I hate Vista

KevinMulder · Post by **KevinMulder** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 8:29 am

lonewolff wrote:I must admit that my favorite OS is Windows 2000 as well. As it leaves out all of the garbage that XP (and Vista) has crammed into it. We should be able to choose if we want Windows Movie Maker and programs like that installed.

I would rather start with an empty bare bones system and decide to add to it if I choose. Not the opposite.

Use nLite for Windows. You can sweep out everything You do not need.

sisyphus · Post by **sisyphus** » Tue Sep 09, 2008 8:26 pm

Vista is alright in my opinion.

At least it looks a lot prettier than WinXP...

lonewolff · Post by **lonewolff** » Tue Sep 09, 2008 9:58 pm

It does. But, is pretty really worth the massive performance hit?

oddrose · Post by **oddrose** » Wed Sep 10, 2008 9:03 am

Prettier?
Where?
I spend hours reproducing a theme for vista that looks exactly like my ubuntu-theme. Clean and nice.

DanielSefton · Post by **DanielSefton** » Wed Sep 10, 2008 4:38 pm

I'm also sticking with XP. For as long as possible. Until they drag me away kicking and screaming. I might see how many years I can keep up with having it as my primary OS. They'll release Windows 2020, and I'll still be on XP. By then, you'll have to endure a grueling DNA recognition process every time you want to open a file.

http://www.linuxfromscratch.org

Ooh! I've always wanted to build my own distro. I've been using Slax up to this point -- good little OS.

I run it with Qemu, so I can do my Linux development on Windows.

reptor · Post by **reptor** » Wed Sep 10, 2008 5:00 pm

I read through the linuxfromscratch website some years ago.

Fortunately I did not dvelve deeper into it yet

I hope I can prevent myself from starting to work on it. I am trying to remind myself that that's not really important at all (can possibly use my time better).

neocryptek · Post by **neocryptek** » Sun Sep 14, 2008 3:22 am

KungFooMasta wrote:Does anybody know why we need to have more RAM to make vista run better? What exactly is it doing with all the RAM?

It basically tries to cram anything you could possibly want to launch next into RAM so when you do launch it, it's already in memory. Any RAM not being used is wasted, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vi ... SuperFetch

I haven't used Vista, so I don't know how well it works in practice. Sounds nice on paper, but I can see lots of issues with it and gaming/etc. Some way to control it would be help a lot...

lonewolff · Post by **lonewolff** » Sun Sep 21, 2008 8:36 am

Nauk wrote:I love windows 2000, but sadly more and more apps are released that require at least XP. As for Vista it makes me cringe every time I have to touch it on customers computers. Resulting in me strongly considering linux as future OS or ReactOS (Opensource Windows OS) speeds up some when soon and becomes usable.

I was just looking at the ReactOS website. It says it isnt Linux, but some of the screen shots look pretty linuxy.

A quick glance at the forums mentions something about 'Mono'. Isnt Mono the linux answer to C# ? (Thus, meaning this is a linux environment??)

ppClarity · Post by **ppClarity** » Sun Sep 21, 2008 1:59 pm

lonewolff wrote:A quick glance at the forums mentions something about 'Mono'. Isnt Mono the linux answer to C# ? (Thus, meaning this is a linux environment??)

Ugh, no.

Mono is Microsoft's answer to prevent renewed US-DOJ monopoly investigations. It is a sad, sick little joke that no serious Linux developer would consider. It appeals to managers who lack any development experience (ex. Dilbert's point haired boss) or Windows developers that haven't fully researched Mono's cross-platform features: It works (sorta) for simple demoware projects, but when you try to do something moderately complicated it rapidly falls over.

Nauk · Post by **Nauk** » Sun Sep 21, 2008 4:00 pm

Mono is an open source version of the .NET environment / runtime and has nothing to do with MS as far as I know:

Quote from http://www.mono-project.com/Main_Page

What is Mono?

Mono provides the necessary software to develop and run .NET client and server applications on Linux, Solaris, Mac OS X, Windows, and Unix. Sponsored by Novell (http://www.novell.com), the Mono open source project has an active and enthusiastic contributing community and is positioned to become the leading choice for development of Linux applications.

From what I heard it is pretty stabile, but a bit behind the official .NET API:

The Mono API today is somewhere in between .NET 2.0 and .NET 3.5 see our Roadmap for details about what is implemented.

ReactOS is an open source attempt to create a 100% windows compatible OS, and has nothing to do with linux, just doesn't look very polished yet.

Quote from the Wiki entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactos

ReactOS is a computer operating system intended to be binary-compatible with application software and device drivers made for Microsoft Windows NT versions 5.x and up (Windows 2000 and its successors). It is composed entirely of free software, by means of a complete clean room reverse engineering process.

Although the project is in the alpha development stage as of 2008, many Windows programs already work well. While the ReactOS kernel has been written from scratch, the userland is based on the Wine compatibility layer for Unix-like operating systems.

ReactOS is primarily written in the C programming language, with some elements, such as ReactOS Explorer, written in C++. Various components of ReactOS are licensed under the GNU General Public License, the GNU Lesser General Public License and the BSD License.

ppClarity · Post by **ppClarity** » Sun Sep 21, 2008 4:45 pm

Nauk wrote:Mono is an open source version of the .NET environment / runtime and has nothing to do with MS as far as I know

Novel and Microsoft have a rather tight relationship of late. The exact details are unknown.

http://www.mono-project.com/Main_Page wrote:...

The last source I'd look for product testimonials is the vendor's (or project's) own blurb, of course they're going to promote themselves. Anybody's claim of world-dominiation is just so much wishful thinking especially a clone of a proprietary runtime environment.

JohnJ · Post by **JohnJ** » Sun Sep 21, 2008 9:52 pm

I have Vista on my new Sony Vaio SZ laptop, and I actually like it quite a bit better than XP. Not only is text rendering noticeably better (I installed XP on my laptop for a test and text looked horrible in comparison, and got almost half the batter life [2-3 hours] compared to what Vista gets [5-6 hours]), but everything is much more logical: the behavior when you insert a CD / flash drive, the control panel layout, the battery meter, the clock, the wireless connection dialog, etc., etc. seem to be far better designed than XP. Even networking seems to work more seamlessly.

Windows explorer is also vastly improved. Easier to navigate backward and forward, very helpful properties bar at the bottom (showing size, date, thumnail, etc.), a search function that's 100x better than XP's. Filter capabilities (filter by date, size, file type, etc.), and so much more. XP doesn't even compare.

The start menu is similary better - instant search allows you to start any program or open any document instantly by pressing the windows key, typing a keyword, and hitting enter. The search also allows you to navigate the hard drive if you type "C:\Folder\Folder2\etc", and shows all appropriate folders and files. The "All Programs" list is finally designed so the number of programs is can hold isn't limited by your screen size, etc.

It also has a relatively well designed defragmenter that runs in the background at scheduled times (it's enabled by default), a feature XP really lacked (Windows notoriously gets slower and slower over time because of this - not any more).

Also, I've never had any performance problems. In fact, it runs quite a bit faster than my gaming desktop PC (even when downclocked 50% to 1.1GHz), although my laptop has more RAM.

There are only 2 disadvantages I've encountered with Vista:
1. It takes about 1GB RAM, so you better have 2GB+ if you want it to run good.
2. Some ancient 8 year old software I use for work doesn't work (but it never worked quite right on XP for that matter), but we're moving away from it slowly so it's not too much of an issue for me.

Evak · Post by **Evak** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 7:07 pm

I tried vista beta 2 and even that ran great on my system which mostly made up of 5 year old parts with a 3 year old video card and 2gb of DDR ram. Beta 2 expired earlier this year and since my XP hasn't died yet in the past 2 years since I last installed it, I saw no incentive to buy Vista.

As soon as I upgrade to a dual core system and DX10+ GPU I'll get an OEM vista ultimate since you can pick that up for about $170 when its on sale.

Mads Kruger · Post by **Mads Kruger** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 2:48 pm

XP only supports up to 4GB RAM right? Or is that just something silly i've heard?

I upgraded to Vista64 when i bought my new system, and it works like a charm. I wouldn't even attempt to run it on my old system though.

TheSpaceMan · Post by **TheSpaceMan** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:07 pm

Mads Kruger wrote:XP only supports up to 4GB RAM right? Or is that just something silly i've heard?

I upgraded to Vista64 when i bought my new system, and it works like a charm. I wouldn't even attempt to run it on my old system though.

Vista works great with enough ram and all the new updates if you have hardware that us using vista drivers.

My problem is that i have 1gb om ram on my machine and that my wireless network drivers haven't been updated for 6 years. (resulting in random bluescreens)

Post by **CABAListic** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:25 pm

Mads Kruger wrote:XP only supports up to 4GB RAM right? Or is that just something silly i've heard?

The 4 GB limit applies to 32bit operating systems in general, including XP, Vista and Unix derivates. It's a physical limit since a 32bit OS uses 32bit to address memory, and 32bit can only address up to 4 GB. In fact, since those 32bit must address not only your RAM, but also other memory areas, you typically end up with a max of 3 - 3.5 Gb of usable RAM on 32bit systems.

Mads Kruger · Post by **Mads Kruger** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:25 pm

Ah, so XP64 would support 3-4GB+ too.

Good to know.

JohnJ · Post by **JohnJ** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:38 pm

32 bits = 2^32 bytes = 4 GB max
64 bit = 2^64 = 17179869184 GB max

64 bits should be enough for now and quite a few future generations I think

When Windows 7 comes out, if it has a 32-bit version I will be disappointed. I think Windows (and other operating systems) need to choose 64 bit and consistently stick with it, otherwise it's too hard to maintain drivers, etc. Practically every computer out today has a 64-bit processor, so I see no reason not to.

For example I wouldn't mind running 64 bit Vista if it wasn't for the fact that most computers (probably including mine) don't have 64-bit drivers, and that 32-bit software doesn't run very well on it.

KungFooMasta · Post by **KungFooMasta** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 6:23 pm

We need a 64 bit Visual Studio.

Mads Kruger · Post by **Mads Kruger** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 7:17 pm

JohnJ:
Agreed.
As all things its only a matter of time before 32bit is filtered out. I too cant wait. Im tired of having the C:\Program Files(x86)\ folder

KungFoo:
You can compile 64 bit with VS. Since VS2005 i think.

KungFooMasta · Post by **KungFooMasta** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:14 pm

KungFoo:
You can compile 64 bit with VS. Since VS2005 i think.

I believe Visual Studio itself is still compiled and build as a 32bit application. For example, you do not see a 64 bit Visual Studio product available, do you?

lonewolff · Post by **lonewolff** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:57 pm

Mads Kruger wrote:As all things its only a matter of time before 32bit is filtered out. I too cant wait.

Its odd that Microsoft hasn't done it, allready.

No one was any the wiser when they transitioned from Windows 3.11, to Windows 95, Windows 98, 2000, XP, etc..

Put your hands up if you said arrg 32bit I am not going to go to that because of lack of driver support. No one?? Oh.

Yet, driver support seems to be the main issue for people going over to 64 bit at the moment. If Microsoft said "we are no longer writing 32bit os's" the manufacturers would quickly embrace 64bit.

This seems to be the stance Microsoft are taking with servers now. You cant buy Exchange 2008 in 32bit. So if someone wnats to run Exchange they will be forced into 64bit. Same with SBS2008 - 64 bit only.

It will happen pretty soon I think. 64bit is almost upon up (mainstream that is).

As a side note, will there be Ogre 64bit?

Mads Kruger · Post by **Mads Kruger** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 10:49 pm

KungFooMasta wrote:
KungFoo:
You can compile 64 bit with VS. Since VS2005 i think.
I believe Visual Studio itself is still compiled and build as a 32bit application. For example, you do not see a 64 bit Visual Studio product available, do you?

Right you are

And lonewolf. Yeah, it would be way cool to have Ogre64

Not that it personally would do me any good until i actually learn to use the damn thing effectively

sivael · Post by **sivael** » Mon Sep 29, 2008 10:00 am

well... to make an OGRE64 DLL's all You have to do is specify march= under the GCC... and that's basically it:P
Unless there are some assembler parts - those could be sped up by rewriting them to use 64bit instructions. Won't work slower though...

If I'm wrong, correct me:P

volca · Post by **volca** » Mon Sep 29, 2008 1:46 pm

There already is a 64bit version of ogre, at least for linux - I use it all the time

(Didn't see one for windows, but recompile for 64bit should do it)