I dont get windows

Microsoft released windows xp 32bit. Then later they relased win2003 server edition, which had better memory management. And then they released windows xp 64bit, which is windows 2003 made to look like xp, which is really fast. Windows 2003 was good enough for a 233mhz pc. Now they release Vista Beta 1 which once again is really slow. Microsoft said Vista will be almost 50% faster then XP. And now they say that Vista will require 2gig of ram to run well, Dual core cpu and alot more highend stuff. Anyone get this.
Thanks

the fact of the matter is that its over a year from release, it hasn't been optimized and there are many things that are in this beta that will not be there. Early requirements are always greatly greatly exagerated. It was said about Doom3 that it would take at least a 6800gt to run, and people are running it on high with 9800xt, so take no stock in this and evaluate it when it comes out in 2006

M$ has already announced that Vista will be much slower on current hardware than XP is. In fact, to run apps at the same speed as you currently run them, you will need 2x the processor power and 4x the ram (they say this is because 64 is 2x 32... dont ask me why that leads to 4x the ram). A lot of this was in a post on this forum a few days ago where the devs talked about the technical aspects of Vista.

First of all, 64 bit computing is NOT faster than 32. It allows you to do math with greater precision and address more memory, but it's not inherently faster. In the real world, it will be faster, because the 64 bit chips are just faster than the 32 bit chips, but not because they are 64 bit.

Also, because the PCI bus is considered "public", and because Windows Vista implements TCPA, any trusted content travelling across the PCI bus must be encrypted and decrypted on each end each time it is moved from one place to another. This will result in substantial slowdowns, and most current hardware really won't be able to handle Vista.

Vista is not about being faster than XP. If you want speed, you'd be best off running Windows 98 probably. My pentium 90 that I had back in the 90's ran 98 a lot faster than a 1 ghz pentium III runs win XP today, and faster than a 4 ghz P3 with 512 MB RAM will run Vista in a year. Each version of windows has more bloat, overhead, eye candy, etc. Hopefully more stability too. 2000/XP are certainly more stable than ME, which was probably the least stable OS M$ released. I'm not convinced XP is more stable than 2K, but it's definitely more stable than the older 95/98/ME line.

Whats with all of thise incryption, licence for video files,etc. Shouldnt ms focus on making the os faster, and more stable.
Thanks

elec999 said:

Whats with all of thise incryption, licence for video files,etc. Shouldnt ms focus on making the os faster, and more stable.
Thanks

Click to expand...

The problem with windows stablility is usually 90% the user installing 3rd party drivers and applications that aren't MS approved or supported. MS stuff in and of itself is perfectly stable 90% of the time. The people that usually have a problem with it, are people that do things they're not supposed to do, or play/"tweak" too much. There are also those using the wrong version of Windows for their needs. The majority of people have no need to have the professional version of an MS operating system. The encryption, and licensing is to protect their (MS') own interests, like not having their flagship OS pirated, and I can't say I blame them. I belive the last estimate was somewhere in the neighborhood of 15%-20% of the computers in north america, run a pirated copy of an MS operating system. To put it into perspective, IF that applied to just the OCforum's members. That would be about 8820 (at 15%) members stealing a software worth on average $100. That's $882,000, for just an OS, on these forums. Now throw in MS Office, which is worth twice what Windows is. Now you're up to $2,646,000 for both. That's a fairly large chunk of change, no matter how you slice it, for just these forums. Now think about how many people you know that have a "friend", install a "free" copy Windows and Office for them. It really starts to add up. We'll say, 5 people? For the theoretical ammount of people, that should be about right (although I'm sure it's way more than that). Start doing the addition and multiplication. 8820 people times Windows and Office = $2,646,000. Times the 5 people that they know that have pirated the software. That's $13,230,000. Just for a small percentage of the members here, and the people they know. Now, try and estimate how much you would have to multiply to get a rough figure on how much MS loses to piracy in north america. The money that's lost, is someone's salary. Garanteed, it's not the salary of one of the programmers.

The problem is that M$ punishes the innocent, not the guilty. They want to take away my rights because other people do illegal things. I'm not ok with that. They've also made choices that will cost the consumer a fortune just in to increase their own profits. For example, everyone who gets Vista will need to buy a new monitor just to play DRM encrypted media. How is that fair? That doesn't even affect their profits. Microsoft doesn't make movies. The point is, they are more interested in controlling everyone's computer and what they do. They will be able to look on your hard drive for anything they think is pirated and simply delete it. What if they are wrong? Tough break, you lose. What if it is your PhD thesis due next week? Sucks to be you. Microsoft is creating a digital totalitarian society that I do not want to be part of.

I'm all for going after the people who pirate software. I'm not ok with ruining everyone else's computing experience in order to punish the minority of offenders.

If that's how they want to do it, then they just won't get my business at all.

MRD said:

The problem is that M$ punishes the innocent, not the guilty. They want to take away my rights because other people do illegal things. I'm not ok with that. They've also made choices that will cost the consumer a fortune just in to increase their own profits. For example, everyone who gets Vista will need to buy a new monitor just to play DRM encrypted media. How is that fair? That doesn't even affect their profits. Microsoft doesn't make movies. The point is, they are more interested in controlling everyone's computer and what they do. They will be able to look on your hard drive for anything they think is pirated and simply delete it. What if they are wrong? Tough break, you lose. What if it is your PhD thesis due next week? Sucks to be you. Microsoft is creating a digital totalitarian society that I do not want to be part of.

I'm all for going after the people who pirate software. I'm not ok with ruining everyone else's computing experience in order to punish the minority of offenders.

If that's how they want to do it, then they just won't get my business at all.

Click to expand...

If think its fair for pay for the os and other applications. I also dont think that ms can go as far as deleting your files. Also I believe the protection will simply not allow you to play a video file if you dont own it.
Thanks

What rights are you talking about. If you purchase thier product, you agree to thier terms. No rights there.

As for the original question, If MS et al didn't make major changes in the needs for better machines to run on, I don't think I'd be sitting here on my 2.8 P4 lappy typing out my half-arsed reply. The thing is, this has always been the way and will continue for the forseable future. Think of the resources needed to run apps and games. It's not just MS requiring greater performing machines.

snafumaster said:

What rights are you talking about. If you purchase thier product, you agree to thier terms. No rights there.

As for the original question, If MS et al didn't make major changes in the needs for better machines to run on, I don't think I'd be sitting here on my 2.8 P4 lappy typing out my half-arsed reply. The thing is, this has always been the way and will continue for the forseable future. Think of the resources needed to run apps and games. It's not just MS requiring greater performing machines.

Click to expand...

This is so true. But, I have the same problem I do with the applications that are being put out. They require constant upgrades to hardware to be able to run the latest version. It's a vicious circle.

If think its fair for pay for the os and other applications. I also dont think that ms can go as far as deleting your files. Also I believe the protection will simply not allow you to play a video file if you dont own it.
Thanks

Click to expand...

I agree with the paying part. I don't have a problem with paying for software. You're incorrect though on the part about M$ being able to delete your files. They can delete any content they believe to be pirated. It caused a big fuss when they announced palladium.

What rights are you talking about. If you purchase thier product, you agree to thier terms. No rights there.

Click to expand...

Incorrect. Under the Constitution, we have certain rights that are *inalienable". That means that you cannot surrender them, even yourself. Among those is the right to privacy.

As for the original question, If MS et al didn't make major changes in the needs for better machines to run on, I don't think I'd be sitting here on my 2.8 P4 lappy typing out my half-arsed reply. The thing is, this has always been the way and will continue for the forseable future. Think of the resources needed to run apps and games. It's not just MS requiring greater performing machines.

Click to expand...

To some degree, it's just natural progression. Gaming that is certainly true of. The newer games take a lot more resources, but they do a lot more and look much prettier. But why is it that the exact same piece of software, same version, often has dramatically different requirements for running under windows 98 and windows xp? It's because the newer versions of windows have enormous feature bloat and are far less efficient. In most cases, on comparable hardware, software runs substantially faster on older versions of windows. That's screwed up.

MRD said:

Incorrect. Under the Constitution, we have certain rights that are *inalienable". That means that you cannot surrender them, even yourself. Among those is the right to privacy.

Click to expand...

For real, you can preach to me all you want about Linux and tux's other friends...not too familiar and have lots to learn. Don't try to clarify the Constitution to me...I know it cold. This has nothing to do with that. This is two private entities; purchaser and MS, entering an agreement. One that neither of them has to and both parties enter on thier own accord. Don't like it, buy a mac or compile your stuff and patch you kernel.

For real, you can preach to me all you want about Linux and tux's other friends...not too familiar and have lots to learn. Don't try to clarify the Constitution to me...I know it cold. This has nothing to do with that. This is two private entities; purchaser and MS, entering an agreement. One that neither of them has to and both parties enter on thier own accord. Don't like it, buy a mac or compile your stuff and patch you kernel.

Click to expand...

This has really nothing to do with Linux or Mac and everything to do with Windows. A lot of the steps M$ is taking with its newer products are unconstitutional. They violate tons of laws, including anti-trust. It's just a matter of time before the courts start coming down on them.

One that neither of them has to and both parties enter on thier own accord. Don't like it, buy a mac or compile your stuff and patch you kernel.

Click to expand...

It's not about me. I already stopped using Windows. It's about my fear of a digital totalitarian society that is being created by M$. Every freedom loving American has an obligation to take a stand against these new policies of M$.

If an company finds probable cuase that you are commiting a criminal act against them, they can withhold all your privacy rights and privelages.

MRD said:

I agree with the paying part. I don't have a problem with paying for software. You're incorrect though on the part about M$ being able to delete your files. They can delete any content they believe to be pirated. It caused a big fuss when they announced palladium.

Click to expand...

I agree with you on everything you've said but this. Perhaps I've just missed some crucial document, but I haven't said anything about M$ being able to do that. I've read that DRM has the potential for that, but nowhere that such a "feature" has been implemented. Furthermore, I doubt that M$ would actually implement it if they had the choice because I can only imagine the amount of lawsuits they'd get when Windows starts deleting non-pirated files.

JigPu

plus guys remember, if theres a program to figure out whats legal or illegal theres always a program or hack to turn that off, someone will find a way, and yes as operating systems get newer hardware gets faster and faster granted more and more expensive but like what other people have said, thats the name of the game....

MRD said:

This has really nothing to do with Linux or Mac and everything to do with Windows. A lot of the steps M$ is taking with its newer products are unconstitutional. They violate tons of laws, including anti-trust. It's just a matter of time before the courts start coming down on them.

Click to expand...

OK, maybe I'm being to picky here, but you keep insisting that there is a US Constitutional right being being stepped on. I really don't want this to go into the dreaded territory of a political debate, so that's why I am sticking to the facts of the Constitution. If you are going to say that this is anti-Constitutional, you are going to have to show me the line in the document where you are referring. I have read it twice since this thread was started.

MRD said:

It's not about me. I already stopped using Windows. It's about my fear of a digital totalitarian society that is being created by M$. Every freedom loving American has an obligation to take a stand against these new policies of M$.

Click to expand...

But, so that I am giving full disclosure...I also have an inate fear of a total digital society, one where ther is n o privacy and a corporate entity has control over what I do. On this, we certainly agree.