Index
> Windows > Are you using Microsoft Windows Vista OS now?Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next |
| Do you use Microsoft Windows Vista OS now? | ||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
| Total Votes : 87 |
| Author |
|
|
Gizmo 19 Jul 2007, 22:27
You couldn't make windows xp open source, they reuse much of the same code in all of their windows releases.
|
|||
19 Jul 2007, 22:27 |
|
|
m 20 Jul 2007, 13:26
Well if could afford that ...
... I would not be here ... and would not have been doing the assssembly programming. |
|||
|
20 Jul 2007, 13:26 |
|
|
dead_body 21 Jul 2007, 08:07
using XP and Vista.
XP for work with databases, games. Vista for system coding, internet surfing, and for films. |
|||
|
21 Jul 2007, 08:07 |
|
|
vador 23 Jul 2007, 07:46
nope, just have 256Mb of ram
and even if I hav 1Gb I wouldn't use it the reason why i switched to XP was that it really have lots of improvements over win98 i don't see such improvements in vista (correct me if i'm wrong) |
|||
|
23 Jul 2007, 07:46 |
|
|
drhowarddrfine 23 Jul 2007, 14:17
I just bought a notebook for my son who's going away to college. It has Vista on it. I didn't look at it too much but, from what I did see, it's kind of like getting a new car. It feels newer, it seems to drive smoother, but in the end, it's a car, just like the old one.
|
|||
|
23 Jul 2007, 14:17 |
|
|
asmfan 23 Jul 2007, 14:30
drhowarddrfine said like Jeremy Clarkson (of Top Gear) would )
|
|||
|
23 Jul 2007, 14:30 |
|
|
rugxulo 25 Jul 2007, 03:15
We need a thread about all OSes, who's tried 'em, what their pros vs. cons are, etc. Then we could post in / jump to that thread for tips, tricks, requirements, etc.
(But where to put it?? OS Construction would get more participation than Heap, but that's probably wrong.) vid, any idea?? |
|||
|
25 Jul 2007, 03:15 |
|
|
shoorick 25 Jul 2007, 07:19
think, it is hard too keep such thread(s) in order - may need separate moderator
 it can be just a pinned topic(s) |
|||
|
25 Jul 2007, 07:19 |
|
|
pjd 25 Jul 2007, 16:03
WytRaven wrote:
you talk about machines vista is designed for. I expect that a linux with several virtual machines and compiz and a 3d game at the same time would go smoothly on that. What you're saying is "get a new PC, stick vista on it and it will run better than your old run down PC. Also there's the problem that at least until a few months back and possibly to this day Linux had drivers for windows vista certified ATI graphics cards - windows vista did not. also you wrote earlier about vista x64 being the most stable OS you've ever used. While I have never used vista (what's the point in buying something at £100($200) if there is any risk I will have wasted my money - especially if it costs twice as much as it does in the USA). I consider an OS that may at some point decide that something may be illegal and turn your sound off is inherently unstable. That's not to say I want to do illegal things but all DRM I have come across has been geared towards some control freak millionaire in the states even when it does not work (e.g. the DeCSS incident). fortunately I live in the UK where the rules are better (but could be better). Finally remember that the blue screen of death (while starting to dissappear with xp and vista) was programmed IN to windows - It didn't have to happen. I consider any UNIX like system to be far more stable because of the inherent design - even in Linux. At a guess I reckon I could count the number of Linux crashes (edit: bringing down the OS and needing a reboot) I have had in the eight or so years I have been using it on one hand. |
|||
|
25 Jul 2007, 16:03 |
|
Hahahaahahaa...try actually using it on a machine its designed for, you will get a reduction in general CPU load as the GUI is running off the GPU. OSes are changing, looking at a CPU/RAM monitor and saying "wow thats really bloated" doesn't apply these days. Windows will make use of spare CPU time and will make use of RAM when you don't need it, why shouldn't it? Did you buy that $1000 CPU and $500 2GB RAM stick just so you could then spend as much time as possible ensuring it's usage never goes over 1%? When your uber app needs to hog the CPU or RAM for something Windows will happily oblige you; at all other times it will use it for whatever it sees fit to improve your computing experience. Welcome to 21st century mate.
|
Borsuc 25 Jul 2007, 19:29
WytRaven wrote: Hahahaahahaa...try actually using it on a machine its designed for, you will get a reduction in general CPU load as the GUI is running off the GPU. OSes are changing Vista is bloated. Getting new hardware is also available on XP. If Vista needs 1 GB more RAM than XP, and has the same performance then it's crap. Why? Because guess what? If Windows had that same 1GB of RAM, it would run better than Vista. Just because Vista is designed for "overkill" hardware for an OS, and has the same performance as XP with less hardware doesn't mean it's "cool". XP with the hardware of "Vista" will run better 
What has Vista so freakin' great to justify the huge memory requirements compared to XP? Aside from the stupid GUI junk and all that 3D crap useful for nothing? It's always like that: we get new (faster) hardware, and software gets slower.. people say "upgrade hardware man", why? So my new 'so-called' OS runs "the same" (in speed/memory) as before? (I'm talking about "percents"). Upgrading your hardware for Vista.. hmm why? so it runs the same as XP? no thanks. I'd rather upgrade my hardware for faster speeds on XP instead. Don't forget that Vista also uses 3D accelerators -- for what? Is that supposed to improve e-mailing? Or an Operating System's tasks? Nope, it's used to use the Video Card even when unnecessary -- hello extra heat and power consumption (yes, I care about that). A normal os's GUI is hardly ever "slow", so why use 3D accelerators? When you run games or other stuff that requires "video card", then GUI is also not visible anymore... or at least, shouldn't be, if Vista was a decent OS. Pardon me, but I don't buy an OS to waste my cycles/memory on stupid things like 3D GUI, "cool" colors, etc.. I buy an OS for functionality. This is an OS, not a freakin' video game. |
|||
|
25 Jul 2007, 19:29 |
|
|
f0dder 25 Jul 2007, 21:59
pjd wrote:
The alternative would be a hard reboot or a graphical "error 10" (mac style), but still a locked system... when a BSOD happens, it's critical... and in 99% of the cases I've had it, because of a flaky 3rd-party driver or faulty hardware, not because of the windows kernel. (yes, you can reduce BSODs by running drivers in usermode, if you're willing to take the performance hit... but imho there's still error states where a usermode driver needs a kernel panic). Since moving to win2k many years ago (and then XP), I can remember only one crash that wasn't because of flaky 3rd-person driver (including my own  ) or faulty hardware - and that was because of an exploit against GDI, not something that'd happen normally. Might have been a few more, but of similar nature. And even when DirectX has locked up, I've almost always been able to get into a fullscreen textmode cmd.exe and pslist/pskill the process and resume work...
The_Grey_Beast: to be fair to Vista, while I don't like it, part of the huge memory usage is more aggressive caching/preloading, which is a good thing ("unused memory is wasted memory", quoting the FreeBSD people iirc). But apart from that, yes, it does consume a lot of memory "for nothing". Running the GUI on the GPU is imho a good idea, problem is that in the end it doesn't feel faster than XP - things like the control panel are extremely laggy, dunno why but I have an idea it's because of the new presentation manager way of doing GUIs. XP already had GUI hardware acceleration anyway, although not at the level of Vista. And too bad when you turn the fisher-price eyecandy Aero off, it seems like the "extra" acceleration is turned off. It's a pity Microsoft threw so much junk into Vista, some of the kernel changes sound interesting. |
|||
|
25 Jul 2007, 21:59 |
|
|
pjd 26 Jul 2007, 09:11
f0dder wrote:
True but *NIXs get away without it by averting the crash. After all a BSOD is (in my experiance) a hard crash with a nice blue error message. *NIXs avoid it by having the kernel manage memory and so on. This way the program has to do nothing but call sys_exit(). In NT - vista the OS manages the memory better than the old DOS based stuff of old 9x but still BSOD will happen until drivers and programs hand over things that should be OS tasks to the kernel which should do them properly and of course viruses don't regularly bring the system down. Microsoft should use it's hardware certification not to check for expensive encryption routines but to verify drivers work. It still stands that I have rarely had to reboot a linux because of a crash edit: I also have regular problems after crashes of certain windows xp programs which seizes up the computer because something hasn't tidied up although the result hasn't yet been a BSOD |
|||
|
26 Jul 2007, 09:11 |
|
|
f0dder 26 Jul 2007, 10:18
pjd wrote:
That's a load of crap - an unstable driver (or hardware problem) causes something similar on unix systems... it's imho pretty bad that linux's way of coping with a hard error is a register dump but keep running - if you have a unhandled/unexpected exception of that kind, you really need to shut down the system as fast as possible, as data structures might be corrupted etc. pjd wrote:
Drivers already use the kernel for memory management etc., there's a pretty comprehensive and decent kernel API - you should check it out sometime instead of making silly statements. pjd wrote:
I do wonder if their testing is thorough enough, imho they should be able to catch more bugs in their WHQL labs with all the tests they're running. But of course the WHQL labs won't help much if your drivers aren't WHQL certified, and several companies deliver unsigned drivers... Creative had some reeeeeeally nice installers that tried to hide the fact that they delivered unsigned drivers. And then of course there's the hardware stability issue... it's hard for MS testing to do anything about a flaky PSU or RAM modules in a end-user system. That said, I don't experience BSODs on NT systems very often, it's been more than a year I think. And I already mentioned that non-BSOD craches hardly ever bring down the system. As for linux... do you just run a console-mode server, or do you use it as a GUI workstation, run several games, install new software, etc.? Also keep in mind that there isn't the same frenzied release schedule for graphics drivers (and not the same level of feature support in those graphics drivers). |
|||
|
26 Jul 2007, 10:18 |
|
|
pjd 26 Jul 2007, 14:17
I stand corrected f0dder
|
|||
|
26 Jul 2007, 14:17 |
|
|
Gizmo 26 Jul 2007, 19:04
The biggest problem with xp has nothing to do with the operating system itself, it has to do with the hardware venders who hire interns to make their drivers...drivers that run in kernel mode and corrupt the kernel address space.. although usually the driver simply trys to reference an address it hasn't allocated a page for yet.
Since vista runs all of the drivers as a user mode task, they have about the same priveledges as you would yourself logged on as an administrator (in windows an adminstrator is less priveldged than the system) which keeps the drivers from accessing the kernel address space via paging. This makes drivers slower, but if a driver crashes it might get annoying (for example graphics driver crashes and you might end up in 256 color mode), but the os keeps running. Its called the windows driver model and was introduced earlier, but many drivers still required direct access to the kernel address space in earlier versions of windows. |
|||
|
26 Jul 2007, 19:04 |
|
|
LocoDelAssembly 26 Jul 2007, 19:15
Why I have the sensation that f0dder will correct something about the post above?
|
|||
|
26 Jul 2007, 19:15 |
|
|
kohlrak 26 Jul 2007, 19:19
He might have a point. Who said that the drivers that are made are made well?
|
|||
|
26 Jul 2007, 19:19 |
|
|
drhowarddrfine 26 Jul 2007, 21:35
Quote:
I don't know about Linux, and we're talking about drivers not software here, but FreeBSD keeps each program in its own space, so if software crashes, that process is closed but the rest of the system is unaffected. I'm pretty sure drivers are handled the same way. I've seen it happen with my own code as I test. I test in one terminal and, if it crashes, I can debug or do whatever I want in the other. |
|||
|
26 Jul 2007, 21:35 |
|
|
LocoDelAssembly 26 Jul 2007, 22:03
drhowarddrfine, that happens on all modern OSes and very long time ago. What doesn't happens is that if a driver crashes the system keeps running flawlessly.
Interesting, thanks to the BSOD propaganda that UNIX-like OSes communities does now people believe that not halting system on such terrible system errors is a good thing. Also I wonder if it is really true that those OSes keeps working, for what exist the kernel panic then? |
|||
|
26 Jul 2007, 22:03 |
|
| Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next < Last Thread | Next Thread > |
Forum Rules:
|