Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Solatar on January 12, 2009, 06:48:39 pm
-
So, I know after Vista not everyone on this forum will probably jump for the next version of Micro$oft's OS.
With that in mind, has anybody downloaded and played around with it? It's actually a lot faster than I expected it to run, but I've never had Vista installed on this laptop to make a true comparison. Installation (I installed it with the DVD .iso from a virtual drive) went flawlessly, quite unexpectedly.
While it's not going to replace my Kubuntu partition anytime soon, it could replace my main Windows partition (which is running XP). Anybody else around here tried it?
-
Well at least one person has and not with good results: http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,60366.0.html
-
To be honest I, like many others, am not very keen on purchasing the next iteration of Windows. For me, XP was the absolute peak of what Microsoft could accomplish. Sure, it was buggy at first, but subsequent patches solved that those issues and turned the operating system into a product that was thankfully free of the myriad of problems with Windows ME. Vista's unreasonable content-restriction features were a real turn-off for me, and in my mind installing such features for the sake of the protection of intellectual property--given how flawed our concept of IP is--is insufficiently demanding on the patience of end users and generates results which are, at best, unreliable, and at worst nonexistent.
On top of that, Vista didn't offer anything new. Sure, there was DirectX 10, but given how huge the compatibility issues have been for quite a lot of games even that bonus is dubious. It offered a shiny new interface, but for the non-geek userbase--I.E., regular people whose knowledge of computers is limited to typing and pointing and clicking--there is nothing. New. It's got a shiny new interface, but at the end of the day it feels like XP bogged down by antipiracy firmware and the stability of a two-legged dog on stilts.
I am not anticipating Windows 7 to be any better.
Sigh. It's Sh!t like this that makes me want to switch to a Linux distro and just run everything I have with Wine.
-
I have tried it both on my laptop and on my desktop computer. I was actually surprised there were drivers available for my laptop's graphic's card, since ATI hasn't changed their policy of not releasing drivers for the Xx00 and X1x00 mobility series.
Apart from minor issues which can be explained with incompatible programs, I'm actually liking it. The new taskbard is a joy to use and the rest of the interface feels really easy and intuitive to use.
-
http://xkcd.com/528/
-
Windows 7 is what Vista was supposed to be. And I didn't find Vista to be horrible like people make it seem anyway.
-
The UI improvements are great. I love the new taskbar. I don't know whether I can justify the money for the upgrade so soon after Vista, but it's definitely a step forward. I'm sure people will be happy to find that UAC is adjustable now, too.
It offered a shiny new interface, but for the non-geek userbase--I.E., regular people whose knowledge of computers is limited to typing and pointing and clicking--there is nothing. New. It's got a shiny new interface, but at the end of the day it feels like XP bogged down by antipiracy firmware and the stability of a two-legged dog on stilts.
I've found Vista to be more stable and more secure than XP ever was. And the compatibility issues were massively overblown. I never had a problem with it. Vista certainly did offer new things, but unfortunately almost all of them were under the hood and that caused the majority of people to dismiss it as a prettier XP with more pop-ups.
I've got to agree with what Fenrir said above me - Windows 7 is effectively the UI half of the update that began with Vista. Which is ridiculous, but for the people who never bought Vista this will absolutely be a worthwhile upgrade.
-
I've been using it. They changed enough to really annoy me. Some of the new features are nice though, but not all of them. I'm a little surprised by transparency when full-screen.
-
I've given up telling people how my experiences with Vista on three machines now have been overall great experiences. I appreciate the new features under the hood more than most, I like the search capabilities, I like the graphical upgrades (why should my OS look like shiite when the game I was just playing has a far sharper UI?), I even like the added security.
I never ran into a content restriction issue with anything. At all. Ever. I don't do everything so maybe I haven't pushed the limits of that sort of thing but for all of the fear that never really caused me any issues. Vista has been much more solid (touch wood) than my previous experiences with XP SP2. XP is a fine OS...it served me well...but I wanted to move up. Soon as I built a new machine it was Vista Home Premium and I haven't looked back.
Win 7 looks like a fine upgrade but I'm not going to rush out either. What I am hoping for is the general public to go....ok ...Vista had issues but 7 looks good so lets go with that. Also it allows both the hardware vendors and Microsoft themselves to not punch themselves in the face by offering Vista on a bare bones system that could only do XP adequately and couldn't handle Vista (which admittedly has higher requirements - there's a break even point on that). So hopefully 7 gets a better reception...and I can stop walking into offices running old clunkers like Win 98 and Win 2000. Win 2000 is fine if your a programmer....actually no...use Linux instead at that point.
-
I'd like to second IceFire's comment
I upgraded to Vista on the desktop when I got laptop with Vista preloaded (Dell).
The networking was much smoother than it was under XP.
I haven't hit a single problem with the content restriction stuff, and I do try to push limits sometimes
UAC can be annoying, but I like knowing when I'm about to run something that needs superuser privileges (and I'm a bit confused about why VPView always needs them) - you don't need superuser privileges to write into the registry (I've got a number of MFC applications I've written that write data in there, and I never get hit with UAC)
The under the hood changes to Vista also seemed to help things. Some applications actually ran slightly faster.
There're also some new commands in the prompt (e.g. ls, cat, grep)
Overall, I like it.
-
the only thing I found to be noticeably better in Vista over XP is how it handles networking.
-
From what I've seen, Vista got the same treatment that FireFox 3 got. Both had compatibility issues upon release and so some people ran back to the previous versions and swore in their wrath that they'd never upgrade. Then the problems were patched over time and the problems are largely solved. But good luck telling 'em that and not hearing the same thing said a year or two back.
-
I was wary of Vista as I saw a lot of people around me have problems (and molasses computers) with it. For me buying Windows 7 upon release wouldn't be that bad as I haven't bought an operating system since XP came out.
For those who sprung for Vista it's awful soon for them to ask them to spend more money to basically get what Vista should have been when they first released it.
-
All I can go on is my brother's experiences with Vista, since his new laptop came with Home Premium preloaded, and according to him, there have been all sorts of little..."quirks" he's had happen to him (and not in the good sense of the word). Certain little tidbits randomly stop working and then work fine the next day, desktop icons disappear and reappear, the UI does little funny things...I don't think he hates it outright, but I'm sure he'd go back to XP in an instant given half the chance. I used it for a bit myself, and lord help me if that UAC didn't drive me half-mad within minutes. I don't really give a damn if it's a more secure setup, or if it represents more of a Unix paradigm about security...it's one more unnecessary step (and sometimes an additional one beyond that) in the way of completing tasks I'd be performing multiple times per day. I'm not a drooling idiot; I don't need the OS to hand-hold me through whether or not I want to run a particular program. I want to be able to click on something and make it happen without having to jump through hoops. And while I'm aware that one can turn the function off, it seemed to me that doing so made that incessantly-annoying Windows Security icon pop up in the taskbar, which would utterly kill its usefulness of informing me when there's something I should actually be concerned about.
As for Windows 7...who knows. I'm certainly encouraged by early reports about it, but I don't know that the machine I'm on could handle it comfortably even with the upgrades I have planned for it. If I ever build some sort of uber-machine, maybe I'd consider dual-booting it with XP.
-
I am still on XP on my main machine, mainly because there was never any compelling reason to switch. Vista works well enough from what I've seen, but so does XP. DirectX 10 was supposed to be the main draw from a gamer's point of view, but that has been quite a flop, and by the time I customize Vista to my liking, the interface, features and performance will be similar to what I currently get anyway, although I do like Aero's use of vsync.
64-bit support will be the main reason for me to upgrade at some point, but the 64-bit version of Vista has extra issues that aren't in the 32-bit one, and those are likely to persist in Windows 7.
There is also one reason for me not to switch. The Yamaha SYXG50 virtual midi driver I use probably will not work on Vista or 7, which means I would get distinctly lower quality music in a few old games that use midi tracks (notably Descent 2/D2X-XL).
-
As I mentioned in the "Whatever happens..." thread, the only reason I was unhappy with Vista to start with was because it decreased my performance. Other than that, I've had little trouble with it. Well, I did disable UAC because it was getting on my nerves at the time, (maybe I should turn it back on) and it's annoying that some old games can't run on it. :(
I wonder what the official name of Windows 7 will be. Brings up a nice quote from Computer Stupidities (http://www.rinkworks.com/stupid), though.
Except you have Windows version 7 there, eh? I only have Windows version 6.
-
Windows 7 IS the official name for it...
-
I like how people complain about over-security issues with Vista. Turn the damn option off. Problem solved.
-
I've been using Vista x64 for a couple of weeks now and I have no complaints so far. Although, Word 2007 is really confusing. I'm glad it was just a trial version bundled with the laptop 'cause I had to get rid of it and put 2003 on.
-
Word 2007 is really confusing. I'm glad it was just a trial version bundled with the laptop 'cause I had to get rid of it and put 2003 on.
yep, wanted to SAVE a document on someone elses computer... had to figure out where the save button was first... took a minute or two. :blah:
-
As for Windows 7...who knows. I'm certainly encouraged by early reports about it, but I don't know that the machine I'm on could handle it comfortably even with the upgrades I have planned for it. If I ever build some sort of uber-machine, maybe I'd consider dual-booting it with XP.
Windows 7 performance is very close to XP. They've optimised the hell out of it since Vista. I installed it on my laptop which sits at nearly exactly the minimum system requirements and the performance is basically the same as it was with XP.
-
Word 2007 is really confusing. I'm glad it was just a trial version bundled with the laptop 'cause I had to get rid of it and put 2003 on.
yep, wanted to SAVE a document on someone elses computer... had to figure out where the save button was first... took a minute or two. :blah:
Man.... Do I know how that feels like
I still don't like the bloody program, it's good for people who've never seen a computer before in their life, but why not stick with what works?
-
I still use OfficeXP/Office2003
-
I've been using Vista x64 for a couple of weeks now and I have no complaints so far. Although, Word 2007 is really confusing. I'm glad it was just a trial version bundled with the laptop 'cause I had to get rid of it and put 2003 on.
I've actually found the Ribbon to be a pretty solid improvement once I got the hang of it. But I hardly use Word for word processing any more.
-
I really dislike the ribbon. I've been using Word since Office '97, and I think '03 is still the pinnacle of what they can do. All I have to figure out is how to disable that damn help bar--it's not needed for Word or Excel, though it's necessary for Powerpoint.
-
What about open office. :D
-
This actually sounds interesting. Thanks for bringing Windows 7 up.
I found an article that describes a peculiar behavior of the operating system: http://www.infoworld.com/article/08/10/28/44TC-windows-7_2.html
Microsoft says they have incorporated some amount of self-healing in the operating system in case of memory corruption and violation.
Mika
-
I've been using Vista x64 for a couple of weeks now and I have no complaints so far. Although, Word 2007 is really confusing. I'm glad it was just a trial version bundled with the laptop 'cause I had to get rid of it and put 2003 on.
I've actually found the Ribbon to be a pretty solid improvement once I got the hang of it. But I hardly use Word for word processing any more.
Nevermind solid...its absolutely incredible. Its not going to gain much reception for now because lots of folks are trained on the old way of doing things but with Office 2007 they finally had a proper UI team give it a work over. Its a much smarter system, it does things faster, and once you've relearned its an overall better experience in my opinion.
But Office 2000 will still be around for a long time.
I will say one thing about Office and Windows and upgrading. Particularly with Windows I would only consider upgrading when you have a new system. I got Vista when I built my latest machine. I would never have, and would have had a bad experience, with my older machine almost certainly. Next time I build a computer...I'll put Windows 7 on it (in a few years).
-
2 days and 13 hours download. :hopping:
My internet connection speed can do +200 Kps not 11Kps
-
have they actually brought opengl properly back in, instead of wrapping it in a nice dose of direxctx like in vista?
-
I'll get Win7 as soon they release service pack 2 for it. Not earlier. :p
-
have they actually brought opengl properly back in, instead of wrapping it in a nice dose of direxctx like in vista?
That was never the case. So long as your video card driver provided a full OpenGL implementation it isn't a problem.
-
I've been using Vista x64 for a couple of weeks now and I have no complaints so far. Although, Word 2007 is really confusing. I'm glad it was just a trial version bundled with the laptop 'cause I had to get rid of it and put 2003 on.
I've actually found the Ribbon to be a pretty solid improvement once I got the hang of it. But I hardly use Word for word processing any more.
Nevermind solid...its absolutely incredible. Its not going to gain much reception for now because lots of folks are trained on the old way of doing things but with Office 2007 they finally had a proper UI team give it a work over. Its a much smarter system, it does things faster, and once you've relearned its an overall better experience in my opinion.
Really? I have to disagree.
I found that having editing functions located under the 'edit' drop-down tab of the toolbar was far better than having editing functions located in the 'review' tab of the ribbon. Likewise with how everything seems to be made 'wizard-ized' rather than 'let me freaking do it-ized'.
That's just me, though.
-
have they actually brought opengl properly back in, instead of wrapping it in a nice dose of direxctx like in vista?
That was never the case. So long as your video card driver provided a full OpenGL implementation it isn't a problem.
i've gotten down to 50% less performance from opengl with the same revision of drivers on vista as on xp. dx9 performance went down around 10-15%. nvidia 9600gt. explain if possible :p
-
i've gotten down to 50% less performance from opengl with the same revision of drivers on vista as on xp. dx9 performance went down around 10-15%. nvidia 9600gt. explain if possible :p
Are you able to provide how you got these numbers? Knowing which application produced the numbers may help figure out why your performance is so bad.
-
Windows XP was bloated, but I've heard worse about Vista.
After hearing at least two people whining that Vista looks and behaves like Mac OS X, I've linked the word "Vista" to the phrase "NO, YOU FABRIC!"
-
i've gotten down to 50% less performance from opengl with the same revision of drivers on vista as on xp. dx9 performance went down around 10-15%. nvidia 9600gt. explain if possible :p
Are you able to provide how you got these numbers? Knowing which application produced the numbers may help figure out why your performance is so bad.
fs2 and c4d mainly. :p as for dx apps.. well, any dx9 game obviously.
trust me, i'm not stupid when it comes to these things, fact is that opengl is much, much worse off on Vista than it was on XP.
-
I've been using Vista x64 for a couple of weeks now and I have no complaints so far. Although, Word 2007 is really confusing. I'm glad it was just a trial version bundled with the laptop 'cause I had to get rid of it and put 2003 on.
I've actually found the Ribbon to be a pretty solid improvement once I got the hang of it. But I hardly use Word for word processing any more.
Nevermind solid...its absolutely incredible. Its not going to gain much reception for now because lots of folks are trained on the old way of doing things but with Office 2007 they finally had a proper UI team give it a work over. Its a much smarter system, it does things faster, and once you've relearned its an overall better experience in my opinion.
Really? I have to disagree.
I found that having editing functions located under the 'edit' drop-down tab of the toolbar was far better than having editing functions located in the 'review' tab of the ribbon. Likewise with how everything seems to be made 'wizard-ized' rather than 'let me freaking do it-ized'.
That's just me, though.
See but everything is under Edit. Edit is huge. Alright thats a bit of an exaggeration...but Edit and Format for instance are a huge general grouping. And yet although yes they are all "Edit" functions not all of them are the same or even related. The Ribbon setup is more like Dreamweaver where like items are grouped together on the appropriate tab. Yes it takes 30 minutes of use to get used to the new setup but once you know where things are I find I'm making far fewer clicks....if I'm working on a task (like editing templates for PowerPoint) then the related items to that task are probably on the tab I'm already on.
Plus with the structure of it already being on the screen I don't have to click 'Edit', move the cursor to the category, move down to the item on that submenu, and then click again. Instead I just click what I want. Maybe with one submenu. So the ribbon setup means fewer clicks and much less moving. Its a huge UI improvement on both the usability (mouse movement, accuracy, and targeting) and the speed front (time saved by not having to click or be as precise with mouse movements).
I can understand people being reticent to change and I can understand people perhaps not liking the grouping (I'd like the next version of Office to have a grouping function) but the design itself I think is great. The biggest problem is the added screen space taken up by the ribbon versus the toolbar (which I think is 30 pixels versus something like 90 or 100 pixels for ribbon). I consider that an issue but not a huge one in the realm of large high res displays.
-
have they actually brought opengl properly back in, instead of wrapping it in a nice dose of direxctx like in vista?
That was never the case. So long as your video card driver provided a full OpenGL implementation it isn't a problem.
i've gotten down to 50% less performance from opengl with the same revision of drivers on vista as on xp. dx9 performance went down around 10-15%. nvidia 9600gt. explain if possible :p
Don't use the same driver...use whatever the best is for the OS...
As for 50% less performance ...something is wrong.
Here's some benchmarks from IL-2 for Windows XP and Windows 7 (I couldn't quickly find a Vista comparison but the numbers are essentially the same): http://gozr.net/iocl/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=176
IL-2 is a very intense OpenGL application but it also completely stresses the system its running on because its a very heavy CPU and RAM user as well in doing all of the physics and AI calculations. As you can see from the numbers posted there...very little difference. About 3 fps average difference between XP and 7 on the same system. With Vista SP1 with mature non-beta drivers the performance is the same.
-
On a similar note, can someone explain to me what the point of the .docx format is, other than being a pain in everyone's ass?
-
On a similar note, can someone explain to me what the point of the .docx format is, other than being a pain in everyone's ass?
To make sure everyone is running a "genuine" OS.
-
other than being a pain in everyone's ass?
QFT
-
On a similar note, can someone explain to me what the point of the .docx format is, other than being a pain in everyone's ass?
Well they moved from completely proprietary encoded bull**** to XML proprietary bull**** :)
Also I think the old .doc (and related files) were built within a certain set of limitations (for instance old Excel documents could only be a certain length before it would ...stop). So they made new ones with new specs that didn't have the old limits. Its not a completely bad idea either...different versions of Office, despite having "compatible" file formats weren't always 100% compatible. Between Office 97 and Office 2003 was sometimes interesting when doing more complex operations.
As far as I'm concerned...once you're done with the source file it should be compressed down into a presentation format...like PDF.
-
Well they moved from completely proprietary encoded bull**** to XML proprietary bull**** :)
Also I think the old .doc (and related files) were built within a certain set of limitations (for instance old Excel documents could only be a certain length before it would ...stop).
It's to do with the implementation of IStorage and IStream provided with the Compound File system that COM has. It's a nightmare (I've been trying to work out how to write an application using compound storage, and have almost given up)
The limit was 65535 cells, and it caused problems at work because we couldn't open some of the larger datasets we have. Someone must have used a short as a row index :mad:
-
What is XML anyway? All I know about it is that it's a script used to load webpages.
-
What is XML anyway? All I know about it is that it's a script used to load webpages.
HTML is a subset of XML.
XML is a way of describing the information in a set as well as giving the information.
It's a huge concept, and there are many variations on a theme. There are examples all over the place on what it can be used for.
One thing to note though, it does increase your file size many times over. But it is human readable.
Hope this helps!
-
Windows 7 IS the official name for it...
To be exact:
Windows 2000: NT 5.0
Windows XP: NT5.1
Windows Vista: NT6.0
Windows 7: NT 7.0 (i'd guess).
-
Windows 7 IS the official name for it...
To be exact:
Windows 2000: NT 5.0
Windows XP: NT5.1
Windows Vista: NT6.0
Windows 7: NT 7.0 (i'd guess). NT 6.1 (build 70__)
Fixed.