Jump to content

Windows Vista

weggy

By weggy,
in General Discussion

 Share

Recommended Posts

Ramaniscence Rookie

Ramaniscence

Posted
Posted
From the responses to Vista I've seen so far, everyone who hasn't used Vista yet [predictably] hates it, but the people who've tried the OS say it's quite an improvement over XP.

I'd frankly like to see less "prediction" [in all fields, not just elite geekery, but that's for another topic] from people who have never even used it, but shove these cryptic insider reports all over the internet. Wait a bit, K? You could try it out in a store and it will probably be much better than XP, given Microsoft's OS track record.

http://ramaserv.thasauce.net/2007-02-02_01.png

Improvement over XP? EXTREMELY. I'll go into more detail later, but right now I have NO QUALMS what so ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hector Newbie

Hector

Posted
Posted

There's a very good reason I remain skeptical, and that is that I don't feel any push to use something other than XP. I know the way it works and it satisfactorily meets all my present needs. In short, I don't see why I should ever bother spending money to upgrade my operating system unless I am also getting a new computer (in which case it would be rather strange to ask for a dumbed down version). Its not like a new console release where the previous-generation quickly pales in comparison to the new console. As Microsoft said with reference to their operating system, their biggest competitor is themselves (sorry Apple & Linux fans, maybe in four more years).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Piracy Newbie

Piracy

Posted
Posted

http://www.gamespot.com/features/6164940/index.html

Gamespot.com has a good article about XP Vs. Vista as far as gaming is concerned. Obviously in the article you will need at least 1Gb of ram to do anything, with 2-3gb being the "sweet spot" for gaming.

Most games only have a few FPS difference between XP and Vista. Not the performance promised from DirectX10 I was hoping for initially, but that to be expected with any new platform, you have to give the developers time to upgrade and optimize everything first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bobwillis Newbie

Bobwillis

Posted
Posted
Diracy;228898']http://www.gamespot.com/features/6164940/index.html

Gamespot.com has a good article about XP Vs. Vista as far as gaming is concerned. Obviously in the article you will need at least 1Gb of ram to do anything' date=' with 2-3gb being the "sweet spot" for gaming.

Most games only have a few FPS difference between XP and Vista. Not the performance promised from DirectX10 I was hoping for initially, but that to be expected with any new platform, you have to give the developers time to upgrade and optimize everything first.[/quote']

Checking out the Conan DX9/DX10 comparison I thought to myself, "Can Conan DJP?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Red Shadow Apprentice

Red Shadow

Posted
Posted
I just upgraded to Vista Ultimate. Install took a goodly while, but now that's it running, I'm fairly happy with the interface changes, backwards compatibility, and fairly minimal amount of fuss involved in getting everything going.

OH WAIT OMFG I CAN'T PLAY MY MP3S CUZ OF M$ DRM WTF!?!?!

... or not.

mp3s are the ONLY thing you can play

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Orange Pylon Newbie

Orange Pylon

Posted
Posted
it'd better prove itself damned good and DRM free before i start using it

What, my posts in this thread are not enough? Name a file and I'll play it.

As far as i know, it wouldn't let me watch even DVDs on this monitor

I just played a little bit of The Da Vinci Code through an old 17" dell CRT. So, bullshit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Red Shadow Apprentice

Red Shadow

Posted
Posted
Oh. Then I'd better not tell Microsoft about all those .ogg and .flac files I play. KEEP IT ON THE DOWN LOW.

Good benchmarks btw, especially with the x1650.

i have a number of wma and m4a files that were effectively made useless simply because they didnt identify themselves as belonging to this computer

unpleasant on my end at least, and back to xp

might as well mention that its the 64 bit version that did this

Link to comment
Share on other sites
zircon Newbie

zircon

Posted
Posted

Dave or Rama, could either of you convince me as to why you would want Vista for audio production? The RAM footprint is larger, it (apparently) lacks ASIO support or any emulated hardware support, has a rewritten audio stack that doesn't support extended hardware features like EAX, is incompatible with lots of existing hardware including many DSP cards, eats more CPU... I don't get the appeal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Orange Pylon Newbie

Orange Pylon

Posted
Posted
i have a number of wma and m4a files that were effectively made useless simply because they didnt identify themselves as belonging to this computer

unpleasant on my end at least, and back to xp

might as well mention that its the 64 bit version that did this

I have Rafael Kubelik's Mahler symphony cycle in M4A, and they all seem to work just fine in iTunes, but not Winamp or WMP. The 64-bit edition of Vista does apparently have some compatibility problems, but I don't see how that would affect this.

Did you buy the songs from iTunes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Orange Pylon Newbie

Orange Pylon

Posted
Posted
So wait, Windows Vista doesn't add DRM when you rip a CD onto your computer, right? Does it do anything to mp3s you downloaded not from your computer?

There's a "copy protect" checkbox in Windows Media Player's ripping options, which I have cleared. I don't see any other Windows-related ways to rip a CD available.

Nevertheless, I'm ripping one of the Cowboy Bebop soundtracks I have, and I'll test it out later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
djpretzel Enthusiast

djpretzel

Posted
Posted
Dave or Rama, could either of you convince me as to why you would want Vista for audio production?

You wouldn't, right now, if that's all you're using a box for. I anticipate that will change over the next year, as support broadens, issues are resolved, and Vista's improved audio stack is better utilized.

I've got more than a few PCs, so for me the risk is mitigated - I can leave my main audio PC and others PCs on XP SP2 and use Vista Ultimate on my main multipurpose machine without risking the loss of certains apps I may need that have issues with Vista.

I haven't heard anything about Vista not allowing ASIO, FYI.

I also intend on moving from Cubase to SONAR, which already supports Vista's 64-bit incarnation, so I'm optimistic that Vista Ultimate x64 will be the best option for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zero_Infiniti Newbie

Zero_Infiniti

Posted
Posted

I tried vista on my computer, it looked cool, ran so-so, but just had way to many annoyances to deal with. i have to turn off the cleartype font in IE7 when it came out in XP cause it looks blurry to me, but vista has it on for everything by default, i turned it off and things still looked blurry...games ran too slow, even turning off the Aero feature and the sidebar didn't get them running smooth, did help performance though, but just not enough.

aesthetically speaking, its great but processing wise, it over taxes my system like i thought it would. so i'll stick with my XP for now until i get a better machine capable of processing all of that at once.

also a few things that i found were really annoying, the Aero feature looks great, i like the see through windows and the translucent stuff, but why is it that my resolution is in 1024x786 and the icons look like i'm in 320x240? it does me no good having a pretty background to see through windows when my desktop icons cover everything up. also the compatibility list is way behind, but that's typical of the new beast...i'm sure it'll be remedied within the future, but when my printer isn't supported, and i need stuff printed for school at anytime, i'm going to have to go back to something where its supported. that and the norton anti-virus wasn't supported, symantec wants a serial number to upgrade, i don't have a serial number, i got my software free through my school ages ago...why won't it upgrade on its own damnit? to many little things to deal with right now. but i did like the 'gadgets' pane though, that's a nifty idea, having weather, news, time, processing stats, etc right there on the desktop. couple of cool other things i could get along with, but if i want to play games and stuff, like i said, i'll have to wait for a better machine to do it with

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ramaniscence Rookie

Ramaniscence

Posted
Posted
i did like the 'gadgets' pane though, that's a nifty idea, having weather, news, time, processing stats, etc right there on the desktop. couple of cool other things i could get along with, but if i want to play games and stuff, like i said, i'll have to wait for a better machine to do it with

As with a lot of things in Vista, Gadgets are a REALLY cool idea that doesn't have much momentum right now. It's understandable since Vista JUST came out and all, but as of right now only a handful of gadgets are really USEFUL (they have analog AND digital clocks that essentially save you time of looking MAYBE 1000px away at your Taskbar clock...seriously).

Hopefully in time something really cool'll come out of them, but right now I'm justing using weather and the so-so GMail notifier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jontilton Newbie

jontilton

Posted
Posted
As with a lot of things in Vista, Gadgets are a REALLY cool idea that doesn't have much momentum right now. It's understandable since Vista JUST came out and all, but as of right now only a handful of gadgets are really USEFUL (they have analog AND digital clocks that essentially save you time of looking MAYBE 1000px away at your Taskbar clock...seriously).

Hopefully in time something really cool'll come out of them, but right now I'm justing using weather and the so-so GMail notifier.

Now, i haven't used vista yet... .so i am wondering the difference between the gadgets and yahoo widgets (http://widgets.yahoo.com/)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Orange Pylon Newbie

Orange Pylon

Posted
Posted
Now, i haven't used vista yet... .so i am wondering the difference between the gadgets and yahoo widgets (http://widgets.yahoo.com/)

As far as I can tell, the two differences are 1: the sidebar and 2: there's less widgets. And I'm not even sure about the sidebar.

I'm not really a fan of how the bar works, though. I'd like to be able to move my mouse to the side of the screen and have the bar fade in with all my desired widgets, instead of having to click into it or having it always on top.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ramaniscence Rookie

Ramaniscence

Posted
Posted
As far as I can tell, the two differences are 1: the sidebar and 2: there's less widgets. And I'm not even sure about the sidebar.

I'm not really a fan of how the bar works, though. I'd like to be able to move my mouse to the side of the screen and have the bar fade in with all my desired widgets, instead of having to click into it or having it always on top.

Or being able to change the background color, or background image, or having Windows NOT place new icons under it when it's positioned on the left side....

I don't know how some of this stuff wasn't fixed in beta...and I'll be damned if they're gonna update it anytime soon =\.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...