# Why vista should have been an expansionpack



## thejokerss (Nov 5, 2007)

http://digg.com/microsoft/Why_Vista_should..._expansion_pack


----------



## Urza (Nov 5, 2007)

What a load of crap. Under the hood, Vista is entirely recoded. Theres no possible way it could have been, or should have been, an XP "expansion pack".

"About security, all I expect an operating system to do is have no holes or exploits in it."

I vote this to be the worst article I've read in a while.


----------



## kellyan95 (Nov 5, 2007)

Thanks to MS's very good idea of keeping DX10 on Vista, a shitload of hardcore users (most of the people that run a futuremark benchmark are on Vista, see their stats) are using it, who found almost all of the bugs and forced companies to start making good drivers for it.

Vista is insansely secure, no BSODs or viruses since I've been running it (For over 6 months)

It's also faster than XP 32 on my system


----------



## laminaatplaat (Nov 6, 2007)

if you wanna do something about it... you got a few options,

-go linux --> http://www.ubuntu.com/  or other distros ofcourse
-go Mac OS-> http://www.apple.com/macosx/
-stay...(xp?)->  http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/...xp/default.mspx
-pirate those people... but it is not their fault that everbody uses their software

get a job at microsoft and make a better windows


----------



## Saylient_Dreams (Nov 6, 2007)

I gotta agree with Urza, I think you have to know what went into Vista in order to make a final decision. If you make a decision from what people say and screenshots you see, its kinda dumb. I was one of those people who thought Vista was just some fancy looking XP, but I have it now on my laptop (came with it), and I would rather stay on Vista than XP. There's only a few things I hate about Vist (well don't like), just how much the friggin thing costs (400$ is a bit excessive, unless Microsoft is trying to push people to just buying computers which are about that price now these days and come with Vista.), and how strict it is with graphic requirements (I wanted to install it on a 2 year old laptop, but it didn't support the graphics card, and I was trying to install Vista Basic; just wanted some of the perks of Vista that weren't in XP). Just my opinion 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Also isn't UAC in Vista kinda similar to how Linux works (I'd say UAC was kinda a mock of how Linux works). I've used Ubuntu (and a couple of its other distros) and everytime I wanted to install something I had to type in some command saying it was alright to do it ("sudo?" then it would ask for the password and stuff), I'm still toying around with Linux, pretty newbish at it 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 . I'm not really annoyed with UAC, it's kinda helpful when you're on the web and some script wants to run an .exe that it downloaded in the background, least you have the option of allowing or denying it, which I think is helpful for the casual user, I myself have it disabled,


----------



## Linkiboy (Nov 6, 2007)

QUOTE(kellyan95 @ Nov 5 2007 said:


> Vista is insansely secure, no BSODs or viruses since I've been running it (For over 6 months)
> 
> It's also faster than XP 32 on my system


(5 months for me though)


----------



## robi (Nov 6, 2007)

Disclaimer: I am an avid Linux/BSD user. My laptop is a Macintosh.

Yet, despite all this, I get pissed off when people complain that Vista's memory usage is high. Vista caches many things in your RAM so it doesn't have to constantly pull it off your hard drive, which is much, much slower.

Also, it takes milliseconds to blank the memory so if you to start running a program that requires more memory like Photoshop or a game....the memory will be released and made available.

What the FUCK is the point of having 2 Gigabytes of RAM if your computer rarely uses it?

/rant OVER.


----------



## dsbomb (Nov 6, 2007)

I've tried vista for several months, and it's wearing me down.  I'm no PC noob, but these things just on my nerves.  For instance, the mouse cursor will stick from time to time.  I'm not sure what it is, but I'll be going around the screen, then it'll pause for 3 seconds.  The drive isn't thrashing, the computer isn't doing anything important.  Yet, it stalls for a bit.  It's not terribly often, but it's annoying when it does happen.  The mouse cursor is something they should at least have a handle on in all these years.

But the most annoying feature I haven't been able to figure out is in Windows Explorer, it tries to make a guess on what a directory's contents are, and give you the prettiest (in it's opinion) view it can.  The trouble is, it fails miserably.  Many, many times it wants to give the view for photos.  The columns will have things like "Date Taken," "Rating" for giving stuff 5 stars, width/height/resolution, etc.  The trouble is it does it on many, many directories.  Some will have nothing but other sub-directories in it, no pictures (or any files) anywhere.  I've done all that customizing, apply these settings to every sub-directory, etc.  The trouble is that newly created directories are not subject to that, and Vista will do what it wants with them all over again.

I'm not seeing much in Vista to make me want to keep it around.  I am due for a good formatting (a Windows annoyance no matter what the version) soon, I'm still up in the air what to put on here next.


----------



## kellyan95 (Nov 6, 2007)

Make sure you have all of the reccommended updates from Windows Update installed


----------



## ZeWarrior (Nov 6, 2007)

QUOTE(robi @ Nov 5 2007 said:


> Disclaimer: I am an avid Linux/BSD user. My laptop is a Macintosh.
> 
> *k.*
> 
> ...



look at bold


----------



## KizunaIatari (Nov 6, 2007)

QUOTE(kellyan95 @ Nov 5 2007 said:


> Thanks to MS's very good idea of keeping DX10 on Vista, a shitload of hardcore users (most of the people that run a futuremark benchmark are on Vista, see their stats) are using it, who found almost all of the bugs and forced companies to start making good drivers for it.
> 
> Vista is insansely secure, no BSODs or viruses since I've been running it (For over 6 months)
> 
> ...



I get absolutely none of the aforementioned problems. Maybe its your hardware?


----------



## Urza (Nov 6, 2007)

QUOTE(ZeWarriorReturns @ Nov 5 2007 said:


> QUOTE(robi @ Nov 5 2007 said:
> 
> 
> > Disclaimer: I am an avid Linux/BSD user. My laptop is a Macintosh.
> ...


look at bold purple


----------



## Osaka (Nov 6, 2007)

I dont agree with this artical at all. I havnt had any problems with vista yet and there is no way it could be an expansion since the whole entire OS was recodded mostly.


----------



## Nero (Nov 6, 2007)

QUOTE(Osaka @ Nov 5 2007 said:


> I dont agree with this artical at all. I havnt had any problems with vista yet and there is no way it could be an expansion since the whole entire OS was recodded mostly.




That didn't make sense... Whatever.

I prefer XP over Vista anyways... I've always loved these:

Windows 2000
Windows XP Home Edition (I have SP2)
Windows '98

Macs are awesome too.. I'm stuck with Vista on my Laptop though.

~Nero


----------



## ZeWarrior (Nov 6, 2007)

QUOTE(Urza @ Nov 5 2007 said:


> QUOTE(ZeWarriorReturns @ Nov 5 2007 said:
> 
> 
> > QUOTE(robi @ Nov 5 2007 said:
> ...


look at bold blue


----------



## ZeWarrior (Nov 6, 2007)

QUOTE(Osaka @ Nov 5 2007 said:


> I dont agree with this artical at all. I havnt had any problems with vista yet and there is no way it could be an expansion since the whole entire OS was recodded mostly.



Please stop making comments about PCs or Macs or any type of computer or OS. You think you know a lot but really you don't. Your post makes no sense what so ever.


----------



## Linkiboy (Nov 6, 2007)

QUOTE(ZeWarriorReturns @ Nov 5 2007 said:


> QUOTE(Urza @ Nov 5 2007 said:
> 
> 
> > QUOTE(ZeWarriorReturns @ Nov 5 2007 said:
> ...


look at bold yellow


----------



## Urza (Nov 6, 2007)

QUOTE said:
			
		

> So? It's more than enough for todays games. If you say 4GB is kick ass no it's not for an OS to see that much it has to be 64bit and 64bit isn't all that great cause it kinds of emulates 32bit programs so in something like 3dmark you get a lower score than you should
> 1. I never said 4gb was "kick-ass", I was saying that 2gb is pretty much standard now.
> 
> 2. The performance hit from 32-bit emulation is very small.
> ...


I second this.


----------



## science (Nov 6, 2007)

QUOTE(Linkiboy @ Nov 5 2007 said:


> QUOTE(kellyan95 @ Nov 5 2007 said:
> 
> 
> > Vista is insansely secure, no BSODs or viruses since I've been running it (For over 6 months)
> ...



10 months for me


----------



## ZeWarrior (Nov 6, 2007)

QUOTE(Urza @ Nov 5 2007 said:


> QUOTE said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## ZeWarrior (Nov 6, 2007)

QUOTE(Linkiboy @ Nov 5 2007 said:


> QUOTE(ZeWarriorReturns @ Nov 5 2007 said:
> 
> 
> > QUOTE(Urza @ Nov 5 2007 said:
> ...



Don't post in yellow it's terrible to see. And that's bull shit SSD are much, much faster then HDDs

And Urza the point is he said HDDs are slower than RAM which is true but SSDs aren't. You had no reason to reply to that.


----------



## Nero (Nov 6, 2007)

QUOTE(Urza @ Nov 5 2007 said:


> QUOTE said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I third this. (I'm this first one to say that though...  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 )

2GB is fine for my Home PC. I haven't ran into problems in any programs yet. Everything runs at full speed, when I have Firefox, Bitcomet, AIM, MSN, and about 20 other programs on.. I can still play a FPS at 1280 x 1024 Resolution without lag.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




It may be my Processor though..

~Nero


----------



## Urza (Nov 6, 2007)

4gb is somewhat high-end.

If you've got 5+, thats what I would start considering "kick-ass".



			
				QUOTE said:
			
		

> It's noticeable in some games.
> Link?
> 
> QUOTEAnd Urza the point is he said HDDs are slower than RAM which is true but SSDs aren't. You had no reason to reply to that.


But SSD aren't going to be standard, or even available in large capacities, for a very long time. 

I'm saying your comment was irrelevant because it has no effect on the issue you responded to.


----------



## ZeWarrior (Nov 6, 2007)

Why would I need a link? It's from personal experience.


----------



## Nero (Nov 6, 2007)

QUOTE(ZeWarriorReturns @ Nov 5 2007 said:


> Why would I need a link? It's from personal experience.



I'm pretty sure RAM has nothing to do with the gaming experience that you have... Just as long as you have enough to keep it running. Then again, I'm not the best at computers...

~Nero


----------



## ZeWarrior (Nov 6, 2007)

QUOTE(MisterNero @ Nov 5 2007 said:


> QUOTE(ZeWarriorReturns @ Nov 5 2007 said:
> 
> 
> > Why would I need a link? It's from personal experience.
> ...



It's not about RAM... It's about 64Bit emulation of 32bit programs which is noticeable in some games and programs. Games ( crysis demo ) and programs ( photoshop ) for example.


----------



## Urza (Nov 6, 2007)

QUOTE said:
			
		

> And that's bull shit SSD are much, much faster then HDDs


Not for random writes they aren't.


----------



## Nero (Nov 6, 2007)

QUOTE(MisterNero @ Nov 5 2007 said:


> QUOTE(ZeWarriorReturns @ Nov 5 2007 said:
> 
> 
> > Why would I need a link? It's from personal experience.
> ...



EDIT: This is like.. My 3rd time pressing the Quote Post button on accident instead of the Edit...

*Slaps self*


----------



## ZeWarrior (Nov 6, 2007)

QUOTE(Urza @ Nov 5 2007 said:


> QUOTE said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



For reading I meant. And thats what It's all about.


----------



## Linkiboy (Nov 6, 2007)

QUOTE(ZeWarriorReturns @ Nov 5 2007 said:


> Don't post in yellow it's terrible to see. And that's bull shit SSD are much, much faster then HDDs


lol

Maybe with a single 7200RPM drive, but since price doesn't matter, why not have two of these 15k RPM drives in RAID?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16822148284

That will pretty much kill any speed advantage the SSD has.


----------



## amptor (Nov 6, 2007)

ya I agree with urza.. windows vista is far better than XP anyway, I don't care if anyone wants to argue against that lol... I get no spyware even if I try to infect my pc and also it runs fine.  I pirated the ultimate onto my laptop by mearely installing the manufacturer cd and it's all authenticated, no need to crack the o/s any more these days... pretty nice stuff.


----------



## cubin' (Nov 6, 2007)

4GB wouldn't be noticeable in any games compared with 2GB. Hardly any games use more than a gig of ram....not including OS files. 

Vista couldn't be an expansion. The whole OS got recoded and many thing fixed up from XP. I have Vista on my parents computer and it's been working great for them. From what I've used it seems to work fine. ZeWarrior just hates anything microsoft 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 even it it's awesome. 

Everyone hated XP when it came out and the same thing is happening with Vista. Lots of people say it sucks but lots of people don't know what they're talking about.

Just remember that lots of the things fixed in Vista are under the hood. Most people don't notice the difference but it's much more stable. You can turn off the annoying prompts whenever you change settings and make the desktop like xp if you like.


----------



## Nero (Nov 6, 2007)

QUOTE(amptor @ Nov 5 2007 said:


> ya I agree with urza.. windows vista is far better than XP anyway, I don't care if anyone wants to argue against that lol... I get no spyware even if I try to infect my pc and also it runs fine.Â I pirated the ultimate onto my laptop by mearely installing the manufacturer cd and it's all authenticated, no need to crack the o/s any more these days... pretty nice stuff.



My Home PC is almost 2 years old... I scan it with Norton, Panda, and a couple other scanners.

There wasn't anything to be found... I guess I'm just safe with the porn sites I visit.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




(What? Ain't that how you guys get viruses these days?)  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




~Nero

EDIT: Almost 2 years old... Erased "and a half"


----------



## ZeWarrior (Nov 6, 2007)

QUOTE(Linkiboy @ Nov 5 2007 said:


> QUOTE(ZeWarriorReturns @ Nov 5 2007 said:
> 
> 
> > Don't post in yellow it's terrible to see. And that's bull shit SSD are much, much faster then HDDs
> ...



Those are 700$ Each. A 128GB SSD is about 1000$ Hmm... you said 2 so... 700 x 2 = 1400$ correct? What should I do... spend 400$ more for a LITTLE VERY LITTLE performance boost over SSD or save 400$ and get just a little less performance... Hmm I think I'll chose the latter.


----------



## ZeWarrior (Nov 6, 2007)

QUOTE(cubin' @ Nov 5 2007 said:


> 4GB wouldn't be noticeable in any games compared with 2GB. Hardly any games use more than a gig of ram....not including OS files.
> 
> Vista couldn't be an expansion. The whole OS got recoded and many thing fixed up from XP. I have Vista on my parents computer and it's been working great for them. From what I've used it seems to work fine. ZeWarrior just hates anything microsoft
> 
> ...



I'm sorry but where was I saying Vista or any microsoft product sucks. I didn't make one comment about vista in this whole thread.


----------



## Nero (Nov 6, 2007)

QUOTE(ZeWarriorReturns @ Nov 5 2007 said:


> QUOTE(cubin' @ Nov 5 2007 said:
> 
> 
> > 4GB wouldn't be noticeable in any games compared with 2GB. Hardly any games use more than a gig of ram....not including OS files.
> ...



This man speaks the truth.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




~Nero


----------



## Linkiboy (Nov 6, 2007)

QUOTE(ZeWarriorReturns @ Nov 6 2007 said:


> QUOTE(Linkiboy @ Nov 5 2007 said:
> 
> 
> > QUOTE(ZeWarriorReturns @ Nov 5 2007 said:
> ...


Wow, great job COMPLETELY MISSING THE POINT.

that was a 600GB vs 128GB comparison. Heres something more fair to compare it to

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16822116009


----------



## cubin' (Nov 6, 2007)

My bad. I just assumed I guess. You do hate every single microsoft product though, right?


----------



## ZeWarrior (Nov 6, 2007)

QUOTE(Linkiboy @ Nov 5 2007 said:


> QUOTE(ZeWarriorReturns @ Nov 6 2007 said:
> 
> 
> > QUOTE(Linkiboy @ Nov 5 2007 said:
> ...



I saw the point and they don't have 15k rpm drives for laptops and in case you didn't know there aren't any SSDs for Desktops either so both of us forgot this. The size comparison wasn't fair since the beginning since laptops don't even have 600GB drives


----------



## Urza (Nov 6, 2007)

QUOTE(ZeWarriorReturns @ Nov 5 2007 said:


> QUOTE(Urza @ Nov 5 2007 said:
> 
> 
> > QUOTE said:
> ...


What are you talking about? Virtual memory uses ALOT of random writes.


----------



## ZeWarrior (Nov 6, 2007)

QUOTE(cubin' @ Nov 5 2007 said:


> My bad. I just assumed I guess. You do hate every single microsoft product though, right?



No, I kind of like XP for gaming a bit. Vista is not that bad but is bloated you have to change a few processes to speed it up to XP's speed which is a little annoyance


----------



## ZeWarrior (Nov 6, 2007)

QUOTE(Urza @ Nov 5 2007 said:


> QUOTE(ZeWarriorReturns @ Nov 5 2007 said:
> 
> 
> > QUOTE(Urza @ Nov 5 2007 said:
> ...



You don't need Virtual Memory if your PC has 2GB of RAM or more. Only if it sucks will it need to write fast and an SSD is still faster at writting than the average 5400RPM laptop drive. And yes this is a fair comparison since SSDs are only available to laptops NOT desktops.


----------



## Nero (Nov 6, 2007)

QUOTE(ZeWarriorReturns @ Nov 5 2007 said:


> QUOTE(cubin' @ Nov 5 2007 said:
> 
> 
> > My bad. I just assumed I guess. You do hate every single microsoft product though, right?
> ...



Yeah, same here.

I'm thinking about upgrading to Vista from XP SP2... Or maybe not..  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





~Nero


----------



## ZeWarrior (Nov 6, 2007)

Finally Urza and Linkiboy stopped arguing. And Nero you and I are similar in some ways


----------



## kellyan95 (Nov 6, 2007)

But you can go further with Vista, and make it faster than XP. I get better DX performance in Vista than I ever did in XP


----------



## AshuraZro (Nov 6, 2007)

I don't understand why people bother discussing this anymore. Let's just keep it simple.

Don't like Vista? Don't use it.

Like Vista? Use it.

Me? I don't have any major problems with Vista. I like it. I've been running Windows Vista Business since launch (and the RCs before hand too) on my laptop and have had no serious problems outside of a few usual Windows related issues. The laptop has a Mobility X1400, 2.16 GHz T2600 Core Duo and a gig of ram. Anyone that says you need 2GB to have an enjoyable experience with Vista is full of shit. It runs perfect, even holds up great with a VM or two running.

Probably my biggest problems with Vista is that ATI Mobile driver support is lacking due to legal reasons between ATI and Laptop manufacturers, something that Mobility Modder fixes in a jiffy anyways and even then this is not Microsoft's problem at all. Second problem is just the hoops you got to jump through to get to some settings, especially network. But it's nothing a couple of shortcuts can't fix.

Now I don't pretend to know all about Vista. I don't. Not in the least. I do know there's a lot of new things going on under the hood but I don't know remotely enough to even discuss that. But if I can use it just like I have used XP with no serious issues and no drop in performance, I don't see a problem.

So there, that's both my biggest problems fixed in probably about 5 minutes of work max.

Oh and about the 2GB of ram being kick-ass. Urza is right. 2GB of ram is hardly kick ass. You'd never brag to someone about having 2GB of ram these days.

Kick ass would be SLi-8800GTX cards from BFG. The ones with the watercooling. There's kick ass. Putting 4 500GB drives in your computer or even grabbing a TB or two. There's kick ass. 2GB of ram that costs about $60-$100 total? Not so much kick ass.

Time to finish this up. Even suggesting the use of a solid state drive for standard OS use is completely absurd, don't you think?


----------



## ZeWarrior (Nov 6, 2007)

QUOTE(AshuraZero @ Nov 5 2007 said:


> I don't understand why people bother discussing this anymore. Let's just keep it simple.
> 
> Don't like Vista? Don't use it.
> 
> ...



He suggested 15k rpm drives.. All of a sudden it doesn't seem absurd does it


----------



## AshuraZro (Nov 6, 2007)

Your point is lacking... well, a point. I looked at your original statement. I don't care what anybody else suggested down the road.


----------



## Urza (Nov 6, 2007)

QUOTE(ZeWarriorReturns @ Nov 5 2007 said:


> You don't need Virtual Memory if your PC has 2GB of RAM or more.
> Do you even read what you reply to?
> 
> 
> ...


SSD performs random writes at about the same speed as something low-end like a 5400RPM drive. Plus its not really a fair comparison, because SSDs cost about 10 times as much.


----------



## amptor (Nov 6, 2007)

QUOTE(MisterNero @ Nov 6 2007 said:


> QUOTE(amptor @ Nov 5 2007 said:
> 
> 
> > ya I agree with urza.. windows vista is far better than XP anyway, I don't care if anyone wants to argue against that lol... I get no spyware even if I try to infect my pc and also it runs fine.Â I pirated the ultimate onto my laptop by mearely installing the manufacturer cd and it's all authenticated, no need to crack the o/s any more these days... pretty nice stuff.
> ...



nor does mine, there's a word for it, it's called "luck".  I'm on a 5 year old PC right now and I wouldn't want to even think about trying to use vista on this thing but at some point it's going to be replaced with at least a P4 with vista on it.  XP is too much strain.  It's just an easily exploited operating system and it is pretty sad how easy it is to get infected and how difficult it is to remove malware and such.


----------



## Lukeage (Nov 6, 2007)

QUOTE(amptor @ Nov 6 2007 said:


> QUOTE(MisterNero @ Nov 6 2007 said:
> 
> 
> > QUOTE(amptor @ Nov 5 2007 said:
> ...



It isn't so much luck as common sense. Not opening every email attachment you get, not downloading crap from random websites, etc... instantly removes a significant chance of getting anything nasty. I personally haven't run antivirus in about 5 or so years and the odd time I do a scan (usually because someone always replies "but if you don't have antivirus, how do you know your files aren't infected") I've always come up clean. I probably wouldn't recommend that to the Average Joe however.


----------



## Rankio (Nov 6, 2007)

What was said about SSD so far has been true and a good article to read about them is here:  http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/1083/8/f...ghts/index.html

But this is also with one type of drive and in due time more drives will come about which will be faster/cheaper/etc.  HDD prices haven't fallen to cheap levels until the past year or two.  In due time I believe SSDs will replace HDDs.

To quote the article's last page:



			
				QUOTE said:
			
		

> The advantages continue when we start to discuss power consumption, which is always crucial, when it comes to notebook battery life. Team told us that the most its SSD will use is 0.5 watts – regular notebook drives use between 2 – 3+ watts. Seagate's 7200.10 line of 7,200-rpm hard drives have an operating average power consumption of 13 watts, which is 26 times more than the SSD. Not only is SSD going to increase battery life but, it also shines greener.
> 
> Since the Team SSD is using high-grade Samsung SLC NAND flash, accessing data is super quick. During testing we noted random access times of anywhere from 0.5 to 0.8 milliseconds. Compared to most current desktop or notebook hard drives, the performance difference is astounding at around 13 to 14 milliseconds versus around 0.8 milliseconds. As long as you are not dependent on read and write speeds, SSD is going to allow you to access data much quicker than a regular hard disk drive providing big benefits to applications such as swap files and data that needs to be accessed quickly.



So accessing data is much much quicker but writing files isn't up to par with 7200 drives.


----------



## Urza (Nov 6, 2007)

QUOTE(Rankio @ Nov 5 2007 said:


> But this is also with one type of drive and in due time more drives will come about which will be faster/cheaper/etc.Â HDD prices haven't fallen to cheap levels until the past year or two.Â In due time I believe SSDs will replace HDDs.


It depends what you consider "due time".

http://www.engadget.com/2007/04/25/ssd-pri...s-anytime-soon/


----------



## ZeWarrior (Nov 6, 2007)

QUOTE(Urza @ Nov 5 2007 said:


> QUOTE(ZeWarriorReturns @ Nov 5 2007 said:
> 
> 
> > You don't need Virtual Memory if your PC has 2GB of RAM or more.
> ...



You always come back to the Price, Yet That's not the point. The point is Solid state drives Read and write almost instantly since parts don't have to move unlike an HDD.


----------



## Urza (Nov 6, 2007)

QUOTE(ZeWarriorReturns @ Nov 5 2007 said:


> You always come back to the Price, Yet That's not the point. The point is Solid state drives Read and write almost instantly since parts don't have to move unlike an HDD.


You seem to be incapable of reading, or retaining any information. Short term memory loss perhaps?

As has been mentioned several times, the random write speeds are no better than the standard to low-end HDDs of today.

And how you keep mentioning "price isn't the point", thats just stupid. Price should always be taken into consideration.

My theory? You just keep posting in some vain attempt to try and maintain what you think is an appearance of being informed on the discussion at hand. Yet every time you do reply, you're just digging a larger hole to fill your ignorance with.

Until you actually bring some facts to the table, I suggest you don't continue.


----------



## ZeWarrior (Nov 6, 2007)

QUOTE(Urza @ Nov 6 2007 said:


> QUOTE(ZeWarriorReturns @ Nov 5 2007 said:
> 
> 
> > You always come back to the Price, Yet That's not the point. The point is Solid state drives Read and write almost instantly since parts don't have to move unlike an HDD.
> ...


bold


----------



## Urza (Nov 6, 2007)

I wasn't insulting. Merely making a guess as to why you can't seem to retain certain facts that keep being repeated.



			
				QUOTE said:
			
		

> Normally I would agree with you here but.. HE MENTIONED RAM IS FASTER THAN HARD DRIVES. THAT IS ALL. I replied with a Simple '' Solid State Drives ''


Then I'm disappointed that I just wasted so much time arguing over a completely irrelevant statement.


----------



## ZeWarrior (Nov 6, 2007)

QUOTE(Urza @ Nov 6 2007 said:


> I wasn't insulting. Merely making a guess as to why you can't seem to retain certain facts that keep being repeated.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Maybe you didn't think much of it but to me it was insulting.  I have to agree with the last statement there. ( unless it was sarcastic and if it was you must be stupid because it really was irrelevant. )


----------



## xcalibur (Nov 6, 2007)

i was disapointed by this...
it just repeated all the facts we know and its not even a rant.

and no, vista shouldnt have been an expansion pack, it shouldve been better.
less mac os clone and more.... (windows doesnt really fit here does it?)
also it shouldve been out a lot earlier, shouldnt take up that many resources and of course it shouldnt have such a retardedly high cost


----------



## ZeWarrior (Nov 6, 2007)

QUOTE(xcalibur798 @ Nov 6 2007 said:


> i was disapointed by this...
> it just repeated all the facts we know and its not even a rant.
> 
> and no, vista shouldnt have been an expansion pack, it shouldve been better.
> ...



You sir know what you're talking about, just don't know how to say it. I praise you


----------



## xcalibur (Nov 6, 2007)

thanks?

just repeating said facts


----------



## ZeWarrior (Nov 6, 2007)

QUOTE(xcalibur798 @ Nov 6 2007 said:


> thanks?
> 
> just repeating said facts



Lol I'm not a pedophile you can relax haha


----------



## Osaka (Nov 6, 2007)

QUOTE(Urza @ Nov 5 2007 said:


> QUOTE said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


why would you second that when I basically said the same thing you did, except I didnt say it as well and miss spelled recoded. 

and how did everything that I said "not make sense" when all I said is that I use vista and have no problems, and that it couldnt have been an expansion?


----------



## robi (Nov 6, 2007)

QUOTE(Urza @ Nov 5 2007 said:


> I wasn't insulting. Merely making a guess as to why you can't seem to retain certain facts that keep being repeated.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I can't believe it! I'm so popular getting my arguments picked apart like this. I feel like the prettiest girl at the prom  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





Ahem, alright! well Urza did well while I was gone. While I'm not one to pull statistics out of my ass, I know that traditional hard drives far outnumber solid-state drives and most likely will for quite some time. In fact I believe that hybrid drives will be a great stepping stone towards these SSDs. I'm actually considering moving to a small SSD for my OS drive leaving a traditional drive for data.

BUT anyway:
My point is that memory is best utilized when it's used. Other operating systems have similar behavior as well. It is an important feature in any modern operating system. Even if I was running only SSDs I would still want to cache in RAM because it's faster to grab data through your FSB then the Peripheral bus (PCI or PCI-E for example), then a PATA/SATA/SCSI/USB/Firewire/etc chipset, then the drive.


----------



## MrKuenning (Nov 6, 2007)

QUOTE said:
			
		

> I use operating systems including windows for just that, for being an operating system, all it needs to do is sit in the background - run my programs - be stable - take little resources as possible . I don’t need fancy visual effects when it takes more memory or resources, because I won’t see them anyway aside from when I press my start button to start my programs/games.



I totaly agree.   I think the artical is very informative, and well written.  Not sure about the expantion pack idea, but seriously

Microsoft,  I am so dissapointed.   I was a strong Vista defender, I ran all the betas and RC1,2.

Built my dad a screaming machine, with core 2 and geforce8800 and the thing runs medium to slow.

Honestly I dont mind the memory usage.  Its expected that an OS that is 6 years newer would use more recorces.  And there are alot of pluses to Vista.   But the thing really runs like crap, and freezes and opens photos slow as heck.     COMON!!!     The thing that pisses me off most is that we will all HAVE to get it eventualy anyway.  Its exclusivly DX10.


----------



## ZeWarrior (Nov 6, 2007)

QUOTE(MrKuenning @ Nov 6 2007 said:


> QUOTE said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Dual-Boot Vista and a Linux Distro of your choice. You get a Stable OS for basic work and an OS for Gaming.


----------



## Urza (Nov 6, 2007)

QUOTE(ZeWarriorReturns @ Nov 6 2007 said:


> Dual-Boot Vista and a Linux Distro of your choice. You get a Stable OS for basic work and an OS for Gaming.


I've found Vista to be pretty damn stable.


----------



## ZeWarrior (Nov 6, 2007)

QUOTE(Urza @ Nov 6 2007 said:


> QUOTE(ZeWarriorReturns @ Nov 6 2007 said:
> 
> 
> > Dual-Boot Vista and a Linux Distro of your choice. You get a Stable OS for basic work and an OS for Gaming.
> ...



I wasn't the one who said it was unstable. Go take it out on somebody else buddy.


----------



## Urza (Nov 6, 2007)

QUOTE(ZeWarriorReturns @ Nov 6 2007 said:


> QUOTE(Urza @ Nov 6 2007 said:
> 
> 
> > QUOTE(ZeWarriorReturns @ Nov 6 2007 said:
> ...


The way you phrased it makes it sound like you're saying Vista is unstable, and you need Linux for a "stable OS".


----------



## ZeWarrior (Nov 7, 2007)

QUOTE(Urza @ Nov 6 2007 said:


> QUOTE(ZeWarriorReturns @ Nov 6 2007 said:
> 
> 
> > QUOTE(Urza @ Nov 6 2007 said:
> ...



Urza don't start it. I gave the guy an option of what he could do. No need to get competitive. Windows is stable most of the times but sometimes it becomes literally unusable. I never said you NEED Linux for a stable OS I said it's RECOMMENDED to use Linux as your main stable OS.


----------



## Urza (Nov 7, 2007)

QUOTE said:
			
		

> Urza don't start it. I gave the guy an option of what he could do. No need to get competitive. Windows is stable most of the times but sometimes it becomes literally unusable. I never said you NEED Linux for a stable OS I said it's RECOMMENDED to use Linux as your main stable OS.


You sound pretty sure of yourself for someone who has yet to bring any substantiated evidence to the table.

Heres my views on the stability of Linux.

If you know what you're doing and understand the ins and outs of the Linux kernel, its pretty much your playground. 

For those who don't however, messing up the slightest thing can cause the entire OS not to boot at all, so you're in pretty unstable grounds unless you find a guide, or someone to help you with anything you try to do.


----------



## ZeWarrior (Nov 7, 2007)

QUOTE(Urza @ Nov 6 2007 said:


> QUOTE said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Again you look for Evidence.. HOW CAN I PROVE IT. It's from Experience ever heard of that? I have macs in my house but I don't only use OS X you seem to think I make up everything I say or just '' stretch the truth '' as some call it. People like you ned to stop judging others by a fucking forum.


----------



## MrKuenning (Nov 7, 2007)

Played with linux, not what I need.  I do alot of work on my PC, using alot of programs not availble for Linux.  So I kinda feel the other way round.  XP/Vista do my everyday things well.  I want a non-rescorce OS for gaming..


----------



## Urza (Nov 7, 2007)

QUOTE(ZeWarriorReturns @ Nov 6 2007 said:


> Again you look for Evidence.. HOW CAN I PROVE IT. It's from Experience ever heard of that? I have macs in my house but I don't only use OS X you seem to think I make up everything I say or just '' stretch the truth '' as some call it. People like you ned to stop judging others by a fucking forum.


Sounds like you're the one getting a bit "competitive". You need to chill a bit.

One question though, if I shouldn't judge you from your posts, what should I judge you by?


----------



## ZeWarrior (Nov 7, 2007)

QUOTE(Urza @ Nov 6 2007 said:


> QUOTE(ZeWarriorReturns @ Nov 6 2007 said:
> 
> 
> > Again you look for Evidence.. HOW CAN I PROVE IT. It's from Experience ever heard of that? I have macs in my house but I don't only use OS X you seem to think I make up everything I say or just '' stretch the truth '' as some call it. People like you ned to stop judging others by a fucking forum.
> ...



My Actual Self. Oh way but you can't since you never met me in real life and probably never will. Your becoming worse than the assholes from gamefaqs


----------



## Movi (Nov 7, 2007)

Ok, this thread needs some basic CS knowledge. 

First off, you keep ranting about SSDs, and how fast/slow they are. Now, not having one makes my argument kinda moot, but i know what technology theyre based on. The facts are this:

Its fast reading, but not really writing. This doesnt really matter to vista though - by some bizzare chance theyve done the caching system right, and it pre-warms the most used program on a semi-intelligent algorithm, so the programs launched the most (IE, Firefox for example) will be put there. I bet its flushed from time to time, so once in a while youll feel theres a bit slowdown there. However, except for either really large programs, or the ones you constantly close-open (again, IE, Firefox) you will not feel a difference in speed, maybe responsiveness, but not speed. The technology for this is in fact nothing new, and has beed introduced in OSX 10.2 Jaguar if memory serves right, except its not caching to a disk, but RAM - and this is fine, because as somebody said, it doesnt take a lot of time to free memory, but it takes a lot of time (well, CPU-cycles wise) to load a program from a hard disk. If the memory is not used anyway, why clear it? Its just waste of space. This is of course given you have a smart-enough algorithm to judge what would be good to leave in memory, and what not. OSX does this right, i dont know about vista - never done any benchmark. Too bad Linux doesnt have this at all

I think windows doesnt say it, but under OSX, it doesnt show you free/used memory. You have Active memory - the amount that is actively beeing used, and Inactive - meaning something was there and wasnt deleted, because it may come in handy in a while. However, if an app requests more memory, and there is no free memory left, OSX will assign inactive memory (cleaning it as needed first). And this is the _best_ way to be done.


Another thing - Vista security. It has none. Folks, trust me when i say this - the pitifull sandboxing of IE and UAC is a poor implementation of what Unix done ages ago - which is tight user priviledge control. One problem is on the system backend - the whole need of a OS to have a firewall and anti-virus software to guard SYSTEM services automatically disqualifies it as a secure OS. A good written service/daemon will NOT accept malformed data (which is what windows frequently does), nor will it accept input from unauthorized sources (for example, i can never imagine my window server (X) beeing brought down because someone sent a magic packet over the network - its by default configured to NOT accept data from anywhere else than the process that ran it - not even from a different user on the same machine). Even more, the user and his application should have NO right to even remotely touch both system files and interfaces except the ones that have been programmed especially for it. The only exception is when the user elevates his rights, for a certain time period. This is not how it was done in XP - every process ran as user (who had admin rights) and could pwn the system. Of course, under XP you could take away admin right, but most apps borked out at this setting, because they assumed no one is going to do this. Vista supposedly now mandates this mechanism - but do not be fooled. Instead of fixing the problem at its core - clear seperation of Userspace and OS-Space, its a bandaid that says "ok, from now on this needs to be run from a specific app (UAC process) and the rest is as it was". Because of this UAC kicks in WAY to often (for simple stupid things like changing the screen resolution, or chaning from DHCP to static ip addresses). Because of this the UAC is only a buton - which soon people are going to click "Accept" as soon as they see it. So much for user-concious security. If UAC was done right from a UI standpoint it would display the full path of the app, and prompt the user to intput his password. Think how obnoxious THAT would be.


Last thing - speed. It's slower, the reason for it - this is Microsofts first attempt to seperate Kernel mode drivers from user-space interfaces. Theres no secret that overtime the NT kernel which is supposedly microkernel has grown to be a macrokernel. This is not a good thing, because switching from userspace to kernel space takes a long time for the processor, and theres a lot of overhead in this (this is what bugged the early Mac OS X - but as caches and processors got faster the problem fixed itself. Also the Darwin guys really gave it their best). 

The other thing is that Microsoft is shooting itself in the foot in backwards compatibility. As it is now there are 3 APIs in Vista to program for WinNT, Win32, .Net. And lets not forget that not so long ago in XP the Windows 3.11 API was still there! Because Vista has to take care of all the quirks and hacks that each of these APIs has, the system stability goes down, as well as speed. What MS should have done is to delegate the old APIs to some kind of virtualization (think Wine, or Mac Classic) and let only one API roam free (.Net). All can see that Microsoft is betting on managed code - a noble goal, which will take away their inability to make sure that code is safe to run (and i mean from buffer overflows, or stack overruns for example - not safe in a virus way). We'll see how that goes in the next Windows (7?)

Theres the 64bit debate. Its not emulation people. In fact, your 64bit processors arent exactly 64 bit per se. A quick guide then. A 32bit x86 processor had bunch of instruction, 32bit long word, and 8 regiters (little spaces of memory about 4kb each, very close to the processors). Your 64bit processor differs that it has 16 registers, and has about a dozen (someone correct me on the specific amount please) of 64bit word long instructions. All 32bit instructions are just prefixed with zeroes. It doesnt really matter - since the Pentium, all of x86 instructins are actually broken down into tiny MIPS micro-ops, and executed as the architecture designers saw fit (this is all what the decode stage in the processor is all about). Think of x86 and x64 as a really-low programming language, not an end. However, about windows. What happens when you run a 32bit program in a 64bit windows enviroment is WOW32 is started, and it only redirects the programs DLL requests to 32bit versions of those DLLs. For example, lets say were runnign winamp. If winamp is 64bit, it would ask for dsound.dll and would get it from /Windows/System64/dsound.dll. This would result in it loading 64bit code for direct sound. However, if winamp is 32bit, loading a 64bit dll won't work at all - this is when WOW32 comes it - when winamp asks for dsound.dll wow32 redirects the request from the usual directory to the 32bit one, lets say /Windows/System32/dsound.dll. This loads the 32bit version of the direct sound dll and all is good. Also, it *translates* some specific 32bit calls to 64bit ones (mainly the register and stack initialization procedures) and notifies the CPU that this is a 32bit process. 

Lastly - DirectX 10. I program in OpenGL, but ill say this - something is rotten in DirectX 10 nation. For real, the thing is SO slow (check any benchmark of any game that supports both X9 and X10), and the compatibility of DX9 has gone the way of the do-do. While Psychonauts (a DX8.1 game which runs on a Xbox1!) runs perfectly on my GMA950 equipped Macbook, in Vista when a little bit over 3000k vertices come up, it crawls to a halt. I check on my GeForce 6600GT and the result was EXACTLY the same - they were both _equally_ slow under Vista! And looking at the tech specs DirectX10 was supposed to speed up everything (thru virtualizing both shaders and video memory space), not slow it down to a crawl! I have no idea how theyre gonna get out of this one - no company is willing to risk going DirectX10 only, except Microsoft itself. They cant even seek refuge in Xbox360, because the chip there is DX9 and so is the (stable now) API. 

Uff, that was a long write, im almost done here folks ;] To recoup the question - could Vista be an update to XP? Definitely NO. Too much (mainly good things) happened under the hood. Too bad none of the userspace programs show the new functionality. For this, i would bet we need to wait for Vista+1. Good night everyone


----------



## Urza (Nov 7, 2007)

QUOTE(ZeWarriorReturns @ Nov 6 2007 said:


> you can't since you never met me in real life and probably never will.


My point exactly.


----------



## Hiratai (Nov 7, 2007)

QUOTE(Urza @ Nov 7 2007 said:


> QUOTE(ZeWarriorReturns @ Nov 6 2007 said:
> 
> 
> > you can't since you never met me in real life and probably never will.
> ...


Don't you have others things to do besides trolling? Why don't you two carry this out via PM instead of ruining this thread.


----------



## Azimuth (Nov 7, 2007)

QUOTE said:
			
		

> This is of course given you have a smart-enough algorithm to judge what would be good to leave in memory, and what not. OSX does this right, i dont know about vista - never done any benchmark. Too bad Linux doesnt have this at all
> 
> Actually it is available in Linux, it's called a buffer cache and has existed for quite some time now.
> more on buffer cache
> ...



A unix style security model would be ideal but...

can't comment on the rest because it seems more geared towards windows people, good rant.


----------



## Linkiboy (Nov 7, 2007)

QUOTE(Movi @ Nov 6 2007 said:


> *ranting post*


Sounds like someone never used Vista on a decent machine

Vista is faster on high end models. It does the "active/inactive" Macs do. There are a few other things I wanted to point out but I'll do it later, maybe.


----------



## Urza (Nov 7, 2007)

QUOTE(Hiratai @ Nov 6 2007 said:


> Don't you have others things to do besides trolling? Why don't you two carry this out via PM instead of ruining this thread.


Because most of my posts haven't been trolling, and are on topic?


----------



## Hiratai (Nov 7, 2007)

QUOTE(Urza @ Nov 7 2007 said:


> QUOTE(Hiratai @ Nov 6 2007 said:
> 
> 
> > Don't you have others things to do besides trolling? Why don't you two carry this out via PM instead of ruining this thread.
> ...


Your past 3 have. If I hadn't posted and he were top post again, you would've continued to carry an idiotic argument here.


----------



## Urza (Nov 7, 2007)

QUOTE(Hiratai @ Nov 6 2007 said:


> Your past 3 have. If I hadn't posted and he were top post again, you would've continued to carry an idiotic argument here.


And yet here you are, continuing that very conversation.


----------



## Hiratai (Nov 7, 2007)

QUOTE(Urza @ Nov 7 2007 said:


> QUOTE(Hiratai @ Nov 6 2007 said:
> 
> 
> > Your past 3 have. If I hadn't posted and he were top post again, you would've continued to carry an idiotic argument here.
> ...


Your point is...? If you didn't act like a smartass all the time, you wouldn't have to worry about why you always seem to get on someones bad side EVERYTIME you log onto a forum.


----------



## ZeWarrior (Nov 7, 2007)

QUOTE(Hiratai @ Nov 6 2007 said:


> QUOTE(Urza @ Nov 7 2007 said:
> 
> 
> > QUOTE(Hiratai @ Nov 6 2007 said:
> ...



FINALLY someone I can agree with. Urza thinks he has to argue against everything. He thinks he knows everything.


----------



## Urza (Nov 7, 2007)

QUOTE said:
			
		

> FINALLY someone I can agree with. Urza thinks he has to argue against everything. He thinks he knows everything.


You have yet to disprove anything I've said, and insist on attacking my personality instead.


----------



## ZeWarrior (Nov 7, 2007)

QUOTE(Urza @ Nov 6 2007 said:


> QUOTE said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Get to the point. What do you think I'm gonna do? Cry? Tell you '' Sorry Urza I'm inferior to you in everyway, sorry for questioning anything  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  '' Really. Grow up.


----------



## Urza (Nov 7, 2007)

QUOTE(ZeWarriorReturns @ Nov 6 2007 said:


> Get to the point. What do you think I'm gonna do? Cry? Tell you '' Sorry Urza I'm inferior to you in everyway, sorry for questioning anythingÂ
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Get to the point. What do you think I'm gonna do? Rethink the meaning of my life? Tell you " Sorry Zewaroiraskd, I should be a nicer person and not intervene when someone is making up things, sorry for hurting your feelings 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 " Really. Grow up.


----------



## ZeWarrior (Nov 7, 2007)

QUOTE(Urza @ Nov 6 2007 said:


> QUOTE(ZeWarriorReturns @ Nov 6 2007 said:
> 
> 
> > Get to the point. What do you think I'm gonna do? Cry? Tell you '' Sorry Urza I'm inferior to you in everyway, sorry for questioning anythingÂ
> ...



When was I making up things? Link me to a post right now. Oh wait you can't.


----------



## Urza (Nov 7, 2007)

QUOTE(ZeWarriorReturns @ Nov 6 2007 said:


> When was I making up things? Link me to a post right now. Oh wait you can't.


http://gbatemp.net/index.php?showtopic=647...ndpost&p=845998

You made three things up in that sentence alone.


----------



## ZeWarrior (Nov 7, 2007)

QUOTE(Urza @ Nov 6 2007 said:


> QUOTE(ZeWarriorReturns @ Nov 6 2007 said:
> 
> 
> > When was I making up things? Link me to a post right now. Oh wait you can't.
> ...



Name them. You really don't need VM if your PC has enough Physical RAM. My Laptop that has 2GB of RAM has NEVER needed to use Virtual memory from the HDD. SSDs ARE faster than 5400 RPM Drives for Writting AND Reading. And it IS a fair comparison. Show me an SSD made for a Desktop.


----------



## mthrnite (Nov 7, 2007)

Stop it, get back on the real topic, or get warns, or worse.


----------



## Salamantis (Nov 7, 2007)

Microsoft shouldn't have ever made Vista. It sucks big time. Well, at least maybe SP1 will make it a little better... heck, we'll probably be waiting for it like the Wiikey update!


----------



## ZeWarrior (Nov 7, 2007)

QUOTE(mthrnite @ Nov 6 2007 said:


> Stop it, get back on the real topic, or get warns, or worse.



Sorry. Mthr. Back on topic Vista should not have been an expansion pack. But IMHO XP should've had a patch of some sort so it can have DX10. Microsoft made a big move making DX10 only for Vista and I think that will cost them in the long run.


----------



## Hiratai (Nov 7, 2007)

QUOTE(mthrnite @ Nov 7 2007 said:


> Stop it, get back on the real topic, or get warns, or worse.


Whta happens at 40%?  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





Anyways, I think Vista is a completely different make of the Windows variants. It does basically the same things, in an easier way, like all OS updates should do.


----------



## notnarb (Nov 7, 2007)

QUOTE(ZeWarriorReturns @ Nov 6 2007 said:


> QUOTE(mthrnite @ Nov 6 2007 said:
> 
> 
> > Stop it, get back on the real topic, or get warns, or worse.
> ...


but Microsoft needs a good reason for people to upgrade.  They are, after all, a software company


----------



## juggernaut911 (Nov 7, 2007)

nice... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



well, the couple should go make out somewhere.

uh... why would vista need to be an expansion when (I THINK) a XP SP3 is being made... ?


----------



## ZeWarrior (Nov 7, 2007)

QUOTE(juggernaut911 @ Nov 6 2007 said:


> nice...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It is being made but it won't have DX10.

And you better not be talking about me or or or I'll do this


----------



## juggernaut911 (Nov 7, 2007)

fart... DX11?


----------



## Lukeage (Nov 7, 2007)

QUOTE(Movi @ Nov 7 2007 said:


> Big Post!



Hooray, someone who actually has some decent knowledge on computing!

Just a few points I'd like to add.

Memory: Vista (and XP too from memory, maybe not as in depth though) allows you to display active/inactive memory plus a bunch of other stuff through the task manager. It isn't viewable by default, but you can add the columns to the display for all sorts of stuff related to processes.

Security & backwards compatibility: I'm lumping these together because in windows these are actually closely related (from a Windows point of view). Microsoft is between a rock and a hard place when it comes to these. While I agree there are better solutions than what they are doing, they are in the awkward position of offering full backwards compatibility so their big customers remain happy, while trying to introduce a better security model, often at the expense of backwards compatibility. While I am sure there are plenty of people that would like to give away a large amount of BC for security, many of these customers aren't buying 1000s of windows licenses.

Kernel: Just a side note, the next installment of windows is supposed to be a complete overhaul to have a genuine microkernel (once again).

Managed Code: I'm unsure what you mean by MS will be unable to check code is safe to run if it is managed. In a correctly managed environment, buffer overflows etc... are not an issue because the (should) VM handles these problems.

64bit: Just add, the minimal slowdown which occurs when running 32bit apps in a 64bit environment is usually due to the processor switching from long mode to protected mode (and vice versa). And to nitpick, the directories you have (while thats how they should be) are wrong. System32 is where the 64 bit dlls go, and SysWow64 are where the 32bit dlls are stored. Retarded much? This is one of the dumbest things I have ever seen.

DX10: I'm surprised you'd still be having issues these days. A lot of the issues before were because ATI and nVidia's drivers were absolutely terrible under Vista. While there still may be the odd slowdown due to dx9 called being wrapped, there shouldn't be any major issues. While I still have XP installed on my system, I pretty much do all my gaming under Vista now (I have a 7900GS) and get more than acceptable framerates.


----------



## Movi (Nov 7, 2007)

Good reply 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





About the security : Well, i know backward compatibility is important to them, otherwise they woudnt still be lumping APIs from the 90's into this system. But i call for removal of those from the main OS, and put them in a virtual machine. Of course this could potentially brake some very specific cases (like specific devices on strange buses - Im thinking the old AutoCad parallel dongle), but first off - if some company is using a program written in Win9x API, they probably dont have any reason to upgrade anyway.

About managed code - yeah i think i managed to miss spell my thoughts - what i wanted to write is exactly what youre saying 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




I never used windows-64b, only read about it. Hence the wrong directories - i was guessing on common sense here. Guess Microsoft has none 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




DX10 - maybe so, but i dont really have a reason to check - I wouldnt be using it anyway, because MacOS X and Ubuntu cater to all my needs, and my DS and my Wii provide me with all the gaming i need. Ill probably come back to Vista in the name of reserch once something big happens, but except that - meh.

Azimuth - that there is the I/O buffer, which handles only file read/writes - this is especially visible on flash drives. It doesnt handle code storage and retention in the memory.


----------



## Strokemouth (Nov 7, 2007)

QUOTE(Lukeage @ Nov 6 2007 said:


> Kernel: Just a side note, the next installment of windows is supposed to be a complete overhaul to have a genuine microkernel (once again).



Care to place bets on whether or not that will happen?  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




As of about a month ago (we probably read the same articles), MinWin didn't even have a graphics subsystem and my impression was that it wasn't getting one. That is supposedly going to be the basis for Windows 7 and other projects, but it's only a minimalist variation of the Windows 7 kernel itself. I'll be surprised to see what they do with it. Especially given the fact that MS is shooting for a 3 year development cycle on Windows 7. Hell, they could barely get Vista out in 5 and that is essentially just an incremental release with a few of the biggest features I was looking forward to being ripped out (WinFS, for example). I doubt MS will be able to live up to the expectations it's setting for Windows 7 already, strictly because of a few of the things you mentioned, such as security, backwards compat, etc.

They should really take a page out of Apple's book and tell everyone now that they are starting from scratch and companies should start to plan for migration. Let's face it, screw the home user, enterprise customers are where the focus is. Then, develop a DECENT compatibility layer for the transition, then 5 or 6 years down the road, drop legacy support completely...you can't move forward by focusing behind you. Apple did it right with the whole Classic/Carbon/Cocoa stuff.

EDIT: Oh yeah, and as for the 64bit directories, I initially thought it was silly too that they would keep the 64bit dll's in sys32. But we ended up getting this flashy marketing DVD a while back in our MS Partner stuff that basically said "this is staying this way because everyone's programs suck and are hardcoded to look in sys32, so your 32 bit dlls can go in the WOW64 directory for some hot Windows-on-Windows action!" They made it sound like gay porn.


----------



## Lukeage (Nov 7, 2007)

Just before I start, I reread my original post and I really should be shot for using such terrible English. My mind must have been off elsewhere (Note: Excuse any terrible English that follows 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




)



QUOTE(Strokemouth @ Nov 7 2007 said:


> QUOTE(Lukeage @ Nov 6 2007 said:
> 
> 
> > Kernel: Just a side note, the next installment of windows is supposed to be a complete overhaul to have a genuine microkernel (once again).
> ...



I too am cynical about Microsoft delivering, but the kernel has been one thing that Microsoft has done quite a good job on in the past.

On BC, I wonder if MS is really in a position to completely cut off older APIs and deliver something new. I have heard from numerous sources that one reason their APIs become such a mess is due to Developers utilising undocumented features, then when Microsoft updates the API, these undocumented features become broken, so to appease the big players, they work hacks into the system just to recreate these 'side effect' results. BC is extremely important to big business and anything that hinders them will drastically set back any uptake of a new OS lacking it. I wonder how much trouble it would be to deliver this in some sort of VM subsystem.

Just as a side note example (I'll slightly vague on the details, but the main point will be here), there is a steelworks near where I live which back in the 70s were using some sort of control software on some sort of IBM mainframe. When they upgraded their mainframe, it was decided that the easiest way to port the software was to write an emulator for the previous system and run the software inside of that. No big deal, probably happens a lot in industry. Move forward another 10 years or so and they decide to upgrade the system again to yet a different architecture. Someone decides the easiest solution again is to emulate....the previous system. So now they have the original software, running in an emulator, in an emulator, on the newest hardware. As far as I am aware, this is still how this system runs.

All the upgrades and writing of the emulators was handled directly by IBM. This is the type of support MS would need to deliver to big business to be able to make a clean cut.


----------



## friedchicken (Nov 7, 2007)

garbage article


----------



## ZeWarrior (Nov 7, 2007)

QUOTE(Movi @ Nov 7 2007 said:


> Good reply
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You're not into good more advanced games right? Those consoles have what's the word... '' kiddy '' games. And Yes I own both of them 2 but i game on my PC + PS3 more :S than both of them combined.


----------



## Movi (Nov 7, 2007)

About minwin : ah, but youre (at least theoretically) wrong. Now with Vista, it makes it a breeze. Vista decoupled the graphic subsystem from the kernel, in fact making it a X-like subsystem, where you have a DRI-likeish driver in kernel space, and a usermode driver for everything else, and a userland server for the windowing system. When UAC kicks in and aero glass is shutting down, you have a black screen - thats the windowing system shutting down and restarting. If memory serves right, Microsoft advertised that in Longhorn Server one could disable the GUI completely letting the server run the command line only. This kind of modularity is what exactly what the doctor ordered, and could potentially make Windows 7 feel fast - but only potentially.

Why? Because like DirectX 10, Aero Glass and DWM are clearly broken somewhere. Lecture time:

The sotyr goes that until Vista, the graphics that you saw on-screen (when not playing a game obiously) would be rendered almost entirely on the processor. That is, applications "tell" the kernel what they want on their windows, the kernel draws those, composes all of them in main RAM, then sends the result to the video card do display, rince repeat 60 times a second. The exceptions are D3D/OpenGL apps, Overlay video (the pink box). Also, MS used a hack for making some windows transparent - but again, this was not accelerated in the sense that DirectX was doing it.

This is of course bad, because we have $300 graphics cards that sit there doing nothing 95% of the time, generating heat and wasting power. Apple (again) with the release of Jaguar pioneered a GPU-accelerated desktop. The processor would render the content of the window, but that image would be immiediately sent to the Graphics RAM, and from there on the GPU would compose all of those windows into the desktop - this is how stuff like Expose and the Genie Effect are possible. This is also what supposedly Aero Basic does.

The next logical step would be for the GPU to render ALL of the stuff - the window contents, font rasterization et al. Theres a bit of problem with this though - this can potentially take up a lot of VRAM. In fact, you can go overboard, so you need to virtualize your VRAM and make it seem infinite - this is what Linux people are NOT doing, and so people with nVidia drivers are getting black windows. Mac OS X has had this from 10.4 (Quartz Extreme 2D) but not enabled, because it was potentially dangerous and would slow down the graphics subsystem instead of speeding it up (mainly flash - it has a _lot_ of quirks to make stuff fast on a general processor that just dont translate to GPU instructions). Its also in Leopard (now its called QuartzGL) but this time around each app must specifically ask for it to be enabled. This is also what Aero Glass does.

The only problem is Mac OS X for the latter to work requires any Pixel Shader 2.0 card with 64MB VRam. This means that my GMA950 qualifies for this easily (while the GMA950 is not DX9 compliant, it does have Pixel Shader 2.0. The problem with it is the lack of T&L - it delegates T&L operations and Vertex Shader operations to the CPU). Now, Microsofts Aero Glass subsystem needs at least a Nvidia 6600 class card with 128MB Vram for the same stuff. Oh wait - did i say the same? Nooo. Moving a window in Vista with Aero Glass turned on eats away 20% CPU on my desktop PC with a 6600GT (256MB Vram). On my Macbook it eats up about 14% on doing the same (but the Macbook has a Core2Duo 2Ghz, while the desktop one has a Celeron 3.0 Nocona).

So heres my question - why is the technology that is supposed to take away the burden of drawing the GUI from the processor actually making the CPU do _MORE_ work?

End of Lecture

To the person with the PS3 : I used to play "popular" games on my PC. However, coming from an 8bit Atari and 16bit Amiga background, after a couple of years i found the popular games scene to be lacking to say the least, and beeing a pile of dogshit for mindless drones to say thruthfully. I gave up entirely after Doom 3 and Quake 4 failed to inject any positive reaction towards me, not to mentioned i saw what used to be a great game - Need for Speed 2, turn into a MTV-gangsta_rap bare slutfest for hip-hop black wannabees. I have to thank Playstation 2 for this mostly, and Halo. Now there are exceptions for this rule - Portal is great, i played it on my brothers PC, but it just proves the point that originality has been lost somewhere along the way and nowadays kids just want to play Dog Shooter 5 for the Playstation 13, or the Bling-Car racing game. I long for the days when games had a soul like Omikron : The Nomad Soul, The Outcast, Day of the tentacle, Earthworm Jim, Sensible Soccer, Turrican. From todays title it seems that only Double Fine tries to keep their products have a bit of that somethin (Psychonauts ftw!)

But then again looking at todays youth culture (sex) visuals matter more that the sense of what theyre experiencing - just looking at the newest videoclip of Justin Timberlake, or .. So its no surprise that you have a PS3 - guess having HDR visuals shot in you face/seeing realistic guts in God of War is enough to make it hard for you. Ill take my childish Mario/Zelda/Metroid titles then, thank you very much 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




P.S. On a different note - I enjoyed Silent Hill on PS1, and all of the sequels on the PS2 very much. However, it seems that SH5 is in the hands of a bunch of jyofull idiots so i think ill pass. Also, if this was /. someone should mark your port -1 Flamebait.


----------



## Strokemouth (Nov 8, 2007)

QUOTE(Movi @ Nov 7 2007 said:


> Words



That's awesome, I wasn't aware that Vista had pulled the graphics completely from the kernel. I knew it was offloading to the GPU finally, but didn't see the specifics, so I just assumed it was magic. That's a great start.

It's funny you mention Psychonauts...I had been scouring video game stores for a few months looking for it and just stumbled upon it in the bargain bin at Wal-Mart. I'm amazed that it didn't sell by the truckload. I just finished Lungfishopolis and am amazed by the whole game. I get the same grin playing through that as I did through any of the old point-and-click adventures (I was always partial to DotT, even though I wasn't a fan of Maniac Mansion).


----------

