Welp, the past few days windows vista beta was released to the public, right now i have it installed and i must say the perfomance is amazing. The download is 3 gigs but is worth the download, on top of that, the beta lasts for a whole year^^
I tried installing it, just to see if Vista was any better than XP, but it only saw my boot drive (which is full) not my other drive (which is practically empty), so It couldn't install.
I think it's a flop, unless it's any more secure and less buggy than XP. I mean, ther aren't any new features that you couldn't get from things like Google Search Toolbar (or any that weren't copied from Mac OS X for that matter), and the interface is so graphics intensive it will probably never work anyway. Of course, if it comes bundled with all new Windows computers it can't lose, unless people wise up and buy Mac OS X (I know, I promised I wouldn't promote it again, but that was just such a good opportunity...).
Partition your hard drive and install Vista on the formated partition. You can safely duel boot Vista and XP, thats what I'm doing. Works great, Vista is very stable in this up comming beta.
Aside from that, the beta works great, comes with a bunch of drivers already in the OS, so looking for working drivers isnt something you should do until you know that you wont need to. I spent hours looking for network drivers, and here after installing Vista, the internet already worked.
The Aero theme itself, the translations and glass look, are all run through video, rather then the processor. So the entire OS stays completly stable, and granted you have a half decent videocard, your visual performence wont be messed up either. If you dont though, turning on the Basic theme (which is default, if you dont have video drivers installed), then it wont have any more of a visual impact then Windows 2000 does.
A couple things a friend and I both noticed when using Vista though are:
AIM 5.9 doesnt want to install, but MSN works fine.
Soundcard doesnt have Vista drivers, so I'm stuck with onboard, and only 2 speakers.
A good deal of security permission dialogs, but they can be shut off.
Aside from those, Vista Beta 2 is very stable, and I have to say. The translations are beautiful and very well done. Closing, minimizing, restoring, and the flip desktop (WindowsKey+Tab).
Well worth the 3 gig download if your into duel booting, but I wouldnt recommend completly upgrading WindowsXp.
PS: The program I used to partition my hard drive is Partition Magic 8, partitioning around 40gb, just to make sure I have enough space for Vista and XP to run smoothly.
Havent actually checked the system requirements, but as far as having a PC that can run Vista, it doesnt take much more to run then WindowsXp. Personally, taking everything into concideration, I think it actually runs a lot smoother then WindowsXP. You should be able to run Vista, you just wont be able to use the actual Aero theme, you'll need to use Aero Basic, which runs smoother then WindowXP's Luna theme.
Having used Vista for 2 days streight now, aside from simple easy to work around beta 'hickups', its completly stable. The only thing seriously stopping it from being released, is some tweaking here and there, and to get word out for driver companies to set a deadline that all final release Vista drivers should be released.
I can't say I'm much of a fan of it either - it looks like they've tried to give it a sleek, modern finish and gone far too over the top. And the level at which they're now copying Mac OS X is now approaching hilarity.
So, should I try the beta or is it not worth it. My copy of Windows XP is getting slow ,again, (I just re-installed it 2 months ago and it's already broken), so I need to re-install, again, should I try Vista while i'm at it or is it not worth it?
Can you people name one feature in Vista that isn't in Mac OS X? How about features that you cant get with other programs like Google Desktop Search of Konfabulator? As far as I can tell there isn't much innovation in Vista, just copies of things that have been around for years. I mean; Widgets, Copied from Konfabulator (now Yahoo Widgets); Instant Search, Copied from Mac OS X; Anoying popups for security, Mac OS 8; and on and on.
I completely agree with Phizzy, you cant expect some huge innovation from any kind of OS that isnít already available in 3rd party software. As far as copying idea's from other OS, its not wrong, its a way to give Windows users, what they've been missing out, because they donít feel like moving to a completely different OS, that probably doesnít even support half the software they are used to using. Someone really knowledgeable about his computer, and can take down just about any problem that comes his way, becomes completely wiped of any knowledge, when he/she moves to a new OS, so if people can avoid it, they usually do.
As far as minor innovation, Windows Vista has already shown, even in Beta's, to be much faster then WindowsXp. Windows and dialogs, though coated with in theory, resource draining graphics, tend to function 10x better then WindowsXP, considering the XP was a fresh install. Frame rates in games (perhaps because of Dx10) have improved very noticeably as well.
How I see it is, Windows is a great OS, and if you cant even go 2 months without screwing it up, then you shouldnít be using it, because where it has some problems here and there, WindowsXP alone, is stable enough to take what you have to give. My sister uses a Pentium 2 with less then 256MB of ram, and a 20GB hard drive, using WindowsXP, and other then noticeable performance slopes (obviously) WindowsXP has yet to show any sign of critical problems that required fixing. With that said, in my eyes... OS X is nothing but bubble wrap for users who are unable to work with Windows, without screwing it up.
Well, I guess you have a point. If the OS supports good software and is fast, than it could be as featureless as DOS and still be good. But I still hate that Microsoft is copying everything from Mac OS X, I mean for god sakes people, get your own idea for once! I agree that taking a few features from another OS or program isn't bad, but they copied just about everything. If you think about it, Microsoft hasn't really come up with much of anything, ever.
who here owned a commodre amiga?? Remeber the OS for this system?? Workbench. The idea behind Windows 3.1 was based on workbench. The guy who wrote the workbench code approached IBM and a few other big name companies at that time and offered them the code. they then turned it down. A lucky man just happened to be in the right place at the right time and this man was Bill Gates.
You tell me these arent the same product just wrapped up and called something different.
So to my point: I agree with Keatontech to a certain degree but without microsoft would we have had such a diverse range of multimedia and authroing tools available to us as easily as they are now. For instance Linux cannot run windows software without some form of emulation shell for it to run in. Mac OS doen't run Windows software as far as i am aware. These two limitations are the reason why Bill gates is the millionaire he is. 9 out of 10 PC owners run Windows which is the reason Microsoft are constantly releasing new products to keep their customers happy.
Whoís to say Microsoft is copying everything from anyone, but instead, are just keeping up with the time. I mean SOMEONE has to be the first one to do it, so that doesn't mean everyone after them, is copying.
Take for example the new GUI of Vista or even XP for that matter. Where Microsoft could have gotten the entire idea to add a more graphical look to the GUI, from Apple, whoís to say Microsoft wouldn't have eventually gotten to the idea later down the line.
I mean with computers getting better every year, whatís the point of sticking to a GUI with nothing but gray borders and a gradient title bar. Itís not copying, its keeping up with the time, and giving people what they want.
In this case, Microsoft is taking idea's from Apple, to 1 give people what they want and keep themselves out of the stone age of the computer world, and to also avoid the whole controversy of "Well Mac has this, this and that, so I'm going to use Mac instead." by adding those features that are missing in Windows.
"Yeah, but I mean NOTHING in Vista is original as far as I can tell"
All Mac has done over the last few updates is made it shinier and hidden more preferences. Macs are for people who don't know enough about computers to deeal with a few glitches.
Generally I've found user-friendlyness and reliablilty to have a negative correlation; better U-F, worse reliability. My friend got a new Mac os X panther. It was supposedly top-of-the-line. It freezes like every day, and occasionally when he clicks a menu the little shiny spinny beach ball of doom spins infinetly and never dies. It's time for a re-boot.
Really, those new Mac commercials are fulla shit. Mac acts like they NEVER freeze and that windows keeps restarting. Mac seems to freeze more than windows does. It also depends on what you're doing. If you want to just do simple things like word and do other simple things get a mac. If you want to develop and do something worthwhile get a windows.
Also, it's annoying how macs don't call themselves PC's. The ytechnically are. Why are only windows computers addresses as PC's?
But yeah... Mac is pretty sissy. They aren't very origional. That "dock" thing is a total rip off of the task bar. Besides, the taskbar shows what windows and folders are open, instead of just one shiny, bouncy icon.
Also, it's annoying how macs don't call themselves PC's. The ytechnically are. Why are only windows computers addresses as PC's?
It's just a convention. It's easier to say 'PC' than 'PC/IBM compatible' like we used to.
WindowsXP, unless something is seriously wrong, never does a full OS lock up, requiring a restart. It's just programs that lockup, and usually the programs lock up, because the program wasnt well programmed, the OS is doing what it was told to do. I dont know how so many people have so many issues with WindowsXP, I have used over 10 different computers for extended periods of time, all with WindowsXP on it (3 of which were mine) and never had any issues, other then a few glitches here and there as Bibin added.
At this rate, the only true reason WindowsXP seems to get unstable over time, is because unlike Mac, it doesnít try to hide all the deep system files, you can find them all under the Windows folder. This usually means that if your an idiot who has no clue what they're doing, and trying to look up stuff they shouldnít on the internet, your going to catch a virus that can take advantage of Windows's flexibility as an OS. However, this also means that Windows, unlike Mac, is 50x more flexible, and can be molded to suit just about ANYONES personal needs, as far as functionality, look, and performance goes.
As far a system specs goes, Windows usually shows most of its dirty looks, on really low spec PC's, and at this day and age, if your using a PC with 128MB of ram, and a 20GB hard drive, Pentium 2 processor, its time for an upgrade anyway.
In addition to what Bibin said about PC... he's absolutely correct. PC stands for Personal Computer, which logically speaking, both Mac and Windows are just that, Personal Computers.
Sorry if every post here I made has been really long, I just have a lot to say as far as Windows vs Mac goes.
I don't mind your reasonably-long posts, more that your second paragraph is nonsense. The level at which system files are displayed doesn't make a difference to how likely a computer is to catch a virus due to security holes left in the operating system. And look at Linux - all system files imaginable are displayed in that (you might say an overwhelming amount) and it's significantly less virus-prone than Windows. Additionally, "if your an idiot" - extra irony award!
That aside, at the moment, my copy of Windows has a problem with the Volume Shadow Service (whatever that is) that prevents it from starting up reliably, and as far as I can see, it's through natural deterioration of the operating system through installing/uninstalling/reinstalling programs - something that shouldn't happen no matter how stable it is normally. Many Windows users rebuild their systems entirely every year or so, just because it seems to need renewal. Mine now shellcrashes about once daily and sometimes loses one of the DVD drives for no apparent reason.
I don't mind Windows XP - it's popular because it works, and I'm impressed with how stable XP is compared to the earlier versions. After initially hating it, I've been planning on trying out Linux as a home operating system for some time, but I'd be more inclined to do this if it could run anything that I would actually use.
Windows = Average Computer User
Mac = Bubble wrap for people who cant use Windows or Linux correctly.
Linux = Developer's best friend.
One of the biggest reasons Windows isnít completely slashing all the security holes, and are just having them patched or avoided, is because of the kernel having security holes. Unfortunately, completely rewriting the kernel would completely shut the lights off for backwards comparability, which is very important for people who have been using Windows from the start, and donít feel like getting a complete restart, waiting years for developers to jump on the band wagon.
Ignore me if the above is wrong, I found it a long time ago when I was reading about Windows Vista, forgot where though.
Operating Systems should be just that - systems that you can operate things on. There should be no shiny features on built-in virus checkers, just the minimum files needed to run basic programmes on. And if you want other stuff you could download it.
At this rate, people are making the OS wars, sound worse then the console wars, when consoles have a reason to be trying to reach the spotlight... an OS just needs to do basic functions and leave improvements to the system specs.
Okay Okay, So I finally got Vista to work (The install was pretty painless after I wiped my drive), and i'll admit that I like it. It was very easy to connect to my network (I still can't figure out how to do that in Linux), and it is running fater than XP. However, it pops up some warning whenever I do just about anything , it is so anoying. It comes with some pretty good stuff, and Aero Basic really isn't bad. I think i'll use it for awhile before returning to XP.
"It's just a convention. It's easier to say 'PC' than 'PC/IBM compatible' like we used to. "
You could just say "Windows" or "Linux" or whatever it is instead of saying PC at all, and use PC to refer to any computer.
"At this rate, the only true reason WindowsXP seems to get unstable over time, is because unlike Mac, it doesnít try to hide all the deep system files, you can find them all under the Windows folder. This usually means that if your an idiot who has no clue what they're doing, and trying to look up stuff they shouldnít on the internet, your going to catch a virus that can take advantage of Windows's flexibility as an OS."
BANG! My point exactly.
Everything has glitches: games, operating systems, and even people (just look at the U.S. president) Mac's glitches are just covered up, but they are there. There are tons of viruses for Mac, yet the computer doesn't tell you. It then slowly detereoriates silently and gets slower and slower. It finally dies once your warranty dies. Mac just pretends to be perfect until it finally dies. It denies its true life choices.
Its not really that big and ugly, he's using Aero Basic, so it does have the nice glass look, also. Thatís WMP11 when its maximized. It actually gets very small and compact (smaller then WinAMP). You can even have it running in the task bar, something started with WMP10.
PS: Keaton, why is your little start menu picture...
PSS: Why cant you use the actual Aero theme Keaton? Its completely video accelerated, your processor doesnít do much of anything to keep it running, so you should be fine with it according to your Welcome screen. From looking at you screenshot, the Basic Aero theme looks like a step down from WindowsXP... Especially in Media Player...
You could just say "Windows" or "Linux" or whatever it is instead of saying PC at all, and use PC to refer to any computer.
Uh, what? What does operating system have to do with hardware? If I want to refer to PCs, I'm not going to call them "those computers that can run windows and linux and unix and bsd and [...this could go for like 50 iterations]" just to satisfy the very small minority that want to call a mac a PC and think OS=architecture.
What I ment by personal computer, I think, is the line between a chip that computes various things inside a toy or smart aircraft... and a home/business desktop/laptop computer that we use with a mouse/keyboard/monitor.
The only problem i had was graphics card incompatability which caused the graphics to hang for a several seconds before going into sleep mode. Other than that, i must say that it is very high in performance because when i wake it from sleep mode the desktop becomes ready to use in only 3 seconds. Vista WILL get better ^^
Uhh, I have no clue why the start button didn't show up in the pictures, and I actually have a very bad graphics card (16mb I think), and no gaming graphics card. For some reason my computer is rated 1 by Vista, even though I have a good proccesor and everything.
I just don't get it. So, is there a way to set it to the regular Aero or am I stuck with Aero basic until I upgrade my graphics card?
The requirements for a "5" on that performance test are insane. 2GB of RAM, 512MB graphics card memory... probably needs a DX10 card as well. But Keaton, your system is pretty crap given Vista's requirements, I'm not surprised it's got a "1".
Well, my computer cost me a grand total of $300 USD (refurbished), and it's 2 years old, so I'm not suprised it doesn't work very well with Vista. I'd have gotten a better graphics card, but I don't play 3D video games all that much, so I didn't see much of a need.
After using Vista for awhile I'm sick of it, I know it's a beta running on a bad computer, but I just don't think it'll get much better. First of all a computer that can get a 5 on the Vista performance test would probably be more expensive than an iMac. I promised I wouldn't get all "Apple Fanboy" on you people, so i'll just stop there. Furthermore, for me it runs slower than XP, and I don't think that's gonna be fixed up in the Final version. Speed isn't something you fix, you have to program speed into the software. Vista doesn't crash any less, and it seems to do a worse job recovering from application crashes. It messed up my iPod, doesn't see my headphone jack, slowed down my internet connection, and I think it messed up my backup drive. I mean, it's a beta, but I don't think they'd have time to fix it all up before the current launch date, and knowing Microsoft, they'd rather release a buggy program on time than a good program late.
I think that the average person wouldn't see much use in upgrading to Vista very soon, so only computer geeks would, and many computer geeks are Apple Fanboys. The average person would probably upgrade to Vista eventually, but not for awhile, and if Apple keeps up their ad campaign they might just buy a Mac.
I think the problem with Vista is that Microsoft refuses to dump the API's of earlier versions of Windows. They are filled with old buggy technology that seems to slow the OS down, and who really uses Win95 software anymore? I think Apple did the right thing in Mac OS 10, they dumped everything and started from scratch, creating an emulator for older Mac software. Microsoft needs to do the same thing, they cannot make future OS's faster until they do. They have backed into a corner and the only way to get out is starting over, which they refuse to use.
Now, before you all get really mad at me, I will say that Vista has great speech recognition, has a good looking interface, and has good driver support. They have addressed many problems in XP (Start menu filling up, search taking forever), but not all. There is a chance that the final version will be flawless, but for now I'm giving it a thumbs down. Now where's that XP install CD?
First of all, the majority of "geeks" out there prefer Windows over Mac. Secondly, why would you install Windows Vista OVER WindowsXP... thatís just stupid, especially when the OS is in beta testing! WindowsXP ran allot slower on my dads PC when we upgraded it from Windows98, and when we completely revamped the hard drive, and used XP (because we couldnít find the 98 disk) it ran beautifully.
As far as all the issues your having, you have to take into considering that the average PC user is going to buy a PC from a store, and almost all stores such as Best Buy, have Windows based computers, for one. Another difference is, you are suffering from many issues, because your trying to run Windows Vista on a PC that would most likely love Windows 98 something, and a computer that was made to standup to Vista's expectations, will obviously not show all the problems you are having.
Last, but not least in your post... I can obviously tell you failed to read one of my posts, telling you EXACTLY why Microsoft does not want to completely redo the entire operating system (mainly the kernel), and that is because it would COMPLETELY purge all compatibility with programs running on earlier versions of Windows, which is something that no serious computer user, would want. Mac might be ok with doing something like that, but take into consideration that the average PC user, does not feel like looking for a completely new program suite, just because all the programs they loved, are no longer compatible with the new version of Windows. With that said, Microsoft was smart not to do that, because they would lose half of there customers. One thing that did happen with Vista though, is with the improvements, all 16-bit backwards comparability was lost, even on the 32-bit edition of Windows. With all things considered however, this is not a major loss, seeing as emulators will sure to take the field of running these programs and for the most part... we all use 32-bit programs anyway. Anyway, I donít think I'll say much more from here on out, its hard to talk a fan boy out of something like this, its like trying to convince someone that GeForce is better then Radeon (which in most cases, it is) and you usually cant. No offence straight to you however, Keaton. Understand though, that being a fan boy is not something to be proud of. I would give Mac a chance, if it didnít mean that Iíd have to get used to an entirely new set of programs, which farther proves my issue with completely ruining backwards compatibility with Windows.
Yeah, most of the issues i'm having are minor things that could be fixed, and a decent computer could probably run Vista faster than XP. Normally I'd be out looking for a decent computer for Vista, but i've caught a severe case of Apple fanboyism, so I'm saving up for an iMac instead. Microsoft did do a good job with the usability and interface, which use to be Apples specialty, and it does seem to be more secure than XP.
Anyway, I seem to have misplaced my Windows XP install CD, so I guess i'm stuck with Vista for awhile. I'm just gonna have to learn to get along with Vista for the time being.
Does no one have any knowledge here about duel installing? There is absolutely no good reason you would install a BETA operating system, on top of a final release!
It's called.. partition your hard drive so that you have basically 2 formatted parts, showing up as 2 hard drives. That way you can safely do whatever you want with the beta partition, and nothing will effect the working partition. In addition, another stupid question... why the hell would you install Vista, a BETA OS, KNOWING that you donít know where you XP disk is? (Taking into consideration you werenít smart enough to duel boot, and decided to either upgrade your working OS, or format your hard drive. Especially not knowing that your computer will be completely comparable with the new operating system! System specs are nice and all, but what if your internet drivers didnít work on the beta, or your video, or sound drivers didnít work. Your shit out of luck now...
Why would anyone go near a public beta for something as big as an OS. Mac, Windows whatever. That's just asking for trouble.
Anyways this whole stereotyping issue is tired. OMG I use a mac. That must mean I can't access the UNIX terminal and do fancy shmancy stuff. Heaven forbid I try modifying the open source graphics drivers for tweaking purposes.
You're a fucking tool if you think that Mac=simplicity. It's the same as Windows. Haha. It says "click here to begin" on old Windows systems that must mean you're an idiot who can't use a computer. Scanner Wizard! You need to use a wizard to use a scanner?
Both are OS's with a happy easy to use interface on top, but with a deep core running underneath. OSX is nothing more than an easy to use Linux flavour that doesn't require manual flashing of drivers and other techy things.
I'm pretty unbiased in this sort of thing now. I had PC's from 1996 until I got a PowerBook in 2005. I didn't like any other Mac. It was a hate. But I wanted a new laptop and this was the best price for a 12" machine. And I went at the whole thing open minded and found it wasn't this image that schools had painted of a restricted and locked down system. I still use my PC for HL2. but in my PowerBooks life time the PC has been formatted 6 times and that disrupts my workflow. and it runs all the apps I need, AND the new Intel Macs can run any mainstream OS you can throw at it. Theres even an app coming out that lets you run Windows within OSX.
I'm surprised at BrandonC the most. some of shit he's banging on about is brilliant.
"At this rate, the only true reason WindowsXP seems to get unstable over time, is because unlike Mac, it doesnít try to hide all the deep system files, you can find them all under the Windows folder."
Isn't that a good thing? Anyone who wants to can find the system files in OSX. they're hidden from kids and other people dead set on breaking the system.
"However, this also means that Windows, unlike Mac, is 50x more flexible, and can be molded to suit just about ANYONES personal needs, as far as functionality, look, and performance goes. "
That an official figure that 50%? I suppose there are no skinning apps for OSX. Just like there is no WindowsBlinds.
"All Mac has done over the last few updates is made it shinier and hidden more preferences"
what on fucking earth? You obviously don't know what your on about. hidden more preferences? Like what?! If anything they've added more preferences! MySQL, Flip4Mac, Stuffit AVR and Spotlight - in the upgrade to OSX Tiger. Made it shinier?! bloody hell. what do you even mean by shinier? The only graphical difference between Panther and Tiger is the upgrade to Aqua3. This removed the horrible stripes from the GUI.
So that's all they did aye?
No spotlight? No Core Video/Core Image? No 64bit CPU support? No Dashboard? No Safari RSS? No iChat AV? No native H.264 codec support? No Automator? No Quicktime 7? No Voice over? No Parental controls? not to forget the massive update in Xcode.
I've lost all faith.
I use PC's for games and OSX for everything else, and the world is perfect.
Uhh, he was just trying to be unbiased. I'm sure you've all figured out that i'm an apple fanboy, but I don't have enough money to buy a mac, so I have to use my moms mac whenever I get sick of my PC. Since I use both I can safetly say that Mac OSX does run (a lot) faster, but crashes just as much as Windows.
Anyway, I don't wanna get into that again. I'm gonna move to Linux as soon as my Linux compatible network card shows up. Then I can stop drooling over a Mac because I have an OS just as fast, if not faster. I know Windows runs pretty well if you have a good video card, but I just don't want to throw more money into an OS that i'm already sick of.
I don't want to start a big fight here, so i'll just shut up and try to re-install XP (MMF 1.5 doesn't work on Vista, and I was to lazy to re-install XP before now).
His first mistake was bring back a topic that was long over, at least here at TDC. I agree with 'zimtower' on his quote "anyone that worships a Mac on TDC is stupid", but not because Mac is for idiots, but because Klik Programs are for WINDOWS so if you warship a Mac, then what is your point in being here? To advertise? You obviously arenít here for klik products, because they aren't available on Mac!
At any rate, being this topic back, JimmiÖ just so you can smash out opinions in a post that died a little less then a week ago is pointless. Let it rest.
Well, iMacs are about twice as good as my computer (in most areas), and Mac OSX seems to run about 4 times as fast as my computer. Oh, and with parralells for mac (http://www.parallels.com/ ) you can run MMF and TGF natively right next to iMovie.
I know why you people don't like macs. They seem very simple and they run about 10% of all commercial software. When you first use a Mac it is very simple, but you start to figure out how you can do really advanced stuff with it. Lord of the Rings,King Kong, and many others that I will not bother to name, were all made mostly on Macs. How is that not powerful? Also, Mac OS X isn't very customizable, you don't have all bijillion of XP's settings, but that just makes everything easier to use and set up. Mac isn't perfect, no OS is, there is no best OS either, it's all a matter of oppinion. I like Mac OS X better, but that's just my preference.
Lord of the Rings and King Kong were made through Autodesk programs such as 3D Studio Max, which is as far as my knowledge, native to Windows only so far.
Customizing an OS is one of the many things that make them liked. And the fact that Mac has ONLY 10% of commercial software? Hell, in your attempt to convert me, you actually made me like Windows even more, Keaton! No doubt Mac isnít powerful, but what it lacks is flexibility, and compatibility. Both of which are very important.
Vista is very good even in BETA, I have found no bugs, nor has it crashed for me. Partition Magic also pissed me off so much. First it gave me instructions that made my computer unbootable and I had to reformat. Then I installed it again and it couldn't partition because the drive was locked.So I looked up help for that, but no real answers, then I thought, maybe it was because I had Service Pack 2 before, and what do you know I installed Sp2 and it worked. So then I just installed Vista on the partition and it was fine, I can still boot XP and Vista.