Jump to content

CoffeeFiend

Patron
  • Posts

    4,973
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Donations

    0.00 USD 
  • Country

    Canada

Everything posted by CoffeeFiend

  1. They have Vista drivers, just not Vista x64 drivers... Can't say Hauppauge's support is that great though (most recent driver seems to be 3 years old!) Little things like this are why I don't use x64 *yet*. I'll probably make the switch sometime after the holidays though (I'll likely upgrade RAM to 8GB around then).
  2. Bah. I don't really see a point. Onboard NICs are plenty fast as this shows (990mbits/sec), they're quite often PCI-e connected (so almost nothing to gain over that in the first place), and usually have most modern NIC features like TCP checksum offload, large send offload, network boot roms, etc. They also have every other "standard" feature you'd expect out of a NIC or hardware in general (ACPI power states, WOL, etc) CPU usage is very minimal too. Seriously, that's enough for all but the most extreme cases (and then you're usually gonna go for more than one NIC anyways -- and some boards even have dual gigabit NICs too) Others have however. I still 100% disagree. Non-gaming video suck at gaming, sure. No one's gonna say different. But just like me & cluberti said, onboard video is plenty for a LOT of people (non-gaming usage). I see no difference at all (performance wise) between a pair of $1000 video cards taking 100W each and onboard video. What you seem not to get is that we're not all gamers.
  3. You can't blame Gigabyte for nforce's buggy drivers. Lots of people are having problem with those, no matter who makes the board. I love my gigabyte board personally, but it has an Intel chipset
  4. Meh. It doesn't really matter. It was a moot point in the first place. Like I said, I don't actually need any 3D performance (no games at all), so 3D features are pointless, and the potential lack of them is an absolute non-issue. It's not like TnL will help when I'm checking email, paying bills, coding something, playing mp3's, burning discs or whatever other everyday tasks. If anything, I think he made my point: his "OMG GMA sucks" stance seems to be all about the lack of 3D features (which are pointless for me -- it's like complaining a bike has no doors, even though they're clearly not needed), and no actual reasons why it sucks so bad for everyday non-gaming tasks (i.e. why I shouldn't use it). Framerate is also of little concern for things like browsing web pages, typing a word document, viewing por err... I mean photos! Seriously, I'm perfectly happy with the performance of a 10 year old card (except perhaps for video decoding acceleration). Onboard video is plenty fast for a lot of people.
  5. XP doesn't have sleep, it has standby. Not so. XP's standby doesn't save it to disk, so indeed your work would be lost. Vista's sleep however does. If you don't lose power, it resumes instantly (kind of like standby), and if you lose power, it'll resume like it would from hibernation (still faster than a normal boot, and no data lost).
  6. I won't bother replying to most points as they've for the most part all been refuted 3 or 4 times already. Funny how a several years-old chipset/motherboard that uses a not very popular chipset differs from today's modern & popular designs. Who would've thought? How so? I don't expect requiring more than 10 channels of high definition audio anytime soon, nor is the codec going to break or anything like that. In a lot of cases, there's no point in buying separate cards for commodity jobs anymore. A while ago, various ports (e.g. IDE, floppy, parallel, serial, etc) weren't onboard (ISA cards rather). Then they were integrated onboard, and that didn't make them suck. The network cards -- every board built in the last few years has at least 100mbit ethernet, most of the new boads now even have gigabit ethernet (sometimes two ports even), and they're not bad either (my onboard Realtek NIC even does TCP checksum offloading and more). Same for audio now. When $50 mATX motherboards come with onboard audio as good as a Audigy 2 ZS or similar (a card that used to cost ~$110), and for the most part have FAR better drivers too (all-around better solution, except perhaps if you care for EAX), it's no wonder Creative's shares have been dropping a LOT over the last few years. Their shares peaked to like $30 circa 2000, and now they're down to like 4$ and still dropping (they were removed from Nasdaq last year). There should be more motherboards with basic video onboard (for non-gamers too), and AMD seems to be making this happen. And what would having to buy a $50 PCI-e SATA controller bring me over the onboard controllers? What would a $50 PCI-e NIC bring to me? What would wasting $100 on Creative garbage bring me? Maybe I should buy a USB card too? The onboard stuff is quite good in most cases, no need to buy a card separately. All buying cards for this stuff would do in most cases, is fill all of the motherboard's slots very quickly, and cost a whole lot more.
  7. It's a size vs distance thing. I can VERY easily see a difference between 720p and 1080p on my 24" LCD monitor, but I'm like 2ft away. From 10ft it would be different. I don't think you'll see much of a difference on a 32" from that far either. Anyways. If you're not going to have a HD source (something to watch in HD) for a good while, there's no real reason to spend more on a 1080p capable TV for now. To get the extra detail, you need a TV that does 1080p, a 1080p source and also sitting close enough to it (relative to its size). In this case, the source and viewing distance don't play in your favor, so I see little point in spending extra for the 1080p TV (even though I love 1080p).
  8. By upgrading it to XP Pro
  9. Never had any issues with any of that really. It worked just fine under any OS, and did everything I needed it to do: display 2D stuff, and play some videos. Not even once did I wish for something "better". I couldn't care less what it has or doesn't really... Anyways. They should make more "non-gamer", full-featured ATX boards with basic video on it, much like a Gigabyte GA-MA78G-DS3H. Only AMD seems to get this right (just like having 4 DIMM slots on mATX boards), just too bad I want an Intel CPU I guess. I considered getting an AMD box really. But when my old $70 E2160 OC'ed benches about the same as a X2 6400+, yet, the somewhat slower X2 6000+ costs $120... Plus, if I go AMD in that one, then I lose the ability to "rotate" CPUs around (if I replace one with a quad core later on, the older "fastest" chip can go to the other rig if they're both Intel) But if you don't look at the CPU, I very much prefer AMD's solutions. So yet again, I'm left wishing for two things I can't have together: an Intel CPU with AMD board... (Just like I wish I had Compiz Fusion on Vista). And both possible solutions kind of suck: pay more for a AMD CPU (or settle for slower), or pay more to get a video card I don't really want for a Intel box... What sucks less? Wasting $50 extra on a CPU for nothing, or wasting $50 on a vid card for nothing? Although, there are more considerations. TDP is about the same in both cases. Socket 775 is a dead end I guess with Nehalem coming (of course there will be some more S 775 CPUs for a while) and those will use DDR3 too (I must say it sucks buying something that you know will be replaced so soon). Maybe AM2+ might stick around for longer (who knows for sure) as it's brand new, and they're not going to get rid of HT unlike Intel ditching their overdue FSB and such things. And it's hard to predict just how much Nehalem stuff will cost/how soon it'll be affordable/how much it'll make Core 2 Quad prices drop, or things like is AMD going to have competitive products out in a year or 2? Now excuse me, while I go look for a crystal ball...
  10. Suck for gaming and such, yes. But personally (when it comes to 3D performance) I'm perfectly happy with Intel GMA 950 video with 8MB of shared RAM... I was quite happy with Rage-era (pre-radeon) PCI (non-express) graphics too. So onboard video from something like a 780G chipset would already be more than enough (but that doesn't do me any good unless I go AMD, which I probably won't). So I know a 3450 will more than suffice (it's overkill for me really), what I'm not sure about, is if ATI has lower-wattage cards that also have UVD or such, as I don't keep up with all the video cards not being a gamer at all (if there's one thing I don't keep track of when it comes to PCs, it's video cards).
  11. That's what I'm saying. I had something like a half dozen LG drives over the years, and none of them ever failed (I gave them away, or sold them in PCs, and they still worked great) so I don't have anything against them. Similar story with other "lesser" brands, e.g. I had one AOpen CD burner that lasted a LONG time, it finally died after burning over 250 CDs straight (non-stop, 24/7) -- likely from the heat. This HP burner works great too. Just saying, almost any brand worked fine for me (yet, I had problems with most of the "better" ones, like Samsung, Pioneer, or this one that doesn't read all discs anymore -- a NEC). So I don't really care so much for brand name when it comes to DVD writers, it's much like playing the lottery anyways, and it seems the "better" the brand I pick, or the more I pay for it, and the more it sucks. And again, it's the least of my worries... The only thing I'm not really sure about, is the vid card. In fact, even onboard video would suffice (as long as it does H.264 decoding in hardware). The main considerations here being 1) low power and 2) quietness. Some 3D performance wouldn't hurt I guess, but it really comes in third (and really not necessary). The main issue with onboard video is, it only seems to come on low-end mATX boards (with like only 2 DIMM slots and such -- limitations I can't live with).
  12. Bah. That's the least of my worries really. I've had good luck with some fairly generic drives before (e.g. LG), just like I had some bad luck with some of those many people consider as the best (e.g. a Samsung drive that REALLY sucked at AHCI and such, it was the worst optical drive EVER -- totally unusable on ICH9R, and a $250 Pioneer that died a VERY early death -- we're talking like a half spindle here). Right now I mostly use an old HP 640b, which even though is "only" 16x, burns faster than my old 18x Samsung (when it actually worked)... No issue at all with it (it's not SATA though).
  13. I like to (and try to) be as environmentally friendly as possible, but sometimes an upgrade is in order I guess. I'm looking at the kids' old PC. It's too slow to watch HD movies (and the kids like to watch them too) and it's also getting slow for some other tasks, and it's not particularly energy efficient either. I've been dying to replace the several-years-old aopen case that has poor airflow & design (it runs pretty hot). The old hard drive in it started having SMART errors recently (going to have to replace it soon) and it's not as quiet (or fast) as more recent drives either (it's also the last non-SATA drive here). The ATI x800's fan was replaced ~6 months ago with a $30 aftermarket HSF, and the fan is already starting to sound quite loud. I don't feel like wasting $30 more every 6 months on a new cooler on an old card that's probably not even worth $50 in the first place, and the Linux ATI drivers for it (flglx) suck HARD. I find it's too power hungry too (like 80W). The PSU fan has been making some noise for a while (I slowed it down so it's not so deafening), and the case fans should probably be changed too at this point. Also, the old DVD writer in it is showing its age, and sometimes it likes not recognizing a disc (only like 5% of them, but it's quite an annoyance when it doesn't work). Adding RAM to it would mean getting rid of its existing RAM first (all slots full), and older RAM tends to cost more to buy too... So I'm going to give away the motherboard/CPU/RAM and crappy creative sound card to someone who needs it (and the crappy vid card if they want it) so no pollution there. PSU wise, I'll replace that fan and keep it (370W enermax, only a couple years old) -- only a fan being replaced (although I could give that away too, and buy a 80plus model). Some remaining parts will make their way to the landfill (mainly fans), and others will have their plastic & metal recycled. It only makes sense fixing up an old PC so much really. The new PC will play HD movies and other heavy-ish tasks just fine, be better at multitasking, run cooler/quieter/on less power, work more reliably (like read all discs), have better power saving modes and all that. Not sure what vid card I'll use yet though (probably a ATI 3450). I'll also get better sound, more SATA & USB2 ports, gigabit ethernet and other such things out of it. It couldn't really look uglier either. With some luck, the hardware will play nicer with Linux, and as a bonus it should run Vista and likely Windows v7 fine too, and pretty much anything we could throw at it. Edit: it'll also be able to use a x64 OS & apps.
  14. Drivers on CDs are pressed in LARGE batches when the hardware comes out (it's more economical to get lots done at once). Then they ship those for a LONG time. And then they sit in different warehouses and such for a long time. And then on store shelves, etc. By the time you buy the hardware, the drivers on CDs are quite old. Also, lots of such CDs like to install a LOT of garbage (like an outdated acrobat reader 5, and more junk like quicktime), and that's when your hardware is brand new. Fast forward 2 or 3 years and reinstall Windows -- those drivers on CD are probably 5 years old at that point (beyond outdated). In Vista's case too, the drivers can't be older than the hardware... Unless MS has a time travel machine. If he hardware is newer than Vista, then Vista doesn't come with the driver (again, no time travel). And if it's older and Vista has it, then most likely Vista's driver is newer. It doesn't get executed or anything, so it doesn't slow down the system. Only abut half of that is even binaries, so it only adds 200MB or so to a virus check (which is really nothing considering I have 10's of GBs of stuff to scan in the first place -- not that I even run an AV mind you; but nod32 would scan that 200MB in mere miliseconds). Backups? It totally depends on your backup app of course (and unless it sucks, you could tell it not to backup those if you wanted; and it would make no difference on differential/incremental backups either). Can be deleted? I don't see why not... As for indexing, it's a matter of opinion. There's millions of downloads of such apps (like Google Desktop search and dozens of others) so obviously there is a demand, and every other OS also does this (e.g. OS X's Finder). It's no more work to disable it (opt-out) if you don't want it then it would be to enable it if you want it (opt-in). Whether it should be enabled or disabled by default is really a personal preference. Either opinion is valid, and it doesn't matter which one they chose, some people won't agree in either case. Like I said before, it wasn't limited to 3.1 at all... That's a matter of opinion (and I don't agree at all with that statement personally). It had a new GUI (including a start menu), and some stuff installed by default (like a network stack), but other than that... It also ran like crap on most systems out at the time (486'es). It ran "just OK" on my brand new $3000 P1 at the time (OS/2 ran circles around it) I disagree on everything again. XP and 98 don't even compare. They're worlds apart, in design, function and everything. Also, the speed at which hardware improves hasn't slowed down at all. We now have dirt cheap dual cores (my $70 E2160 benches 3x faster than the old P4 3GHz I just got rid of), we got quad cores under $200, PCI-e 2.0, USB3, super fast DDR3, always-faster video cards, Nehalem is just around the corner, SSDs are starting to become a reality, etc. Hasn't changed one bit. Go buy a Q9650, next month they'll have the new Bloomfield core-based CPUs, then die shrinks, Nehalem, etc. If anything, new processors are coming out faster than ever, and there's no signs of it slowing down. No, that's rather 4x as much RAM (besides comparing 98 to XP is much of an apples to oranges comparison). It still isn't an issue at all, as long as you can get at least 4x as much RAM for the same price.
  15. It's not FUD at all. May I recommend switching friend for advice? He seems to be wrong about a lot of stuff. Many P4's have a TDP of as high as 115W, and right now you can get high-end quad cores like a Q9650 on a lesser TDP (95W), or plain old Core 2 Duo's that still totally beat the P4 in speed, and have a TDP of 65W (about half of the P4). There's also some products out there that will still run a LOT faster than most old hardware, which will also run on 20W or so (at full load, for BOTH the CPU + motherboard), like Intel Atom and VIA Nano products. That's less than the lowest-consuming P3 CPU (a LOT less if you also count the P3's motherboard). Try talking to people who actually work with the hardware. Like game programmers. Especially Intel chipsets are to blame. I've never seen a game programmer say anything bad about Intel chipsets. Perhaps you meant Intel video (not chipset), but that's not suited for gaming at all, and asking game makers about non-gaming business hardware is silly at best. It's like asking a F1 engineering team if a budget 4 cylinder $15 000 car is "good enough" for them. Also, Intel doen't even make audio chips. Gaming aside (3D performance issues obviously), Intel video works great. I've had exactly 0 problems with their drivers in Windows (hard to say the same about ATI & nVidia), and they're by FAR the best when it comes to having stable/non-buggy Linux drivers... Go look at almost any board by Asus (e.g. their very popular P5K series), Gigabyte (e.g. their DS3 series), etc. Lots of large OEMs use them too (e.g. HP). The vast majority of boards use that. Even the 5 year old P4 I sold last month used that.
  16. Or perhaps they want to virtualize pre-win 2008 OS'es (win 2003 is still a VERY capable server OS), other versions of Windows, Linux, BSD, Solaris and others, without needing to spend $1000+ on a Win2008 license for every box. Is Hyper-V really $1000 better? I think not. And yes, Win 2008 uses enlightened I/O, but then again even with that it's I/O is slower than VMware anyways (they had to resort to cheating, using SSDs to make their IOPS benchmarks look even close to VMware's)
  17. Hmm, no. It's a godsend for a lot of people. Back in 1995, when all your docs could be kept neatly organized in a few folders, this wasn't required at all for sure. But now with 100's of different file types for different stuff, in hundreds of folders, often across several hard drives and all that, finding something isn't so trivial anymore. If I'm looking for a that PDF file that contains certain words, and that I have gigabytes of them, I'd be searching for entire days. Whereas now it finds it in mere seconds. It could also search my email for the said words and such places too. Hell, it'll even use the index on a remote (networked) computer to search on it (that's always been a problematic one). So I think it's very useful, even more so for the "average", disorganized user. BTW, indexing has been in Windows for a LOT of years, and has always been configurable (and still is).
  18. Just like it's been the case with any new version of Windows. Nothing's changed there again. I'd love to see someone who installed XP on his 5 1/2 year old computer when it came out (that would be a pentium 1). XP ran quite slow on my box at the time until I got more RAM for it. Win95 barely ran at all on a couple year old box (a 486) that ran Win 3.11 great. Win 3.1 ran like crap on a 286 that was overkill for most DOS purposes. Yet, people make it sound like somehow it's different with Vista. And for the most part, it's been a non-issue, as the vast majority of people get a new OS with a new PC. It's nowhere near all drivers known to mankind (that would be countless terabyes)... But it gets perhaps 90% of the mainstream stuff working out of the box with no hassle (updated drivers delivered from Windows Update), and that's a good thing. Just how fun is it to look for a network card driver for your OS (can't download it from the 'net when your 'net is down), or surfing ATI's site @ 640x480 looking for that video driver... Good times for sure. As for drivers on CD, yuck. Those were pressed like 2 years ago, are always super old, often full of bugs and all that. I never use any of them. Yes, imagine that, they put in runtimes for their own development tools, so their apps run without requiring you to download hundreds of MBs (something people used to complain a lot about). Also, you're dead wrong about all of it. Most apps will run on a newer .NET framework (backward compatibility is there). But regardless of that, the later versions include older ones: -v3.5 is v3, plus some additions like LINQ -v3.0 is v2, plus some nice stuff like WCF, WPF and all that. So when you install v3.5 (the current version), you're also getting getting v3 and v2 out of it. It's not lazyness nor bloat. But anyways, it's not 5 versions either. v1.1 seemingly isn't included in Vista (which hardly anybody uses anymore, so that's understandable), nor the super old v1.0, so it's more like 3... And again, the "bloated" part about it is wrong too. Out of that $0.05 or so worth of space, you're getting a few compilers, a set of well designed & heavily tested (mature/stable) libraries for most tasks that your apps can all use (making them all smaller), ways for them to communicate in various ways, possibilities for them to have cutting edge 3D interfaces (WPF), etc. And again, it's a way for software developers to deliver quality apps to you quickly and for cheap (again, time and money constraints). Nope, not everything is installed by default, I had to go install some parts I need by hand. But they include most parts the average user might want. That vocal 1% sure makes a lot of noise about Vista "being bloated" when again every other recent mainstream OS is no better, and that Vista's extra size is mainly due to that over-zealous WinSxS cache (using up about fifty cents of disk space -- that's such a big deal).
  19. Except, Vista runs great on nowadays' commodity hardware, so there is no reason to replace that last part.
  20. The thing is, you seem to only care about that. You'd walk off the lot with an engine on 4 wheels, because it gets that extra mile per gallon. Whereas we see a vehicle with airbags, ABS brakes, more cargo space, more leg room, a CD/mp3 player, DVD players at the back, air conditioning, GPS, power seats/windows/locks, remote starter, alarm system, that has smoother ride, doesn't break as often, is stylish and all that, and still gets decent fuel efficiency. I think it's safe to say you're not going to buy another version of Windows for a LONG time to come since you're not interested by anything new they seem to provide, and prefer to resist change instead of embracing it. The "restrictions" never got in my way, and I make use of the new features everyday. I think you can guess my answer.
  21. Caching in RAM has very little overhead (basically none as it works when your PC is idle), and it makes things quicker. Bugs? I've seen 0 bugs reported about it so far, and there's millions of people using it everyday... I know, I was just saying I don't have the same "bias" (different employer) like plenty of other people, yet, I (and a lot more people) completely agree on his points. MS listens to their big corporate clients, OEMs, MVPs and such. Wanna see people requesting features like UAC? Go to any *nix-centric site (like slashdot), and look at any Windows security-related discussion from before Vista was out, you'll quickly find hundreds of such "complaints" (i.e. Windows needing a sudo-like mechanism). Like Fredledingue said, 99% of people using Vista or such are getting it with a new PC, and they don't have driver signing issues out of the box. You're part of a small minority just by installing it yourself. And out of that minority, those using the x64 version is even smaller (albeit growing rapidly). And most of those self-installers of 64 bit OS'es tend to have more "cutting edge" hardware, not old peripherals without signed 64 bit drivers. And for the most part, those who get that far are usually able to google for the signing tools (and self-signing them), or using an automated app to disable it permanently like ReadyDriver Plus.
  22. Very funny. I agree with most of your points too. It's not the case. If you look more closely, you'll see where the extra disk space went. \Windows\WinSxS is the biggest culprit by far (over 4GB on my system). Yes, one could say it's a bit over the top, but then again, disk space is dirt cheap, and it's doing its job great (when was the last time you run into the old DLL hell problem again?). These complaints of bloat about Vista should mainly be directed at that: they cache too many versions of different assemblies in there. It's pretty hard to blame Vista for most of the other stuff: \Windows\System32\DriverStore : 1.37GB of drivers (a LOT more than XP had), so stuff just works out of the box (including not requiring a *&^#$%@ floppy to install on any RAID/SATA/SCSI controller, or to have to slipstream all your mass storage adapter drivers on every disc, or not being stuck at 640x480 & 16 colors until you put video drivers on there) \Windows\Installer : 1.4GB worth (on my box anyways) of unnecessary installers (in case you decide you want to add or remove features to some app, without having to insert the disc again...) which are from other apps (thank Acresso/Macrovision or whoever happens to own Installshield these days for this mess) \Windows\Web : some multimedia content (wallpapers, etc). Not necessary, but hardly the end of the world. \Windows\Assembly : 552MB worth of .NET assemblies. It's a fair amount of space, but considering that includes 5 different "generations" of it out of that space, and that it gets reused a lot by all .NET apps (saving space), it's not that bad I guess. \Windows\Fonts : 400MB or so worth of fonts (~500). Could be less, but personally I always add some (nice Adobe fonts, nice palatino's, etc). The real sore point here isn't how many fonts that comes with it, it's the lack of a built-in font manager (a problem we've had since Win 3.x that they still haven't addressed) \Windows\Speech : ~300MB of speech support engines and such (it's a lot better than XP's too) \Windows\Help : ~200MB, self-explanatory Windows\IME ~200MB input method editor stuff (including dictionaries and what not) \Windows\eHome ~200MB of MCE stuff (assuming your edition comes with it) etc. Most of it went to well-known places. If you disregard the admittedly large (and you could say over-zealous) WinSxS cache, all the extra drivers it comes with, and the installer cruft left mostly by other apps, my Vista install would already only be like 4GB or so, which isn't bad considering all the extra stuff (even more so when you look at the parts of that taken by the extra fonts, MCE and such). So the OS itself isn't that much bigger. It's not like it's Aero Glass using up 10GB extra.
  23. The way you sound, anything that changes or is improved is "trouble". If by new cars having new features you also mean trouble, then sure, I welcome "trouble" such as ABS brakes, fuel injection, air bags and such. I'm sorry, but I just can't make sense out of that one. Must be the language barrier. Well, right off the bad you say the hardware is the important part (somehow the OS isn't). And on the same modern hardware, both run great. We've already established a while ago you're not interested in new features of any kind but having windows run on the oldest possible hardware. So what do new features in an OS bring to you in particular? Nothing obviously. The thing is, other people have different needs (for like, features they might use, instead of having Windows v7 work on a Vic 20). Lots of people love superfetch, the extra stability, the new GUI, the sidebar, the extra security, the new WinPE-based installer, the new apps like the photo gallery, the new start menu,the new breadcrumbs nav, the new hassle-free audio mixer, IPv6, management improvements, the built-in indexing/search, aero glass, the background defrag, the new fonts and everything else. There's no shortage of new features and improvements, and unlike you, a LOT of people actually care for them and make use of it. Which is known to work just fine on Vista (I've seen it work perfectly). To quote ESET's own prodcut page: "Recommended configurations for ESET Smart Security: * Microsoft ® Windows® Vista / XP / 2000". PEBCAK. Again, you failed to name a single app that doesn't work, just like all the others complaining about compatibility.
  24. Again, it comes down to resisting change, even when the new names are better. And again, half the time you don't even have to go there anymore (want the device manager? fine, hit "start", then start typing "device", an by the time you hit te 3rd letter or so, it'll have found it, just press enter). Indeed, it was a bad one. The full docs were provided to the samba team and all that, as part of the recent EU ruling. Yep, so it was all about revamping an overdue 12 year old system... What? It tracks basic usage patterns (just like XP's been doing for ages, for things like the "common apps" in your start menu), and it does a half decent job of it. So what if it only caches the data you're actually going to use 50% of the time? Where's the issue here? When it gets it right (i.e. you loading one of your common apps), then the binaries and data and everything else are already loaded in RAM (which has "access times" of NANO seconds, which is LOTS better than waiting MILI seconds after a such a slow device as a hard drive). There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Except, it doesn't have to know the future. In your scenario, your movie player & codecs & web browser & plugins & games would be cached in RAM all week making load times much quicker and a much more pleasant experience (less pointless waiting). And then yes, powerpoint won't be cached in RAM, it'll load at the same speed XP would have (oh noes!) There isn't a case against caching in RAM. There is NO valid technical reason not to do it. I think that's where you're mistaken. People buy a new version of Windows for it's new features and advances -- not because it runs on old hardware. Not everyone is hell-bent on "Windows should run on a Vic 20". Like cluberti said, you're part of that vocal 1% (and no, I don't work for Microsoft) Seriously, that thing was the worst misinformed, FUD-spouting, technically wrong piece by some id*** who didn't have a clue what he was saying I might have EVER read. It was more hilarious than anything. It all goes like "xyz don't/won't work!!!", except, it actually does work just fine if you try it for yourself -- repeat ad nauseam. What's so Microsoft centric about that? We all know ~99% of end users LOVE eye candy, and that eye candy sells. Why in the world would they not do like everyone else? How so? What restrictions did moving drivers to user space bring? I didn't hear of any. On the other side, it certainly made Windows more stable. Just because you didn't see them, doesn't mean there wasn't a problem in the first place. There were thousands of very vocal people saying things like "Windows won't ever be secure until it has a sudo-like mechanism", and UAC was born... Like I was saying, people were actually asking for those features. It's no worse than XP really. Except you can load it anyways, and if you're having issues with code signing because they didn't bother signing it, then you can just sign it yourself (yes, there's even tools for that!)
  25. Drivers don't run as services. And no, there isn't 5x more code running eithe (Mr Snrub's explanation is pretty good there I think). Vista boots on ~2x the RAM XP takes here, and that's not bad at all for 7 years' worth of changes and all the new stuff. Like others said, there's a LOT more to an OS than that. Except what you said makes no sense. It's not "more work" for them, it's just not possible. Some of the services are required for your OS to work. I'll repeat my question: Like what? Trying to say "ask someone else" when you don't have a valid answer doesn't work, sorry. Because of the new features and all that. It's a good OS, as long as you have recent hardware to run it (yes, new OS'es always tend to run slow on old hardware, such is life) And again with the vague answer "stuff doesn't work!", without being able to mention any names. Yep, more FUD. The technical reason? They have usability experts (people who make a living out of this) and all that, and they made it this way because it's easier. But yes, there's always people complaining about things that were moved around a bit and such -- those who resist change instead of embracing it. If we listened to those folks, nothing would ever change -- even when it's for the best. And no, they didn't take out the old one, the classic start menu is still there (4 clicks TOTAL to enable it: right click, properties, classic, click ok, done!) so even those who resist change can have it their way. paranoia much?
×
×
  • Create New...