Vista Thread

[Sanchez]

I was bored so for shits and giggles I decided to give vista my own sort of stability test.

http://www.soifall.net/uploader/uploads/aero.jpg

Resource usage in the top right, Vista manages to display 7 h264, fairly high res videos without slowdown (video or system or otherwise) and it doesn't even max my CPU usage. Cool.

[Eddage]

Right click it >

Properties

 

Arranagement box:

Tick the = Sidebar is always on top of other windows box.

 

Mmmmmm, thanks, but is there not a way to make it so that windows will go over the top of it but then the sidebar will still be visible when you press the desktop button?

[Blue_Ninja0]

Mmmmmm, thanks, but is there not a way to make it so that windows will go over the top of it but then the sidebar will still be visible when you press the desktop button?

 

No i think that is not possible. It's strange it disapears when we click show desktop.

[=NukeBlaze=]

Vista = Xp + new shell + DRM/WGAplus + forced DX10 "feature" + No fundamental change of security.

 

I've used it, I've installed it. I dislike vista, enough to divert all future upgrades to a flavor of Linux on XP duel boot or just using WINE. I am done fixing windows problems and BETA testing their commercial OS releases until they droll along a service pack.

 

Work has already begun on exporting DX10 library to work on XP via third parties. It anger me to no end Microsoft would fabricate that turd of a fact to claim that "DX10 is too complex for XP implementation".

[Caris]

MS have said there wont be any service packs for vista just updates.

[=NukeBlaze=]

^ When large clients, such as intel's CEO Paul Otellini, claim they are waiting for a service pack before considering implementation, I doubt whatever Microsoft wants to claim on their PR line.

 

Implementation of SPs has been cumbersome for the IT people due to fear of items no longer working, but this is the same for updates. The XP SPs at least served as benchmarks for the 3 levels of XP, original/SP1/SP2. I do not see how they are going to go the "update route", especially because without the SP lands , I imagine it would drive admins crazy keeping track of the hundreds of combinations of upgrades without these marks of stagnation.

 

Regardless, the official word to my knowledge is a VISTA SP later this year early 2008 more likely, with the RUMOR of no SPs at all. Below is a Vista developer blog, which again supports the mentioned SP1 for vista.

 

SP1 is not the rumor currently, it is the lack of one which is.

 

http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2007/04/03/not-a-post-on-sp1.aspx

[Shino]

Jesus Christ, you must eat open source PR for launch.

 

The fact that you only said nonsense, only makes me think that your try was less than 1 minute during boot.

 

The fact that it has updates or SPs only indicates that they keep up, like any other OS, and no, Vista as it is isn't a beta of any sorts. Get over your bias.

 

I don't know why people come this aggressively to EVERY windows, it doesn't make you sound more knowledgeable in front of people that have actually used it.

[=NukeBlaze=]

^high five to you for labeling.

 

The fact that you only said nonsense, only makes me think that your try was less than 1 minute during boot.

 

I have used the beta and the commercial release for more than your assumed "single minute", its XP with a new shell, a purposely forced dx10 upgrade, and more DRM. I am unsure how you can dispute that, other than claiming everything is "nonsense" and leaving it at that.

 

The fact that it has updates or SPs only indicates that they keep up, like any other OS, and no, Vista as it is isn't a beta of any sorts. Get over your bias.

 

Again, let us check on what I said. In the first post, I mentioned I am tried beta testing MS-es, in which I don't wish to deal with anymore. XP and 98 gold are especially notorious in this. The management bungle of vista's development is legendary and known. The second, is where I spoke of updates and how firms are weary to implement the large SPs, which may be some logical justification for the rumor they are dealing away with them, but on the hand I mentioned it may make it worse because of the lack of static levels of an OS. Updates are good, quick updates are better regardless for an system, but the term "revolutionary" is not something that can be ascribed to vista. If you would like to clue me in onto what superior features it has over a new shell and DX10, I welcome the information.

 

I do not care what perception you want to claim on my knowledge or skill, I am not here to try to haughtily demonstrate, but I would like to point out that it is not all rainbows and unicorns with vista.

[Caris]

+ forced DX10 "feature" + No fundamental change of security.

 

This is when i stoped taking notice of you.

[=NukeBlaze=]

^ So your claim is in line with it not being possible to implement DX10 onto XP, as well as the other has significantly changed? If you have questions or arguments on either I would happily discuss them.

 

From some developers I have spoken to, and take John Carmack of ID, all have expressed questions on why DX10 is not compatable for XP

 

John Carmack:"They're artificially doing that by tying DX10 [DirectX 10] so close it, which is really nothing about the OS. It's a hardware-interface spec. It's an artificial thing that they're doing there.

 

"They're really grasping at straws for reasons to upgrade the operating system. I suspect I could run XP for a great many more years without having a problem with it."

 

The features are a nice thing, also can be done on openGL2.0, but what angers me is the artificial reason to get people to upgrade.

 

In addition, another "VISTA" only game, modded to run on XP.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=7833

 

I don't see how you can claim this is not an artificial implementation, but I would like to hear if you want to tell me...Even if you possibly claim a "Paternalistic" green status with not having the time to bother with such a "peasant" whom has information counter to your constructed reality.

 

Honestly, I really don't mind if you take notice, even if you believe it as some sort of insult. This thread is Vista, and here it is. Good or Bad.

[theguyfromspark]

The Vista only games are Vista only because of the Games For Windows thing, which Microsoft wants to keep solely on Vista. This is to promote Vista as a gaming OS in order to encourage more people to upgrade. This probably sucks for those who won't be able to upgrade for a while but that's the nature of business and the nature of PC gaming: Businesses want you to buy the latest stuff right away and in order to play the latest games, you need to upgrade your machine. The fact that Microsoft has done this should come as no surprise.

Most PCs today come with Vista, in a years time you won't be able to buy an XP PC brand new.

The DirectX 10 thing is a separate issue, I'm no hardware expert by any means but there are some articles out there that state that DirectX 10 is intended to be a clean slate of sorts. It uses the new driver model of Vista completely and is therefore incompatible with the XP driver model. As I said, I don't know enough to say whether this is true or not but it sounds plausable anyway. Chances are most people haven't got a DirectX 10 card anyway and those who do fork out for one will probably be fine in upgrading to Vista while they're at it anyway. No Direct10 card? Just play the game in 9 mode. No Vista? Just play the game in 9 mode.

[Cube]

Odd problem: My mouse cursor reverts back to the default one every time windows starts.

[motion]

Is it worth upgrading to this now? I wanted to wait till SP1 came out but I'm not sure I can be arse waiting anymore. In fact SP1 may even be out, I' not sure.

[theguyfromspark]

Is it worth upgrading to this now? I wanted to wait till SP1 came out but I'm not sure I can be arse waiting anymore. In fact SP1 may even be out, I' not sure.

 

SP1 won't be out until early next year, it got delayed because Google wants to override the default search with it's own version (short story). Although, Service Packs in Vista are going to be less important as most of the fixes in them will have already been delivered to end users via windows update, months before. Service Packs in Vista will be viewed as "service milestones" meaning that when SP1 arrives, Vista has reached the next level of stability with most of the major issues patched.

[AeroScap]

It's fine I do reccomend an upgrade, as for myself I am running ultimate on a x600 laptop and it fine! and I plan to have it with my new desktop aswell.

 

The only niggle is just that wow has a problem whilst patching (which involved a "run as xp sp2" option and run as admin) then it was fixed.

 

Plus the fact that I cant right click and unrar "here" have to double click and extract to.

 

No problems after that, runs great on 1gb with wow + media player + internet on my gateway 6640b.

 

A for vistaaaaaa

[Cube]

Plus the fact that I cant right click and unrar "here" have to double click and extract to.

 

I can "Extract here" with Winrar on Vista.

[Shino]

I have used the beta and the commercial release for more than your assumed "single minute", its XP with a new shell, a purposely forced dx10 upgrade, and more DRM. I am unsure how you can dispute that, other than claiming everything is "nonsense" and leaving it at that.

 

It is way more than just a shell, it looks like it, because every OS is an expansion of the previous ones. It's a more efficient, many of its APIs where rebuilt, comes with directx 10 even if you say its forced, and I like DRM as much as the next guy but I don't see anyone complain about it if its in a Mac.

 

 

Again, let us check on what I said. In the first post, I mentioned I am tried beta testing MS-es, in which I don't wish to deal with anymore. XP and 98 gold are especially notorious in this. The management bungle of vista's development is legendary and known.

 

They started it all over just to make it better, I don't see a problem with that.

 

The second, is where I spoke of updates and how firms are weary to implement the large SPs, which may be some logical justification for the rumor they are dealing away with them, but on the hand I mentioned it may make it worse because of the lack of static levels of an OS. Updates are good, quick updates are better regardless for an system, but the term "revolutionary" is not something that can be ascribed to vista.

 

Don't tell me your so naive and can't distinguish Marketing and PR. Every company does this, Apple's "revolutionary" new iPhone, Nintendo's "revolutionary" Wiimote, Sony's "revolutionary" 4D, etc...

 

I do not care what perception you want to claim on my knowledge or skill, I am not here to try to haughtily demonstrate, but I would like to point out that it is not all rainbows and unicorns with vista.

 

I don't assume it is, but it ain't hell either. It's a clear evolution from XP, with the enough updates to make end users like it, but specially its an internal makeover to an ancient structure that can only be noticed by devs.

[AshMat]

WHo gives a shit if there are SPs anyway? It's a lkittle download that happens once, if even that a year.

[Cube]

Anyone got a solution to my cursor switching to default on startup problem?

[That Guy]

It is way more than just a shell, it looks like it, because every OS is an expansion of the previous ones. It's a more efficient, many of its APIs where rebuilt, comes with directx 10 even if you say its forced, and I like DRM as much as the next guy but I don't see anyone complain about it if its in a Mac.

 

 

 

 

They started it all over just to make it better, I don't see a problem with that.

 

 

 

Don't tell me your so naive and can't distinguish Marketing and PR. Every company does this, Apple's "revolutionary" new iPhone, Nintendo's "revolutionary" Wiimote, Sony's "revolutionary" 4D, etc...

 

 

 

I don't assume it is, but it ain't hell either. It's a clear evolution from XP, with the enough updates to make end users like it, but specially its an internal makeover to an ancient structure that can only be noticed by devs.

 

With what I've seen of Vista, I'm tempted to believe you.

[theguyfromspark]

Anyone got a solution to my cursor switching to default on startup problem?

 

What cursor are you trying to set as default? Is it a built in one or one from a third party?

 

If it's third party you may need to install it by right clicking the inf file of the cursor and selecting install.

[Cube]

What cursor are you trying to set as default? Is it a built in one or one from a third party?

 

If it's third party you may need to install it by right clicking the inf file of the cursor and selecting install.

 

I set it up on the cursor settings and "saved as". When it starts up, it loads the default one (but my mouse pointer theme is still selected in the mouse options - I have to apply another theme then re-apply the one I want). And there is no inf file.

[theguyfromspark]

I set it up on the cursor settings and "saved as". When it starts up, it loads the default one (but my mouse pointer theme is still selected in the mouse options - I have to apply another theme then re-apply the one I want). And there is no inf file.

 

After you've selected the theme you want, do you click the "use Default" button, then apply?

[motion]

Can anyone recommend the cheapest place to buy an OEM copy of Windows Design Premium? I'd rather not have to buy it but might as well I guess.

 

Also, difference beween 32 bit and 64 bit? Which is best for graphic design work, and possible 3D modelling and animation.

[=NukeBlaze=]

TheGuyFromSparks:

 

The Vista only games are Vista only because of the Games For Windows thing, which Microsoft wants to keep solely on Vista. This is to promote Vista as a gaming OS in order to encourage more people to upgrade. This probably sucks for those who won't be able to upgrade for a while but that's the nature of business and the nature of PC gaming: Businesses want you to buy the latest stuff right away and in order to play the latest games, you need to upgrade your machine. The fact that Microsoft has done this should come as no surprise.

Most PCs today come with Vista, in a years time you won't be able to buy an XP PC brand new.

The DirectX 10 thing is a separate issue, I'm no hardware expert by any means but there are some articles out there that state that DirectX 10 is intended to be a clean slate of sorts. It uses the new driver model of Vista completely and is therefore incompatible with the XP driver model. As I said, I don't know enough to say whether this is true or not but it sounds plausable anyway. Chances are most people haven't got a DirectX 10 card anyway and those who do fork out for one will probably be fine in upgrading to Vista while they're at it anyway. No Direct10 card? Just play the game in 9 mode. No Vista? Just play the game in 9 mode.

 

The argument of whether it is possible or not to implement DX10 on XP takes root in the manner MS designed its integration into Vista. I know the DX10 implementation is claimed to reduce overhead by design, but I am critical of MS's explanations on items as they are usually weaved with half truths and business, and the addition of complete void of MS attempt at XP compatibility with DX10. Locking DX9 games from XP is another thing...

 

As I mentioned a developer has mentioned

John Carmack:

They're artificially doing that by tying DX10 [DirectX 10] so close to it, which is really nothing about the OS. It's a hardware-interface spec. It's an artificial thing that they're doing there.

 

I do not dispute that there ARE technical reasons which cause integration issues, I dispute weither these reasons are artificially created to attempt to differentiate a product, as you mentioned "business".

Here is another developer from Falling Leaf systems. They are developing a DX10 layer for XP and comment on whether dx10 is feasible on XP:

 

Falling Leaf:

 

Microsoft is telling the truth, that doing straight DX10 on XP isn't feasible -- the way they implemented it. To implement DX10 functionality standalone (e.g. talking directly to the driver layer) required redesigning large parts of the system, due to DX not being extensible at all. However, we sit purely on top of OpenGL, which already supports all of the functionality in DX10. This way, we can use existing APIs and not have to worry about a new driver layer.

 

If you want a developer outlook, I frequent Beyond3d and view their material. Here are some nice past reads of mine which give it from a dev standpoint. Not every poster is a dev, but the density of dev/posters there is quite high compared to many other places on the interblarg. The staff are also quite good.

 

http://www.beyond3d.com/content/articles/55

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=41148

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=41991

 

The first link is on of the best, opting that becuse of lack of MS help

In addition, you mentioned that "Vista only" business program for "vista games", and of course "DX9" backwards compatibility for windows XP. Here is the issue, they are INTENTIONALLY locking DX9 games from XP in this program. Shadowrun is an example of a "games for Vista", as it is DX9 and requires 3-party "unlocking" to run on XP.

 

So, let me roll back to a state of "neutrality" on the DX10 issue for the sake of discussion. It can be debated that its implantation is for function, but it could also be that it was done in a way which decreases overhead and cuts off support for previous implementations for OS sales reasons. I just hope OpenGL stays in devs minds.

 

Shino:

Don't tell me your so naive and can't distinguish Marketing and PR. Every company does this, Apple's "revolutionary" new iPhone, Nintendo's "revolutionary" Wiimote, Sony's "revolutionary" 4D, etc...

 

Marketing, PR, its an "a = b = crap", its algebra symmetry. I am aware that it exists, but that does not mean I like the notion that it exists as it typically a face value obscuring for the average Joe.