anyone actually running vista beta?

i finally got a spare hard drive to test it on and the damn thing won't even get past 32% copying files. so now since i've got time and bored i'm dling ubuntu, anyone have experience on how hard it is to install xgl on it?

 

It didn't want to unstall for me either.

 

It takes 6minutes flat to completely boot, but when its done booting it runs flawlessly. It took me 5hours to install it...

 

It gave me an error message similar to "Cannot find Windows image" somewhere before or after the serial key step. It happened when I inserted the DVD while XP was running and even after booting the DVD.

 

Try redownloading it.

 

im running it and im impressed. not bad for a beta, not at all.

 

I tried it back when it was called Longhorn, and it ran quite shittily back then; I remember that several times I received fatal errors for absolutely no reason. I would imagine that it's improved since then, though.

 

well i've redownloaded it and it seems to be installing ok now, whether it will be useful when all is said and done is another story

 

too high requirments for an OS. keep it simple stupid, to microsoft. can anyone justify the use of Vista over XP please?

 

"Ooohhh, Pretty" Seems to be the main selling point at the moment. That and the paper thin promise of better security.

 

Agreed. It looks really nice when you put it on the "Ooooh" desktop setting. That's neat and all, but I figure you would have to own a powerhouse of a PC to have it run smoothly.

I have XP and I have everything on minimum.

 

Me too, I hated the new visual styles of XP and am still on the Windows Classic look (which I know is currently included in Vista, but that kind of begs the question why you'd use it in the first place). I don't need my OS to be anything more than functional, the idea that it would consume more resources than necessary is daft to me. I was happy using Win98 until 2003 though, so maybe I'm just slow to change.

I still have yet to hear of a feature of Vista that gets even remotely close to justifiying an upgrade.

 

Because Microsoft force gamers to update to play the newest games that will make use of DX10. Other than that, not much. Well, uhh... it doesnt look like windows 98 or playschool. But i guess that's not a justification. Not at all.

 

Anyone care to take a print screen to show some of us without the requirements what it looks like? :icon_bigg

 

security doesnt rise from complexity last time i checked a simple and tight OS that uses minimal resources and actualy leaves alot of power to the applications is what most of us are after. Regarding DX10 games, I will, for once more, stick to consoles due to budget mainly and game quality

Speaking of operating systems, the Norton Commander shell was a nifty piece of software back in the day

PS: i 'd be probably running win98 still if it wasnt for NTFS and 3ds max 6 that required XP or 2K. That or the devkit hookups would have forced me to switch.

 

meh, I don't plan on upgrading from what i've seen but my next pc may have it. One thing i do like thats fun to play around with is the built in media center, despite myself having any tuner card or anything its cool none the less. It actually doesn't feel that draining on resources as I expected it, I'm running a 2600+ athlon xp w/ a gig of ram and it seems to be quite spunky. I don't like the fact that it takes up over 600mb of that ram just on start up though...

I'll try to get some up here later today, anything in particular you'd like to see thats not already published?

 

Looks like someone is afraid of losing their exclusitivity;-) ..

 

Totally right on both counts.

I heard Halo 2 PC is going to require DX10, because it couldn't be done on DX9 - 1/ that's bullshit, and 2/ that means I won't be playing Halo 2 on PC, which is no big loss since it wasn't supposed to be played on PC in the first place. So you're going to require me to pay to upgrade to Vista to pay to play your shitty FPS games, Microsoft? I guess I won't play them, then.

 

i hate the fact that each "generation" of os uses a fixed proportion of computing power for routine operations. Imagine the simplicity of something that takes up only 8-16MB of ram and is just a simple operating system, leaving the rest of my 1280Mb of ram alone to things that need it, like professional applications. Hats off if microsoft can ever release something like that. I dont care for alpha blending, popups, curved lines etc.

Computer crunching power should go up to benefit existing appications as well as introduce demanding ones, not to make lazy, happy-go-lucky code take-up valuable resources. And for the last time.. the computer is mainly a tool, not a fucking game box. Not worth the money to be a game box anyway, nor the hefty install process.

 

each windows gets more and more ungry for power to simply make the industry run, things doesnt stagniliante this way.