Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion
WIndows Vista Ultimate ... worth upgrading ... CNET say no!
f0dder:
Let's look at Carol's top 10 list....
#1: which gets so much in your way that you turn it off, and basically end at XP-or-worse security.
#2 & #3: hahaha, as if. The base OS is going to use more CPU, RAM and GPU power for doing basically the same. Friend of mine that does graphics programming said stuff ran noticably slower on Vista than on XP (~360fps vs ~430fps or rougly 20% - but okay, immature drivers etc).
#4: we'll have to see about that. MS did a lot of code rewriting - fresh new bugs.
#5: *shrug*
#6: even more useless eye-candy, and a shell that I'm going to replace with BlackBox anyway. Yay.
#7: Aero, which I'll turn off immediately for performance reasons. And that transparancy crap doesn't reduce clutter as they claim.
#8: *shrug* - thankfully they dropped WinFS. One size doesn't fit all, anyway, some people will like an app like Google Desktop, while I prefer locate32. This is yet a point that doesn't matter.
#9: which will affect end users exactly how much? The improvements I heard of basically sounded useful for high-load fileservers with gigabit-or-faster NICs... and didn't sound like something that isn't doable under XP.
#10: oh. What a big deal. Yawn.
BUT!!! VISTA WILL HAVE DX10 AND SUPPORT FOR HYBRID HARDDRIVES OMG!!11! one one one. Yeah. And while MS will claim that this is for "brand-spanking new architectural reasons", the real reason is of course they need some selling point for Vista, and that's the reason they won't be ading support for those useful features in XP.
And then there's all the DRM crap that, until properly circumvented, will put a limit on what you can do with your own stuff - as well as take up resources because of the extremely aggressive way it's implemented.
cranioscopical: there's a difference between squeezing the last drop of performance from something and handcoding everything in assembly, which is pretty useless today... and then writing extremely shitty, bloated and buggy code with exponentially inflated resource requirements. Vista is, of course, the latter of the two. The frigging core OS shouldn't eat resources at that rate, resources that are much better spent in your apps/games/etc.
Curt:
It sure is hard to be number one... If Vista had been named XP SP 3, you would all commemorate Microsoft, wouldn't you ;)
Carol Haynes:
Let's look at Carol's top 10 list....
-f0dder (January 26, 2007, 09:56 AM)
--- End quote ---
Weren't mine - I quoted them from Ruffnekk's post.
Carol Haynes:
It sure is hard to be number one... If Vista had been named XP SP 3, you would all commemorate Microsoft, wouldn't you ;)-Curt (January 26, 2007, 10:02 AM)
--- End quote ---
I somehow doubt it if installing SP3 involves the extra hardware required to run Vista fully without even consider any applications!
MS have also cynically postponed XP SP3 to 2008 (after Vista SP1 is due) to try and convince people to upgrade ...
Curt:
I somehow doubt it if installing SP3 involves the extra hardware required to run Vista fully without even consider any applications!
MS have also cynically postponed XP SP3 to 2008 (after Vista SP1 is due) to try and convince people to upgrade ...
-Carol Haynes (January 26, 2007, 10:06 AM)
--- End quote ---
Of course I was unfair and distorted the situation, but was I far out? I don't think so - to my experience Bill Gates / Microsoft has a lot less room than other people / companies, before we spank...
2008 is a long time to wait for XP SP 3 - if ever... Do you remember (because I don't): When XP was launched; did Win2K ever receive any new features, or were it security updates only? To my memory it was security only, and I don't expect XP to be handled any different - and so there'll really be no reason for waiting for XP SP 3, will there?
Anyway, I'll not buy Vista until Agnitum says it is okay
- and so far they're saying No.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version