Windows Vista

Discussion of non-phpBB related topics with other phpBB.com users.
Forum rules
General Discussion is a bonus forum for discussion of non-phpBB related topics with other phpBB.com users. All site rules apply.
Newfie
Registered User
Posts: 221
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 12:08 am
Location: A Canadian Province - guess which one?

Post by Newfie » Sun Jun 25, 2006 9:50 pm

I just went with a clean install with Vista, which is the best way to install any OS.

I tried a dual-boot with 2000 and XP some time ago. I installed XP first, 2000 second. Big mistake, 2000 didn't understand XP (since 2000 was older) and therefore proceeded to sabotage XP's boot information.

SAK `
Registered User
Posts: 958
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 12:01 pm
Location: Places where authorities can't see me.
Contact:

Post by SAK ` » Sun Jun 25, 2006 9:50 pm

If you guys are so concerned about Vista at this early stage of development, I want you guys to start seeking emulators so you can at least test-drive Vista on a disk image first before installing it for real.

$.@.K.
The Serial AD Killa trademark is no more. 2003-2007

Newfie
Registered User
Posts: 221
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 12:08 am
Location: A Canadian Province - guess which one?

Post by Newfie » Sun Jun 25, 2006 9:52 pm

SAK ` wrote: If you guys are so concerned about Vista at this early stage of development, I want you guys to start seeking emulators so you can at least test-drive Vista on a disk image first before installing it for real.

$.@.K.


That's a bad idea unless you have an extremely powerful computer. 8O

Owatonna
Registered User
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 8:42 pm

Post by Owatonna » Mon Jun 26, 2006 12:24 am

Okay I only read to page 2 because I just wanted to let everyone know it doesn't suck its actually really good I have it installed on 2 computers if you have $6 or a dvd burner and high speed internet connection download it from microsoft and give it a try yes its requirments are high but isn't everything today people expect more and more and that takes more and more like games there needing more ram better graphic cards well so do operating systems the only flaw I've found in the beta 2 are alot of xp programs don't work and that makes me upset but then again their still working on the compatibility thing where you can run it as xp 2000 98 and 95 but its already safer you can tell they have improved alot and you can change color of the windows or your toolbar to any color that fits your needs. So instead of bashing at it stop and give it a try. Also I bet have of you bashing it are on windows OS or use a windows product also their windows media player 11 rocks their going to make a thing like itunes and make their own mp3 player like ipod and instead of paying for every song you download you pay a monthly fee for as many as you can download. Alot better deal then apples. :D

Magnotta
Former Team Member
Posts: 1093
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 4:16 am
Location: Ontario

Post by Magnotta » Mon Jun 26, 2006 3:57 am

Meh, when I get a new computer, I'll probably upgrade to Vista. On my current one, I'll stay with XP. Main reason is the system requirements. My current comp. wouldn't be able to handle that, though when I do buy a new one it of course will. The style looks nice, and most(not all though) of the features seem like pretty good. Is it really a giant leap though, no, tis more of just a souped up XP, but as far as I'm concerned, I like XP, so I'm fine with that.

I don't really see why all the talk though about how it's going to flop, and MS is going to start crashing. Even if it does flop, it wouldn't be the first time MS made an OS that didn't catch on compared to some of there others, and they've got the money to keep going on anyways, as XBox is becomming a bigger and bigger product for them all the time, not to mention their current dominance in the OS department, that they'll survive either way, provided that they actually release something better soon afterwards. In the end though, people will still buy Windows and MS products, because of the simplicity it offers, and so forth. For those more computer savvy than others, and familiar with Linux, it may seem strange that windows is so widely used, and may feel that Linux is just a short bit away from being a legit competitor, but really, there's tons of people who have never even heard of linux, and in the end, the average person who just wants to go chat with friends or family after work, and send email, is going to buy Windows.

User avatar
jeevan25
Registered User
Posts: 388
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2004 2:45 am

Post by jeevan25 » Mon Jun 26, 2006 4:56 am

I don't know if its true, but somewhere I read that Windows 2000 was written in Assembly, and programs made in Assembly are increadibly fast. Now they are using C. Anyway, I really don't see much improvements in Vista. Long time ago, when it was Longhorn, it was just Windows Xp with a new theme. Average computer user doesn't use even 25% of utilities that come with Windows so why do Microsoft make all this? Why don't they release it as Vista Add-ons. My pc couldn't handle Vista. Couldn't even burn a image and test it.

Global rule of buying Windows: "Never buy when it is released. Wait for several months for the necessary updates to be released, and the right price to come. :D"

User avatar
Marshalrusty
Project Manager
Project Manager
Posts: 29253
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 10:45 pm
Location: New York City
Name: Yuriy Rusko
Contact:

Post by Marshalrusty » Mon Jun 26, 2006 5:38 am

jeevan25 wrote: Average computer user doesn't use even 25% of utilities that come with Windows so why do Microsoft make all this?

I don't know about that one. I tend to think that the "average user" uses more of the tools than some of the advanced users (IE being the perfect example). I, for example, always use Nero to burn my CDs/DVDs, even though Windows explorer (in XP) allows you to just drag and drop files onto a blank CD and then hit 'Write files to CD'. I have also never used Windows Movie Maker, even though it is the tool of choice for my mom when she creates/sends home movies. There may be certain tools you don't use that your next door neighbor uses on a daily basis.
jeevan25 wrote: Global rule of buying Windows: "Never buy when it is released. Wait for several months for the necessary updates to be released, and the right price to come. :D"

That doesn't only apply for Windows ;)
Have comments/praise/complaints/suggestions? Please feel free to PM me.

Need private help? Hire me for all your phpBB and web development needs

SAK `
Registered User
Posts: 958
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 12:01 pm
Location: Places where authorities can't see me.
Contact:

Post by SAK ` » Mon Jun 26, 2006 10:25 am

I learned from a PearPC emulator that sometimes the performance of an emulated OS is 40 to 60 percent of the physical CPU, depending on features. The best chip I got right now is 2 GHz while the newer processors are 3 GHz ^, the thing is, when emulating Vista, 800MHz to 1.4 GHz at the least would be a little slow but should be suitable enough to put Vista to the test. You may need to go into your hardware and learn how to overclock your CPU, but we all know what happens to overclocked CPU's.

So far, Bochs and Virtual PC 2004 cannot emulate or even boot Vista installers, especially those that was once downloaded.
newfie wrote:
sak ` wrote:If you guys are so concerned about Vista at this early stage of development, I want you guys to start seeking emulators so you can at least test-drive Vista on a disk image first before installing it for real.

$.@.K.


That's a bad idea unless you have an extremely powerful computer. 8O
The Serial AD Killa trademark is no more. 2003-2007

JonB2004
Registered User
Posts: 25
Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 9:15 pm
Contact:

Post by JonB2004 » Mon Jun 26, 2006 2:52 pm

I can't understand that though. How can 800 Mhz be too slow to run Windows Vista? Its plenty to run Windows XP. Windows Vista's system requirements are 4 times those for Windows XP. I think Microsoft should further delay Windows Vista and try and improve it so that it can run on slower computers.

My preferred system requirements for Windows Vista.

-A 500 Mhz processor
-256 MB RAM
-16 MB GPU
-3 GB of hard disk space for installation
Come on everyone! Join Paradox Parliament!

http://z4.invisionfree.com/Paradox_Parliament

User avatar
MHobbit
Former Team Member
Posts: 4761
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2004 5:32 pm
Location: There and Back Again

Post by MHobbit » Mon Jun 26, 2006 3:00 pm

JonB2004 wrote: I can't understand that though. How can 800 Mhz be too slow to run Windows Vista? Its plenty to run Windows XP. Windows Vista's system requirements are 4 times those for Windows XP. I think Microsoft should further delay Windows Vista and try and improve it so that it can run on slower computers.


Windows XP != Windows Vista. You're judging the requirements of Vista based on XP. :-/ Also, as per posts made in this thread before, there are in fact reasons as to the increased requirements. Besides, many modern computers can meet the minimum of 800MHz...

You're actually suggesting that they delay the release further? I'd love to hear the reactions from everyone who's complained about the continued delaying of everything developed...
Former phpBB MOD Team member
No private support is offered.
"There’s too many things to get done, and I’m running out of days..."

pulling his hair
Registered User
Posts: 185
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 10:20 pm
Contact:

Post by pulling his hair » Mon Jun 26, 2006 4:30 pm

SAK ` wrote: If you guys are so concerned about Vista at this early stage of development, I want you guys to start seeking emulators so you can at least test-drive Vista on a disk image first before installing it for real.

$.@.K.
Early? It was first talked about publicly by MS in 2001, and with it now due to ship in 2007, we're over 80% through. Most public pre-release versions of Mac OS X (including the alphas) have been almost completely usable for day to day use.

User avatar
MHobbit
Former Team Member
Posts: 4761
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2004 5:32 pm
Location: There and Back Again

Post by MHobbit » Mon Jun 26, 2006 4:45 pm

pulling his hair wrote: Early? It was first talked about publicly by MS in 2001, and with it now due to ship in 2007, we're over 80% through. Most public pre-release versions of Mac OS X (including the alphas) have been almost completely usable for day to day use.


So? I don't think pre-release versions are meant for full live, day-to-day use anyway. :? They call them "community technology previews" anyway.
Former phpBB MOD Team member
No private support is offered.
"There’s too many things to get done, and I’m running out of days..."

Newfie
Registered User
Posts: 221
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 12:08 am
Location: A Canadian Province - guess which one?

Post by Newfie » Mon Jun 26, 2006 6:02 pm

MennoniteHobbit wrote:
pulling his hair wrote:Early? It was first talked about publicly by MS in 2001, and with it now due to ship in 2007, we're over 80% through. Most public pre-release versions of Mac OS X (including the alphas) have been almost completely usable for day to day use.


So? I don't think pre-release versions are meant for full live, day-to-day use anyway. :? They call them "community technology previews" anyway.


With only some months left to go, the improvements might only be marginal. If there were 2 or 3 years left, I wouldn't blame them for the poor quality at all. Not only that, but Vista was originally supposed to be released around now, imagine if they stuck with that date, what shape we'd be in.

pulling his hair
Registered User
Posts: 185
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 10:20 pm
Contact:

Post by pulling his hair » Mon Jun 26, 2006 7:13 pm

Newfie wrote: Not only that, but Vista was originally supposed to be released around now, imagine if they stuck with that date, what shape we'd be in.
Originally meant to be shipped around now? No where near. It was meant to ship in 2003.

Newfie
Registered User
Posts: 221
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 12:08 am
Location: A Canadian Province - guess which one?

Post by Newfie » Mon Jun 26, 2006 8:27 pm

pulling his hair wrote:
Newfie wrote:Not only that, but Vista was originally supposed to be released around now, imagine if they stuck with that date, what shape we'd be in.
Originally meant to be shipped around now? No where near. It was meant to ship in 2003.


Barely over 1 year after XP? Even if all the programmers in the world were Microsoft employees, and even if they discontinued Office/XBOX/etc. it would be a hard shot to develop such a project in such short time.

In this situation, consistency is worth more than gold and diamonds.

Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”