Windows VISTA

[David]

...but i was stuck with Windows ME till about 4 months ago, and trust me, nothing is worse than that pile of shit... nothing.

one more time

 

[TMSTKSBK]

So basically you're screwed if you want to play HD DVD or BluRay on your PC. Whichever one wins. Which isn't entirely apparent yet.

I hate DRM in any form. Sure, you can't expect the MPAA/RIAA to be happy about their pockets not being as full of money as they could be, but they need to either cut the crap, or find some other method -- like asking nicely >_< -- to make it stop.

DRM is one of the major things stopping me from using Vista. I do not want my OS to have the ABILITY to decide things for me to any great extent...which Vista does...to a much higher level than I like.

 

[Ray]

stopping me from using Vista.

Perhaps a good time to take a look at linux (Oh yeah, that had to show up ).
At least a LiveCD without need to install it is pretty recommendable these days.

After I've tried a little bit with Vista, I thought myself that I should consider an alternative. Just to know there are other possibilities.

I'm currently testing Ubuntu Edgy Eft, and I'm quite satisfied with it.
With Beryl activated, this looks even nicer than Aero.
The installation was easy, UO ran without any complaints (after Wine was configured) and RunUO (currently working with 1.0 as my shard still uses that one) ran, after a little patch in the scriptcompiler. Miranda 0.7 worked as well.

As a software developer for .net, I'm well aware that I will never get off the Microsoft road completly, even with the mono project. But it's nice to see the code running platform indepently so the things 'WE' provide as open for everybody doesnt lead to a strict bond with as windows only environment.

I'll get enough experience with vista at work, where I can't choose that myself. As far as I've seen it yet, it's not that bad. At the moment, it clearly lacks compatibility with some drivers and applications, but that's the same with every major windows release, and I think it will be fixed within some months.

Regards

 

[HellRazor]

Well I went ahead and took the plunge. Ordered 2 copies of Vista Ultimate for my main and backup systems.

If nothing else it will be nice to be able to take advantage of all of my system memory for a change.

 

[WeEzL]

Well I went ahead and took the plunge. Ordered 2 copies of Vista Ultimate for my main and backup systems.

If nothing else it will be nice to be able to take advantage of all of my system memory for a change.

How much system memory do you have exactly?

Just for reference, Vista 32-bit is still limited to the same 4GB of memory that XP was. With the 64-bit version, they've raised that to 128GB (in Vista Ultimate).

 

[HellRazor]

How much system memory do you have exactly?

Just for reference, Vista 32-bit is still limited to the same 4GB of memory that XP was. With the 64-bit version, they've raised that to 128GB (in Vista Ultimate).

8 Gigs.

And I'm glad you said something because I accidentally bought the 32-bit versions. Hopefully I can change the order before they ship it.

That's what I get for being an impulse buyer!

 

[Midnightdragon]

The 4GB limitation is a limitation on 32-bit OSes in general... Windows or Linux, the same limit applies. It's not just XP. Only a 64-bit OS will be able to address more than 4GB.

That is not true. If you look at any Windows server edition specs for the 32 bit versions they differ and some will support MASSIVE amounts of ram. it is not 32 or 64 bit that makes the difference in the amount of ram that can be used.

If you look at other things memory related such as HDD space that windows can read XP is limited to something like 120gb per drive until you install SP1 or SP2 think it was SP2 that allowed you to format a drive and have it read more than 120gb.

 

[jaynigs]

That is not true. If you look at any Windows server edition specs for the 32 bit versions they differ and some will support MASSIVE amounts of ram. it is not 32 or 64 bit that makes the difference in the amount of ram that can be used.

If you look at other things memory related such as HDD space that windows can read XP is limited to something like 120gb per drive until you install SP1 or SP2 think it was SP2 that allowed you to format a drive and have it read more than 120gb.

Im afraid it is true,

32-bit processor uses 32 bits to refer to the location of each byte of memory. 2^32 = 4.2 billion, which means a memory address that's 32 bits long can only refer to 4.2 billion unique locations (i.e. 4 GB).

If your processor supports Physical Address Extension (PAE), this is increased to 36 bits for 32 bit cpus.

Hard drive space is a different kettle of fish to physical ram..

 

[WeEzL]

That is not true. If you look at any Windows server edition specs for the 32 bit versions they differ and some will support MASSIVE amounts of ram. it is not 32 or 64 bit that makes the difference in the amount of ram that can be used.

You're right in the respect that Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition and Datacenter Edition support more than 4GB of RAM.... however, the 4GB limit is not overcome by these versions of Windows. If I understand correctly, for systems with more than 4GB, the memory manager maps to a single 4GB chunk of memory at a time.

The 4GB Windows Memory Limit: What does it really mean?

 

[Courageous]

Those versions of Windows are varied intentionally for marketing purposes. I believe the 32 bit editions of those versions support up to 64GB physical. They do it by disambiguating memory addresses in the kernel, such that individual processes have their own 2/3GB set of addressable memory (which the process itself can have even more, if special techniques are used, but that's custom, per process).

I believe that all x86 processors since the Pentium Pro (1995) offer PAE. Whether or not your version of Windows supports it is up to M$. I think all versions of Linux do.

C//

 

[shrundowr]

So basically you're screwed if you want to play HD DVD or BluRay on your PC. Whichever one wins. Which isn't entirely apparent yet.

I hate DRM in any form. Sure, you can't expect the MPAA/RIAA to be happy about their pockets not being as full of money as they could be, but they need to either cut the crap, or find some other method -- like asking nicely >_< -- to make it stop.

DRM is one of the major things stopping me from using Vista. I do not want my OS to have the ABILITY to decide things for me to any great extent...which Vista does...to a much higher level than I like.

rofl @ the part in bold.

 

[HellRazor]

rofl @ the part in bold.

But there is truth in that.

I used to buy quite a lot of music, but ever since the RIAA started using their gestapo tactics I have boycotted them. These days I either buy my music used from Ebay, buy direct from the artist, or I download it (legally or illegally).

These fat cats at the RIAA can cry me a fucking river. They've basically kept CD's at the same price or higher since the CD format first came out, despite reduced manufacturing costs. They keep trying to hold onto an outmoded business model while ripping off the artists that support them and paying lawyers to sue college kids. Fuck the RIAA, they can suck my balls.

If they weren't such greedy power hungry pricks I'd go back to buying my music new. But since they don't want to play nice, I'll be happy to do my part to drive them under at every opportunity.

 

[mordero]

They've basically kept CD's at the same price or higher since the CD format first came out, despite reduced manufacturing costs.

A couple of weeks ago, they actually said we should be happy than havent RAISED prices.

 

[Nochte]

These fat cats at the RIAA can cry me a fucking river. They've basically kept CD's at the same price or higher since the CD format first came out, despite reduced manufacturing costs. They keep trying to hold onto an outmoded business model while ripping off the artists that support them and paying lawyers to sue college kids. Fuck the RIAA, they can suck my balls.

If they weren't such greedy power hungry pricks I'd go back to buying my music new. But since they don't want to play nice, I'll be happy to do my part to drive them under at every opportunity.

+k for this post.
+k again for the highlighted part.

 

[InOverMyHead]

How about Intel's quad core processors? I haven't heard too much about that? Can someone enlighten me?...

 

[poolmanjim]

Vista is a snake with two heads. I mean that in a good and bad way.

The first head, the head that a lot of you have expressed, is the the innocent, nice, harmless head. Vista will revolutionize the industry and become a true blue mainstream OS with some features that are going to blow our mind. Arrow (the new Graphical User Interface) is the first understandable and user friendly, graphic intensive interface out there. Its only rival would be OS X.

Vista is the first MS operating system sense MS-DOS that has REALLY good command line support. It has a lot of the functionality plugged into the CMD line so that the geeks out there can have their cmd line and do things that way. It also has a sweet GUI that just kicks butt all day long! This makes it user friendly.


The other head of the snake is the cobra side of Vista. My philosophy on all OSs (mainly microsoft ones) is that their first release is more like a Beta than a usable version. Beta testing is good and MS did a good job with theirs but only geeks and technology enthusiasts even mess with Betas really. MS does not get an even sampling of the wonderful user that is out there. Users who know nothing about computers can do more damage in 5 minutes then a hacker could in an hour (figurative).

Until an OS has had some time on the market and tech support has heard a lot of questions a Service Pack cannot be ready. SP1 for Vista has already been announced.

Vista also has some issues with power. If you do not have a brand spanking new machine Vista will kick your butt. It consumes a lot of the system resources. It also has some features that just confuse the buh-jesus out of people using it.

Okay to end my long winded crusade to set you all straight .

I have used Vista briefly. I did like the GUI it rocks. I haven't messed with all the features I'm going off of what my friends who are all mad Beta testers and knowledgeable geeks have said. Most of what I have said has been based on statistical truths and personal preference backed with a good sampling of expert and professional knowledge.

My advice, and opinion, would be to wait just awhile until SP1 comes out and watch the tech forums and such for complaints and decide then if its a good idea. You are opening the door to disaster if you buy Vista now and expect it to work 100%.

Hope I provided insight.

 

[poolmanjim]

Sorry for the double. Didn't see her last post there. Forgive me.

Intel's Quad Cores are Intel... Thats the first thing you should look at.

I haven't used them and I don't plan to. AMD is going to release a true quad core in August if I remember right. Intel Quad cores are nothing more then 2 duel cores glued together basically. They have the typical feature of Intels with a high clock speed and high heat along with low power costs.

AMD Processors tend to have lower clock speeds (less GHz) and yet the process better and more efficiently causing less heat and better abilities as far as over clocking is concerned.

I wouldn't use one if i had to. Stick with the Core 2 Duo or an AMD. They are more reliable usually. Right the Core 2 Duo is dominating the processor market while AMD is trailing for awhile. I'd look at getting one of those instead.

 

[WeEzL]

Seriously, quad core CPUs are not really entirely useful unless you operate in a purely multithreaded environment. The majority of desktop applications (including games) can't take advantage of them because most have one or two threads at the most. The OS will take advantage when possible, but anything running on top of the OS really must be seriously multithreaded in order to use more than one or two cores. Many server apps are designed to be multithreaded so I would say servers are probably one of the only real useful platforms for multiple cores right at the moment. That will change in time I'm sure, but for now, IMO, quad core CPUs are a waste of money for the average computer user.

 

[InOverMyHead]

So a Quad Core is only good for businesses that has a lot of comps that run on the same network and do a hella lot of multi tasking?...

I was under the impression that AMD runs hotter than Intel. I have talked to quite a few people that use AMD and they swear by them. They say they wouldn't use anything else but they do run hotter than what Intel puts out.

I want a good and fast processor but not something that has the potential of burning up my motherboard. And I say that because my son had a comp that had an AMD processor and it ran a bit hot and cooked his motherboard. And what did he do?!... He replaced his motherboard with an AMD..... Go figure...

I have used an Intel forever and never had a problem ever...
And because I said that, my comp will probably blow up...

I have learn in life that you never say never...

I'm going to pay..... I just know it...

 

[WeEzL]

So a Quad Core is only good for businesses that has a lot of comps that run on the same network and do a hella lot of multi tasking?...

Well, yes and no... more for servers that usually have lots of heavy processing tasks to perform simultaneously. One wouldn't need a quad core if all they were doing was checking their email while doing a spreadsheet and typing a report at the same time. That constitutes multitasking, but none of those apps actually require any sort of CPU power to perform.

I was under the impression that AMD runs hotter than Intel. I have talked to quite a few people that use AMD and they swear by them. They say they wouldn't use anything else but they do run hotter than what Intel puts out.

They used to be. But, now due to technology advances and more efficient cores, AMD has managed to produce a very cool running processor. Don't get me wrong, the Core 2 Duos aren't anything to laugh at either, they run a lot cooler and use a lot less power than anything Intel previously put out.

I want a good and fast processor but not something that has the potential of burning up my motherboard. And I say that because my son had a comp that had an AMD processor and it ran a bit hot and cooked his motherboard. And what did he do?!... He replaced his motherboard with an AMD..... Go figure...

Actually, if the CPU heatsink is mounted correctly and you aren't overclocking, then it would be darn near impossible to burn anything up through normal usage, even using older CPUs that ran 3 or 4 times as hot as today's CPUs.