... ME was a total disaster on so many levels that Microsoft ended up apologizing for it admitting it had no purpose and was poorly conceived and executed.
I'm running 32bit Vista and I have to say I am getting a performance increase over my past xp setup. Now I did a clean install not an upgrade for one thing, # 2 I have a really good custom built system.
I think it comes down to your hardware to run Vista effectively.
High performance auto overclocking mobo (load sensing) Asus P5n32 SLI SE Deluxe, 2 gigs PC- 8500 Ram 1066 fsb (I had this up to 1257 fsb stable), SLI Video 2-7950 GT OC's, Core 2 Duo E6600, sata 2 drives.
I'm gearing up for SLI replacements by month end, so far system runs great! Vista Ultimate though I think you get cheesed with the other flavors because you dont get the vital tools you need for security, performance and DR (Disaster Recovery).
2) Your XP installation was somehow fouled/flawed.
Even MS acknowledges that Vista compared to XP will/should end up with a 5% to 10% performance hit (in Vista). As for the flavors and features, aside from the Windows disk imaging feature there is very little in Ultimate anyone really needs (over Home Prem or Bus.). There is nothing in Ultimate for 'performance' and nothing for 'security' over other flavors. I suppose Bit Locker could count on security but it isn't very practical for the vast majority of users. What I mean to say is that just like XP Home and XP Pro 'perform' the same and have the same 'security' issues the various Vista flavors do as well.
XP is faster. This is fact, that cannot be argued. Everyone that tests software agrees. XP is Faster then Vista.
This doesn't make Vista Slow.
Vista may seem faster in a LOT of ways. Try this..........
1. Goto your XP Machine, and use the Find feature, and type "doughnut" now wait, and wait, and wait, and wait, after a few moments, even on my Raid 0 you'll see your list of results.
2 Repeat the same with Vista, and withing 10 seconds see every result.
Not everyone can feel the slow down from XP to Vista. I'm one of them. My Vista machine now seems to run just as good, and maybe even better then this same machine 6 months ago with XP.
XP is faster. This is fact, that cannot be argued. Everyone that tests software agrees. XP is Faster then Vista. This doesn't make Vista Slow. Vista may seem faster in a LOT of ways. Try this.......... 1. Goto your XP Machine, and use the Find feature, and type "doughnut" now wait, and wait, and wait, and wait, after a few moments, even on my Raid 0 you'll see your list of results. 2 Repeat the same with Vista, and withing 10 seconds see every result.
If you install drive indexing software on XP, it can do it just as quick. Not that it's a good thing IMO, I really dislike random HDD thrashing/indexing in order to improve searches which I perform like...once a month, if that.
Vista is a hog, it is dumbed down (defrag anyone?) and slower than XP, but meh, I'm content with it and won't be going back to XP - here's hoping that SP1 improves things
Dumbed Down? Not true. You say it's dumbed down because they made things easier to use? So now even people who don't have an IT background can set up nextworks intergrating all their hardware in their home, not just including PC's. Novice users can use their Plasma TV, Xbox360, Share a Non Network printer over a network. If thats what you call dumbed down. I call that much smarter design.
Dumbed Down? Not true. You say it's dumbed down because they made things easier to use? So now even people who don't have an IT background can set up nextworks intergrating all their hardware in their home, not just including PC's. Novice users can use their Plasma TV, Xbox360, Share a Non Network printer over a network. If thats what you call dumbed down. I call that much smarter design.
Dumbed down is a hard thing to say but slightly true. For savvy users WIndows O$'s lack so many features which in Linux I almost take for granted ( until I go back to windows). This is mainly cause M$ spent so much time putting in user friendly designs which are great until they fail to work and then windows are it usually does tends to bury the problem so deep in a place the sun don't shine or blames the user. Oh and M$ sells it OS's now based on the user interface only so its all a lick of paint and nothing changed under the hood .... big con ! In this way windows users are conned and hoodwinked and could be described as "dumbed down" and probably " out of pocket" too.
Yeah great for novice users (until it doesn't work) and good for savvy users who use such features for speed. I wouldn't say the best fitting word for these features is "dumbed down". I am more likely to say "totally non visionary", "inflexible" and "stagnant". The interfaces don't tailor suit the users ( I find different X desktops in linux do this) and dont scale up and down for user experience. Everyone gets the same annoying interface whether it gives them the level of technical info that they want.
I'm gearing up for SLI replacements by month end, so far system runs great! Vista Ultimate though I think you get cheesed with the other flavors because you dont get the vital tools you need for security, performance and DR (Disaster Recovery).
And this is the company that said its next OS release would focus on security. Obviously it didnt mean providing security tools for everyone now did it ?
Stupid decision but this is the company that gave us IE6 so I shouldn't be too surprised.
The only live showing we did of Dx10 was at CES so most what you have seen of Conan is not even Dx10, the Dx10 looks better but you will be able to use both versions out of the same box.
Combat, Control, Class Distinction Designer for Age of Conan
I'm gearing up for SLI replacements by month end, so far system runs great! Vista Ultimate though I think you get cheesed with the other flavors because you dont get the vital tools you need for security, performance and DR (Disaster Recovery).
And this is the company that said its next OS release would focus on security. Obviously it didnt mean providing security tools for everyone now did it ?
Stupid decision but this is the company that gave us IE6 so I shouldn't be too surprised.
ummm, your not very informed about Vista.
Vista 6 months after release, was found to have LESS security flaws then, MAC OSX, ANY LINUX/ UNIX rebirth, or any previous MS OS made. Addressing the SECOND part of your statement, about Security tools for everyone, again exactly opposite from true. Most people are complaining that Vista doesn't have much MORE then XP, but everything it does have, is MUCH easier to use. You don't need your MCSE to use your Vista machine. The person your quoteing isn't very accurate. Ultimate is a waste of money, and MS has recongised it, by their new Vista Gadgets program. Now you get free access to all the Vista Add Ons for free with Vista Ultimate, where with the less expensive versions you'll pay a small fee for their download. Vista Home Premium is all that 99% of the market would need. (HOME PC USERS)
The only live showing we did of Dx10 was at CES so most what you have seen of Conan is not even Dx10, the Dx10 looks better but you will be able to use both versions out of the same box.
Thanks for the info, always nice to hear from those involved in the game directly. Although the topic has sidetracked a bit I wonder if you could comment on the idea of DX10 as a main, or even sole, rendering path even though we all undertand that AoC will be available in DX9 (XP) and DX10 (Vista). Not so much in terms of how good or bad it is but whether it could be economically viable (which ties back to the OP and some of the other extraneous comments), particularly since AoC has plans to move to the console which cannot support DX10 elements.
Dumbed Down? Not true. You say it's dumbed down because they made things easier to use? So now even people who don't have an IT background can set up nextworks intergrating all their hardware in their home, not just including PC's. Novice users can use their Plasma TV, Xbox360, Share a Non Network printer over a network. If thats what you call dumbed down. I call that much smarter design.
They have removed a lot of options other versions of windows have had - to make things easier for novices. This is what I mean by dumbed down. Hell, like i said - just take a look at defrag...what options do you have now? Start/stop...possibly pause? How do I select what drives I want to defrag, how do I know how far it's up to etc etc...
Maybe they paired up with Blizzard for this Windows release.
If AoC is truly going to be DX10 only that is gonna hurt this company just cause alot of people are not gonna fork out the what 300+ for vista just to play a game I personally think they should rethink that whole strategy you cant force people to just into the future "Vista" alot of companys are not even compatible with vista yet I know I had vista installed till some of my expensive software wouldnt work for it.
Wow. You suck at game research. Windows XP and DX9c are just as viable for this game though without as many bells and whistles..
Dumbed Down? Not true. You say it's dumbed down because they made things easier to use? So now even people who don't have an IT background can set up nextworks intergrating all their hardware in their home, not just including PC's. Novice users can use their Plasma TV, Xbox360, Share a Non Network printer over a network. If thats what you call dumbed down. I call that much smarter design.
They have removed a lot of options other versions of windows have had - to make things easier for novices. This is what I mean by dumbed down. Hell, like i said - just take a look at defrag...what options do you have now? Start/stop...possibly pause? How do I select what drives I want to defrag, how do I know how far it's up to etc etc...
Maybe they paired up with Blizzard for this Windows release.
I hardly think that because defrag was changed, (and includes more features to actualy help the PC, maybe not FLOPPY's) would hardly constitue being "Dumbed down" Vista has made a lot of changes to make things more user friendly. If you consider user friendly "Dumbed down" then ... whatever...however Vista has added a lot more features then it removed, or changed. Calling that "Dumbed down" seems silly.
thats great cause I wont run Vista tell they get it running right
Heh, i won't run Vista at all. Vienna is slated for 2009, I'll wait 'til then. Only way I'll look at Vista will be after SP2 and a huge price decrease. Even then, I doubt I'll get it.
Dumbed Down? Not true. You say it's dumbed down because they made things easier to use? So now even people who don't have an IT background can set up nextworks intergrating all their hardware in their home, not just including PC's. Novice users can use their Plasma TV, Xbox360, Share a Non Network printer over a network. If thats what you call dumbed down. I call that much smarter design.
They have removed a lot of options other versions of windows have had - to make things easier for novices. This is what I mean by dumbed down. Hell, like i said - just take a look at defrag...what options do you have now? Start/stop...possibly pause? How do I select what drives I want to defrag, how do I know how far it's up to etc etc...
Maybe they paired up with Blizzard for this Windows release.
They've also added new functions and the Ultimate version is more comprehensive than XP professional in terms of administrative tools.
Your not going to like this but there is some evidence which hints that Vienna is much nearer than MS would like us beleive right now in a climate of sluggish vista sales.
Firstly look at windows 98, followed by windows 98SE followed by windows ME ( *cough* *cough*). 98SE was the best by far of all pre XP MS OS yet MS still managed to churn out 98 and ME. From a technical perspective neither of which offer much advantage but MS released them anyways. I highly suspect that a good proportion of the decision isnt based on technical aspects but marketing and shareholder decisions (which damaged MS repuation more) and what the public will passively comsume. So I can very well believe that in late (at most) 2009 MS will launch vienna.
The second point, involves XP longer lifespan which is in part because its the first operating system M$ got half right and also because of many, many delays in launching Vista. Vista development originally started with a new kernel, new filesystem and was more or less a complete rewrite. However for whatever reason (time, bad management, delibertly leaving it out, lack of expertise ?.. gulp) the kernel was stopped and file system fell by the wayside for the next release. Vista kernel is a modified XP one apparently surround by an interface for security purposes. So there is already several technologies which are slated for Vienna.
As you can see I'm a firm believer that Vista is ME all over again and the next real OS from MS will be Vienna. I also hope that vienna maybe the first MS OS for a long time that actually has competition.
Perhaps I'm wrong but given the stupid amount of options for Vista and the amount they cost for such smaller incremental features, I can live without it and vienna is most likely my next MS upgrade. Though as you may have noticed I'd rather not buy another MS OS ever.
Originally posted by tombear81 As you can see I'm a firm believer that Vista is ME all over again and the next real OS from MS will be Vienna. I also hope that vienna maybe the first MS OS for a long time that actually has competition.
Agree. I believe MS will patch up Vista to a point where it isn't the technical mess ME was, but in terms of the intangibles Vista is clearly ME II and probably will remain so indefinitely.
As for the 'dumbed down' I think it is somewhat accurate in so far as Vista does push allot of administrative and power user type functions out of easy reach. Allot of overhead in Vista is there to facilitate non-savvy user bliss - perhaps a good thing but since it is not easily disabled and not really something you can get around the 'dumbed down' moniker seems appropriate. Much of what changed in Vista over XP has two roots - non-savvy users and enterprise users. GPO expansion and improvement as well as logging and reporting for enterprise clients and help, search, and usability changes for the non-savvy. While this is cursory it is part of why I say vista is a poor gaming platform as most all 'improvements' are of a nature detrimental to single purpose performance applications.
An example in XP terminology would be the inclusion of the XP themes functionality - while something many might appreciate (I am not trashing it in any way) it isn't something that helped XP be a better gaming platform, in fact it made it less so consuming resources. Alone it wasn't a big issue but if every change was of a similar nature then it would be an issue and with Vista that is most commonly what has been changed - superfluous usability and enterprise administration elements which add nothing to the gaming capability. Security is improved in Vista through a more realistic enforcement of user privileges and a 'sandboxing' of applications with file and registry virtualization. I won't argue that vista isn't more secure as it is, but it is a minor improvement. There is still no insulation from a non-admin process that is compromised gaining control over an elevated administrative privileged. This might not be a huge failure as a true user/admin system such as Linux/Unix is not likely practical for most desktops. But in a way it is like saying a car with the doors locked is more secure than one without the doors locked - sure it is true but do we really think either are not easily stolen?
Vista is what it is, a shiney version of XP at best. It is clear it is going more the way of ME than XP and whatever happens with Windows 7 (formerly called Vienna, BTW) Vista is extremely unlikely to penetrate deeply enough to really matter much. As for Windows 7 - I wouldn't hold my breath for that new kernel, WinFS, and the other Vista cut features. MS is struggling under thier own weight right now and I don't think they are really capable of that kind of ground up innovation anymore. I am not saying Windows 7 isn't coming, or that it will suck - I just don't think MS can get anything really original or innovative through its layers of committees and bureaucracy. it is also worth mentioning that MS is now a victim of its own success - thier install base is so deep that real innovation is nearly impossible because they have such a large legacy responsibility. XP was a great unifier, a great OS in many ways - but the market is becoming much more fragmented and with Moore's Law finally seeming to run out the days of one thing to do everything is likely gone.
I hardly think that because defrag was changed, (and includes more features to actualy help the PC, maybe not FLOPPY's) would hardly constitue being "Dumbed down" Vista has made a lot of changes to make things more user friendly. If you consider user friendly "Dumbed down" then ... whatever...however Vista has added a lot more features then it removed, or changed. Calling that "Dumbed down" seems silly.
Vista fanboi alert!
Oh lookie, I have two buttons - stop, start, where as we used to have 5 or 6 as well as the option to select the drive(s) we wanted to defrag as well as view the status...If that's not dumbed down, I don't know what is.
Aero is bloatware, drive indexing is bloatware, vista is bloatware. It might be good for computer novices, but for the rest of us it's a steaming POS.
I hardly think that because defrag was changed, (and includes more features to actualy help the PC, maybe not FLOPPY's) would hardly constitue being "Dumbed down" Vista has made a lot of changes to make things more user friendly. If you consider user friendly "Dumbed down" then ... whatever...however Vista has added a lot more features then it removed, or changed. Calling that "Dumbed down" seems silly.
Vista fanboi alert!
Oh lookie, I have two buttons - stop, start, where as we used to have 5 or 6 as well as the option to select the drive(s) we wanted to defrag as well as view the status...If that's not dumbed down, I don't know what is.
Aero is bloatware, drive indexing is bloatware, vista is bloatware. It might be good for computer novices, but for the rest of us it's a steaming POS.
Cancel or Allow...hmm....
Win ME 2, oh yeah!
Defrag, and Stop Defrag, Seems like thats all it really needs. Oh you miss the little bars moving around.. Because THATS very helpful. It's prolly because most industry professional seem to think that, it was entirely unnessasry. Defrag still optomises disk proformance, removed a graphical representation of a small physical space occupied by a 1 or a 0, hardly seems like we've lost anything. I can list hundreds of reasons Vista is a good OS. I'm not saying XP isn't good. XP is still great for people very familure with XP, but this is a very small precentage of the masses, and to think that the wheels of change will stop just for me is nieve at best. I can fight the wind, or learn to fly. Sorry you disagree, but aside from a few very negative reviews 9 months ago, Vista now gets much better reviews then the XP Lovers will have you believe.
While I am not holding up defrag in vista as summary example of its failure, or success - I can use the Vista defrag to show why i think Vista fails, miserably.
For one, as some have pointed out it is a lackluster run or don't run - dumbed down, uninformative, and it is several clicks deep in menus as well. All in all not terrible but I think it could be far better considering the cost, overhead, and time vista took. Yes, there is a schedule you can set it to defrag on but if the PC is not on at that time it doesn't run and doesn't run when it comes on. Also - no options to defrag certain disks or to view the metrics on the various disks (a helpful thing at times). On top of that it is INCREDIBLY slow - I would estimate it at at least 1/5 the speed of defrag'ing in XP given the same volume (of course Vista is well known to have MAJOR disk issues anyways but that is another story). Why is there no 'screensaver' mode for Vista defrag - much like what Diskeeper and other third party utilities do in XP. Why no options to adjust MFT and other allocation tables?
Is Vista a failure because of the defrag - of course not. But is the change there quite symptomatic of the overall issues with Vista - of course. All this time, all the issues, all the extra overhead costing performance and in the end - you get something that is hard to argue is better in anyway than XP, it is easily slower, and it doesn't have any innovations (screen saver mode and other robus features). This, to my way of thinking, does just about sum up Vista - not much better if even it is as good, slower, and no real improvements or at least none worth writing home about.
Originally posted by FE|Tachyon
Sorry you disagree, but aside from a few very negative reviews 9 months ago, Vista now gets much better reviews then the XP Lovers will have you believe.
This is where you earn the fanboy label as clearly you live in a different universe or are just incapable of seeing reality. Early on Vista got terrible reviews, or at best skeptically cautious reviews. And today - still the same - particularly from a gaming platform standpoint and from businesses.
Dell, HP, Acer, and other major partners have ALL started selling XP again (something that flies in the face of MSs wishes and something that has never happened even including Windows ME). In fact, just about nobody of any industry credibility is recommending Vista and most are suggesting to stay away. On the non-savvy consumer end - nobody wants it, and not from the I hate it standpoint just from the why do I want something new that has issues (big or small) when what I had before was just fine? Vista is a huge flop to date both in perception and in reality.
Heh, i won't run Vista at all. Vienna is slated for 2009, I'll wait 'til then. Only way I'll look at Vista will be after SP2 and a huge price decrease. Even then, I doubt I'll get it.
Man, when vista came out I wanted to pick up a copy of XP pro so I could redo my system(couldn't find old cd key or disks.) It friggin cost more than vista did!
I was mad until I found my xp pro disks in a box at home :c)
Comments
Thanks for that list. It made me laugh and cry.
DOS 5 > MAC OS
And yes, AOC will run on XP fine w/ direct x 9. Want 'prettier' graphics (aka dx10) then you will need vista and dx10 gpu.
will run on dx9 and dx10 the latter i think had to be done for the 360 port
I'm running 32bit Vista and I have to say I am getting a performance increase over my past xp setup. Now I did a clean install not an upgrade for one thing, # 2 I have a really good custom built system.
I think it comes down to your hardware to run Vista effectively.
High performance auto overclocking mobo (load sensing) Asus P5n32 SLI SE Deluxe, 2 gigs PC- 8500 Ram 1066 fsb (I had this up to 1257 fsb stable), SLI Video 2-7950 GT OC's, Core 2 Duo E6600, sata 2 drives.
I'm gearing up for SLI replacements by month end, so far system runs great! Vista Ultimate though I think you get cheesed with the other flavors because you dont get the vital tools you need for security, performance and DR (Disaster Recovery).
With all due respect, there are two possibilities for your experience with Vista VS. XP...
1) Placebo effect
2) Your XP installation was somehow fouled/flawed.
Even MS acknowledges that Vista compared to XP will/should end up with a 5% to 10% performance hit (in Vista). As for the flavors and features, aside from the Windows disk imaging feature there is very little in Ultimate anyone really needs (over Home Prem or Bus.). There is nothing in Ultimate for 'performance' and nothing for 'security' over other flavors. I suppose Bit Locker could count on security but it isn't very practical for the vast majority of users. What I mean to say is that just like XP Home and XP Pro 'perform' the same and have the same 'security' issues the various Vista flavors do as well.
--------------------------------
Achiever 60.00%, Socializer 53.00%, Killer 47.00%, Explorer 40.00%
Intel Core i7 Quad, Intel X58 SLi, 6G Corsair XMS DDR3, Intel X-25 SSD, 3 WD Velociraptor SATA SuperTrak SAS EX8650 Array, OCZ 1250W PS, GTX 295, xFi, 32" 1080p LCD
XP is faster. This is fact, that cannot be argued. Everyone that tests software agrees. XP is Faster then Vista.
This doesn't make Vista Slow.
Vista may seem faster in a LOT of ways. Try this..........
1. Goto your XP Machine, and use the Find feature, and type "doughnut" now wait, and wait, and wait, and wait, after a few moments, even on my Raid 0 you'll see your list of results.
2 Repeat the same with Vista, and withing 10 seconds see every result.
Not everyone can feel the slow down from XP to Vista. I'm one of them. My Vista machine now seems to run just as good, and maybe even better then this same machine 6 months ago with XP.
If you install drive indexing software on XP, it can do it just as quick. Not that it's a good thing IMO, I really dislike random HDD thrashing/indexing in order to improve searches which I perform like...once a month, if that.
Vista is a hog, it is dumbed down (defrag anyone?) and slower than XP, but meh, I'm content with it and won't be going back to XP - here's hoping that SP1 improves things
Dumbed Down? Not true. You say it's dumbed down because they made things easier to use? So now even people who don't have an IT background can set up nextworks intergrating all their hardware in their home, not just including PC's. Novice users can use their Plasma TV, Xbox360, Share a Non Network printer over a network. If thats what you call dumbed down. I call that much smarter design.
Dumbed down is a hard thing to say but slightly true. For savvy users WIndows O$'s lack so many features which in Linux I almost take for granted ( until I go back to windows). This is mainly cause M$ spent so much time putting in user friendly designs which are great until they fail to work and then windows are it usually does tends to bury the problem so deep in a place the sun don't shine or blames the user. Oh and M$ sells it OS's now based on the user interface only so its all a lick of paint and nothing changed under the hood .... big con ! In this way windows users are conned and hoodwinked and could be described as "dumbed down" and probably " out of pocket" too.
Yeah great for novice users (until it doesn't work) and good for savvy users who use such features for speed. I wouldn't say the best fitting word for these features is "dumbed down". I am more likely to say "totally non visionary", "inflexible" and "stagnant". The interfaces don't tailor suit the users ( I find different X desktops in linux do this) and dont scale up and down for user experience. Everyone gets the same annoying interface whether it gives them the level of technical info that they want.
Stupid decision but this is the company that gave us IE6 so I shouldn't be too surprised.
Just my two cents: "I hate MS Vista with a passion!"
We have it on a new laptop and I'm very happy with the Windows XP Pro that is on my tower.
"Don't corpse-camp that idea. Its never gonna rez"
Bladezz (The Guild)
I've shown the game dx9 XP many many times
like Gencon, Dragoncon, E3 etc
The only live showing we did of Dx10 was at CES so most what you have seen of Conan is not even Dx10, the Dx10 looks better but you will be able to use both versions out of the same box.
Combat, Control, Class Distinction Designer for Age of Conan
community.ageofconan.com
Stupid decision but this is the company that gave us IE6 so I shouldn't be too surprised.
ummm, your not very informed about Vista.
Vista 6 months after release, was found to have LESS security flaws then, MAC OSX, ANY LINUX/ UNIX rebirth, or any previous MS OS made. Addressing the SECOND part of your statement, about Security tools for everyone, again exactly opposite from true. Most people are complaining that Vista doesn't have much MORE then XP, but everything it does have, is MUCH easier to use. You don't need your MCSE to use your Vista machine. The person your quoteing isn't very accurate. Ultimate is a waste of money, and MS has recongised it, by their new Vista Gadgets program. Now you get free access to all the Vista Add Ons for free with Vista Ultimate, where with the less expensive versions you'll pay a small fee for their download. Vista Home Premium is all that 99% of the market would need. (HOME PC USERS)
Thanks for the info, always nice to hear from those involved in the game directly. Although the topic has sidetracked a bit I wonder if you could comment on the idea of DX10 as a main, or even sole, rendering path even though we all undertand that AoC will be available in DX9 (XP) and DX10 (Vista). Not so much in terms of how good or bad it is but whether it could be economically viable (which ties back to the OP and some of the other extraneous comments), particularly since AoC has plans to move to the console which cannot support DX10 elements.
--------------------------------
Achiever 60.00%, Socializer 53.00%, Killer 47.00%, Explorer 40.00%
Intel Core i7 Quad, Intel X58 SLi, 6G Corsair XMS DDR3, Intel X-25 SSD, 3 WD Velociraptor SATA SuperTrak SAS EX8650 Array, OCZ 1250W PS, GTX 295, xFi, 32" 1080p LCD
They have removed a lot of options other versions of windows have had - to make things easier for novices. This is what I mean by dumbed down. Hell, like i said - just take a look at defrag...what options do you have now? Start/stop...possibly pause? How do I select what drives I want to defrag, how do I know how far it's up to etc etc...
Maybe they paired up with Blizzard for this Windows release.
Wow. You suck at game research. Windows XP and DX9c are just as viable for this game though without as many bells and whistles..
They have removed a lot of options other versions of windows have had - to make things easier for novices. This is what I mean by dumbed down. Hell, like i said - just take a look at defrag...what options do you have now? Start/stop...possibly pause? How do I select what drives I want to defrag, how do I know how far it's up to etc etc...
Maybe they paired up with Blizzard for this Windows release.
I hardly think that because defrag was changed, (and includes more features to actualy help the PC, maybe not FLOPPY's) would hardly constitue being "Dumbed down" Vista has made a lot of changes to make things more user friendly. If you consider user friendly "Dumbed down" then ... whatever...however Vista has added a lot more features then it removed, or changed. Calling that "Dumbed down" seems silly.
Heh, i won't run Vista at all. Vienna is slated for 2009, I'll wait 'til then. Only way I'll look at Vista will be after SP2 and a huge price decrease. Even then, I doubt I'll get it.
I highly doubt Vienna will be released in 2009.
They have removed a lot of options other versions of windows have had - to make things easier for novices. This is what I mean by dumbed down. Hell, like i said - just take a look at defrag...what options do you have now? Start/stop...possibly pause? How do I select what drives I want to defrag, how do I know how far it's up to etc etc...
Maybe they paired up with Blizzard for this Windows release.
They've also added new functions and the Ultimate version is more comprehensive than XP professional in terms of administrative tools.
Your not going to like this but there is some evidence which hints that Vienna is much nearer than MS would like us beleive right now in a climate of sluggish vista sales.
Firstly look at windows 98, followed by windows 98SE followed by windows ME ( *cough* *cough*). 98SE was the best by far of all pre XP MS OS yet MS still managed to churn out 98 and ME. From a technical perspective neither of which offer much advantage but MS released them anyways. I highly suspect that a good proportion of the decision isnt based on technical aspects but marketing and shareholder decisions (which damaged MS repuation more) and what the public will passively comsume. So I can very well believe that in late (at most) 2009 MS will launch vienna.
The second point, involves XP longer lifespan which is in part because its the first operating system M$ got half right and also because of many, many delays in launching Vista. Vista development originally started with a new kernel, new filesystem and was more or less a complete rewrite. However for whatever reason (time, bad management, delibertly leaving it out, lack of expertise ?.. gulp) the kernel was stopped and file system fell by the wayside for the next release. Vista kernel is a modified XP one apparently surround by an interface for security purposes. So there is already several technologies which are slated for Vienna.
As you can see I'm a firm believer that Vista is ME all over again and the next real OS from MS will be Vienna. I also hope that vienna maybe the first MS OS for a long time that actually has competition.
Perhaps I'm wrong but given the stupid amount of options for Vista and the amount they cost for such smaller incremental features, I can live without it and vienna is most likely my next MS upgrade. Though as you may have noticed I'd rather not buy another MS OS ever.
Agree. I believe MS will patch up Vista to a point where it isn't the technical mess ME was, but in terms of the intangibles Vista is clearly ME II and probably will remain so indefinitely.
As for the 'dumbed down' I think it is somewhat accurate in so far as Vista does push allot of administrative and power user type functions out of easy reach. Allot of overhead in Vista is there to facilitate non-savvy user bliss - perhaps a good thing but since it is not easily disabled and not really something you can get around the 'dumbed down' moniker seems appropriate. Much of what changed in Vista over XP has two roots - non-savvy users and enterprise users. GPO expansion and improvement as well as logging and reporting for enterprise clients and help, search, and usability changes for the non-savvy. While this is cursory it is part of why I say vista is a poor gaming platform as most all 'improvements' are of a nature detrimental to single purpose performance applications.
An example in XP terminology would be the inclusion of the XP themes functionality - while something many might appreciate (I am not trashing it in any way) it isn't something that helped XP be a better gaming platform, in fact it made it less so consuming resources. Alone it wasn't a big issue but if every change was of a similar nature then it would be an issue and with Vista that is most commonly what has been changed - superfluous usability and enterprise administration elements which add nothing to the gaming capability. Security is improved in Vista through a more realistic enforcement of user privileges and a 'sandboxing' of applications with file and registry virtualization. I won't argue that vista isn't more secure as it is, but it is a minor improvement. There is still no insulation from a non-admin process that is compromised gaining control over an elevated administrative privileged. This might not be a huge failure as a true user/admin system such as Linux/Unix is not likely practical for most desktops. But in a way it is like saying a car with the doors locked is more secure than one without the doors locked - sure it is true but do we really think either are not easily stolen?
Vista is what it is, a shiney version of XP at best. It is clear it is going more the way of ME than XP and whatever happens with Windows 7 (formerly called Vienna, BTW) Vista is extremely unlikely to penetrate deeply enough to really matter much. As for Windows 7 - I wouldn't hold my breath for that new kernel, WinFS, and the other Vista cut features. MS is struggling under thier own weight right now and I don't think they are really capable of that kind of ground up innovation anymore. I am not saying Windows 7 isn't coming, or that it will suck - I just don't think MS can get anything really original or innovative through its layers of committees and bureaucracy. it is also worth mentioning that MS is now a victim of its own success - thier install base is so deep that real innovation is nearly impossible because they have such a large legacy responsibility. XP was a great unifier, a great OS in many ways - but the market is becoming much more fragmented and with Moore's Law finally seeming to run out the days of one thing to do everything is likely gone.
--------------------------------
Achiever 60.00%, Socializer 53.00%, Killer 47.00%, Explorer 40.00%
Intel Core i7 Quad, Intel X58 SLi, 6G Corsair XMS DDR3, Intel X-25 SSD, 3 WD Velociraptor SATA SuperTrak SAS EX8650 Array, OCZ 1250W PS, GTX 295, xFi, 32" 1080p LCD
Vista fanboi alert!
Oh lookie, I have two buttons - stop, start, where as we used to have 5 or 6 as well as the option to select the drive(s) we wanted to defrag as well as view the status...If that's not dumbed down, I don't know what is.
Aero is bloatware, drive indexing is bloatware, vista is bloatware. It might be good for computer novices, but for the rest of us it's a steaming POS.
Cancel or Allow...hmm....
Win ME 2, oh yeah!
Vista fanboi alert!
Oh lookie, I have two buttons - stop, start, where as we used to have 5 or 6 as well as the option to select the drive(s) we wanted to defrag as well as view the status...If that's not dumbed down, I don't know what is.
Aero is bloatware, drive indexing is bloatware, vista is bloatware. It might be good for computer novices, but for the rest of us it's a steaming POS.
Cancel or Allow...hmm....
Win ME 2, oh yeah!
Defrag, and Stop Defrag, Seems like thats all it really needs. Oh you miss the little bars moving around.. Because THATS very helpful. It's prolly because most industry professional seem to think that, it was entirely unnessasry. Defrag still optomises disk proformance, removed a graphical representation of a small physical space occupied by a 1 or a 0, hardly seems like we've lost anything. I can list hundreds of reasons Vista is a good OS. I'm not saying XP isn't good. XP is still great for people very familure with XP, but this is a very small precentage of the masses, and to think that the wheels of change will stop just for me is nieve at best. I can fight the wind, or learn to fly. Sorry you disagree, but aside from a few very negative reviews 9 months ago, Vista now gets much better reviews then the XP Lovers will have you believe.
While I am not holding up defrag in vista as summary example of its failure, or success - I can use the Vista defrag to show why i think Vista fails, miserably.
For one, as some have pointed out it is a lackluster run or don't run - dumbed down, uninformative, and it is several clicks deep in menus as well. All in all not terrible but I think it could be far better considering the cost, overhead, and time vista took. Yes, there is a schedule you can set it to defrag on but if the PC is not on at that time it doesn't run and doesn't run when it comes on. Also - no options to defrag certain disks or to view the metrics on the various disks (a helpful thing at times). On top of that it is INCREDIBLY slow - I would estimate it at at least 1/5 the speed of defrag'ing in XP given the same volume (of course Vista is well known to have MAJOR disk issues anyways but that is another story). Why is there no 'screensaver' mode for Vista defrag - much like what Diskeeper and other third party utilities do in XP. Why no options to adjust MFT and other allocation tables?
Is Vista a failure because of the defrag - of course not. But is the change there quite symptomatic of the overall issues with Vista - of course. All this time, all the issues, all the extra overhead costing performance and in the end - you get something that is hard to argue is better in anyway than XP, it is easily slower, and it doesn't have any innovations (screen saver mode and other robus features). This, to my way of thinking, does just about sum up Vista - not much better if even it is as good, slower, and no real improvements or at least none worth writing home about.
This is where you earn the fanboy label as clearly you live in a different universe or are just incapable of seeing reality. Early on Vista got terrible reviews, or at best skeptically cautious reviews. And today - still the same - particularly from a gaming platform standpoint and from businesses.
Dell, HP, Acer, and other major partners have ALL started selling XP again (something that flies in the face of MSs wishes and something that has never happened even including Windows ME). In fact, just about nobody of any industry credibility is recommending Vista and most are suggesting to stay away. On the non-savvy consumer end - nobody wants it, and not from the I hate it standpoint just from the why do I want something new that has issues (big or small) when what I had before was just fine? Vista is a huge flop to date both in perception and in reality.
--------------------------------
Achiever 60.00%, Socializer 53.00%, Killer 47.00%, Explorer 40.00%
Intel Core i7 Quad, Intel X58 SLi, 6G Corsair XMS DDR3, Intel X-25 SSD, 3 WD Velociraptor SATA SuperTrak SAS EX8650 Array, OCZ 1250W PS, GTX 295, xFi, 32" 1080p LCD
Man, when vista came out I wanted to pick up a copy of XP pro so I could redo my system(couldn't find old cd key or disks.) It friggin cost more than vista did!
I was mad until I found my xp pro disks in a box at home :c)
D.