|
hydran
Ace
Posts: 4,168
Join Date: Aug, 2005
|
 |
« Reply #75 on: February 11, 2007, 03:56:00 PM » |
|
Got mixed feelings about vista, I really like the new look but the lack of mature drivers and those annoying pop ups saying 3 times: ‘’you sure?’’ ‘’continue?’’’and bad opengl performance; , its just xp with new look with more pop up messages really.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Fontaine
Ace
Posts: 2,845
Join Date: Mar, 2003
|
|
« Reply #76 on: February 11, 2007, 04:53:18 PM » |
|
Got mixed feelings about vista, I really like the new look but the lack of mature drivers and those annoying pop ups saying 3 times: ‘’you sure?’’ ‘’continue?’’’and bad opengl performance; , its just xp with new look with more pop up messages really. Ehh? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Intuit
Ace
Posts: 10,355
Join Date: Oct, 2002
|
|
« Reply #77 on: February 11, 2007, 06:21:55 PM » |
|
It'll be that way for awhile just like the switch between Win95 & Win98. The programmers have some catching-up to do. The scaled infrastructure in the switch between 95 & 98 allowed for greater harddrive/ram capacities and supported advanced CPU & Video processing features. XP to Vista is the same way. Just give 3rd-party programmers to catch up to the hardware & OS.
With new games for example I'm seeing a lot of new things on an old PC that five years ago couldn't be done. So it'll take a number of years for them to begin to max-out the efficiency of your hardware... but it'll be done eventually.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Fontaine
Ace
Posts: 2,845
Join Date: Mar, 2003
|
|
« Reply #78 on: February 11, 2007, 06:40:19 PM » |
|
It'll be that way for awhile just like the switch between Win95 & Win98. The programmers have some catching-up to do. The scaled infrastructure in the switch between 95 & 98 allowed for greater harddrive/ram capacities and supported advanced CPU & Video processing features. XP to Vista is the same way. Just give 3rd-party programmers to catch up to the hardware & OS.
With new games for example I'm seeing a lot of new things on an old PC that five years ago couldn't be done. So it'll take a number of years for them to begin to max-out the efficiency of your hardware... but it'll be done eventually. http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/windows_vista_nvidia_forceware_performance/[quoteFiringSquad: When did you begin work on your drivers for Vista and how many people are involved on the project? Dwight Diercks: We have been actively involved with Windows Vista driver development for over two and a half years. We have spent over 350 man-years of development on Windows Vista driver development. FiringSquad: Both AMD and NVIDIA’s OpenGL drivers for Vista seem to be unpolished at this time. Is this because optimizing for OpenGL is a lower priority than D3D (after all, there are fewer OpenGL apps than D3D out there) or is coding for OpenGL more difficult in Vista than it was under Windows XP? What seems to be the holdup? Dwight Diercks: Architecturally, Windows Vista does not impact OpenGL application performance when compared to Windows XP. We constantly measure and chart our performance on a variety of 3D applications in Windows Vista and use it to help us target future optimizations.[/quote] They basicly say there is no performance difference while my experience say something else. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
OldDummy
Sudhian Forum Moderator
Posts: 2,542
Join Date: Jun, 2005
Hey, thats not me.
|
|
« Reply #79 on: February 11, 2007, 08:09:36 PM » |
|
I like Vista. It does have some quirks that take some getting used to but all an all a nice OS. Initially the drivers really sucked but now there's no distortion with CSS and HL:lost coast. BF 2142 runs smooth so although there are going to be problems there being worked on. With this box and some fairly high-end hardware it runs very well. With luck it will only get better. OpenGL stuff seems to be the runt in this litter and I don't know why.
OD
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Intuit
Ace
Posts: 10,355
Join Date: Oct, 2002
|
|
« Reply #80 on: February 11, 2007, 08:36:54 PM » |
|
They basicly say there is no performance difference while my experience say something else. If you're saying it's slower, you're undoubtedly correct. I made the same observations between 98 and XP when I switched. The older systems are faster because they're running less code. HOwever the newer systems can run more code faster. (and boy are they running more code) So it's bacially just a matter of efficiency (and scalability). In the same sense though, a lot of the same general tasks are accomplished just as well using XP than with Vista. So it can be pretty confusing. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Naki
Power User
Posts: 5,083
Join Date: Dec, 2001
|
|
« Reply #81 on: February 11, 2007, 08:49:18 PM » |
|
I read somewhere (magazine/Internet?) that OpenGL is ran through Direct3D (all OpenGL code is transformed to Direct3D code) on Vista, making it slower than native OpenGL support (in WinXP), not sure if this is true...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
 Happy Sailing! (\_~~~~~~~~~~~(\_~~~~~~~~~~~(\_~~~~~~~~~~~  |
|
|
|
The Brainiac
Member
Posts: 595
Join Date: Feb, 2006
|
|
« Reply #82 on: February 11, 2007, 08:53:41 PM » |
|
atm there's almost no OpenGL support for ATi users anyway, but yes you are right,no native OpenGL in Vista  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Fontaine
Ace
Posts: 2,845
Join Date: Mar, 2003
|
|
« Reply #83 on: February 11, 2007, 09:49:31 PM » |
|
They basicly say there is no performance difference while my experience say something else. If you're saying it's slower, you're undoubtedly correct. I made the same observations between 98 and XP when I switched. The older systems are faster because they're running less code. HOwever the newer systems can run more code faster. (and boy are they running more code) So it's bacially just a matter of efficiency (and scalability). In the same sense though, a lot of the same general tasks are accomplished just as well using XP than with Vista. So it can be pretty confusing. Allright, i must have patience. I ain't going back to XP; it aint that bad. Worst thing currently is the sound driver. I just fixed/disabled those annoying warnings when you install or download things. And I had a boot up error (BOOTMGR is missing) which I also just fixed so I am more positive then some hours ago about Vista. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Reflex
Ace
Posts: 11,331
Join Date: Dec, 2001
|
|
« Reply #84 on: February 11, 2007, 11:39:45 PM » |
|
They basicly say there is no performance difference while my experience say something else. If you're saying it's slower, you're undoubtedly correct. I made the same observations between 98 and XP when I switched. The older systems are faster because they're running less code. HOwever the newer systems can run more code faster. (and boy are they running more code) So it's bacially just a matter of efficiency (and scalability). In the same sense though, a lot of the same general tasks are accomplished just as well using XP than with Vista. So it can be pretty confusing. This is a oversimplification. Unless using a very low spec machine, XP is generally faster than Win98 on about any task you can think of, especially in gaming. How resources are utilized means far more than what amount the OS uses total, the memory management on XP is far superior to what we had on Win9x and as drivers matured it went from slightly slower than Win98 to considerably faster for most tasks. The same will be true of Vista, which has a whole new set of tricks for driver developers.... BTW, OGL does not run inside a D3D wrapper. Its just as native as it was on WinXP. AMD and nVidia have chosen this as a good point to rewrite their OGL ICD's and as a result performance will lag on Vista until they get more mature in their implementation. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
hydran
Ace
Posts: 4,168
Join Date: Aug, 2005
|
|
« Reply #85 on: February 11, 2007, 11:58:09 PM » |
|
Got mixed feelings about vista, I really like the new look but the lack of mature drivers and those annoying pop ups saying 3 times: ‘’you sure?’’ ‘’continue?’’’and bad opengl performance; , its just xp with new look with more pop up messages really. Ehh? 3 pop ups? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Intuit
Ace
Posts: 10,355
Join Date: Oct, 2002
|
|
« Reply #86 on: February 12, 2007, 06:32:01 AM » |
|
They basicly say there is no performance difference while my experience say something else. If you're saying it's slower, you're undoubtedly correct. I made the same observations between 98 and XP when I switched. The older systems are faster because they're running less code. HOwever the newer systems can run more code faster. (and boy are they running more code) So it's bacially just a matter of efficiency (and scalability). In the same sense though, a lot of the same general tasks are accomplished just as well using XP than with Vista. So it can be pretty confusing. This is a oversimplification. Unless using a very low spec machine, XP is generally faster than Win98 on about any task you can think of, especially in gaming. How resources are utilized means far more than what amount the OS uses total, the memory management on XP is far superior to what we had on Win9x and as drivers matured it went from slightly slower than Win98 to considerably faster for most tasks. The same will be true of Vista, which has a whole new set of tricks for driver developers.... ........ I think you may have misunderstood Reflex. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Naki
Power User
Posts: 5,083
Join Date: Dec, 2001
|
|
« Reply #87 on: February 15, 2007, 08:20:15 PM » |
|
Hey, not fair - MS copied the look of windows and their Minimize/Restore/etc icons from GNOME! Vista looks A LOT like Ubuntu...
Btw, there is no option to use FAT32 during setup, is there?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Happy Sailing! (\_~~~~~~~~~~~(\_~~~~~~~~~~~(\_~~~~~~~~~~~ |
|
|
|
Intuit
Ace
Posts: 10,355
Join Date: Oct, 2002
|
|
« Reply #88 on: February 15, 2007, 10:34:25 PM » |
|
Operating systems have been copying from eachother from day 1. All operating systems share characteristscs from UNIX and Linux is a direct knock-off of UNIX. So I guess it's to be expacted that everything from the GrandDaddy of 'em all to Mac OS-X and the latest Windows, share many visual and organizational traits and cues.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Naki
Power User
Posts: 5,083
Join Date: Dec, 2001
|
|
« Reply #89 on: February 15, 2007, 10:54:24 PM » |
|
About OS performance, several years ago I did a simple Visual Basic 6 test/benchmark, which just starts from 0 and adds +1 in a loop, then tells you the number it got to for 10 seconds (or something like that). There was quite a difference when the program was ran on Win98 and Win2000 (on the same PC - of course, Win2K giving better results - I know this isn't a very real test, but at least it gave repeatable results).
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Happy Sailing! (\_~~~~~~~~~~~(\_~~~~~~~~~~~(\_~~~~~~~~~~~ |
|
|
|
Reflex
Ace
Posts: 11,331
Join Date: Dec, 2001
|
|
« Reply #90 on: February 16, 2007, 12:10:30 AM » |
|
The 'look and feel' argument about computers traces back to Xerox PARC, which invented the mouse driven interfaces that we have today. Apple directly ripped off that look, and Microsoft had access to it as well(and to Apple also). As for the underpinnings, almost all modern OS's are Unix derived in some way, even Windows which is a rewrite/descendant of DEC's VMS. The original developer of Windows NT is Dave Cutler, who was one of the primary developers on VMS before he was hired by Microsoft. OS X is a descendant of NeXTStep, which itself is a derivitive of BSD, a Unix variant.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Naki
Power User
Posts: 5,083
Join Date: Dec, 2001
|
|
« Reply #91 on: February 16, 2007, 06:12:57 PM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Happy Sailing! (\_~~~~~~~~~~~(\_~~~~~~~~~~~(\_~~~~~~~~~~~ |
|
|
|
Intuit
Ace
Posts: 10,355
Join Date: Oct, 2002
|
|
« Reply #92 on: February 16, 2007, 08:01:41 PM » |
|
The 'look and feel' argument about computers traces back to Xerox PARC, which invented the mouse driven interfaces that we have today. Apple directly ripped off that look, and Microsoft had access to it as well(and to Apple also). As for the underpinnings, almost all modern OS's are Unix derived in some way, even Windows which is a rewrite/descendant of DEC's VMS. The original developer of Windows NT is Dave Cutler, who was one of the primary developers on VMS before he was hired by Microsoft. OS X is a descendant of NeXTStep, which itself is a derivitive of BSD, a Unix variant. Interesting. Back in the days of Windows 3.1 and BBSs I remember downloading this application called "WinBar"... very neat Shell that replaced Microsoft's Program Manager and XSoft's (Xerox?) TabWorks, another Shell replacement. Remember what followed Windows 3.1 ? On the consumer level it was Win95 and the Explorer Shell was a direct knock-off on the old WinBar Shareware/Freeware application. EDIT: ... did a Google, version 1.2 of the app dates Sept 1995. >>"WinBar is a highly configurable rendition of the Windows 95
Taskbar that runs under Windows 3.1." Whatever version I had remembered seeing the date of 92 on the executable but maybe I'm mistaken. After all it's only been well over a decade...  http://oldfiles.org.uk/lightspeed/main.html |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Shagbag
Ace
Posts: 1,336
Join Date: Dec, 2005
|
|
« Reply #93 on: February 16, 2007, 08:04:04 PM » |
|
Now that's not fair. Every linux user knows that the Gnome desktop is ultra-ultra configurable. Gnome can be made to look like Vista relatively easily. See: ThisThisThisThese are just a few. Yeah, Gnome can look like Vista but check out the dates - which came first? Who owns the patent? Prior art? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Shagbag
Ace
Posts: 1,336
Join Date: Dec, 2005
|
|
« Reply #94 on: February 16, 2007, 08:55:17 PM » |
|
@Naki
I must confess that when I clicked on page '7' and it came up showing your Vista screenie, my eyes almost popped out of my head and I had to fall back in my chair. And do you know the first thing I said? You do don't you. That's right: "wow!".
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Naki
Power User
Posts: 5,083
Join Date: Dec, 2001
|
|
« Reply #95 on: February 16, 2007, 09:09:49 PM » |
|
Yeah, I basically meant to say that Microsoft copied the look from Ubuntu/GNOME (talking about the DEFAULT look of both Vista and Ubuntu). Note: No Aero as I'm running both Ubuntu and Vista using vmWare, which emulates a 16 MB basic videocard.
DISCLAIMER: I may be wrong here, because I'm not taking into account alpha/beta/RC versions of Vista and do not know how they looked. Also, I do not know how Ubuntu versions prior to 6.10 look(ed) and when 6.10 and prior versions were released.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Happy Sailing! (\_~~~~~~~~~~~(\_~~~~~~~~~~~(\_~~~~~~~~~~~ |
|
|
|
Reflex
Ace
Posts: 11,331
Join Date: Dec, 2001
|
|
« Reply #96 on: February 16, 2007, 10:50:34 PM » |
|
The Vista look you see has existed since 2003 when it was first being defined. There were leaked builds with the Aero look from there up through release. It was not a closely guarded secret like 'Luna' was for XP. Take a look at Beta2, same look although not as refined.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Naki
Power User
Posts: 5,083
Join Date: Dec, 2001
|
|
« Reply #97 on: February 16, 2007, 10:55:09 PM » |
|
Hmm, so which one is first - GNOME-look or Vista-look?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Happy Sailing! (\_~~~~~~~~~~~(\_~~~~~~~~~~~(\_~~~~~~~~~~~ |
|
|
|
Reflex
Ace
Posts: 11,331
Join Date: Dec, 2001
|
|
« Reply #98 on: February 17, 2007, 12:10:19 AM » |
|
Got me.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Shagbag
Ace
Posts: 1,336
Join Date: Dec, 2005
|
|
« Reply #99 on: February 17, 2007, 12:19:47 AM » |
|
lol. That's a first.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
