News Prices for XP downgrades going up.

[Moonwalker]

Most OS issues are caused by users, and not by the OS itself. Same for browsing the internet too. Honestly I can't see a difference in daily use of FireFox and IE, except that FireFox does not smooth text/letter which does not really look eyecandy to me. I always wonder about those safety issues being discussed all the time. I never had any safety problems using both, FireFox and IE. But maybe that's why I don't visit strange web pages...

Same for OS. I use Windows since 3.11 and I use Linux for a long time too meanwhile. I know how to configure and use both to not run into trouble, which I don't have at all. I know possible issues meanwhile and how to avoid them, which is no big deal at all. Each OS has its pros and cons. I don't see any OS which is signifiacantly better than another one. Those flame wars are self-made by users for sure. And if we talk about requirements: don't flame because your machine is below. You should know it before you try

 

[Urwumpe]

don't flame because your machine is below. You should know it before you try

Unless your machine is a Ethyl alcohol/pressurized air bipropellant rocket engine of course.

 

[Scrooge McDuck]

Just one example: Linux is the only consumer operating system around, which comes with a C++ compiler with full OpenMP support. It is easy to make all recently developed Linux applications capable of using multiple CPU cores or even work in clusters. Attempting the same with Microsoft is a war of the APIs.

As Multicores become more and more standard, this becomes a real disadvantage.

Apple's OS X comes with XCode (that's like Apple's version of Visual Studio), for free, bundled with the OS. XCode 3.1 adds support for GCC compiler, also OpenMP should work..

(not that I'm a real apple fan (yet), but I have to use OSX now for developing purposes)

regards,
mcduck

 

[Urwumpe]

Apple's OS X comes with XCode (that's like Apple's version of Visual Studio), for free, bundled with the OS. XCode 3.1 adds support for GCC compiler, also OpenMP should work..

I currently develop on a Mac for my computer graphics lecture, but it uses not the GCC, but something similar, without the OpenMP support (That's why I know OpenMP should be there, but isn't lately)

 

[Scrooge McDuck]

FYR:

http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=6765878
http://developer.apple.com/document...ceptual/WhatsNewXcode/Articles/xcode_3_1.html

 

[Urwumpe]

FYR:

http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=6765878
http://developer.apple.com/document...ceptual/WhatsNewXcode/Articles/xcode_3_1.html

OK... so... GCC 3.1 has it, GCC 4.0 has it not, GCC 4.2 has it again?

http://openmp.org/wp/openmp-compilers/

And DAMN:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/fw509c3b.aspx

It really has it already... must have missed this new option in the last year.

Anybody willed to test if Orbiter add-ons can use OpenMP?

 

[Hielor]

A lot of the people complaining about Vista say that it makes your system significantly slower. Google for vista benchmarks, and you'll find articles from nearly two years ago showing that on average, Vista didn't reduce performance by any more than 5%.

There were a few notable exceptions with OpenGL apps, due to Vista's not supporting OpenGL very well at launch. Newer drivers for video cards have fixed those issues, and I'd be willing to bet that the gap is a lot smaller now.

Some sort of gap is to be expected, since you've got more stuff happening in Vista than XP. If you expect to have an OS do more for you on the same system while not using any more resources...welcome to the real world.

I agree that Vista launched way too early. There were too many major changes in the things that were being done, and developers didn't get enough time to adapt their software, so at launch there was a lot that was wrong with the OS. That certainly wasn't helped by the OEM companies (Dell, HP, etc) throwing bloatware on the machines that hadn't been properly programmed for Vista, which caused huge problems and slowdown from apps that most users would never know were there, much less use.

At this point, however, Vista is fine for almost everyone, if they have a system which can support it. It still has its annoyances (like Aero--I turned that **** off the first day I had my machine), but the major problem it has right now isn't its flaws--it's the huge "Vista Stigma" that developed after and immediately after launch and remains to this day.

Microsoft is aware of the problem and there's a much, much bigger focus on fixing perf issues now than there has been. One of the meetings I was at over the summer, someone asked about perf targets, and the question was basically "targetting same perf as Vista, right?" The senior manager basically interrupted him as soon as he said "Vista" with the reply that: "No, our perf target is XP. Not Vista. We want to do better than Vista."

 

[Scrooge McDuck]

Vista is fine for almost everyone

While you say this, you also mention a lot of fundamental reasons why you/I/we shout not use windows vista!

Vista's not supporting OpenGL very well at launch.

Number 1.
[edit]
I understand that it's working correctly now (article), but the fact that these problems where there in the beginning are a bit discouraging, and will make professional users (imagine things like medical, productdesign, 3D or architectural applications) feel abandoned at first.
Even more discouraging is the fact that Vista seems to have even problems with DirectX itself. I haven't tried, for example, Orbiter yet on Vista, but I've seen lot's of threads on this forum about issues with running it on Vista, needing tweaks to get it to run better.
[/edit]

you've got more stuff happening in Vista than XP.

Problem number 2. Vista is doing a lot of things 'behind my back'. I don't want Windows to secretly download updates while I'm not aware. I don't want Windows to silently defragmentate the HDD, while I'm actually trying to USE the PC. And this list continues.
I know that most things could possibly be turned off after a lot of tweaking, but no, I simply don't want it. As I said, I am actually trying to use my PC through the OS. For PC's/laptops on which we have Vista, the HDD seems to be continuously busy, do Vista is doing a lot of things un-asked.
Today, it looks/feels more that the OS (in case of Vista) is using my PC, while I (myself) am only secundary...

Aero

Problem number 3. After a while of trying it, I must conclude that it works counterproductive. With all those transparent/thick borders, the overview is completely gone. Allthough it works perfectly, I've seen it actually caused to slow down applications I use, so I had to turn it off. Even then that application (and more) was slower compared to running it on XP on the same machine.
I know the "it's slower" argument is only temporarily, as computers are getting faster, so in this case I could say the biggest disadvantage of Aero is it's counterproductivity.


Here are some more fundamental problems with this latest Windows:

- UAC (do I need to say more?)
- DRM
- Some (obvious) internal calls changed without full backward compatibility so that 3rd pary compilers/languages are not completely compatible anymore by default.
- etc..
- etc...

- Another thing:
When I open windows Explorer in a fresh install of XP (vista too?), and go to look on the C: drive, it tells me something like "This is hidden, because you don't need to see this". Where they out of their mind at microsoft?
This also is the case for the Program Files and Windows directories. Maybe it's me, but I just have something against this whole thing about "hiding things for users", like files, directories, even extensions are hidden by default!

Maybe this all sounds a bit too depressing/conservative, but in my opinion, this is the truth of the new windows versions (up to Vista)...
Anyhow let's look at the bright side of life: others (or even Microsoft itself) have now the chance to make things even better

[Edit] Let's clear up that I don't have anything principally agains Microsoft at all. For example, I like the latest version of their Office software to be a *lot* better than any previous office. [/Edit]

regards,
mcduck

 

[tl8]

^I could say something, But I won't

 

[Scrooge McDuck]

Peace
(Though I'm open to any substantiated opinions, and won't break into flames )

 

[SlyCoopersButt]

You mention pretty much every reason why I have my hesitations with Vista. What really deters me is how it acts like big brother. I like having full control of my system and what it does and no restrictions on what I can do with system folders (Which I need to do at times) and run programs where I want and things like that. Because I know exactly what I am doing! It's like it was made only for people who have never used a computer before. It doesn't sound very democratic.

I know a lot is done in the name of security as they say, But I prefer liberty over securty. I've had my XP install in this computer for over 2 years now and I haven't had one issue with a virus or anything as I kept very close guard all by myself.

I'm the first to walk away from XP as long as there is "freedom to the user". That's what I want from an operating system.

 

[Moonwalker]

When I open windows Explorer in a fresh install of XP (vista too?), and go to look on the C: drive, it tells me something like "This is hidden, because you don't need to see this". Where they out of their mind at microsoft?
This also is the case for the Program Files and Windows directories. Maybe it's me, but I just have something against this whole thing about "hiding things for users", like files, directories, even extensions are hidden by default!

Just one single click and those folders you mention are not hidden anymore.

Regarding OpenGL: Space Shuttle Mission 2007 for example is a full OpenGL based simulation, and it runs just perfectly under Vista. I did not experience any OpenGL related problems, nor did I ever hear about it before.

Nothing of it you mention sounds depressing. It shows how easy people become overcharged with a new OS just because it looks and behaves different


-----Post Added-----

I like having full control of my system and what it does and no restrictions on what I can do with system folders (Which I need to do at times) and run programs where I want and things like that.

You can even disable the UAC of Vista just by one single click, which you can't even do in Linux

 

[Linguofreak]

Some sort of gap is to be expected, since you've got more stuff happening in Vista than XP. If you expect to have an OS do more for you on the same system while not using any more resources...welcome to the real world.

Question is whether the gap is more than usual.

At this point, however, Vista is fine for almost everyone, if they have a system which can support it.

That can be said of practically any software. "A system which can support it," however, may be quite an expensive machine.

The question is if a greater percentage of users that are installing Vista have systems that are too slow than with previous releases of Windows.

It still has its annoyances (like Aero--I turned that **** off the first day I had my machine),

I will admit, Aero is probably a big contributor to why Vista has such a reputation for being slow, so maybe I'm being a bit unfair since Aero can be turned off. (The one time I have used Vista, I forgot until we were done with our project to tell my classmate that the Window's classic scheme exists and that it would probably improve performance. The machine crawled). Unfortunately, many users don't know how to turn it off, a good chunk of the userbase probably isn't aware that Aero slows the machine down, and there's probably a fairly big crowd that want's to have their fast performance and eat their fancy graphics too.

MS could probably boost Vista's reputation a bunch by making Aero *not* be the default graphics scheme.

I've always used Windows classic with XP, and I will continue to do so with Vista. (Unfortunately, at the moment I'm stuck with Win2K, which at least does mean that Windows classic is the default.)

 

[Woo482]

Windows Vista runs OpenGL with no problems and Vista does not do stuff behind your back and you can turn off Windows Updates if you wanted to.

 

[SlyCoopersButt]

You can even disable the UAC of Vista just by one single click, which you can't even do in Linux

UAC? What's that exactly stand for? If it's also true that programs cannot be run on desktop then is there a bypass for that then too? If so I feel a lot better already. I do admit I have quite a bit of confusion here now.

 

[Scrooge McDuck]

Nothing of it you mention sounds depressing. It shows how easy people become overcharged with a new OS just because it looks and behaves different

Ok, I agree that it's not that hard to view the hidden folders. Also making hidden files and extensions viewable is maybe possible within 20 clicks or so, but still. I have to do these things after every install, (unless I change these parameters in the windows install disk image using NLite).

But by default they hide it. I'm not sure what they where thinking when they say that "I don't need to see" the contents of my C: drive, while everyone on the planet is using this daily.

Isn't this a bit like hiding the steering wheel in new cars, because you (or people who can't drive) shouldn't use it?

Also, even after disabling all these things like UAC (User Account Control) and automatic updates, Windows still keeps giving me warnings about me being unsafe. I know tweaks to disable this too, but these take considerable more effort. Anyhow, you'll get the idea.


I'm definitely with SlyCoopersButt, good points!

 

[Hielor]

OpenGL had issues on Vista at launch. Not anymore.

As shipped, Vista (and all versions of windows, for that matter) comes configured for your basic computer user--the kind of person who needs their computer to download updates for them because they won't know how or won't know they need to. The kind of person who would benefit from a passive defrag in the background, because they won't know they need to do it (much less how) and, moreover, are unlikely to ever actually need to defrag their machines because they won't put that much on it.

Is it perfect? No. As mentioned, UAC, Aero, and other things are pretty boneheaded. Microsoft admitted that UAC was not well done.

If you're a power user (as just about everyone on this forum is, to some extent), you can easily fix these things with just a few clicks. If you care enough to want to get rid of them and don't know how, you can ask google. If you can't be bothered to spend the time to customize your operating system to the way you want it to be when that ability is offered, then stop complaining.

 

[Scrooge McDuck]

As shipped, Vista (and all versions of windows, for that matter) comes configured for your basic computer user--the kind of person who needs their computer to download updates for them because they won't know how or won't know they need to.

Yes, I agree with that in general.

The kind of person who would benefit from a passive defrag in the background, because they won't know they need to do it (much less how) and, moreover, are unlikely to ever actually need to defrag their machines because they won't put that much on it.

Ok, but still Vista's "secretly" busy with these things in the background, even though you say it's unlikely that this group of users actually need it?

Is it perfect? No. As mentioned, UAC, Aero, and other things are pretty boneheaded. Microsoft admitted that UAC was not well done.

Indeed, let's hope Microsoft will make these things better in Windows 7

[...]to customize your operating system to the way you want it to be when that ability is offered, then stop complaining.

Well, in this case I complain with fundamented reasons, because they clearly don't offer this ability by default. Ok, it's pretty straigtforward to customize things the way we prefer it. But like I said, disabling all these warnings (etc.) after customizing, still takes unsupported registry hacks/changes to put it the way I want it.

regards,
mcduck

 

[RAF92_Moser]

Have you actually used Vista on a machine that was good enough to run it? Or are you just blindly repeating what everyone else has said?

I don't blindly repeat and the PC had a dual core AMD processor (1.8 Gigahertz) and 2Gib RAM.

Once again, it was buggy and resource hogging. Plus, it kept asking me so many stupid questions like "Do you want to move this?". Yes, I want to move this and I would be much more productive if you were to get off my back. Now take your analog clock and debug yourself.

 

[Hielor]

I don't blindly repeat and the PC had a dual core AMD processor (1.8 Gigahertz) and 2Gib RAM.

Once again, it was buggy and resource hogging. Plus, it kept asking me so many stupid questions like "Do you want to move this?". Yes, I want to move this and I would be much more productive if you were to get off my back. Now take your analog clock and debug yourself.

Did you spend any time trying to fix the problems?