Getting tired of Anti Vista articles

[brakezone]

well, technically if the hardware company would publish information about their wireless cards, their would probably be drivers already loaded into a general kernel and you would not have to do a thing. As far as the graphics card, installing nvidia cards only require that you download and run nvidia's script. I'm curious as to why nvidia's driver is not included with the OS, it is probably because nvidia wouldn't allow it.

The whole reason you have problems with linux is probably a result of Microsoft's influence.

Under that condition (which is my guess), this would be the perfect example of how Microsoft's behavior hurts other competitors. Hardware companies don't publish enough information about their hardware for anybody to write a driver, API's become closed, then linux is forced to write compatability layers like WINE or WINEX or NDISWRAPPER in order to even allow the hardware to work or to run a application. This is really what hurts the core concept of the PC because its like saying, instead of letting a bunch of companies agree on standards, we let a single entity dominate everything. A perfect example of this is how Microsoft limits the hardware it supports and puts a vista logo on everything.

Anyways, wireless card support under linux is actually pretty broad if you use Ndiswrapper, which is a kernel module that gives linux an ndis component that can work with windows drivers. What they really need is to get ndiswrapper in a general kernel and some kind of online database of links to windows drivers. I do think ndiswrapper is pretty simple though you just need to have it installed, then you install the windows driver file into it, then you load the module in the kernel and it is ready to be configurd to join a network.

 

[shadin]

I have used Linux, I install it every year or so to see if it got any better. Last time I installed it, Ubuntu, I couldnt get my wireless nic to work, and couldnt get my Videocard installed. Tried looking for how to install the drivers, and damn, what a frigging pain in the ***. Format, back to XP. Ubuntu was pretty, but still the same ol Linux. Searched around for help, you get alot of 'mighter than thou' Linux peeps calling people trying to learn
n00bs.



Anyways, this is wayyyyy off topic.

Dont stop posting anti-Vista threads, just try to post something positive once in a while.

Trying something once a year does not a proficient user make. If I tried out Adobe Photoshop "every year or so" I'd probably think it's an overly complicated piece of crap. Because I'd know nothing about it, truly. Most wireless chipsets are built into the kernel, and all you have to do is use fwcutter to turn your Windows driver into a Linux driver. Which, is usually the most complicated part of getting standard devices working. Wired NICs and mostly all video and sound cards the kernel can operate by default. Just like Windows, some obscure hardware can just be a pain. Being proficient in how your OS interacts with hardware is essential on either platform to resolve issues, otherwise you're going to have to do some reading.

As far as posting something positive, I'd rather hear the negative so I know what to really expect. If I want to hear positive reviews of Vista, I can go to www.microsoft.com for page upon glorious page. Anyone that knows anything about operating systems or computer hardware on a higher than novice level will be able to filter through the BS (like VISTA DISABLES P2P OMG).

 

[Esteban]

Oroka Sempai... seems like you are an MS fan boy. Your posts above seem like you take every bad thing sad about MS/Vista as personal attack/insult directed at you! Chill out.

For me, I don't see what XP doesn't do that requires I upgrade to Vista.

When I upgraded from 98 to 2000 I saw an improvement in moving to an NT based OS. I avoided moving from 2000 to XP for a very long time, mostly because I could see no real improvement. I eventually ditched 2000 for FreeBSD as I could see improvements there. I eventually (12-18 months later) ditched FreeBSD for XP, well after SP2 had been released.

After turning off themes, I don't see or feel any real difference between XP and 2000. Some Windows configuration options have been moved to different locations... the loading bar is blue squares instead of the DOS-looking white bar.... the new start menu is.... something you can turn off! It looks and feels just like 2000.

In the same vein, Vista looks like XP. Couple of new software bits from MS - one of which just seems to be config options moved to a NEW place. 3D accelerated UI seems like a good move, and SuperFetch seems like a worthy expansion of XP's Prefetch - but I don't think the asking price for Vista is worth just a couple of updated features.

I remember when SP2 for XP came out. Sites were saying how so much had changed/been fixed it was almost like this was a new OS. Xp SP2 to Vista certainly looks like a lot less has changed/been updated that XP SP1 to XP SP2. Why is that?

One thing for sure, i do know when I read Ed raving about something good in Vista, that it will really be good. Unlike THG where everything in Vista is the best thing ever.

 

[brakezone]

Well, I don't think that he thinks we are making any personal attacks or anything, just a discussion between us and we each have our own perspective.

Welcome to the ocforums.

I have vista on my old system and I have to say that I do like the hardware support on the GUI; however, I'm not sure if it is really necessary. Will it be worth having at the expense of performance?

Also, I am seriously confused by the lack of opengl performance. Under linux at 1280X1204 in armagetron i'll see approximately 350fps and in vista I got a wopping 20 fps.

I think the most obvious changes are the placement of many of the UI controls throughout the system applet and a few other places; however, I wonder why many of them were changed the way they were.

A computer is always going through a loop and if you consider the amount of time that the system is spending on the system itself and not your game, that is hurting your games performance. I know alot of people say that the overhead of vista can easily be dealt with by throwing hardware at it, but I think that you can throw hardware at XP or Linux and see even more benifits. If you consider a the entire loop that your system is going through while within a game, it could be going through alot of loops within the game itself, it could be going through several different components of the game, such as rendering, AI, physics, input, and then back to the system where there are all kinds of processes to give CPU time to, information has to be transfered from one process or component to another, all of these things constitute a kind of systematic loop. Now imagine your systems loop requires half the work, no matter what hardware you throw at it, unless your going to double the power of the entire system in real life performance, you might as well stick with the OS that requires half the work. The actual performance difference can easily be seen by comparing the two different operating systems. The result of it is very telling of the reason why Vista was pushed back so much.

 

[shadin]

Welcome to the forums!

I don't think he's a fanboy, really. It's just apparent that he prefers Windows, which is fine, plenty of people do. But I just felt it prudent to point out that Windows is no more refined than other operating systems, it only seems that way because Windows is what he knows how to use.

 

[InsaneManiac]

Visa is a breathe of fresh air and I am glad that Microsoft designed it for gaming and designed the driver model from the ground up, but I am sticking with XP until I absolutely have to move over to Vista. The three major things I don't like about Vista. But all around the net, Vista is a major hit or miss. I would give it 6-12 months before trying to look at it.

1. The best thing Microsoft has going for vista is Direct X10.
2. It seems to be more bloated then anything else, in terms of use.
3. I am very wary about the whole DRM behind Windows Vista.

 

[Oroka Sempai]

I like Windows, and I have a habbit of playing devils advocate, in this case Microsoft's advocate. I know what I like, and I stick to it. I test the waters of other stuff occasionally, but usually stick to what I like. I would like to know Linux better, cause I do think that Linux will get a bigger foothold in the future. Something to put on my to do list I guess.


I have been using Vista almost constantly since Beta 2 (Beta 1 sucked pretty bad). After looking at XP since 2001, and watching Longhorn since what, 2002-2003, I was estatic when it finally looked like a XP replacement was finally comming along.

All I see (with very few exceptions) is people crapping on Vista. I use Vista, and it works great, but then I hear people making it sound like it is pre-beta crap. My experiance with Vista is very diffrent from these people, and I find thier reasons for waiting for SP1 or untill they have no choice kinda weak. Dont want to poney up the cash and too proud to admit it? Lets just badmouth Vista and justify not getting it cause it sucks.

As we speak, there is a new anti vista article on overclockers.com. The guy wouldnt even let his friend try Vista... he bought a additional copy of XP and wiped Vista! Didnt even let his friend try it! You know Dell, they are really dumb, they would install anything on a computer without being sure it would work half decently. Dude, your getting a Dell with no drivers!

All the negitivity is becomming a epidemic, like Vista is a virus and to be avoided at all costs.

Shortly after ordering, I spoke to the gentleman's spouse. As you might guess, she is no Grace Hopper.

She said that one of her children had just bought a computer, and upon hearing about this upcoming purchase, had one piece of advice, "Stay away from Vista," apparently due to compatibility with old stuff.

Not the best word-of-mouth, is it?

Tehehehe, we showed Microsoft!

When I went to XP, my TV tuner was no longer supported, as with a whole host of other hardware. Unless your HP printer is from 1995 or you got some no name scanner from a Korean company that dosent exist anymore, there will proably be support for it, if not now, soon.


I am not a fanboy, but I dont think M$ and Vista are getting a fair chance.

 

[gt24]

<snip>

When I went to XP, my TV tuner was no longer supported, as with a whole host of other hardware. Unless your HP printer is from 1995 or you got some no name scanner from a Korean company that dosent exist anymore, there will proably be support for it, if not now, soon.

I am not a fanboy, but I dont think M$ and Vista are getting a fair chance.

I was thinking of posting a thread asking if there was anybody that wanted their free/reduced price Vista but can't get it yet. I am waiting on a laptop upgrade (Vista Express Upgrade) and a university copy (since I am going to college).

The laptop manufacturer (HP) has the OS delayed until March sometime... kinda odd, but necessary for drivers to be coded. The university, on the other hand, won't release or even allow Vista on the campus network until April or May. Ey...

There has been an article about how Apple products (iTunes?) are not supported in Vista... and Microsoft Visual Studio (programming environment) isn't even supported in Vista. This isn't old software... this is current stuff. Also add in the it is or it isn't supported issue with NForce motherboards... Suppositely, there was a rumor (I'm almost completely sure it is false) that Firefox has issues installing in Vista as well.

I'm not certain if either Vista changed something dramatically close to release or if the rest of the world wasn't trying out Vista beta releases to try and make sure everything was peechy keen on release. Eitherway, it makes the operating system have a bad vibe in many folks eyes and it makes even me a tad concerned about updating (in my case, wondering if the hardware I have will actually work or not). (Sidenote, my university says no to the upgrade so I patiently wait irregardless)

I am believing that this is what happens for all operating system releases and that everything will be fine in several months time. The alternative, after all, is to assume that there is a near protest against Vista going on. I doubt that is happening.

I just thought that there would have been a smoother release considering all the major companies that have dropped the proverbial ball on support. Or perhaps all these support issues are rumors? Ey...

 

[shadin]

My experiance with Vista is very diffrent from these people, and I find thier reasons for waiting for SP1 or untill they have no choice kinda weak. Dont want to poney up the cash and too proud to admit it? Lets just badmouth Vista and justify not getting it cause it sucks.

I doubt people are "too proud" to admit they don't want to pay for Vista, and that's the reasons they trash it. Play devil's advocate all you like, but I think bloated OS's suck and won't pay hundreds of dollars for something that is the exact same as XP with more bloat and DX10 until there's a lot of DX10 games I want to play (tech-demo FarCry sequels need not apply). There's plenty of DX9 (and earlier) games that I haven't beaten yet.

That's why I hate Vista: bloat and lack of necessity. They scrapped every interesting thing they talked about early on (WinFS for instance), and thanks to time constraints we got SP3 with a new GUI, some DRM BS, and an improved driver model. The whole OS reeks to me of artificially boosting system requirements and deliberately having trouble with standard 32-bit drivers to just seal the deal. It's so close to XP in all the ways that matter to an OS (kernel, etc) that I honestly can't understand their thinking of this being their fantastic new OS. Most of the features that seem like a good idea are really just cash-cows. Only signed drivers? Great! Oh, wait, NVIDIA didn't sign their drivers there for quite a long time because Microsoft charges something to the tune of $20,000 per release.

I'll upgrade on my own rigs when there's a point to do so (actually, only my gaming rig, since my other PCs can't run Vista). And until a lot of DX10 games are out there (pure DX10 games, not hybrids), I just don't see the point.

 

[Impar]

Greetings!

It's so close to XP in all the ways that matter to an OS (kernel, etc) ...

Vistas kernel has nothing to do with XPs kernel.

 

[shadin]

The Vista kernel is practically the same as 2000 and XP, except they've made some modifications that will supposedly help with security. 2000 was Windows 5.0, XP was 5.1, and now Vista is 6.0.

 

[hkgonra]

good move for apple?
lol and people complain vista uses ram? OSX runs like crap on 512 or less.........

What doesn't run like crap on less than 512 ?

 

[aftermath]

errors in code are an inevitability, some thing will be over looked or not tested correctly 'its just the way it is' TM.

Ignoring dos nt3 /3.5 and 3.1/3.11etc (os2 as well)

(95<95sr2,
me<98<98se, [because some people thought ME was 2k $$]
2000<2000sp1<2000sp2<2000sp3<2000sp4 etc,
XP<XPsp1<<XPsp2
)<<2003 sp1 lol (never used the raw one)

I see a pattern and I believe that pain is a bad thing so no Vista for me just yet.

Also Vista is next gen so I want 64bit no other way about it, no half measures and the drivers and applications are not there yet.

Vista has much more in common with the 2k3's kernel than XP's and that ain't much. yes maybe its fair to say NT 6 but then nt3 ->nt3.5 ---> nt4 were big jumps.

 

[hafa]

Since running Vista from the first Betas, I've grown to like the OS. Many of the annoyances people complain of (security warnings, driver warnings) can be easily shut off by a knowlegable installer.

The cost is right in line with XP. OEM versions of business are only $10 more than XP pro, while home basic comes in under $80; a little bit less than XP Home.

I'll continue to run XP 64-bit for a while until I've amortized the time investment of setting up my current workstation. The next OS will likely be Vista 64-bit business.

As far as Linux goes, I'm still waiting for Adobe to produce Linux versions of their software. Yes, I'm aware of the Gimp, et al, but for professional-level content creation in a corroborative environment with service bureaus, you need to use professional software. Of course there's also the problem of running MSSQL server, Visual Studio 2005, specialized video surveillance recording software... Hmmm...think I'll stick with Windows...

 

[brakezone]

Yes, and if you want to use adobe software you'll have to get adobe OS and java will only work on java OS. The only reason many stick with windows is because of the applications that will ONLY run on it. Imagine if all software developers never supported any other OS than their own. Thats the only reason I bring any of this up is because theres like 1 or 2 applications I use windows for and if they would work on linux, i'd never use windows at all for personal use...

I don't think windows is a bad OS anyways, I just want things my way. I'm a consumer and I want to have it my way, not the way somebody else chooses it to be for me.

 

[hUMANbEATbOX]

after reading all of this, i am wondering when the OP is going to write his own positive Vista article...talk is cheap...put in the time, come up with an article that can convince me to buy vista ultimate RETAIL (because, i am not buying an OEM 32bit, and then an OEM 64bit, which is what microsoft would have me do).

 

[gordon]

Since running Vista from the first Betas, I've grown to like the OS. Many of the annoyances people complain of (security warnings, driver warnings) can be easily shut off by a knowlegable installer.

The cost is right in line with XP. OEM versions of business are only $10 more than XP pro, while home basic comes in under $80; a little bit less than XP Home.

I'll continue to run XP 64-bit for a while until I've amortized the time investment of setting up my current workstation. The next OS will likely be Vista 64-bit business.

I'm another vista beta user which really liked it and think its a worthwhile upgrade. I have however not done so because I'm too lazy to bother to reinstall all my apps and have to update them because the versions I have now are borked on vista. Bleh, maybe microsoft should offer free installation by professionals for people who are just too lazy to do just about anything ;/.

 

[Impar]

Greetings!

2000 was Windows 5.0, XP was 5.1, and now Vista is 6.0.

Exactly. An all different version of kernel.

 

[shadin]

A different version of the same kernel, just like 5.0 -> 5.1. Do some more research, friend, Vista is another progression of the NT kernel and the actual changes are more or less just what is allowed to run in kernel-mode vs user-mode.

 

[Captain Slug]

This same discussion happened in the early days of XP. The only difference being that Vista is having more numerous problems before reaching maturity and the hype surrounding it is more extreme.
There's too much glitter and not enough substance in the new version to warrant a wider adoption. And it won't be adopted for quite some time until after Microsoft and all of the companies that have taken too long to make new drivers for Vista can fix all that is "wrong" with it.
Windows XP wasn't installed most places until after SP2 rolled around.

Don't forget that
1. Down-time is expensive.
2. Older task-specific software often times will not work in newer operating systems so upgrading is impossible.
3. For generic tasks what operating system is used is not all that important and is determined by cost and ease of operation
4. Any given operating system is only as good as the community and companies that support it with drivers, firmware, and software.

What doesn't run like crap on less than 512 ?

Windows 98SE, Windows 2000, and even Windows XP (with all of the eye candy and unwanted services disabled) all can run just fine with as little as 256mb of RAM.