OS WARS MEGA THREAD (Now debating proprietary vs. open-source!)
- Thread starter Usquanigo
- Start date
garyw
O-F Administrator
- Joined
- May 14, 2008
- Messages
- 10,547
- Reaction score
- 347
- Points
- 158
- Location
- East Sussex
- Website
- blog.gdwnet.com
- Preferred Pronouns
- He/Him
jedidia
shoemaker without legs
O-F Staff Note: two posts moved here from Things that others do on the computer that make you rage thread.
as a slight defense for MS haters (or a bit of criticism on MS, depends on how you look at it) I have to say that they don't always make it easy on you. I had quite an annoying time getting my system going again after it was wrecked by updates. I re-installed a total of three times, and then found out that service pack one for Win7 could wreck some systems on install. There was a patch out for it, of course, but it had only an effect if installed BEFORE SP 1, and Microsoft obviously didn't deem it neccessary to tell autoupdate to install it before sp1. Ergo, as long as I had automatic updates on, my system got wrecked immediately again after re-install, until I deactivated it, downloaded the patch and installed it manually before turning auto-update back on, so now my system runs again. While I'm generally quite satisfied with Windows 7, such customer service borders at being ridiculus. The average user would have to call in a supporter to get his computer running again, and the above-average user wastes some hours of his spare time on it, while it could be fixed with a simple schedule-change of the updates.
Anyways, I guess I just derailed the thread into MS bashing. Sorry 'bout that.
And then they complain: "Oh, that
as a slight defense for MS haters (or a bit of criticism on MS, depends on how you look at it) I have to say that they don't always make it easy on you. I had quite an annoying time getting my system going again after it was wrecked by updates. I re-installed a total of three times, and then found out that service pack one for Win7 could wreck some systems on install. There was a patch out for it, of course, but it had only an effect if installed BEFORE SP 1, and Microsoft obviously didn't deem it neccessary to tell autoupdate to install it before sp1. Ergo, as long as I had automatic updates on, my system got wrecked immediately again after re-install, until I deactivated it, downloaded the patch and installed it manually before turning auto-update back on, so now my system runs again. While I'm generally quite satisfied with Windows 7, such customer service borders at being ridiculus. The average user would have to call in a supporter to get his computer running again, and the above-average user wastes some hours of his spare time on it, while it could be fixed with a simple schedule-change of the updates.
Anyways, I guess I just derailed the thread into MS bashing. Sorry 'bout that.
Last edited by a moderator:
RisingFury
OBSP developer
Its very annyoing for me that lots of people complain on operating system (mostly Windows) they use while they cant handle with it properly.They doesnt do defragmentation, dont clean unnecessary files, dont clean their registry, dont have any antivirus software with recent updates and dont have ever basic knowledge how to configure system to run well. And then they complain: "Oh
I take good care of my operating system and make sure it's not a mess. In fact, my operating system is the cleanest part of my room. But I'm still annoyed by a lot of Microsoft products. Mostly it's the little things...
What I miss most about Microsoft operating system is an option, right after you install an OS with a few options:
- "I'm a gamer. Configure my system to be as fast as possible, disable anything a gamer doesn't need."
- "I'm an advanced user. I can handle my system - turn off all but the most critical warning messages."
- "I'm a noob. I need assistance at every corner."
- "I'm using my computer only for day to day things. Email, p0rn and movies. Organize my system so that reading and writing from hard drive is the fastest."
I would love if the next version of Windows has a simple 5 minute setup window where you'd be able to configure everything to your preferences... that way the operating system wouldn't need to be designed around the dumbest of users like Vista was...
Last edited by a moderator:
Best OS for Orbiter ?
O-F Staff Note: posts moved here from the Best OS for Orbiter? thread.
Hello
I'm wondering, what's the best operating system for Orbiter (Most stable, reliable, fastest..etc) ?
Windows XP ?
Windows Vista ?
Windows 7 ?
Thanks :tiphat:
P.S. Sorry if this question was asked before, i couldn't find it though.
O-F Staff Note: posts moved here from the Best OS for Orbiter? thread.
Hello
I'm wondering, what's the best operating system for Orbiter (Most stable, reliable, fastest..etc) ?
Windows XP ?
Windows Vista ?
Windows 7 ?
Thanks :tiphat:
P.S. Sorry if this question was asked before, i couldn't find it though.
Last edited by a moderator:
RisingFury
OBSP developer
XP. Vista and 7 require some tweaking to get Orbiter running faster...
Vista and 7 also have that annoying feature that prevents saving of files Program Files or somewhere, so you need to move your Orbiter install into a different folder.
Vista and 7 also have that annoying feature that prevents saving of files Program Files or somewhere, so you need to move your Orbiter install into a different folder.
agentgonzo
Grounded since '09
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2008
- Messages
- 1,649
- Reaction score
- 4
- Points
- 38
- Location
- Hampshire, UK
- Website
- orbiter.quorg.org
XP.
Mantis
Member
I'd say Windows 7. It works great for me. No complaints at all.
garyw
O-F Administrator
- Joined
- May 14, 2008
- Messages
- 10,547
- Reaction score
- 347
- Points
- 158
- Location
- East Sussex
- Website
- blog.gdwnet.com
- Preferred Pronouns
- He/Him
Windows XP generally but if you want to allow every available CPU cycle to be given to orbiter you need to tune the OS. Disable as many services as possible, run as few apps as possible, etc.
agentgonzo
Grounded since '09
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2008
- Messages
- 1,649
- Reaction score
- 4
- Points
- 38
- Location
- Hampshire, UK
- Website
- orbiter.quorg.org
Programs shouldn't need to save to Program Files once installed anyway. If you follow the Windows App guidelines then saved data should go in your home folder (or somewhere underneath there). Saved data shouldn't be saved in Program Files.
Orbiter ignores a lot of these rules.
---------- Post added at 16:28 ---------- Previous post was at 16:26 ----------
This is largely overkill for hardly any beneficial improvement.
Background services etc hardly use any noticeable CPU cycles. If you have enough memory on your system to hold orbiter and other programs then it doesn't matter whether you leave them running or not. If you are low on memory, you'd better close other programs, otherwise it'll swap your orbiter memory to disk whenever it decides to update the other programs.
Moach
Crazy dude with a rocket
i'd say win 7 :
it's faster than vista - which although was awful slower than XP, had introduced some GPU-accellerated window drawing functions...
now, with 7 being oodles faster than vista, and perhaps even faster than XP - i find it's the best to run... well, anything
as for other non-windows choices, just remember - Linux runs on Orbiter these days.... :lol:
but it really varies a lot from rig to rig.... with an older set of hardware, i'd stick with XP, still... :hmm:
it's faster than vista - which although was awful slower than XP, had introduced some GPU-accellerated window drawing functions...
now, with 7 being oodles faster than vista, and perhaps even faster than XP - i find it's the best to run... well, anything
as for other non-windows choices, just remember - Linux runs on Orbiter these days.... :lol:
but it really varies a lot from rig to rig.... with an older set of hardware, i'd stick with XP, still... :hmm:
i'd say win 7 :
it's faster than vista - which although was awful slower than XP, had introduced some GPU-accellerated window drawing functions...
now, with 7 being oodles faster than vista, and perhaps even faster than XP - i find it's the best to run... well, anything
as for other non-windows choices, just remember - Linux runs on Orbiter these days.... :lol:
but it really varies a lot from rig to rig.... with an older set of hardware, i'd stick with XP, still... :hmm:
I have a Core 2 Duo machine 3GHz, not something special, 2GB RAM, and ATI 4350HD 1GB (700/500MHz).
astrosammy
Dash!
I'm using Win 7. Never had problems with installing it into Program Files. But with some ATI GPUs you can forget anti-aliasing if you do not use the D3D9 client.
Moach
Crazy dude with a rocket
i got a core 2 duo as well... 4gigs ram, and a GTX580 GPU just waiting for the rest of the rig to get upgraded to its level, but well...
i have it running win7x64 - and i'm quite happy with it :hmm:
orbiter runs without any sign of trouble.... specially with the D9 graphics client
and also.. once you grow accustomed to win7, XP just feels so... primitive
i have it running win7x64 - and i'm quite happy with it :hmm:
orbiter runs without any sign of trouble.... specially with the D9 graphics client
and also.. once you grow accustomed to win7, XP just feels so... primitive
i got a core 2 duo as well... 4gigs ram, and a GTX580 GPU just waiting for the rest of the rig to get upgraded to its level, but well...
i have it running win7x64 - and i'm quite happy with it :hmm:
orbiter runs without any sign of trouble.... specially with the D9 graphics client
and also.. once you grow accustomed to win7, XP just feels so... primitive
I actually planned to upgrade my RAM memory, but up to 3GB only, because i don't want to switch to 64Bit system.
Many programs are not running well/not running at all on 64Bit.
Similar threads
