "calc" + enter.
It's interesting though that you used search only once, and it didn't find the item. How long have you used the computer? Did you constantly kill the search indexer, or even disable it (for "performance gains")? Did you try it with SP1? Did you install Windows Search 4.0?
I agree that the Vista start menu is not perfect. Everything has an advantage and disadvantage. One of the goals for the Vista start menu was making it so it didnt expand to fill the entire screen, and look extremely cluttered with the multiple boxes, and then when you screw up your mouse acrobatics and fall off, you don't have to repeat the process. Like imagine if something was like 10 dialogs deep and you screwed up getting there. It's a bit annoying, especially for people who aren't the masters of mouse acrobatics (it's silly to say, but it's true).
The flip side to that is that you get to see everything at once. So you click the button and you can see basically everything at once, so your brain can quickly sort out where things are spatially (you wouldn't look at the end for something that started with an A for example), and it also trains muscle memory.
Another advantage to the Vista start menu, is that your total mouse travel time is a lot smaler. There's an interesting UX concept called Fitt's law which basically takes in the distance from where a point is (start point) to an end point, and the size of the clickable area of that surface to judge how quickly you can do this task. Obviously, to speed up the process you have the start and end points remain close to each other. This is why Vista doesn't have the programs explode outwards to fill the screen. Obviously, downside is if you are a user who always browses for things, it may not be as fast if you have tons of folders. At that stage though, it's really suggested to start using Windows Search and give it a try.
I think Vista hit a fairly nice spot for how to change the programs menu, but obviously it is definitely not perfect. They traded a small amount of speed for the safety net and frustration you get when you "fall off" the folders.
Also, I use the Win+D key a bunch. However, if you use a multi-monitor solution like I do, you realize quickly it's not the best since every window across all monitors get minimized with that command. So, yes, it definitely works and is one option. You can't argue that. So I'm not saying change how you get to programs by removing the shortcuts, since I tend to be a believer in "if its not broken then dont fix it". However, you always have to ask yourself if there is a better way. That's why with Win7 they are going a step further and shortcuts live in the start menu, very very similar to quick launch, except now they aren't just shortcuts, but launchers to the apps themselves.
And then it also comes down to user choice. For me, as I said, I have a very very clean desktop. I hate having craploads of icons on there. So since Windows is all about choice, how can Microsoft make accessing my programs a great experience, even though I don't use one of the main launcing surfaces? That's why I was saying the search launcher was great, and it totally has changed the way I used Windows and open apps. It does take time to get used to, but if you tend to be a good typist, then as long as Windows Search doesn't fail you (trust me, it's software so it will hiccup on you occassionally) I think you can be more productive by getting to your apps quicker. I think it took me around like a week or so to make it into a habit, and is definitely one I don't see myself replacing.
When I did the search, i had probably had vista installed for about 6 months.
Huh? I doubt it, because im not sure what it is you're talking about.
Not at that point. After it didnt find it I decided to disable it since it didnt help.
What? Again, I doubt it, since I dont know what it is.
I use dual monitors both at home and at work, and I dont recall ever having a situation where I needed something up on one monitor while I fiddle with the desktop on my primary. Different situations I guess.
It really comes down to personal preference I suppose. Thats why windows is so great, its so customizable to that you can do anything however you want. I'm the same with with my desktop. I keep it very uncluttered, and have no app shortcuts on there at all. I keep some temporary folders on there and thats about it. In fact, heres my desktop, and the dock I use.
As you can see, my desktop background is super cute and thus important for me to see, so I keep it clean. The top dock autohides to show only the tabs, and reserves the edge of the screen so it doesnt interfere with any applications. I love it because its pretty much two clicks to get to any app or any frequently used folder. And then on the right I have shortcuts for My Computer and the Control panel, both of which hide completely off screen until you put your mouse in that area.
And since the dock works with both XP, and Vista, it pretty much negates all the issues we've been discussing haha.
I tried a dock once, did as it was supposed to. I couldn't stand it though. Gotta have my classic setup.
I've switched to using Objectdock a few months ago, and in my opinion it makes the desktop+shortcuts setup obsolete. Launching a program from a shortcut on the desktop I have to minimize all the windows or ctrl+D to click on the shortcut, and then restore the windows back or ctrl+D again. Plus they might cover a part of the wallpaper. With the dock I have all my shortcuts I use regularly hiding off the screen until I need them, to launch a program I just point at the top of the screen and click on the shortcut, no minimizing and restoring the windows.
I cant stand huge icons. I mean, god damn thats taking up like 30% of your screen.
Yeah, I think part of it really comes down to personal preference.
For me, being a programmer, I sometimes take a more typed out approach rather than using the mouse if possible (almost always is faster).
I used ObjectDock. It was alright, but since I never went to the desktop, it was completely useless for me.
Oh, and I am sporadic when it comes to large icons. Sometimes I like them when the icons are great looking and it seems a bit more appealing. Other times I'm like "Give me my screen real estate back!"
For ObjectDock, I liked the bigger icons. There's no need for big real estate since it's not used for anything else.
Win Win7 though, they only increased the taskbar by 10 pixels, so it's definitely not wasteful, and there is also option for small icons.
Also, here's some benchmarks of a recent Win7 build against Vista RTM, Vista SP1 and XP SP3
Windows 7 beat out XP SP3 in terms of performance in every test.
Also, original article that faces Win7 vs Vista: http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=3182&page=1
*Edit* BTW, definitely install Windows Search 4.0
It's included in SP2, but why not install it earlier? It reduces memory usage and CPU usage by up to 80% and provides faster search results.
What are you talking about? They take up 0% of the screen...
When you put your mouse up there though, it brings down a very big dock though.
Everyone has their preferences whether it comes to big/small icons. You seem to like big icons more, and Krynn likes the small icons.
Yep. I like the small ones, because I am overcompensating for having a very large
I turn the size down when I add more icons so they don't go off screen, and they're only visible for less then 2 seconds when I need to launch something, so icon size is irrelevant. If I made the dock permanently visible then I'd make the icons small, but then there wouldn't be any point at all to use the dock instead of the desktop for shortcuts if it was permanently visible...
Vista has nice large icons.
it has large large icons.
Well, I do still like those icons, mostly for the fact that they aren't bad, and they are very aesthetically pleasing most of the time.
However, I see the argument that they are too big. Yes, they are only down for like two seconds, so it's not always like that, but that still doesn't mean you can't get bothered by them for those 2 seconds.
I think vista is generally much more aestheticly pleasing than XP, I'm beggining to want a vista more than xp for my new PC; it looks so much nicer.
all that talking for the conclusion of 'it looks better' huh? Well suit yourself man, but there's other reasons its better.