New windows apparently.

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 :)
 
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.

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.
 
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.
 
Borrowing from a Pearl slogan:

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