DRUMMERWORLD OFFICIAL DISCUSSION FORUM

DRUMMERWORLD OFFICIAL DISCUSSION FORUM (http://www.drummerworld.com/forums/index.php)
-   Off Topic Lounge (http://www.drummerworld.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=25)
-   -   New windows apparently. (http://www.drummerworld.com/forums/showthread.php?t=46066)

eddiehimself 01-11-2009 08:27 PM

New windows apparently.
 
Yep. I guess microsoft realised just how slow vista is so i think this is going to be more streamlined.

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-7/

bojangleman 01-11-2009 08:57 PM

Re: New windows apparently.
 
wait..
why are they going back in time..

Windows 95, Windows 98, and now Windows 7?

did the idea first come in the 70's?

=P

Alex

Baddstuff 01-11-2009 09:02 PM

Re: New windows apparently.
 
I just installed Windows 7 beta and so far so good. I haven't had a chance to mess with it all that much but it seems like a better version of Vista. I'm still not crazy about Internet Explorer though, Firefox or Opera are more my style. This may turn out to be what Vista should have originally been.

PlaysforFun 01-11-2009 09:04 PM

Re: New windows apparently.
 
Why does everyone bag on Vista? It's not slow on my machine....I don't get it.

Baddstuff 01-11-2009 09:27 PM

Re: New windows apparently.
 
I ran Vista Business edition for 1 year and it ran like a charm for me but I went back to XP Pro. I decided Vista wasn't doing anything for me that XP wasn't doing and XP was a bit faster. I ran Vista with 2GB which should be the minimum, I started out with 1GB and that's not enough for my taste.
If setup properly Vista runs fine as long as you have the correct hardware. I think Windows 7 will be a streamlined version of Vista and have a smaller footprint which should be good.

hawk9290 01-11-2009 10:25 PM

Re: New windows apparently.
 
I'm downloading the beta now, we'll see how it goes. I'm going to partition my hard drive first and I don't really know when I'll get around to installing it, but based on the site it looks like what I expected Vista to be.

Drum-Head 01-11-2009 10:46 PM

Re: New windows apparently.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by PlaysforFun (Post 526436)
Why does everyone bag on Vista? It's not slow on my machine....I don't get it.

Many compatibility problems with programs - a BIG problem for companies (although that got better as things went on), a big resource hog - flashy useless Aero visuals amongst others, annoying features (automatic backup that eats the HD space? Let us just use Norton Ghost and leave us our drive space ugh!) and for musicians not very friendly for those who use a computer as a DAW. And so on, and so on...

It's okay if you just use you computer for everyday stuff, but once you get specific you could/can run into some bothering stuff but again, that got a bit better as things went on.

Anyway, don't be mistaken; Windows 7 in not that new - the project has been on for quite some time now just as it won't be released until at least 2010. I only hope that they take things more seriously this time...

Baddstuff 01-11-2009 10:54 PM

Re: New windows apparently.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by hawk9290 (Post 526474)
I'm downloading the beta now, we'll see how it goes. I'm going to partition my hard drive first and I don't really know when I'll get around to installing it, but based on the site it looks like what I expected Vista to be.

you can always use Microsoft's Virtual PC software and run Windows 7 as a virtual machine, which is what I'm doing. Eliminates the need for dual boot and all that mess. If you're not familiar with Virtual PC it lets you run multiple operatings systems at the same time. So if you want to give Linux a go wothout messing up your system that's the way to go.

Drum-Head..
I've used Norton Ghost and it works like a charm but now I prefer Acronis True Image and I won't live without it on any of my computers.
For me if there's one must-have utility, that's it!

Drum-Head 01-11-2009 11:17 PM

Re: New windows apparently.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Baddstuff (Post 526489)
Drum-Head..
I've used Norton Ghost and it works like a charm but now I prefer Acronis True Image and I won't live without it on any of my computers.
For me if there's one must-have utility, that's it!

Hey Baddstuff, I have both programs but I just stuck with Ghost because it works well for me and never felt the need for the other... Either program is a must have! Ghost has saved my life on a few occasions...

That Guy 01-11-2009 11:20 PM

Re: New windows apparently.
 
Anything that helps FSX would be a blessing. I'm so sick of resource hogs.

Personally, I think this is a bit too early for a new version. It's probabaly going to be a bunch of old pounded code from Vista. Any program writers here will probabaly understand why this is way too early. I doubt it's a "Ground-Up" version. They need to really clean the code if they expect any kind of performance upgrade without losing fundamental processes that the public has become so attached to.

Digging the grave.

Baddstuff 01-11-2009 11:25 PM

Re: New windows apparently.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Drum-Head (Post 526503)
Hey Baddstuff, I have both programs but I just stuck with Ghost because it works well for me and never felt the need for the other... Either program is a must have! Ghost has saved my life on a few occasions...

yeah, good move! They've saved my butt numerous times. I love 'em both but just prefer Acronis. I can't imagine having a computer without one or the other.

Baddstuff 01-11-2009 11:29 PM

Re: New windows apparently.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by That Guy (Post 526506)
Anything that helps FSX would be a blessing. I'm so sick of resource hogs.

Personally, I think this is a bit too early for a new version. It's probabaly going to be a bunch of old pounded code from Vista. Any program writers here will probabaly understand why this is way to early. I doubt it's a "Ground-Up" version. They need to really clean the code if they expect any kind of performance progress without losing fundamental processes that the public has become so attached to.

Digging the grave.

it could be all the bitching and moaning about Vista that has MS working so quickly on 7.
I agree though, they need to slow down, clean up the code and put out a really solid OS that the public wants to embrace.

That Guy 01-12-2009 01:30 AM

Re: New windows apparently.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Baddstuff (Post 526513)
it could be all the bitching and moaning about Vista that has MS working so quickly on 7.
I agree though, they need to slow down, clean up the code and put out a really solid OS that the public wants to embrace.


Windows is beyond repair. That is if they keep pounding the same code. All they can hope to do is sweep the problems under the rug with more code which creates more problems that the marketing teams will have to sell the public on. Thats Microsoft's stong point! They are geniuses at fooling and convincing the ignorant. Hell, thats what they get paid to do. :-)

I'm sure Microsoft will go belly-up before they focus on the resources in order to logistically stablize and create an O.S. that is new and appreciated by geeks abroad. Keep feeding the monkeys crap and they will eat it if its wrapped in pretty colors.

eddiehimself 01-12-2009 07:30 PM

Re: New windows apparently.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by That Guy (Post 526571)
Windows is beyond repair. That is if they keep pounding the same code. All they can hope to do is sweep the problems under the rug with more code which creates more problems that the marketing teams will have to sell the public on. Thats Microsoft's stong point! They are geniuses at fooling and convincing the ignorant. Hell, thats what they get paid to do. :-)

I'm sure Microsoft will go belly-up before they focus on the resources in order to logistically stablize and create an O.S. that is new and appreciated by geeks abroad. Keep feeding the monkeys crap and they will eat it if its wrapped in pretty colors.

I know what you mean but if you think about it XP came out pretty swiftly after 2000 and it's proved to be a very good operating system. On the other hand, they had 7 years to develop vista after XP came out and there's not really much good to show for it if i'm honest.

PFS, yeah i'm using vista right now it's perfectly fine for the internet but it has huge problems with games (just look at the back of game boxes, the vista specs are higher it's that slow) and professional applications such as 3d modelling, movie/picture editing suites and recording software, it's just so slow and there are big compatibility issues.

Drum-Head 01-12-2009 07:38 PM

Re: New windows apparently.
 
I'm also one who thinks that XP was a good, stable OS. Still using it on some of my computers and happy with it.

That Guy 01-12-2009 08:37 PM

Re: New windows apparently.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by eddiehimself (Post 526856)
I know what you mean but if you think about it XP came out pretty swiftly after 2000 and it's proved to be a very good operating system. On the other hand, they had 7 years to develop vista after XP came out and there's not really much good to show for it if i'm honest.

PFS, yeah i'm using vista right now it's perfectly fine for the internet but it has huge problems with games (just look at the back of game boxes, the vista specs are higher it's that slow) and professional applications such as 3d modelling, movie/picture editing suites and recording software, it's just so slow and there are big compatibility issues.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drum-Head (Post 526859)
I'm also one who thinks that XP was a good, stable OS. Still using it on some of my computers and happy with it.

I definately agree that XP is a great OS, especially with Service Pack 3 that came out last year. I have yet to upgrade to Vista or even play around with it cuz I know it will make me sick really fast.

Concering gaming Eddie, Vista was the O.S. that was designed to introduce the groundbreaking DirectX 10 technology and that was truly an EPIC FAIL. All it did was crash systems and do about 5% of what it was promised. Even the extensive self shadowing effects that were promised looked horrid.

I feel sorry for people that bought Vista for gaming cuz as you said the spec's need to be higher than with XP. FSX was released for XP.. thank god... but Vista users are having serious issues even with the 2 patches released by Aces Studios.

I feel sorry for FSXI if its not a ground up rebuild. FSX was pounded and even Phil Taylor admits it. At least its decently stable on my system. Microsoft needs to make a good product, but I don't know how well they are going to do unless they do a ground-up build for an O.S.

Code can only handle so much infusion before it finally tries to process too much information and it just seizes up completely. Microsoft is headed down that dark road quickly with O.S's. They might get lucky and end up with a fairly stable system, but a crash is innevitable if it continues the way it's going.

zambizzi 01-12-2009 10:11 PM

Re: New windows apparently.
 
I've been running Vista here at work for about a year now and it has grown on me. Of course, I'm running 8gb of ram and that's why it's more than suitable. I'm dual-booting at home on my Inspiron between Ubuntu and Vista. I keep Ubuntu on there because I'm a Java programmer (mostly) and it's just better suited for that...my dev tools just don't run as fast on Vista or even XP.

Every generation of Windows gets a hefty new layer of cruft and thus gets more bloated and resource-hungry. To maintain backward compatibility at the level MS does - you pretty much have to. I like Vista better than XP now that they've ironed a few things out and I'm doing a lot of .NET coding again for the first time in 3 yrs...so I gotta keep moving forward!

Seriously - Windows isn't "beyond repair" and all of that noise. I have to laugh when I hear people ranking on Microsoft, claiming that their demise is just around the corner. I've been hearing that for 10 yrs. and it just ain't gonna happen anytime soon.

A friend of mine is running the Win7 Beta and says he loves it. I personally wouldn't waste my time w/ a new version of Windows until the first SP gets released. If you're running this sucker now - you won't even recognize it when they finish it 8 yrs. from now :D

Baddstuff 01-12-2009 10:11 PM

Re: New windows apparently.
 
I think I'll hit the lottery before MS builds a new OS from scratch

That Guy 01-12-2009 11:15 PM

Re: New windows apparently.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by zambizzi (Post 526939)
I've been running Vista here at work for about a year now and it has grown on me. Of course, I'm running 8gb of ram and that's why it's more than suitable. I'm dual-booting at home on my Inspiron between Ubuntu and Vista. I keep Ubuntu on there because I'm a Java programmer (mostly) and it's just better suited for that...my dev tools just don't run as fast on Vista or even XP.

Every generation of Windows gets a hefty new layer of cruft and thus gets more bloated and resource-hungry. To maintain backward compatibility at the level MS does - you pretty much have to. I like Vista better than XP now that they've ironed a few things out and I'm doing a lot of .NET coding again for the first time in 3 yrs...so I gotta keep moving forward!

Seriously - Windows isn't "beyond repair" and all of that noise. I have to laugh when I hear people ranking on Microsoft, claiming that their demise is just around the corner. I've been hearing that for 10 yrs. and it just ain't gonna happen anytime soon.

A friend of mine is running the Win7 Beta and says he loves it. I personally wouldn't waste my time w/ a new version of Windows until the first SP gets released. If you're running this sucker now - you won't even recognize it when they finish it 8 yrs. from now :D

Don't get me wrong. Windows is great for web-browsing and running basic applications and I'm sure it will always be able to handle that small load of what most users do with it regardless of how bloated it gets.

If your into .NET you should know more than anyone that running anything beyond basic applications that use 100,000 K's is going to eventually lock it up. Many applications these days are using 200,000 K's and thats not even gaming. Thats basic Adobe and I.E. usage.

The average game made for Windows these days is running 400,000 to 500,000 K's and windows can't handle it. Even with a great processor and g-card w/ plenty of v-ram windows bogs down. Windows XP is only able to use 3 gigs of ram even though one might carry 4 to 6. I have heard people swear the Vista can use 16 gigs of ram. These people are literally insane. I would be happy if it acually utilizes the 8 you have in yours.

I'm sure the next version of Windows will be great for web-browsing in conjunction with IE 8 or 9 by the time it comes out and a place to store music & pics. Other than that. It will fail. But those that it will fail for are less than those it will work for. I'm speaking of geeks. :-)

zambizzi 01-13-2009 12:12 AM

Re: New windows apparently.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by That Guy (Post 526998)
Don't get me wrong. Windows is great for web-browsing and running basic applications and I'm sure it will always be able to handle that small load of what most users do with it regardless of how bloated it gets.

If your into .NET you should know more than anyone that running anything beyond basic applications that use 100,000 K's is going to eventually lock it up. Many applications these days are using 200,000 K's and thats not even gaming. Thats basic Adobe and I.E. usage.

The average game made for Windows these days is running 400,000 to 500,000 K's and windows can't handle it. Even with a great processor and g-card w/ plenty of v-ram windows bogs down. Windows XP is only able to use 3 gigs of ram even though one might carry 4 to 6. I have heard people swear the Vista can use 16 gigs of ram. These people are literally insane. I would be happy if it acually utilizes the 8 you have in yours.

I'm sure the next version of Windows will be great for web-browsing in conjunction with IE 8 or 9 by the time it comes out and a place to store music & pics. Other than that. It will fail. But those that it will fail for are less than those it will work for. I'm speaking of geeks. :-)

On any given day I'm running a combination of Visual Studio 2008, Netbeans 6.5, Adobe tools (Flash, Photoshop, etc.) as well as MS SQL Server (w/ client tools)...and so on. I've never even come close to pegging this machine on either ram or cpu. I've also never had a BSOD or failure of any kind beyond the occasional app crashing.

I run 2gb ram on my Inspiron in my home office and run all of the same software - same thing, it's never been pegged. That laptop also has a killer graphics card and I've played games on it - though I don't do it often...it seemed fine.

Seriously...it's good software. All OSs have their flaws and as a long-time Linux geek (1997) I'll be so controversial as to say the GUI quality STILL lags far behind the Windows (or Mac) experience - even as far as it has come today.

Another positive thing I'll say about Vista - I've never been inflicted with spyware, trojans, viruses, or any other major security issue, yet. The *only* thing I can honestly complain about is the slightly slower filesystem and some of the stupid default security settings. The DRM sucks too but that's ready to fall into the dustbin of history any time now.

I'm not saying you don't have anything to complain about - they certainly could have done better after 7 years of work. BUT...I think you're exaggerating just a little or have just had a bad personal experience for some reason? Are you running it on older or unusual hardware? Maybe I got lucky four installs in a row? ;)

That Guy 01-13-2009 12:25 AM

Re: New windows apparently.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by zambizzi (Post 527038)
I'm not saying you don't have anything to complain about - they certainly could have done better after 7 years of work. BUT...I think you're exaggerating just a little or have just had a bad personal experience for some reason? Are you running it on older or unusual hardware? Maybe I got lucky four installs in a row? ;)

Windows has always worked perfectly for basic applications. I'm the first to suggest someone use a Windows O.S. if they are the average computer user. I myself code... .Net, C+ etc and its a great platform to use for it. It's not that I haven't had a bad experience, its that Microsoft is notorious for exaggerating the capabilities of its platforms. Only people who know how to push the limits of computers will be able to call it out.

Right now I'm running a basic XP Media Center, 4 gig ram (it can only use 3), Pentium 4: 3.0 Ghz, 2 GeForce GT OC 8800 v-cards 512 each but it pushes more due to factory overclocking.

With that power I'm still finding serious Vsync issues. Yes I'm gaming. My monitor is refreshing at 75 H, and I don't set frames above 60. All drivers are up to date, no beta's allowed :-)

I just know that Microsoft promises something that it can't keep. I would like to see MS grow and please geeks, but thats not thier target consumer. Thier target consumer are those that will never understand what it takes to push the limits of thier O.S.

I just happen to be on the other end of that spectrum :-)

eddiehimself 01-13-2009 11:43 AM

Re: New windows apparently.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by That Guy (Post 526998)
The average game made for Windows these days is running 400,000 to 500,000 K's and windows can't handle it. Even with a great processor and g-card w/ plenty of v-ram windows bogs down. Windows XP is only able to use 3 gigs of ram even though one might carry 4 to 6. I have heard people swear the Vista can use 16 gigs of ram. These people are literally insane. I would be happy if it acually utilizes the 8 you have in yours.

WXP x64 can actually handle more than 4 gigs of ram which i'm happy about.

Quote:

Originally Posted by That Guy (Post 527044)
Windows has always worked perfectly for basic applications. I'm the first to suggest someone use a Windows O.S. if they are the average computer user. I myself code... .Net, C+ etc and its a great platform to use for it. It's not that I haven't had a bad experience, its that Microsoft is notorious for exaggerating the capabilities of its platforms. Only people who know how to push the limits of computers will be able to call it out.

Right now I'm running a basic XP Media Center, 4 gig ram (it can only use 3), Pentium 4: 3.0 Ghz, 2 GeForce GT OC 8800 v-cards 512 each but it pushes more due to factory overclocking.

With that power I'm still finding serious Vsync issues. Yes I'm gaming. My monitor is refreshing at 75 H, and I don't set frames above 60. All drivers are up to date, no beta's allowed :-)

I just know that Microsoft promises something that it can't keep. I would like to see MS grow and please geeks, but thats not thier target consumer. Thier target consumer are those that will never understand what it takes to push the limits of thier O.S.

I just happen to be on the other end of that spectrum :-)

Yeah i know what you mean and sadly it's just getting worse. In the old days like the 80s and early 90s computers were basically for people in the know. They were so expensive and difficult to use you needed to really want one to buy one. As they've become cheaper and easier to use more people wanted them and obviously windows has always wanted to get more people to use their OS so they've been making newer versions steadily more patronising over the years. What i just find so irritating about Vista on these terms is this "user account control" which basically asks you before you can run any program as if it might be dangerous, even if it's made by microsoft which is just ridiculous. I've turned it off now and now i've got the shield with the cross in it as if it's actually going to destroy my computer or something.

bobdadruma 01-24-2009 05:01 PM

Re: New windows apparently.
 
I used Windows Vista for about two months. I liked the concept of it but I also was disappointed with the performance. I was using it on a new Dell so I had a friend completely strip the computer and load Vista without all the Dell crap. Long story short, I'm now using XP Pro on my PC again. I bought my first Mac shortly after that and I have only booted up my PC perhaps 6 or 7 times in about a year! I only use the PC to run some job related software that will not run on the Mac. I have grown to like my Mac so much that I gasp when I have to use a PC. I do advanced things with my Mac that I never thought that I would do on a computer. I'm not that great with computers and I found that the Mac didn't confuse and discourage me. I don't understand why a company with the talent that MS has can't make a system that works as well as OSX? A system that average low tech person like me can simply use and have fun with without worrying about lock ups, crashes, etc. The other main thing that I like about my Mac is the service that I can obtain from the local Apple Store.

trkdrmr 01-24-2009 05:08 PM

Re: New windows apparently.
 
Borrowing from a Pearl slogan:

"Vista...the best reason to use a MAC." (or Linux)

drumguyfromWI 01-24-2009 05:30 PM

Re: New windows apparently.
 
I play games on STEAM (Counter-Strike: Source, Half-Life 2/Episode 1/Episode 2/Lost Coast/Deathmatch, Team Fortress 2, Day of Defeat: Source, and Portal) and Vista is almost no good for that.

It is very fussy, sometimes games won't work for no reason at all, or I'll get massive lag, or the games won't save my settings. And I know it's not my PC, I checked and I have well over the minimum system requirements for all the games.

But STEAM games work just fine on my friend's PC that has comparable specs to mine, but runs a different OS.

GRUNTERSDAD 01-24-2009 05:34 PM

Re: New windows apparently.
 
Intel will be laying off/firing 3500 people
Microsoft will be laying off/firing 5000 people.
Apple just had its best quarter EVER.
Go figure.

trkdrmr 01-24-2009 05:34 PM

Re: New windows apparently.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by drumguyfromWI (Post 532697)
I play games on STEAM (Counter-Strike: Source, Half-Life 2/Episode 1/Episode 2/Lost Coast/Deathmatch, Team Fortress 2, Day of Defeat: Source, and Portal) and Vista is almost no good for that.

It is very fussy, sometimes games won't work for no reason at all, or I'll get massive lag, or the games won't save my settings. And I know it's not my PC, I checked and I have well over the minimum system requirements for all the games.

But STEAM games work just fine on my friend's PC that has comparable specs to mine, but runs a different OS.

I hate STEAM. Let me be clear. I HATE STEAM. I can recall several times having to wait 30 minutes or more for steam to update before I could play the game.

Mastershake16 01-24-2009 06:13 PM

Re: New windows apparently.
 
sometimes my dad fixes friends computers, he hates vista alot, but with steam i don't know what your complaining about with mine everything runs fine barley any wait unless theres an update and i can join friends games right away too

trkdrmr 01-24-2009 06:17 PM

Re: New windows apparently.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mastershake16 (Post 532711)
sometimes my dad fixes friends computers, he hates vista alot, but with steam i don't know what your complaining about with mine everything runs fine barley any wait unless theres an update and i can join friends games right away too

I stopped using steam years ago. My only gaming takes place on a PS/3. I like seeing the battles on a 65" screen in full THX surround. No steam!

eddiehimself 01-24-2009 07:12 PM

Re: New windows apparently.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by trkdrmr (Post 532716)
I stopped using steam years ago. My only gaming takes place on a PS/3. I like seeing the battles on a 65" screen in full THX surround. No steam!

you say it as if this is not possible on a computer?

trkdrmr 01-24-2009 07:14 PM

Re: New windows apparently.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by eddiehimself (Post 532735)
you say it as if this is not possible on a computer?

No, I say this as if I removed all games from my pc.

eddiehimself 01-24-2009 08:35 PM

Re: New windows apparently.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by trkdrmr (Post 532737)
No, I say this as if I removed all games from my pc.

Erm i don't know if i quite understand what you mean? All i was saying was that it looked like you were saying that you can't play games in HD or THX surround sound on a computer which is not true.

drumguyfromWI 01-24-2009 11:02 PM

Re: New windows apparently.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by trkdrmr (Post 532700)
I hate STEAM. Let me be clear. I HATE STEAM. I can recall several times having to wait 30 minutes or more for steam to update before I could play the game.

I'm not a huge fan of it either, but I LOVE Counter-Strike. so I just deal with all the updates and shenannigans. because there's no way I'm giving up CS. haha

p.s. for anyone who plays Counter-Strike: Source, my STEAM name is i shot the sheriff (and so is my in-game name). add me and we can play

trkdrmr 01-25-2009 01:18 AM

Re: New windows apparently.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by eddiehimself (Post 532778)
Erm i don't know if i quite understand what you mean? All i was saying was that it looked like you were saying that you can't play games in HD or THX surround sound on a computer which is not true.

No, again, I am saying that I moved my gaming operations to my living room, and I use my PC for everything except games. I made no implications about what can/cannot be done from a PC.

I am currently trying out "dead space."

ZildjianMan1023 01-25-2009 02:27 AM

Re: New windows apparently.
 
windows 7, yes

good news. beta version deadline has been exteneded! although im not sure when

i recently downloaded the copy.

if i cant get some dvds, i will gladly post the activation key to this

to the mods: the serial key to this version of windows is obtainable to those who request to download the beta. but these keys are limited to the first 2 million who downloaded the beta

therefore, anyone can use this key.if i cant use the beta. no need in holding on to the key


just clearing that up guys, so i dont come off as a pirate.

but anywho.

i hear good things about windows 7

ZildjianMan1023 01-25-2009 02:29 AM

Re: New windows apparently.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by PlaysforFun (Post 526436)
Why does everyone bag on Vista? It's not slow on my machine....I don't get it.

theres this whole strife going on between computer owners and ms.

vista was realeased without really any solid chipset or driver manufactures onboard.

therefore, ms had to work with what was on the market at the time. which was more geared to windows xp.

we all know vista is quite effect-savy so ms really kind of shot from the hip on vista.

now, the proper hardware is avalible to handle vista and its effects.

but it still cant shake its bad rep for being a system resource hog.

ZildjianMan1023 01-25-2009 02:31 AM

Re: New windows apparently.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by eddiehimself (Post 527316)
WXP x64 can actually handle more than 4 gigs of ram which i'm happy about.



Yeah i know what you mean and sadly it's just getting worse. In the old days like the 80s and early 90s computers were basically for people in the know. They were so expensive and difficult to use you needed to really want one to buy one. As they've become cheaper and easier to use more people wanted them and obviously windows has always wanted to get more people to use their OS so they've been making newer versions steadily more patronising over the years. What i just find so irritating about Vista on these terms is this "user account control" which basically asks you before you can run any program as if it might be dangerous, even if it's made by microsoft which is just ridiculous. I've turned it off now and now i've got the shield with the cross in it as if it's actually going to destroy my computer or something.

funny note...

windows has 32 bit and 64 bit of its operating systems released...

while apple claims since mac osx 10.3 its always been 64 bit

eddiehimself 01-25-2009 11:27 AM

Re: New windows apparently.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ZildjianMan1023 (Post 532886)
funny note...

windows has 32 bit and 64 bit of its operating systems released...

while apple claims since mac osx 10.3 its always been 64 bit

That really doesn't surprise me. You can order apple computers with like 32gb of ram or something. I guess it's one of the reasons it's so good (apparently) for professional applications. I for one haven't been able to buy a single bit of pro software which is designed for 64 bit computers. I was going to buy cakewalk because they said it had a 64 bit version. Now they've released version 8 and all of a sudden they've said it "doesn't officially support WXP/Vista x64". I know it works with the os because people have been using it in their setup for years but i am annoyed because i really wanted to see what it could do. Really, i think software developers need to get their heads out of the sand and start building proper 64 bit software. As for the free windows 7 trial, i would download it but i can't because it's probably bigger than my monthly download limit :p

ZildjianMan1023 01-25-2009 03:31 PM

Re: New windows apparently.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by eddiehimself (Post 532979)
That really doesn't surprise me. You can order apple computers with like 32gb of ram or something. I guess it's one of the reasons it's so good (apparently) for professional applications. I for one haven't been able to buy a single bit of pro software which is designed for 64 bit computers. I was going to buy cakewalk because they said it had a 64 bit version. Now they've released version 8 and all of a sudden they've said it "doesn't officially support WXP/Vista x64". I know it works with the os because people have been using it in their setup for years but i am annoyed because i really wanted to see what it could do. Really, i think software developers need to get their heads out of the sand and start building proper 64 bit software. As for the free windows 7 trial, i would download it but i can't because it's probably bigger than my monthly download limit :p

haha, its around 2 gigs, but for those of you who have bandwidth caps. id suggest being catious if you have other traffic comming in such as movies or XBL or whatever.

aside from that you are right.

there really isnt any stable development for the 64 bit platform. i think amd is having an easier time throwing out 64 bit processors than intel. so that might be part of the problem.

if intel cant have a stable 64 bit processor out, which im sure by now they must?

theyll tell windows to keep developing 32 bit versions of windows. and then developers see these markets where its like 90% of the customers are useing 32 bit and 10% are using 64... they say at board mettings "if we want profits well market all on 32.."

but its completley idiotic to me why they dont offer both.

ZildjianMan1023 01-25-2009 03:49 PM

Re: New windows apparently.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by That Guy (Post 526506)
Anything that helps FSX would be a blessing. I'm so sick of resource hogs.

Personally, I think this is a bit too early for a new version. It's probabaly going to be a bunch of old pounded code from Vista. Any program writers here will probabaly understand why this is way too early. I doubt it's a "Ground-Up" version. They need to really clean the code if they expect any kind of performance upgrade without losing fundamental processes that the public has become so attached to.

Digging the grave.

i think thats why MS is so open to this beta... ive never heard so much hype over a beta before

they get feedback over old code. see what they need to clean up

ha!


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 09:42 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Bernhard Castiglioni's DRUMMERWORLD.com