So, Bubba, when was it you tried Vista last?
So, Bubba, when was it you tried Vista last?
Originally Posted by Adak
The machine I'm using now has a Pentium 4 so I'm not even using dual core yet like everyone else. In terms of upgrading it, it comes down to whether I want to keep the case, because I will have to replace the motherboard and get a better power supply probably (currently using ATX 300GU @300W). The motherboard isn't that good (no PCI-E slots and 1GB ram maximum, doesn't fit a more recent CPU). Also, it's HP's case, they can have it back when I'm done with it.
But when I build something new I plan to put 7 on it. I've never built my own before.
Last edited by whiteflags; 07-11-2009 at 01:41 PM.
My wife installed it on her/my old machine. Sucks just as much as before SP1 since I had the unfortunate task of setting it up.So, Bubba, when was it you tried Vista last?
Why are you trying to sell this to us? What does it benefit you? Who cares? I'm getting 7 the day it launches. Say what you want to whomever you want about Vista but it isn't going to change my mind one bit. I don't understand why this is such a debate. Here's hoping the launch of 7 goes smooth and launches us into the future on a good platform. I have high hopes for it. But, as you say, it is NOT Vista 2.0. Maybe the PR muppets at MS are calling it that to appease the sting of defeat they feel with Vista. If they claim it's the 'same' then why did they release the 'same' crappy OS 3 years after the release of the 'same' crappy OS? Why did they push up the release of 7 that is built, according to you, on the same crappy platform as crappy Vista? That makes no sense at all.
I really think that if the company says it's Vista 2.0 it's to lessen the effects of the left hook they took with Vista. Then they don't have to admit publicly that Vista flopped and was a stinging defeat but they can spin it and say 7 is like Vista but far better. I have no idea why they would even want to associate themselves with the name of an OS that was probably the company's biggest boondoggle since ME. Isn't it odd that over 5000 employees were laid off at MS for the first time in the company's history? You can blame it on economy like every other business or perhaps the economoy was just a convenient cover for a serious internal mistake. Who knows? Microsoft is an enormous company so I'm sure you will hear ten thousand different company lines from ten thousand different employees who are all bound under non-disclosure agreements - therefore they can't really say what it is. We won't know for sure what it is until the thing launches. Companies spin stories all the time and I don't believe any of it till I see the proof. Those little seminars they always offer are just 'spin city' if you ask me.
Last edited by VirtualAce; 07-11-2009 at 01:59 PM.
Hey, take it easy. I'm not trying to sell anyone anything. Just curious, that's all. I just wanted to see if you had bad experienced with Vista in its early life and stayed away, or if it was late in the game and it was messing with you.
No, in fact it is Vista 2.0. It's just that Microsoft insist that it is not. But it's buzzing all over the web. What Vista should have been.
Microsoft still insists that everyone should upgrade to Vista first, and Win7 later. Partly because if Vista works for you, then you know that Win7 will work. And partly, I suppose, because you can't upgrade XP to Win7.
I was under the impression you were saying MS says it is. That certainly does not line up with what I've heard. That is a clear misunderstanding on my part. I do not attend the seminars they offer about 7 so I do not know what those muppets are saying. I know that even though we do not agree with everything Microsoft does we know they are capable and talented enough to produce a much better operating system than their last offering.No, in fact it is Vista 2.0. It's just that Microsoft insist that it is not.
I really don't think it's spinning to say 7 is not Vista 2.0. I think it would be spinning to say it is Vista 2.0. It may have the features that Vista was supposed to have but that does not mean it is 2.0.
Again this is all conjecture. What we are doing is assuming we have more information about the product when we haven't had anything to do with it's development. I would never assume I knew more about one of your company's products than you did since you worked on it. Why are we doing this with Microsoft? You really believe all the internet fan boys and hardware sites that have been wrong a trillion times over?
Just wait for it's release and then we can discuss how it is or is not this or that. Judging from the reactions of the 7 RC I would say we are in store for another very good OS.
And I do apologize for the closing comment on my last post Elysia. I removed that portion b/c it was a bit harsh. Nothing wrong with discussion but sometimes I feel as if you are not open to other's opinions - but only in threads about Vista which is odd - like you work on the sales team or something.
Last edited by VirtualAce; 07-11-2009 at 02:10 PM.
Although I can't really say about the non-visible parts and about its development, I have been using Win7 since Beta, so I could say a little about that.
But still, you are right in that time will tell. But to me, it does indeed feel like Vista 2.0. I haven't heard that much about inner changes and things, and the UI looks mostly the same.
About that last bit... yes, it's mostly my own fault. I come off as arrogant and proud many times, I'm sure. But it's also something I'm working on. There have been things I have been dead set on, but which I have lessened my stance on now, accepting, even perhaps thinking is good or okay.
But in reality, I am open to other's opinions. I always make to sure to listen to other's opinions, because I am not perfect myself.
Anyway, no hard feelings, right?
There isn't indeed a direct upgrade path for the RC (but who would want one anyways? That's just scary). But...
- Chances are there will be for the release version simply because it makes sense, considering people aren't upgrading to Vista despite Microsoft efforts in that direction.
- There' will be a price discount on a XP to Windows 7 upgrade license.
Originally Posted by brewbuck:
Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.
I think it comes with being a programmer. We are a passionate bunch at times and sometimes this leads to some heated discussions. The same thing happens at work but on a public forum it can get out of hand since things can be misinterpreted easily. It's much harder to write what you want to say than say what you are writing. I imagine that's b/c about 60% of conversation is body language and we don't have that here.About that last bit... yes, it's mostly my own fault. I come off as arrogant and proud many times, I'm sure. But it's also something I'm working on. There have been things I have been dead set on, but which I have lessened my stance on now, accepting, even perhaps thinking is good or okay.
Nope. None at all. Just a passionate discussion about something we both feel strongly about.Anyway, no hard feelings, right?
Well, you have to take into account the purpose of the WinHEC conference. Manufacturers send developers such as myself to WinHEC not to be brainwashed but to get a straight story on the TECHNICAL aspects of driver and hardware development on the Win7 platform. So of course a lot can change in application space, but the theme of the conference was basically "This is Vista all over again" except with the usual incremental developments. There is no overhaul of anything.
Again, Vista blew because of driver support. The OS core is fine. It took the manufacturers several years to adjust to the new driver ecosystem. We've pretty much got that nailed, now.
Code://try //{ if (a) do { f( b); } while(1); else do { f(!b); } while(1); //}
This is the part I don't get.
Is that all that matters nowadays? If the core is fine, if the system is stable, and if it looks good, we are to be herded into buying a new operating system and possibly be forced to spend some extra in upgrading our machines? I feel this is lowering our demands to a dangerous level in which a company like Microsoft can keep spurring new cash cows every 2 years or so, without much effort in real innovations. Where are the promised features of Vista that slowly got removed during the development stages? Forgotten, that's where.
The one thing Vista brought to the our plate was DX10. And even this was made in rather controversial and sleazeball way; By refusing to provide it for XP.
Then Crysis comes to showcase DX10 and make a bunch go get their Vista of some torrent. Only, shortly after someone found out what was really going on, and by changing the config file, XP users were able to play the game in Very High settings, which was... oh, so conveniently removed for XP players. Sure, you still don't have some lightning, some water effects and whatnot. But can I really tell the difference? No, not really unless I'm looking for it. The joke, because it has to be a joke, is that some players report Crysis running better on XP than on Vista on Very High settings. Sure it is the missing lightning and water effects. Right!
It's in Security that I think Vista did manage to provide real content to a a new operating system. This is frankly very little as far as I'm concerned. Definitely not my kind of feature that justifies the adoption of a new operating system. Particularly because everyone in this thread knows exactly what to do to keep their XP secure and free or any virus or malware.
And yet I see Vista being discussed as a meritorious operating system that is finally over the bad days of its shaky launch. Quite frankly, Vista is a bloated bag of nothings. A shiny new interface to keep us entertained and forget about the fact there is really nothing else special about Vista.
I just hope this acceptance of any crap they throw at us doesn't become a trend. Because our refusal to go by is what little control we have left over them. The day we willingly lose that, we cannot blame anyone but ourselves. And I'll definitely will not want to hear anyone complaining why is that Microsoft doesn't provide any real innovations for the past 7 years.
Last edited by Mario F.; 07-11-2009 at 09:55 PM.
Originally Posted by brewbuck:
Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.
>> XP is the best Microsoft operating system to date that has ever been shipped.
Correction. That would be Windows 2000!
Code:#include <cmath> #include <complex> bool euler_flip(bool value) { return std::pow ( std::complex<float>(std::exp(1.0)), std::complex<float>(0, 1) * std::complex<float>(std::atan(1.0) *(1 << (value + 2))) ).real() < 0; }
I highly doubt it. Microsoft has somewhat stated on their blog that such an upgrade won't be possible due to technical difficulties.
You will have to reinstall, and use some ways of keeping your files and settings beforehand and importing them later to make an "upgrade."
I can also guess that Microsoft wanted to push about Windows 7 early to make up their bad reputation with Vista. So they made it a worthy Vista 2.0, ie - what Vista should have been (except for the missing promised features). We've got a new UI to make us more productive, improved audio, more performance, less glitches and hickups, built-in bluetooth, WDDM 1.1, and many more minor stuff.
I believe we'll see some new things in Windows 8. I already saw they were hiring for some new functionality in it. So perhaps we might see some of those promised features in Windows 8. Let's hope.
"I just hope this acceptance of any crap they throw at us doesn't become a trend. Because our refusal to go by is what little control we have left over them. The day we willingly lose that, we cannot blame anyone but ourselves. And I'll definitely will not want to hear anyone complaining why is that Microsoft doesn't provide any real innovations for the past 7 years."
here here *clinks uncle jack*
(What? You don't like Jack Daniels?)
"We've got a new UI to make us more productive"
Wait? Seriously? That is a reason for dropping mad cash on the latest Microsoft "Almost Ran"? That's a Dvorak argument if I've ever heard one.
I've been using the same development, mastery, content environments and the same keyboards and mice for so long I don't need to look at the screen to use even the mouse. My hands are so tuned to moving "just so" to access the tools that when new versions "upgrade the interface" I have to spend extra hours on my work, until my hands learn the new positions, because the tools aren't where they should be.
If the UI is already effective and the tools do the job a new UI just means "down time" while retraining. And a fresh coat of paint doesn't make a UI new anymore than it makes it improved.
"improved audio"
My audio development machine has excellent 7.1 surround sound. How much better are we talking about?
"more performance'
It will have more performance than my severely tweaked XP SP3--which eliminates basically everything consuming only 94 threads before ATI/nVidia drivers?
"less glitches and hickups"
My XP SP3 based sever--now running lighttpd instead of Apache--is on its seventh month. The XP based machines in the farm only ever reboot when I've added something new. (Which is once or twice a month, depending on the month.)
"built-in bluetooth"
XP has had a native Bluetooth stack and a lot of drivers since SP2.
"I believe we'll see some new things in Windows 8. I already saw they were hiring for some new functionality in it. So perhaps we might see some of those promised features in Windows 8. Let's hope."
So, your advice, is really to upgrade to "Vista 2.0" because it brings a lot to the table as a stepping stone to upgrading to "Windows 8" which may in theory manifest these items?
Soma
Well, try if and see if you like it.
To me, it makes everyday life, especially on smaller screens, much better. I like it. Not enough to pay a lot of cash for, no, but it is good.
This is a problem, and I agree. Microsoft is making it much harder to access certain common things and hiding them in new versions. But that's not what I was talking about. I was talking about the new Aero (like Aero Peek) and the new Taskbar.I've been using the same development, mastery, content environments and the same keyboards and mice for so long I don't need to look at the screen to use even the mouse. My hands are so tuned to moving "just so" to access the tools that when new versions "upgrade the interface" I have to spend extra hours on my work, until my hands learn the new positions, because the tools aren't where they should be.
Improvements to reduce certain audio glitches among other things, I believe. I had perfect sound, too, but this is what Microsoft says, at least. Mostly engineering, making code more robust I suspect."improved audio"
My audio development machine has excellent 7.1 surround sound. How much better are we talking about?
More performance and faster than Vista. Also promises faster boot up times and faster shutdown. Though that hasn't really happened to me."more performance'
It will have more performance than my severely tweaked XP SP3--which eliminates basically everything consuming only 94 threads before ATI/nVidia drivers?
And disabling threads and stuff to gain more performance are just myths. I've found that disabling services doesn't do anymore than give you headaches.
This is more about the eco system itself rather than the OS. But Microsoft has put a lot of effort into finding troublesome drivers and stuff that interferes with, for example, audio, and helping manufacturers fix them."less glitches and hickups"
My XP SP3 based sever--now running lighttpd instead of Apache--is on its seventh month. The XP based machines in the farm only ever reboot when I've added something new. (Which is once or twice a month, depending on the month.)
They also work more closely with manufacturers to see that Windows start faster and gives more seamless experience.
But it didn't have native bluetooth functionality. No need for drivers in Windows 7, because it's built-in. Call it good or bad, I don't know."built-in bluetooth"
XP has had a native Bluetooth stack and a lot of drivers since SP2.
No, I'm not advising on anything."I believe we'll see some new things in Windows 8. I already saw they were hiring for some new functionality in it. So perhaps we might see some of those promised features in Windows 8. Let's hope."
So, your advice, is really to upgrade to "Vista 2.0" because it brings a lot to the table as a stepping stone to upgrading to "Windows 8" which may in theory manifest these items?
All I'm saying is, try it before you hate it.
And I'm mostly comparing W7 to Vista here. It obviously isn't faster than XP. As things grow, they become more slow, but W7 did the other way - it become faster, breaking the trend that everything new must be slower. At least it's a little good.
"Well, try if and see if you like it."
I've had that misfortune when my laptop arrived (Vista). I'll stick with my custom build of xoblite. (I use it party so my *nix boxes are similar and partly because I love it.)
"I was talking about the new Aero (like Aero Peek) and the new Taskbar."
I don't use a "taskbar" style shell in XP--or any other OS since Windows 98 was released.
"And disabling threads and stuff to gain more performance are just myths."
Do you really think that? O_o
"I've found that disabling services doesn't do anymore than give you headaches."
Yea? And? Do you have a point? (Hint: You not reading the documentation and understanding the requirements for your machines doesn't change the reality for the rest of us.)
"This is more about the eco system itself rather than the OS."
Indeed? (See the old, buggy network stack implementations Microsoft used to provide for an example of how the OS contributes to "the eco system".)
"But it didn't have native bluetooth functionality."
Well... it is just an OS. You would still need the hardware.
"No need for drivers in Windows 7, because it's built-in."
You really have no idea what you are talking about do you?
"All I'm saying is, try it before you hate it."
Well, that is advice but I do get what you are saying, but you've also been saying, more or less, that Windows 7 is some worthy improvement while saying that "Window 8" may actually be the one to bring new stuff the table. What I'm implying here is you shouldn't spend money on nothing.
Anyway, you've missed the point entirely. If Windows Vista was a step down and Windows 7 is a step up you've only made a lateral move. With that in mind, why move from XP? Why pay good money to upgrade and get nothing?
"As things grow, they become more slow"
"but W7 did the other way"
"it become faster"
"breaking the trend that everything new must be slower"
Now you are just being silly. Windows XP runs well on ancient (current standards) hardware. Windows Vista needed serious hardware to run poorly. From all account Windows 7 runs only a little better on similar hardware. It didn't magic anything. It didn't break any such trend--not that such a trend even exists.
Soma
