anyone actually running vista beta?

Otherwise we'd all be using Pentium 75 CPUs and playing Doom2.

Mac OSX is a complex OS, it isn't DOS. Grant it, the OS is built to a very closed set of hardware, so it does get the most out of it and still looks very futuristic. However, with Windows it will always vary on the hardware you have and then you have to deal with some compatability issues. With DOS, you had to have a lot of knowledge to actually use it. XP and Mac OS are trying to accomplish a simple goal. To have a very low learning curve but also have the a lot of customization. But seriously, both Apple and MS are trying to make their OS very user friendly, easy to learn, secure, personalize it to your liking, etc.. Basically do everything except run applications like Office or Games.

I don't think I will get Vista because of my PC hardware. I'll stick with XP as long as possible.

 

Strange deja-vu....a friend of mine said the same about Win2K and WinXP...

 

Well you could always get a P4 HT CPU or a double core...set up 1/2GB of RAM and get a nice ATI card...i think with 300€ you could surely get a nice vista sistem running flawlessly...

 

For what though? is 300 euros worth the upgrade? I say not yet, and not quite. I'd rather spend 300 on something more necessary than to upgrade to microsoft's latest effort. Let's face it. 1/2GB extra or not, the same amount of memory would go more nicely to a proper application and not the OS.

I don't mind microsoft creating user friendly crap, but there are people who still work on command line every now and then and I don't think they re stupid or prehistoric for wanting something simple and efficient. Obviously a visual GUI is much more workable than typing everything, no arguing about that, but so many resources to make something look cute.. it's overkill, and a waste of hard-earned money on shit that doesn't make a difference at the end of the day, and mostly only slows down your system. A system you and me may be using to make money out of and we need the most resources available to us.

Bottom line, inneficient. Go for unix/linux simple/pro distros. If only compatibility wasn't an issue.. and i do know about WINE, but still OH:

 

I'm still using win2k and really can't find ANY excuse for moving to Xp even tought i have a 64-bit athlon processor...

xp is incredibly ineffective compared to 2k...

 

Hmmm, I'd like to see what the general desktop theme would look like, as well as what the custom coloring options are.

BTW, I also heard Vista is getting rid of paint.

Say it aint so, Microsoft!:noooo:

 

Well, so far 2 crashes, 1 driver related, 1 installing software which i guess was xp/2000 specific, nothing major.

IE 7 is pretty slow, cleaner than other versions but it lacks all the options and extensions of firefox at least for now.

Don't worry, paint is still there, hasn't changed at all.

These pop up everywhere, little annoying but glad to see security is slightly improved i guess.


Plenty of crap thrown in there right off the install, videos clips and some music to introduce you to media center account for some space, but still, >10gigs



Nice little flip feature, I think i'll stick with alt-tab tho


a few color options, brightness is also there, and if you want to go really old school you can still make it look like win95

 

Thanks! It looks interesting! My computer still doesnt have the specs to use this OS, but I'll consider it when building my gaming PC down the road.

OT

I thought about getting my gaming PC powerful enough to play big RTSs, like Mark of Chaos, but I saw footage of Battlefield 2142 on Gametrailers, and I was like "OH MAN! I gotta get this now!!1!"

Some said it was boring looking, but just check the trailers at Gametrailers for it.

Im also sure it might require Vista also to run.

 

As has been pointed out elsewhere, it looks like XP with an OSX visual style. Even more so when you're actually using it - and it really doesn't look all that good. Nor does it need to, being an operating system. In fact, all it needs to do is operate my system.

Also, "Seafoam", "Heritage", "Candy" as names for colours... pretentious, moi?

 

Wow, those trailers do look amazing they have a lot of cool new shit going on there, I wouldn't want to run it on my pc though. I play BF2 on it but the graphics card isn't even supported it says (geforce 5600xt), and it still just rates a 2 within vista's weird rating system. I'm sure it wouldn't require vista if they have it running on xp right now at least for development, also main ea site says coming this fall.

 

I'll admit, it does have a lot of overhead for what it is. As for the osx thing, it's worked for apple so you can't blame microsoft for trying to offer something comparitive especially with all the pro-mac commercials you see every 2 minutes. And the color thing...yea, I don't know what they were thinking.

 

I'm far from an Apple advocate, and I dislike the usual crowing from the fanatics who see Microsoft developing their OS in a somewhat similar fashion to Apple several months/a year afterwards (I'd like to see Apple deal with the amount of hardware Windows has to deal with, see how quickly they manage to update the OS). I've yet to see any of the recent Apple adverts, but I've heard the content ranges from patronising to outright lies, which doesn't endear me to the company much.

I'd be a lot more in support of Apple if they'd just stop claiming benchmark superiority. By the same token it's disappointing to see Microsoft tout Vista exclusivity for some upcoming games as though it's necessary. The arrogance in both cases is unwanted and dishonest.

 

Well the Xboxs graphics chipset is based on Geforce 3 tech, which I believe was based arround the DirectX 8 specifications. So I would imagine the game could be done using DirectX 8 if need be. Although, from what i've heard Microsoft has backed down on the concept of making it 'Windows Graphics Foundation/DirectX 10/DirectX Next/Direct3D 10' (or whatever you want to call it) exclusive. Supposedly it will be like Crysis in that while as it'll run under DirectX 9 it will also be able to take advantage of certan aspects of its succesor.

 

Does that mean Halo 2 will look any better?

Also, does that mean you wont notice things switching from low poly to high poly when you look at them from a distance with a gun with a scope?

 

Alchy, my thoughts exactly; theres always good and evil on both sides.

 

That makes sense, given the delays that Vista is suffering. They're now going to miss the Christmas launch, and are not too sure exactly when after that the actual launch will be. I remember reading a Microsoft employee's blog which said that it wasn't so much when, as if, Vista will launch. That's pretty scary talk form the world's biggest company.

 

Vista will be released, that much is obvious. That employee was probably just fed up with with MS's "When it's done" attitude. They want to make sure they get it right the first time, hence the latest public beta release.

The last few years they've been working on spreading to nearly every electronic entertainment industry and market the world over, but their core buisness which they were founded upon has been left to stagnate the whole while. Apple has started to gain ground on them in the OS market, and their still not #1 in the console market.

They know WindowsXP can't stay on top of the OS market forever, and it needs a succesor badly.

 

Hehe i know what you mean, im working like 20% of my time on console :lol:.
You know, its the old everlasting dilemma : Linux or Windows? Better both of them

W-O-W - THIS IS AN EVENT!!!! You, Sir, are the FIRST PERSON i ever met to say so!!! And i fully have to respect your idea because i share it 100%. W2K was a GREAT OS.

Oh man, why is this more and more looking like Apple's MacOS?

 

vista isn't THAT slow (i'm writing it here UNDER VISTA) but it takes MUCH more ram (xp : 380/400 with my configuration with NIS2006 ans driver installed after a format, VISTA: 700 , same thing)

so the problem will come with the computers... remember there were the same things in end 2001 with windows XP... so..

VIsta is also more secure than XP

about win 2k, if you own a computer with less than 512 MO and 1.5 GHZ, win 2K will work a LOT better. with a better computer you should take XP.

For 64 bits processor you need XP x64 to use it to full potential.

anyway, i'll agree on the point that windows 2000 is a great OS.
BUT, You don't need to upgrade to windows XP if you have a non 64 bits system with windows 2000. XP would work fine if you configue it properly (ex: interface , ect...)

PS: i don't think it will be needed to pass on vista soon (remember, you could stay on win 98 until about 2003/2004 without problem. now there are uncompatible software)

 

and lets remember that the more system devices you ve got plugged, (say ODEM) the more RAM you need to boot with. I ve got about 6 PCi cards inside my box and i boot XP using about 34% of my 1280MB of DDR 266. My system is anything but slow, but my northwood 1.8 can only take so much. Boot is quite slow even though it's XP (I start with a relatively "clean" app set, about 36 listed in task manager, and no add-on or startup crap).

I can imagine that Vista (the real-man versions, not the stripped down ones) would be quite a hit on my professional system during boot and action time.