Posted: Tue Aug 23, 2005 5:12 pm Post subject:
Windows Vista Beta 1
Well, we had an IE Beta thread, why not a Vista thread?
Well, for the past week or so, I've been running Windows Vista.
In simple terms, I can say this: It's a Microsoft beta, alright.
Faster? Yes, quite. I can boot up within five seconds if the machine was shut down properly... and then it stops. The OS aparently thinks that refreshing every icon ever is fun, and does this every five seconds, causing Windows Explorer to be sluggish.
And then, with the blink of an eye, Bluescreen! The drivers for this OS have more bugs than my old house, and that's saying something. Running in 16 bit color mode is llike walking though a mine field, and every application could cause the ATi drivers to overrun their stacked buffers, and cause Windows to throw a hissy fit. While Windows says it's for my protection, I find it irritating when I've almost overrun the last AI's base in ROTD just to see the Happy Blue Screen of Lol.
The OS also enjoys dumping the Direct Sound drivers. Often.
But the rumors about Vista running in OpenGL emulation only are, as far as I know, complete BS. In fact, zDoom and Half Life run about ten frames faster compared to XP, when the OS isn't Bluescreening, that is.
Now, Direct X seems to be a little.. fubared. Halo PC refuses to run, demanding Direct X 9.0b or higher. DXDIAG reports Vista having DX9.0c, but hey, Beta.
Red Alert 2, Red Alert 1 (!), Tiberian Dawn (!!) and Tiberian Sun all run on Vista without a hitch, which suprised me. Red Alert and Tiberian Dawn would lock up constantly on XP, but no such thing here on Vista.
Conclusion? Don't use it as your main OS.. yet. With a laggy interface, annoying icon system, and broken Direct X, I would say Microsoft has a way to go before rolling this OS out.
And yes, Firefox works. IE 7 is a trainwreck in my opinion, but meh. _________________ Red Alert mod for C&C3. QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 26 Nov 2002 Location: Algae Colony On Mars
Posted: Tue Aug 23, 2005 6:16 pm Post subject:
To expand on Havoc's statement:
While Microsoft have made the most popular operating systems on the market, that doesn't mean they're the best. Most Linux distributions are stable, easy to use, come provided with good, open-source equivalents to Win32 products and far more efficient file systems, with most being intelligent enough to not require a defrag. The only major downside is that almost all games (with the exclusion of a rare few: Unreal series, ID games, Darwinia, Sim City 3000) have either no Linux ports or no Linux support. The games that can run on Linux work very well indeed, but at the moment WINE is required to operate most games, and can be a bit temperamental (most especially for me).
On top of that, BSD-based operating systems are even less known, and have fabulous reliability. Most BSD servers may remain up for months at a time without restarting or errors. They are also claimed to be the most secure as well.
I won't actually be getting Vista, though. I've begun to lose interest in Microsoft products altogether after trying Linux. I have considered downgrading my XP to Windows 2000, to get increased reliability, but I'm working hard to get as many of my games working on Linux as possible. _________________
Quote:
This is sexier than what this forum was supposed to tolerate. - Banshee
Thanx Clazzy. You said what I wanted to. I hate Microsoft although I'm a Windows user, or maybe not starting from tomorrow when I get my 80 GB HDD. I think I'll move to Linux or a Linux+Windows OS. Why do I hate Windows? It's too stupid (Did you know that It's illegal to format floppy disks that have the Write Protection off?) , unsecured, unstable sometimes, the activation is a stupid thing (pirated is better), updates without a break, etc. QUICK_EDIT
Don't get me wrong, I would switch to Linux or OSX in a heartbeat. I've used Linux, and I have a Mac, but I enjoy playing games. Playing games and bitching on forums, that's my life. And I can only do one of those things (Fully) in Linux. But I love Linux. New drivers? Hell, just reboot X. Don't need to reboot the ENTIRE DAMN MACHINE, a lession Microsoft should have learned a long damn time ago.
But I love playing with betas. Betas are fun. Thus, my reason to use Vista.
And to add to activation: Anyone notice how Activation is tethered to Microsoft's existance? Kinda creepy. _________________ Red Alert mod for C&C3. QUICK_EDIT
Oh, i should try Vista. Also, some benchmarks on it show some interesting things. Apparently, AMD processors score 5% better on benchmarks run on Vista. Pentium 4 cpu's show hardly any improvement at all. Assuming that
1) Vista runs faster than XP
2) Vista's codebase is not as optimized as XP's
this shows Pentium 4 cpu's require a lot of extra optimization in order to get the most performance out of them. By having introduced a cpu architecture this exotic, Intel has increased software development costs globally! QUICK_EDIT
First of all, i have been wanting to try the Vista beta since ive heard about it, but the idea of having to choose what OS to boot up in is a pain in the ass, especially if im not going to use Vista that much, and if reboot then leave the room, thats another 30 seconds to the boot time. But i have read of a program that makes some kind of "fake" partition or something, and this emulates BIOS or something so you can boot up Vista while in XP. This would have some obvious advantages, but im unsure of the disadvantages.
As for Linux, the only main reason that stops me from using it is the fact that most software and games will not work. I know there are Windows emulators but ive heard they can be extremely unstable. _________________ QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 26 Nov 2002 Location: Algae Colony On Mars
Posted: Wed Aug 24, 2005 1:20 am Post subject:
Why not reduce the time the select screen is visible for the boot loader to a second, so only when you want to boot into Vista will you need to do anything by pushing down or whatever. _________________
Quote:
This is sexier than what this forum was supposed to tolerate. - Banshee
As for Linux, the only main reason that stops me from using it is the fact that most software and games will not work. I know there are Windows emulators but ive heard they can be extremely unstable.
WINE is not an emulator!!!! It's DirectX+Windows exe files support.
@Redfox McBeth: Waste of time. Edit boot.ini located on the primary partition (C. I prefer to see the boot menu for 4 seconds, cuz I don`t use Windows XP for games (It's interface kills my memory, so when I want to play I have to switch to Windows 98. If the boot time would be set to 1 I'd have to hold the down key before boot menu to stop the timer and 0 would make this impossible. QUICK_EDIT
As for Linux, the only main reason that stops me from using it is the fact that most software and games will not work. I know there are Windows emulators but ive heard they can be extremely unstable.
WINE is not an emulator!!!! It's DirectX+Windows exe files support.
@Redfox McBeth: Waste of time. Edit boot.ini located on the primary partition (C. I prefer to see the boot menu for 4 seconds, cuz I don`t use Windows XP for games (It's interface kills my memory, so when I want to play I have to switch to Windows 98. If the boot time would be set to 1 I'd have to hold the down key before boot menu to stop the timer and 0 would make this impossible.
I deal with idiot users all day who I wouldn't trust to modify a text file. I'm used to explaining things in a way that might not totally nuke your system if you're a tad... slow on computers. _________________ Red Alert mod for C&C3. QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 26 Nov 2002 Location: Algae Colony On Mars
Posted: Wed Aug 24, 2005 11:12 am Post subject:
To be honest, navigating your way around the boot.ini isn't all that complicated. Saying that, I don't use it any more since I overwrote my Windows boot loader with GRUB. _________________
Quote:
This is sexier than what this forum was supposed to tolerate. - Banshee
Well of course GRUB if you installed Linux. In my opinion GRUB is way better than Windows's boot menu.
For those that can`t find boot.ini: It's a hidden system file located on C: (normally). Just type in boot.ini in the Address Bar. QUICK_EDIT
warning don't delete the boot.ini or the system will never boot.
beta's suck i personly would wait untill a full working version of vista is runing being a computer techicain myself O/s systems tend to have bad drivers its best to wait until untill the offical release IMO.... _________________ Link to a document to see what mods i have and/or working on or working with
Click QUICK_EDIT
SOMETHING VERY VERY IMPORTANT: NEVER, NO, NEVER RUN/INSTALL WINDOWS VISTA ON A 32 BIT PROCESSOR. RUN IT ON 64 BIT PROCESSORS, ELSE IT'S LIKE WHAT MCBETH TOLD YOU, IT MESSES UP.
ANd McBeth, your OS has been Jugger'd.
*You are winning*
Jugger: Jugger losing, jugger sad. Jugger activate Cheap CO Power...
Blue Screen of Death!
*J00 looze!* QUICK_EDIT
boot.ini is useful only when you have multiple windows versions installed and you don't use any boot loaders. If you have Linux installed with GRUB or any other boot loader and multiple windows versions, boot.ini is still useful, it will become a submenu after you choose Windows in the loader. QUICK_EDIT
Ughh...i tried the vista beta yesterday, and i have made an official opinion about it: What crack was Bill Gates smoking?!
First, i install, but since i have a partition on C:\ with windows and the partition is 10 GB, guess what happens when i install? REFORMAT!!! The OS (half is beta 1 and the other half of the OS beta 2 but build 5270, and apparently it's still called Vista) leaves me no choice but to reformat one of my 3 partitions and lose alot of what's in one of them. I do so...it took 2 hours to install on my 4GB AMD 64x processor with 2 GB ram. What happens after that? I click the next button, my OS restarts, i take the cd out...wait i actually set it to prioritize boot with CDs...whatever...it loads up just until before the boot screen. Then it tells me "NTDRL is missing, press ctrl + alt + del to restart computer". WTF?! I f***ing installed an OS in there, and you tell me a file is missing? It's an ORIGINAL beta version!!!! It's not cracked or even hacked!!! AND YOU'RE TELLING ME A FILE IS MISSING?! so i restart the comp, put the cd back, and the OS starts...almost...i get the boot screen where i get to choose my OS, i can choose pre-longhorn, WINDOWS XP (bootscreen) and Windows...i test pre longhorn...it fails...i restart, test windows...it works, i get the Longhorn boot screen in grey, and Vista Starts...good! Then i decided i wanted to test the media center. *Click* Trial version Expired! WTFF?!?!
It's an original, and it tells me to register? I had 15 days before it expires....*sigh* so i get the ugly design in windows with no transparency on the Vista visual style, and the close, minimize and restore icons look non-vista...AND i can't have the Windows XP visual style...NOOO!!!! It's so ugly, and i have 223 mb left out of my 10 gb partition...and windows is reaaallllyyy slooooowwww......wait, now i'm checking the cd...version 32 bits? OMG...OMFG....so now i'm reallly angry, and reinstall Win XP but Media center 2005 edition this time. I swear, Vista is baaaaddd...don't try it, unless you wanna see the errors for yourself, or *steal* the visual style, media center, icons, Windows Media Player 11, IE 7 and a few other APPs and things and put it in Win XP, it's what i did, and hey, it's good on win xp...
So in the end, don't try vista... Only when it's gonna be out this summer you should install it on your computers, people! QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 26 Nov 2002 Location: Algae Colony On Mars
Posted: Sat Jan 14, 2006 9:03 pm Post subject:
It's a waste of time upgrading to Vista anyway. Each time, they base it off their older operating systems, which are flawed anyway. It is still insecure, still prone to spyware, viruses will run free and all Microsoft have done is copy ideas created by Linux and Mac developers, attempt to improve looks (therefore requiring a far more powerful computer, since they didn't design them efficiently enough) and that's about it. The basic user still runs as an administrator (and probably still needs to in order to run and install most programs), there will be huge delays between Windows updates as usual, meaning that there will be huge time gaps where there are big security threats to Vista users, and most included software will be built further into the kernel meaning that if one is exploited then the whole operating system is vulnerable.
On the other hand, Linux is effectively a kernel. This means that no other programs are directly interlinked with it. If the graphical server crashes, it doesn't take down the whole system and instead puts you back into command line, where you may restart it easily. It doesn't have a messaging program which is partly fused into the kernel, meaning that malicious users can't do harmful things to your computer through it.
Basically, a Linux box will only be cracked open if someone gives you a Linux-specific virus (at last count, I believe there were 14), you don't run a firewall, or you install an unknown program that contains a trojan.
The whole philosophy of open-source means that it is inherently more secure. While companies like Microsoft argue that this isn't the case, it certainly is true. Imagine there's a potential flaw in something like Apache. The bug will be picked up quickly, since people can browse through the code and see mistakes. If there is a closed-source HTTPd server out there, if there is a similar bug then it will only be discovered when it's actually exploited. When there are reports stating that Linux is more insecure, it's because the bugs are actually found.
When a part of the Windows 2000 source code was leaked (remember, you're talking about Microsoft's most secure operating system here), there were loads of bugs found inside. If you expand that to the whole operating system, it's horrific. _________________
Quote:
This is sexier than what this forum was supposed to tolerate. - Banshee
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
Windows Vista Beta 1
. I prefer to see the boot menu for 4 seconds, cuz I don`t use Windows XP for games (It's interface kills my memory, so when I want to play I have to switch to Windows 98. If the boot time would be set to 1 I'd have to hold the down key before boot menu to stop the timer and 0 would make this impossible.
the visual style, media center, icons, Windows Media Player 11, IE 7 and a few other APPs and things and put it in Win XP, it's what i did, and hey, it's good on win xp...
