Yep. I run my application, close when I'm done, MMF2 editor comes back up but everything is disabled. Why? Because the incredibly annoying Vista crash solution thingy pops up, thinking MMF2 has crashed. If I close the crash report window thingy then MMF2 becomes usable again, but it does this every time and its really, REALLY irritating
Does anyone know of a solution to this? I hope so...
Yeah, I get that when I close the 'run application / frame' thing. I'm running Vista x64.
I think it's probably to do with a combination of MMF2's compiling, not signifying that a close is a close, correctly - and this makes the over-cautious and concerned Vista go 'hang on, did you mean to close i mean wtf man seriously?'.
It being a likely combination of both of these factors, its best just to deal with it for now really Having said that, if I fade a frame out slowly and use a timer or something to end the frame/app, i dont get that message :\
I have absolutely no clue how people are getting around to the idea that Windows Vista sucks. Your computer sucks, I've used Vista, and I have absolutely no issues with errors or crashes. The only problem I have is minor frame loss, which will be fixed up in a service pack. Vista is doing a hell of a lot better then XP did when it was first released. I used Windows XP Ultimate and Windows Vista Home Premium, both 64bit. The first time was on an AMD64 and the second time was on an AMD64 X2 DualCore.
Congrats Brandon, your the 2nd person I've seen who says Vista runs fine for you (first was in last weeks Computer Active letters page). And our computer doesn't suck (ex-university MacPro; 8 core 16gb Ram, et al) crashed like a lepper. iMacs, Mac Pro, Toshiba, Sony, home builds. No all round.
I hope they do fix all these problems. I like running the newest OS's but Vista is just Windows ME in sheeps clothing. It is bad.
It was exactly the same with XP when it first came out - nothing worked, everyone said it sucks.
Now pretty much everybody is using XP - it just takes a while for Microsoft to get the bugs sorted and for everybody to get decent enough hardware to run it.
Give it another 1-2 years before buying Vista in my opinion.
Vista takes 1 GB of RAM.
Vista=XP+Glass+Ripped off Mac features+Worse bundled programs.
Microsoft also tried to mimic the Linux security with users but failed and caused an OS which is over secure in the wrong places.
Seriously, There's no actual point to get Vista.
If you want many eye candies, then you should get Linux and Beryl. It looks MUCH better than Vista and it hardly take RAM or CPU.
If you want to stick to Microsoft OSes then use XP and WindowsBlinds and/or WinFX.
Agree LIJI - but I'm guessing most computer novices/noobies will buy Vista because Windows is considered the "ordinary" OS to buy. My parents haven't even heard of Linux or OS X. Plus most computers here in the UK now come with Windows Vista - so anybody new to computers is likely to get vista. So it's probably going to be the standard thing in a few years time - like XP is now.
I hate all this security shite. Every time you have to use the control panel or install something, you have to confirm that YES, I AM A PERSON LOL. It's just annoying.
I was trying to install a WoW patch the other day, but it would just give me this strange error, because Vista has got this SUPER CLEVER thing that it prevents programs from tampering with important system directories. Yeah, important system directories like... The Start Menu folder?! Yup, and after spending 15 minutes looking for a solution on wow-europe.com, I find out that I have to right-click the EXE and "run as administrator" for it to work. Woo, yay! Now I have to TELL IT that I'm administrator? Hah.
Tribes wouldn't work on Vista at first. I had to download a Vista fix for it.
@Brandon: It's not just the bugs and system stuff that makes Vista suck. I also hate the folder interfaces. =P And Alt+Ctrl+Delete takes me to a whole new screen with options rather than just opening up the task manager. It's lame.
I agree, a lot of the changes in Vista are a little annoying, seeing as they went from a matured design, to a new born design. I don't know how long anyone here has used Vista though, so I can't confidently speak for everyone when I say this... but after using Vista for about a day to a week, I got used to the design. I will admit, the new Alt+Ctrl+Delete menu is very annoying rather then just taking you straight to the Task Manager.
Vista doesn't steal RAM though, like everyone says it does. Vista takes advantage of idle ram. We're all used to shutting all of our programs down, and seeing our ram and cpu drop down to very low levels, aka "idling", but Vista doesn't do that. If you're not using ram, Vista is going to use it so that it can do whatever. Now I grant you it'd be nice if this was optional, but all things considered, when you need that RAM back, unless your system is messed up, you will get it back. Supreme Commander ran better on Vista for me, then it did on Windows XP.
All and all though, Windows Vista shows amazing potential, especially when a service pack is eventually released.
I mentioned this earlier, and Flava backed me up on this (thanks), Windows Vista is not a repeat of Windows ME, Windows Vista is a repeat of Windows XP. When Windows XP was first released, no one liked it. Windows XP actually ran worse compared to it's predecessor then Windows Vista is right now. Vista
PS: I can't help but to defend Windows Vista's current status when a ton of people are just out and saying it sucks, but I do agree that in a year or so, Windows Vista will replace Windows XP, just like Windows XP to 2000 and ME. Time.
Sorry for the long message... I really need to learn how to sum up everything I say in smaller bits.
I must admit that I quite like Vista's design and everything, and I can live with the ridiculous security features, but what bugs me the most is that so many programs and games just don't work on Vista. It's frustrating.
I used to tell everyone that Xp sucked, that it took too much Ram, that it was slow and had compatibility issues. I told people they should get win98 SE. My belief change after about two years, XP is now way better than 98 in my opinion.
I'm not making the same mistake with Vista. Give it time.
I've had no problems with Vista. The only thing that's wrong - is that there are no drivers for my webcam But then that's the webcam company's fault - not Microsoft's.
I'm on Intel Quad Core q6600 @ 3.12 Ghz with 4GB RAM, 19" Dual LCD Screens etc etc. (+ watercooling.. lol). I thought I was in for a nightmare trying to find drivers for all my hardware and peripherals. On the contrary, it was simple.
I'd promote that anyone move on to Vista based on my experience with it Just have a fairly powerful machine ready and an hour or so of finding drivers
Windows XP and 2000 "sucked" back then because everyone used Windows 9x and ME back then.
Windows has 2 lines of products actually.
The first line is the MS DOS based - Windows 1-3, Windows 95, Windows 98 and Windows ME
The second line the the NT based - windows NT 3.1, Windows NT 3.5, Windows NT 4, Windows NT 5/2000 Windows NT 5.1 / XP Windows NT 5.2 / 2003 Server and Windows NT 6 / Vista.
Windows 2000/XP wasn't a newer version of the OS that were used back then, but a whole new OS with another kernel which is partly compatible with the MS DOS programs.
Windows Vista IS a newer (but not better) version of Windows NT 5.X OS and can not be compared to the case of XP and 9x.
@Everyone who blames Vista for ripping Mac
The blunt truth to this "fact" of yours, is the fact that it's completely bogus. How the hell does anyone expect anyone to evolve an operating system based on what people want without "stealing" idea's from other operating systems. 9x out of 10, the features people request for new operating systems, come from other operating systems.
Microsoft's goal with Vista, was to pull people away from Mac, not because Microsoft felt weak or clever, but because it was their competition. If you use Mac, and there are a specific features on a Mac that keep Mac users using a Mac, then Microsoft needs to get those features from Mac and put them into Windows! You can't pull stubborn users away, unless you give them what they want, and god forbid that should be frowned upon.
You can't pull stubborn users away, unless you give them what they want, and god forbid that should be frowned upon.
I don't know if that's aimed at XP or OSX users since I've seen stubbornness (though stubbornness without reason seems to be rampant among Windows users) on both sides.
Vista tries to emulate OSX a little too much. Of course there's progress, but to rip OSX Aqua? I'm glad Apple have more or less said "Take our 6 year old design" and brought out a new design theme for Leopard. Seeing all the big Mac forums - even the most level headed and unbiased of members don't see what these Mac features are that are present in Vista. Least not the useful ones, unless you count security. Which comes at a very high price on Vista.
On the Mac side they bring people over with Bootcamp or Parallels (which I find excellent for testing the waters with other OS's, like Linux and friends), basically letting a Apple computer basically run, well, anything along with the features present in OSX than Windows doesn't have (yet).
Sorry Axel, partly true though. If I mention "OSX rocks" here I'm met with an angry mob, say it in a Mac forum and you get other people damning applications for not being on OSX and still using and enjoying XP all the same. I know it doesn't encompass everyone. But there's always a few I can remember that thread a while ago talking about MMF on the Mac... there was a lot of angry teens.
Clickteam announced the MMF2 will be ported to Linux sooner or later.
Since both Linux and Mac OS X are Unix-like porting the Linux version of MMF2 to the Mac wouldn't be that hard for Clickteam.
Also, KNP for Mac was available too.
I have vista on my laptop (few weeks old) and it irritates me badly.
Somethings seem so quick (like opening word) where as other things seem to take ages.
Currently I give it a thumbs down. I still have XP and 98 SE dual boot running on my old box, and its bliss . I tend to prefer 98, it irritates me less...Although XP does have a slight edge for gaming (proved this for myself) although this may just be becuase of newer drivers...
Whats with Vista not shipping help? I was seriously cheesed I had to go home to go on the microsoft site to get help to read a help file...
Plus the Software i need to do my job doesnt work on it, so next holiday its being set up for vista/xp dual boot.
The only true reason why Vista gets irritating, is the fact that Microsoft made major changes to the operating system that effects how a lot of older software and hardware (drivers) interact with it. The operating system itself is fine, Microsoft just needs support from the developers.
As far as I am concerned Vista is just a way of making gamers pay through the nose for the slightly improved 3D graphics that directX10 brings.
Stupid really. There is no reason why they couldn't have written DX10 for XP, but oh no, they have to make a whole new operating system for it. Seriously, if Vista didn't have DirectX10 as an exclusive, then there would be nothing going for it. And I for one will wait rather than pay hundreds of pounds just for a some improved visual effects in my 3D games.
JC Denton: "I know your UNATCO killphrase: Laputan Machine."
Gunther Hermann: "I - am - not - a - machi --"
JC Denton: "Sticks and stones..."
I agree with the whole DirectX 10 thing 100%. There is absolutely no reason why they would have to do that, except for convince people that they NEED Vista. I don't agree though, that Vista is a failed operating system. It just needs time for both Microsoft and developers to adjust to it.
If I'm not mistaken, Apple did something similar with Mac only much more drastic. Atleast Microsoft is trying to some extent, to keep some backwards compatibility, even if it is just a ploy to try to convince people that they wont lose anything when they upgrade. Anyone who uses newer versions of Windows knows that isn't exactly accurate since almost all old hardware and software is incapable with Vista, though.
Anyway... I guess what I'm trying to say is, not every single last thing that Microsoft does is some kind of money scheme, consider for just a second, that they might actually be trying to make their customer base satisfied? Call me uneducated in the field, but that's just how I see it.
Bill Gates is not rich because he's clever, he's rich because he's greedy, and clever enough to make his greedy plans come true.
DaVince This fool just HAD to have a custom rating
1st August, 2007 at 6:11:52 AM -
He's a good business man, and very clever at setting up a business. THAT's why MS became big.
Nowadays, MS is always a step behind with everything. They're not being proactive anymore, just reactive. I mean just compare the features between Windows and Linux - Linux had everything that was also planned for Vista, which MS finally didn't implement.
Yeah... Vista is the best example of a recent inefficient operating system. Linux has better eyecandy available and yet it runs perfectly on old hardware. The Vista eyecandy is lacking, and it doesn't run on old systems at all.
Also, I believe thinking that XP sucked when it was first introduced isn't a very good argument. What matters is, is that an operating system is efficient. The more overhead there is, the less efficient the system is. Operating systems should of course add new features, but they shouldn't become less efficient.
Take a look at Vista Ultimate's recommended specs.
1GB of RAM. What the hell do you need 1GB for when you're just running the operating system? That's ridiculous. Linux runs more stable and only uses about 300MB with lots of programs running (including Azureus) and with eyecandy enabled.
Then what about the needed disk space? At least 15GB? Wow man, what a waste of space.
And you need a video card with a proper pixel shader. Okay, so every video card supports pixel shader 2.0 these days, but that doesn't matter. That you need a video card like that is bad enough. You shouldn't need one for that lacking eyecandy! An old Matrox card should be enough.
The new Windows operating system has the specs of a high-end game, and that's just wrong. An operating system should be able to run on ANY system without worrying too much about the specs. Can't go around the specs of Vista; Vista is a f***ing video game
You can actually run Windows XP on relatively old machines. That you can't run Windows Vista on those machines is a direct indicator of an inefficient operating system.
I don't have a problem with the system requirements (with my Intel C2D, 2Gb RAM, GeForce 8600GTS) but it just lols me to think of all these people who only use their computers for work (and only need to run like Word and Internet Explorer) who now have to get pixelshader enabled video cards just because Vista has to look good.
It's quite clear how many people here can critique Vista without actually using it. I will agree that the fact that any OS needs more then Windows XP, is quite bullsh*t, but give Vista a break by considering that it's pretty little Aero theme can be shut down all the way back to Windows Classic. You do not NEED the fancy style, nor do you NEED a pixel shader card, you just need all these steep requirements if you want Vista to be everything it's bragged about being.
I agree that Vista is not very efficient, but don't make it sound like it's damn near impossible to use Vista at all, unless you have high system specs, because it's not true.
PS: I agree full heartedly about the fact that Windows XP, regardless of it's specs, can run very efficiently on older systems. I've installed Windows XP on systems as low as Pentium 2 and 128mb of ram, and never had crashes or lock ups.
LIJI: "Vista is not a video game, I've never seen a video game that needs 15 GB!"
That's exactly what's revolutionary about Windows Vista It's bigger than regular video games
BrandonC: "I agree that Vista is not very efficient, but don't make it sound like it's damn near impossible to use Vista at all, unless you have high system specs, because it's not true. "
Yeah, you know, those system specs come from Microsoft, and I know that they are slightly overdone. You can run Vista on slower hardware.
I'm not making it sound like Vista is impossible to run unless you have high system specs. I'm saying that if you want to get everything out of Vista, you do need those system specs, which is just wrong. You should be able to get everything out of Vista no matter what kind of hardware you have, just like in Linux.
Greasy: "As far as I can tell, Aero isn't what uses up a lot of RAM.
And is it possible that Linux fan boys are becoming worse than mac fan boys?"
How are Linux fanboys becoming worse than Mac fanboys? They're really not much different, you know.
I still run XP on Windows classic. It's a bit faster and not as cutesy looking. ATM, Vista is pointless. It doesn't have any serious advantages over XP, unlike XP over 98 SE. And most people I know say they need 2GB RAM to make the system run without trouble. But... in 4 years time, maybe 6, it'll be OK, just taking up half of the average computer's resources. And by then, there'll be some gadgets and games that only run on vista, though it's possible that those won't exist. After all, Vista doesn't really have any serious hardware/software advantages over XP, but people will still adapt to vista instead I guess. These days, it costs more to buy a comp with XP than vista..
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
At the rate we're firing hardware up the scale, in a couple of years it'll be hard to find computers with less then 4gb's of ram and lower then dual-core processors. Especially with the quad-cores and octa-core processors coming into the market.
We're complaining about an operating system that's ahead of it's time, and for good reason yes (because it shouldn't need that much to run an operating system), but consider that in a couple of years, all our performance issues with Vista will be gone. No, we might not get 100% of the power we should, but considering the hardware, we might only need like 70% of it, so we wont even cap it.
Vista needs a service pack, that's really the only thing wrong with it.
Vista is ahead of it's time? How is that so?
Just like DaVince said:
"Nowadays, MS is always a step behind with everything. They're not being proactive anymore, just reactive. I mean just compare the features between Windows and Linux - Linux had everything that was also planned for Vista, which MS finally didn't implement. "
Seriously, why think about the future? Maybe some day in the future we'll have the hardware to get everything out of Vista?
Isn't that funny? We're talking about an operating system here. The "in a couple of years" thing shouldn't even pop up in this conversation, if you understand what I mean.
Vista should be able to give us 100% of it's power with the hardware we have now, including older hardware. What we could get in the future is of little use at this moment.
Then again, I guess you can't copy everything. If Linux did it right, Microsoft must do it wrong. You don't want the Linux people bashing Windows all the time. You want them to laugh at Windows
Also, It's important for people to start using an open source operating system for a not so obvious reason.
Microsoft, like any other company, won't "live" forever. Some day Microsoft will die, and when this happens (It's can be tommorow, next year or in 10 years) no new versions of Windows will come out.
If we will stick to Windows we will finally be stuck with an OS which is 15 years old, because the company that updates it will die.
If a Linux project (like Ubuntu for example) dies, it will still be continued by other people because it's open source. Using a closed source operating system is dangerous for the future. Windows must be stopped!
VMWare is easy to install on Windows, yet somehow tricky on Linux. (Command-line installers, I ask WHY EVERYTHING HAS TO BE DONE IN TERMINAL?!)
I hate pidign because it's a stupid name, I like the name "GAim".
Also, that's the thing that comes with Ubuntu, and I'm not about upgrading it with TERMINAL!
DaVince This fool just HAD to have a custom rating
8th August, 2007 at 7:39:22 AM -
"I hate pidign because it's a stupid name, I like the name "GAim". "
So you refuse to use a newer version of a program because its name had to change? What kind of reason is that? I would have understood "because I have problems with the new version", but... "lol the name sucks"? Then stop using Ubuntu.