Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: achtung on March 13, 2007, 09:44:16 pm
-
Question is, should I install it? :)
-
NO!!!!!!!
-
no
-
Well, so far everyone seems to be leaning toward what I was already feeling.
-
(http://www.aqsx85.dsl.pipex.com/darthpink.jpg)
Noooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!
-
yes. vista is better than xp.
-
Personally, I plan to hang on, new Microsoft releases are always quirky for the first 12 months or so, and I'm certainly not going to consider it as my main OS until OpenGL gets sorted by ATI and NVidia.
-
I agree with Flipside. Vista will doubtless be 'necessary' at some point, but for the first year of life MS products tend to barf rather a lot. Afterward they tend to settle down.
I've already installed Vista on my machine, but it's a dual-boot setup and I dont actually use Vista yet. It's just there and working in case I ever need it. Also, the XP and Vista partitions are both imaged to DVD, so I can get everything back to a clean, working install on my RAID array without any hassle...
Leave Vista for a year, then set it up with dual boot.
-
Meh. Ive yet to encounter an issue with Vista. All of the naysayers havent even used it. (Except Descenter there.)
Vista is muuuuuch better than XP. But eeew microsoft evil bad </tard>.
-
I say no. Unless it's Vista Ultimate Edition. If so, then yes, as a second partition/second drive. Ultimate is likely to get the best customer support, as you've paid quite a bit for it.
-
...Do the same thing I did when XP came out... dual-boot it. (You can't lose.) If you need an excellent free partition manager to create / move / resize your NTFS partitions, let me know, I can't remember the link just now, but I think it's called gparted.
-
...Do the same thing I did when XP came out... dual-boot it. (You can't lose.) If you need an excellent free partition manager to create / move / resize your NTFS partitions, let me know, I can't remember the link just now, but I think it's called gparted.
My impression was that Vista had steps in it to prevent dual booting or virtualisation. In any case, I wouldn't install it until Vista drivers have significantly matured.
NB: taris - didn't you say you had a problem with either Max or Photoshop in Vista?
-
Virtual PC 2004 was upgraded to 2007 for the explicit purpose of allowing the virtualization of Vista, among other things.
As far as preventing dual booting, I don't think it would get very far... you'd just need a halfway decent boot manager.. Vista could detect other OSes on the other partitions, but I think there would be quite an uproar over that.
-
I'd say a big
N-O, sir!
Wait until SP1 comes out; then you should install and update your system.
-
NB: taris - didn't you say you had a problem with either Max or Photoshop in Vista?
Only issue I have is having a non-standard video card that isnt completely compatable with ATi's drivers. Photoshop works perfect. Max 8 works perfect. Max 9 doesnt like the video driver, but if I revert to an older set, it works, too.
-
The reading I've been doing seems to indicate that its getting better and fairly quickly. nVidia and ATI should have the OpenGL thing sorted soon...some nVidia beta drivers are pulling in some good numbers in Vista. Especially if the hardware is newer. I'm willing to bet there is a sweet spot where anywhere above that point (in terms of hardware) the performance will benefit with Vista...below that point and it will run slower.
-
As with all Windows OS's, the newer version is, in fact, slower than the older version. It has been true from all versions of DOS to Windows Vista itself. The new operating system is meant to take advantage of the newer and faster hardware. You will probably notice a 10%-20% decrease in video performance, at least until SP1 for Vista comes out. Other than that, if you have a modern processor, the OS should run just as smoothly as WinXP. Also, Vista follows the normal rule for recent Windows OS's; "If you give a man a fish, he will eat for a day", though this also applies to Vista; "If you give Vista a lot of RAM, it will use all it can". You have to feed the beast called Vista and the memory-hungry issues if you want anything for good performance.
-
Well, all I'll say is this, if I'm wrong then I'm wrong, Microsoft are getting nothing more than self-earned outcome of selling me Windows XP 2 weeks after it was released. I'm never going to allow Microsoft products that haven't had at least a year of security testing on my computer again.
I'm really glad that it's working out for those of you that have it, but Microsoft are going to have to earn my money this time.
-
As with all Windows OS's, the newer version is, in fact, slower than the older version. It has been true from all versions of DOS to Windows Vista itself. The new operating system is meant to take advantage of the newer and faster hardware. You will probably notice a 10%-20% decrease in video performance, at least until SP1 for Vista comes out. Other than that, if you have a modern processor, the OS should run just as smoothly as WinXP. Also, Vista follows the normal rule for recent Windows OS's; "If you give a man a fish, he will eat for a day", though this also applies to Vista; "If you give Vista a lot of RAM, it will use all it can". You have to feed the beast called Vista and the memory-hungry issues if you want anything for good performance.
Actually...when Windows XP came out performance was usually in favour of WinXP over Win98 and definitely over WinME. As far as the consumer level OS was going...XP was an improvement across the board.
Vista hasn't been as clear cut so far but many of the problems tend to be with drivers. Some of the memory issues I had with it early on are apparently the result of aggressive caching on a 2GB system (which is what I've been using as a test platform at work for some software deployment and support) so I have less of an issue with that than before. I do have to say that the interface is quite a bit snappier in responding...far better than any previous Windows OS. More on the lines of my experiences with Linux.
-
Meh... the price sux
unless you torrent a local activation server.
-
Microsoft has been releasing Application compatibility patches. We've had 2 already and it's made a big difference. And OpenGL is working well enough for me.
-
I'd wait...no programs require it yet.
Seems kind of expensive anyhow...even though I DO have access to a free copy if need be.
My friend is a CompSci major and he gets a free copy...he and some other guy managed to crack the protection on it the other day.
-
Me wants!!
-
Re: Vista memory usage:
What's the point of having 2GB of RAM if it's mostly unused and the OS swaps stuff to disk heavily? Point is that RAM should be consumed before the OS even begins to swap to disk; WinXP doesn't understand this and typically starts swapping after about 100MB of user apps are in memory. Even on a 2GB system.
Yes, the Vista OS itself is rather bloated and the system caches are very large, but I don't see this as much of a problem. Games are probably going to start demanding 3 or 4GB of main RAM in the next year or two, Vista regardless.
Large system caches mean less disk access, which unless you have a RAID setup with the mother of all onboard caches, is widening a serious bottleneck in the PC architecture.
I'm not sure what gives the greater performance boost: aggressive caching or reduced swapping. With a sensible algorithm for determining the memory pages to swap, it is very possible that Vista could support more memory-intensive apps at once than XP ever could, with no performance decrease.
After all, how many apps besides games (and server apps, but that's not the topic) are actually going to push memory consumption above a gigabyte? I'd rather require 2GB to support a system that's using all of it than require 2GB because the OS is wasting most of it.
-
Currently running Vista Ultimate as my primary OS and it has 0 problems. Runs everything great. I never use the flip 3d because im so used to Alt Tabing and not Windows Key Tabing. Some good noticible features would be Windows volume controls on a per-program basis, its as stable if not more stable than XP Pro, and other things i cant think of off the top of my head right now. My system is 2.4ghz Core 2 Duo, 2GB Ram, 8800GTX, nforce 680i.
-
Well, all I'll say is this, if I'm wrong then I'm wrong, Microsoft are getting nothing more than self-earned outcome of selling me Windows XP 2 weeks after it was released. I'm never going to allow Microsoft products that haven't had at least a year of security testing on my computer again.
what's really ironic about this post is that vista has far more security features than xp does.
I think most of the problems with vista are related to drivers. Look at the pain that causes. When i see people who want microsoft to totally design a whole new system that completely replaced the user interface and everything under the hood, you think... even a slight bump to NT 6.0 causes this much strife....
-
It doesn't matter if it does. As I said, I'm glad for those who are happy with it, but after my last experience with a Microsoft OS, I'm giving it time before I'm installing. After all, XP was advertised as being 'far more secure' than Windows 98...
-
well, that's a good point, but I would argue that microsoft didn't really understand security in August 2001. I think that's definately changed.
-
Heh, I know I'll have to go over at some point, I don't really mind, I've been a Windows user most of my PC-life. I'm not a Microsoft hater or anything, but I guess I am just a little over cautious after last time ;)
-
[spooky voice] DRMMMMMMMM....[/spooky voice]
-
Um, UT, you should educate yourself about that. Vista doesn't affect media that doesn't use DRM, and it doesn't add DRM to any files, so it's really only there for those poor fools that have to use DRM.
-
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/12/28/vista_drm_analysis/ ?
"Nevertheless, Gutmann calls Vista multimedia DRM the "longest suicide note in history"..."
-
You should be aware that this wasn't something that Microsoft wanted to do - The MPAA and RIAA wanted this. It was either this or not have Vista be able to play back HD-DVD and Blu-Ray out of the box. OS X will have similar measures in Leopard. It's the Movie companies that are enforcing this stuff. I say write to congress if you don't like it, not blame M$.
It's really stupid since both HD-DVD and Blu-Ray have already been cracked and people will just share torrents of the cracked non-DRM versions for the technically savvy.
-
Currently running Vista Ultimate as my primary OS and it has 0 problems. Runs everything great. I never use the flip 3d because im so used to Alt Tabing and not Windows Key Tabing. Some good noticible features would be Windows volume controls on a per-program basis, its as stable if not more stable than XP Pro, and other things i cant think of off the top of my head right now. My system is 2.4ghz Core 2 Duo, 2GB Ram, 8800GTX, nforce 680i.
Right now I'm running Kubuntu Feisty as my primary OS and it has 0 problems.... that doesn't mean I'd reccomend it for average joe.
-
yum update Mars
Setting up repositories...
setting up update process..
no packages found. nothing to do.
[root@localhost]$
-
One thing confuses me about DRM, the fact is that most Pirated movies are converted to a different format before they hit the torrents anyway, they aren't put up as ISOs. With the increase in Internet speed, even HD movies are not going to be beyond the reach of most users.
So, if someone, say, copies the movie on Windows XP, and puts it up for download as an .AVI file, would the DRM protection still apply when it plays in Vista?
If it doesn't then the only people Hollywood are punishing are those who actually paid for their movies, and they are actually giving an advantage to those who don't.
-
no, no it wouldn't. That's why it's so stupid. It only applies if the system detects the file contains a DRM scheme. Then the protected video path is turned on so you can't copy it.
-
And guess what would include a DRM scheme? All of the records and movies that are going to be coming out.
-
Yes, but from what I understand, that DRM scheme is coded onto the Blue-Ray itself, not the movie, else they would be able to use the same technology for CD and DVD based movies? If that's the case, as long as you can find a way to get the movie off of the HD-DVD or Blue Ray without making an ISO the DRM is effectively removed?
-
yes, like I said, both formats have already been reverse-engineered and cracked, so you can extract the movie without the DRM.
But will Joe Blow know how to do that ? No.
-
I will get Vista when some program requires it or benefits from it, most probably a DX10 game when those start coming out. At the moment, it wouldn't be an upgrade at all, as I have no use for its features and it's not any better than XP with running my existing programs.
-
So basically, you all dont want to upgrade to Vista because XP had more security holes than cheese when it came out, and you still want to crack DVDs that may have DRM protection. You know that regardless of how much security protection they put on the disc, and even if its uncrackable (just for the sake of discussion) it still has to be shown to you as a raw movie and thats where you copy it, if it gets down to that.
-
When the DRM means that I cannot watch movies I have paid for at the quality I paid for in my own room, I'm quite willing to Pirate in order to get my moneys' worth.
And XP's security holes that effected me were mostly Network exploits, oh, and Spyware/Pop-ups. Thank God for Firefox else things may have been a lot worse.
-
Actually...when Windows XP came out performance was usually in favour of WinXP over Win98 and definitely over WinME. As far as the consumer level OS was going...XP was an improvement across the board.
No way - remember that, at the time XP came out, the majority of machines were equipped with 128 - 256MB of RAM, and by comparison XP ran like a dog compared to the rather svelte memory footprint of 98. It was the Vista of its day.
-
... hook up DVI - out from one computer's graphics card to DVI - in on second computer's capture card. ::) Although I think they are trying to make a way to stop that, too.
-
Re: Vista memory usage:
What's the point of having 2GB of RAM if it's mostly unused and the OS swaps stuff to disk heavily? Point is that RAM should be consumed before the OS even begins to swap to disk; WinXP doesn't understand this and typically starts swapping after about 100MB of user apps are in memory. Even on a 2GB system.
You can turn off your pagefile or set a permanent swapfile on either your C: drive or a partition. If I had 2GB of RAM, I'd probably turn off pagefile.
-
(http://www.aqsx85.dsl.pipex.com/darthpink.jpg)
Noooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!
"Luke. I am... YOUR MOTHER!"
-
:lol: Scary isn't it.
Problem is, it's actually probably more appropriate after the image of Anakin given in the first 3 movies ;) All he needs is a Light-Sabre with a rattle in the handle ;)
-
Well... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgPsrG4TZVc
-
:lol:
'Use the instrument Panel Luke, that's what it's there for'
-
You never saw the entire ThumbWars?
-
Nope, that Meme passed me by. I'll have to go catch up ;)
-
You can turn off your pagefile or set a permanent swapfile on either your C: drive or a partition. If I had 2GB of RAM, I'd probably turn off pagefile.
I wouldn't turn it off... I use XP with 1-2 GB of RAM on my systems, and some apps just have to have virtual memory, IIRC, or they misbehave. Although, I think you could safely set a permanent, fixed-size 512 MB swap file, preferably on a separate partition.
-
Well... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgPsrG4TZVc
ROFL
*goes to find full torrent*
-
You should be aware that this wasn't something that Microsoft wanted to do - The MPAA and RIAA wanted this. It was either this or not have Vista be able to play back HD-DVD and Blu-Ray out of the box. OS X will have similar measures in Leopard. It's the Movie companies that are enforcing this stuff. I say write to congress if you don't like it, not blame M$.
Bull****. Microsoft wasn't 'forced' to do anything. If they'd told Hollywood where to shove their DRM, there wouldn't be much protected content being sold but Vista would still sell. Probably better. Movie sales would've been hit, not Vista sales.
Same goes for the hardware vendors. Implementing this horrific, pointless DRM scheme cost them a lot, slows down their products, and costs the customer more. There's nothing in this for the vendors. All they had to do was tell MS and Hollywood where to shove it, and suddenly Vista would be unable to play protected content properly on any computer. Rendering the whole scheme doubly pointless. Again, sales of graphics cards and stuff would be just as high, but it'd be HD movie sales that got hit by it.
Yes, dedicated entertainment centers would be able to play protected content, but Media Center computers are becomng more popular. Given the fact that HD is mostly a gimmick, I can't see people being turned off a machine that'll play DVDs, etc just because it won't play the overpriced crap Hollywood has decided to foist upon us just because, come to think of it, people really are gullible enough to buy what they already have if the next version has a few unnoticeable tweaks that the salesman swears blind are there, honest, even if they're not visible.
That last sentence didn't do a whole lot for my point, did it...
-
Blu-ray vs HD-DVD... makes me wish that 50-layer DVD technology would come out soon... It'd be even better with a blue laser, of course.
-
The average consumer is going to ignore Blu-Ray and HD DVD until they've duked it out sufficently... one goes the way of BetaMax and the other the way of VHS (just like DivX and DVD).
-
You should be aware that this wasn't something that Microsoft wanted to do - The MPAA and RIAA wanted this. It was either this or not have Vista be able to play back HD-DVD and Blu-Ray out of the box. OS X will have similar measures in Leopard. It's the Movie companies that are enforcing this stuff. I say write to congress if you don't like it, not blame M$.
Bull****. Microsoft wasn't 'forced' to do anything. If they'd told Hollywood where to shove their DRM, there wouldn't be much protected content being sold but Vista would still sell. Probably better. Movie sales would've been hit, not Vista sales.
Same goes for the hardware vendors. Implementing this horrific, pointless DRM scheme cost them a lot, slows down their products, and costs the customer more. There's nothing in this for the vendors. All they had to do was tell MS and Hollywood where to shove it, and suddenly Vista would be unable to play protected content properly on any computer. Rendering the whole scheme doubly pointless. Again, sales of graphics cards and stuff would be just as high, but it'd be HD movie sales that got hit by it.
Yes, dedicated entertainment centers would be able to play protected content, but Media Center computers are becomng more popular. Given the fact that HD is mostly a gimmick, I can't see people being turned off a machine that'll play DVDs, etc just because it won't play the overpriced crap Hollywood has decided to foist upon us just because, come to think of it, people really are gullible enough to buy what they already have if the next version has a few unnoticeable tweaks that the salesman swears blind are there, honest, even if they're not visible.
That last sentence didn't do a whole lot for my point, did it...
Microsoft is a near-monopoly. If they don't bow to political pressures (read : RIAA and MPAA lobbying groups) then they'll find themselves being questioned and possibly broken up by the government. (It almost happened, but bush came into power and they lucked out)
Your suggestion of what Microsoft should have done (crippled an entire format they're behind themselves) shows how ignorant your viewpoint is.
-
(just like DivX and DVD).
Not quite... DivX is nowhere near disappearing... in fact, more and more DVD players are being built to support playback of DivX movies.
-
He's thinking of the OTHER DivX, with disposable discs and all. Consumers decided they didn't want that bull**** =)
And there's no way even Microsoft can dictate to MPAA even if they weren't a monopoly. There are a lot of Windows machines, and many copies of Windows Vista will be sold. But think about how many DVD players there are. MPAA simply has more than a little bit extra leverage over MS in this regard.
-
(http://www.aqsx85.dsl.pipex.com/darthpink.jpg)
Noooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!
yes!
(but no to Vista)
-
(http://www.aqsx85.dsl.pipex.com/darthpink.jpg)
Noooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!
I think I partly died, thanks, I really need that :eek:
-
Meh. Ive yet to encounter an issue with Vista. All of the naysayers havent even used it. (Except Descenter there.)
Vista is muuuuuch better than XP. But eeew microsoft evil bad </tard>.
In-****ing-deed.