the best reason for Vista, is simply because its up-to-date

[SiMoNsAyS]

but anyway. I am hoping for a google OS around the time of vista

also osx86, and maybe something like linux for a noob, thats also secure by default

google os? forgot about it

[gdogg]

simonsays, so its gotta be true

anyway if google wasn't making an os, what was the point in joining sun with there 3d gui thing

Edited October 16, 2005 by gdogg

[Gouki]

Personnally, I will stick with XP for a long time.

Finnaly we got a stable OS.

Off course that Vista will bring many new things, however, like someone said on the aboce post, Ill problably wait a year or so, until I finnaly update my computers.

XP with no bloat is perfect.

[gdogg]

actually vista should be the most stable and secure ever to come out of microsoft

there using a method that nearly completly gets rid of all garbage code.

but im not a fan of DRM and such.

i'd like to just enjoy what ive always been able to do on my computer

Edited October 16, 2005 by gdogg

[Daemonforce]

I agree with Aegis on this one....But you cannot change the truth here. The testers that are currently using Vista aren't catching the real bugs that we will inevitably worry about the next Tuesday, while the people that should be using Vista don't have the time to spend catching all these bugs. Such people should be paid to do this! It's pretty easy. o_O

At any rate, I'll probably wind up switching to Vista as a primary development environment. When Vista is released, there will be vendors rewriting their program coding for maximum compatibility with Vista while they would still be worrying about the old "unoptimized" XP code. The real issue I see here is 32-Bit support. We won't be worried about support for old programs like VisiCalc and Quicken for Dos on a machine that has Vista installed. This is 2005 and will soon be 2006. Programs like this just don't belong on a modern computer.

But those are 16-Bit applications. Vista really shouldn't be running on anything worse than a 32-Bit machine. Yet even as I type this, my little Intel 3.00E struggles while Vista is moving files around on a big 7200RPM SATA drive or simply grabbing my input. WTF is that?! o_O After Vista is released, the real issue is going to be when NTVDM stops running for 16-Bit apps and starts running for 32-Bit apps. 64-Bit machines are going to be the bottom-of-the barrel standard then, and it's already starting now.

When we worry about our customized operating systems being "up-to-date," we're actually worried about any threat from outside our computers. This doesn't stop the threats that still exist in the system and worse yet, behind the keyboard. =/

I say screw WinVista(Oh crap! I'm already cutting letters out of the name! o_O) until it becomes a standard. I'm not making a jump to some new NT OS kernel just because it's "new" and updated. As soon as Service Pack 6 is released and Microsoft officially drops support for XP somewhere around June 30th of 2011...>.>

The problem I see really isn't XP. It's the user. We currently have four flavors of Windows XP that are oriented towards either a home user or business user. The home business users quickly find out that a Home license won't do. Hopefully there won't really be seven flavors of Vista as originally stated, and there will be just one big package to keep everyone happy. If you want to argue with me and say XP is a problem, it's probably the fault of the user to begin with. However, we have issues of XP as a choice OS and users are losing control of their computers to things like spyware, viruses and other malware. In 2001, Windows XP was favored as the best OS of all time, and that quickly faded. Same thing is going to happen with Vista if it's released as scheduled. As much as I would really like a new OS with more features to migrate to, I would really like to see my current operating system(XP) fixed before said OS release. Running away from your problems is not a solution....As Microsoft quickly figured out with the blaster worm when I was still using Windows build 3718 back in 2002. o.o

[gdogg]

im just trying to point out, if you are a user, who enjoys DRM, and basically things to stop you from using your computer the way you might want to.

then vista is a good choice for your next os.

mainly because microsoft had to stop, and then start from scratch, using a method very similar to a core and compile method used my linux.

not exactly i know , but similar, there will be a vista core, and all code to be used in vista, get sent through this "junk code" finding machine, that refuses any code, where errors (junk) are found. If i had the article still, i'd like to it.'

it is this junk code, and stuff, that is where most exploits and security holes lie. (according to this article)

Edited October 17, 2005 by gdogg

[prathapml]

If i had the article still....

Yes, i remember which article you're referring to.

I believe that info was from an interview, that was over at - http://www.winsupersite.com

[gdogg]

thx, i will bookmark it this time

its a good read, mainly the 3 times and your fired part

[suryad]

gdogg that junk code analyzer you are talking about. I learnt about in in my software development class adn that was used in XP's development...mainly in the area of making sure XP does not crash because of some messed up 3rd party drivers to which Windows 98 was quite prone of doing. They are using the same idea but obviously with a lot more enhancements for Vista.

When XP came out it was not mature and there was a time if you remember that people were practically having 2 kinds of software on their computer in equal amounts, malware and the OS. SP1 was of not much use but SP2 was quite a big jump.

Vista for all we know from precedence could well be like that. We have no way of knowing for sure. I am personally seeing Vista to be another option if I ever intend to upgrade...a lot of people are still happy using Win 2k. I am most likely gonna be happy using XP Pro till however long the service lasts for support from MS or till I see there are genuinely a lot of benefits from switching to Vista. I hope that the latter happens! But if not, no sweat cause I got XP and I got Linux and I got Mac oS. 3 different machines running 3 different OSes.

[gdogg]

vista is looking mighty nice, but there is only one version i'd want to use

ultimate edition (better be cheap enought) , it has game tweaker thingy, making games faster (i figure its maybe, they'll choose to only enable super prefetch with this version? maybe thats the game tweaker? who knows)

anyway, if the price is right remember,

but like you, not til sp3 or sp4 become a bigg security hole like 2k is getting with these worms.

anyway, even then, my microwinX project, is my current passion and it will probbally what i use, until all games go DX10 anyway.

but im just trying to show both sides, vista, according to the artical, is only allowing in code, that passes that code analyzer nothing else is allowed. I figure this could be the best os to come out of microsoft, but also, probally after sp1 of vista. cause like others have pointed out a year after, its normally alot better of an OS.

but even perfect code can crash (can't it?)

[svasutin]

Considering 90% of my boxes are celeron/Piii/4+athlon/duron/sempron, and only 10% are 64b + pci-e video + SATA, most systems will stay with XP SPx. DX10 has software back-compatibility for dx 9.x and below, not to mention the whole sure video path thing (TPI).

To a certain extent, I figure, if the MPAA doesn't want people watching DVDs, the RIAA doesn't want people listening to music, and Msft doesn't want people using their os's, then they should get out of the business or not expect me to spend as much.

Going to Vista just doesn't seem to make sense for 90%, unless you just happended to skip over the whole XP thing. Perhaps when Vista Sp1 comes out, then I'll get into the whole tweaking thing again, but for the majority of systems, Vista just doesn't make sense. It might make sense for new systems, sometime in 2006, but for me, I've already sent out e-mails telling my clients to wait until SP1 (2007/8).

Does anyone have a count as the the number of MS patches, updates, and slips for XP SP0, 1, and 2? I don't think I went to Win95 until version c, and then skipped the 98 thing until 98SE. Although I did go from NT4 to 2k rather quick.

Only 1 person I know uses media center ed, my clients home/pro for their htpc. Media Center was much like Apple, you were locked into a hardware and software environment. I'm wondering if the Vista media center stuff will require hardware mpeg encoders, force people to use nVidia or Sonic decoders, and render into dv-ms, wmv files. As for HTPCs, I don't think these would ever need to be upgraded.

It's not that Vista is bad, its just that my hardware and software was designed for XP x86. My systems do not contain software/on-board/shared RAM devices, nor do they have hdds less than 133 / 7.2k rpms. Each system is typically sold with a $150 CPU + 512 RAM, then, as requirements increase, so does ram and CPU power over the years. Going to a $499 USD Vista system will most likely be a downgrade for most of my clients.

[gdogg]

very true.

i honestly think this would be a minimum for vista (enjoyably)

dual core processor

x1800xt 512MB or future 7800 ultra 512MB

1GB of DDR @ 500-600 on amd 1GB of low latency DDR II 667 on intel

2 SATA II drives in raid 0

1GB usb key for better superprefetch

stable psu

well thats the only thing i'd dare install vista on

but even 1 GIG isn't gonna be much under vista, (memory hog, with all them features left on)

but nlite will come out for vista, and make vista very good, hopefully completly break DRM and such , maybe even find away to play those HD thing on normal monitors @ high resolutions

Edited October 17, 2005 by gdogg

[Daemonforce]

but nlite will come out for vista, and make vista very good

Ahahahaahahahaha!

No it won't.

We have had several flavors of Windows 2000 and more for Windows XP. Now there's more if not equal to XP's release for Vista's roadmap. When we were using NT3.5-5.2 we had a special way of installing Windows from disc. The CAB method was dropped from 9X/DOS and we started using the i386 directory. That has gone on for about ten years and we still haven't changed it?! o_O I think not!

Vista uses the Windows Image method for installation. In order for our fun crap like nLite, HFSLIP, XPCREATE, BartPE and all that other fun junk to work on Vista, we would have to contact the vendors to have them take a look at how these programs grab the information from the installation disc.

.......................

OMFG!

i386 =/= INSTALL.WIM! O_O

There's just no way it's going to happen.

For one...such programs would have to use the Ximage tool just to READ the mess of data much less extract it...Then it would have to find the files and figure out what goes where. This can be an extremely annoying process if it isn't sorted. I have no idea how the WIM is organized other than the fact that there can be several disc images in such a file format. It's too complicated and too big of a disaster to figure out. Even if it can be figured out, who's to say that every flavor of Vista is going to be sorted under the same rules?

The alternate method to this is forcing i386 entry. I have only found TWO ways of doing this. Way back when Longhorn was still in 4xxx stage, the installation would bloat because it would place an ultimate i386 folder(yeah that's the name!) directly under the Windows installation folder. 99.5% of all required files that can make a BartPE exist there. Pretty **** fancy...Just add setup information and it's ready to go.

The other method I've discovered involves waking the setup without rebooting into Longhorn setup. We're all familiar with what Windows NT does when we invoke setup within windows and forget to reboot...We get a nice WINDOWS.~BT folder in the root directory ready for preinstallation. That folder, while it doesn't look like it, is in fact under the i386 order that we used to have on pre-NT6 installation discs. The only problem is the WINDOWS.~LS folder in the root that has the WIM file that contains the rest of the setup information. It brings you back to the first issue. So I guess that while it's too difficult to extract all the setup files without invoking use of an image utility, you can get your hands on a very handy WinPE. Which is going to be the only reason I would ever want to get ahold of a Vista release.

[Rhelic]

Instead of arguing amongst each other and idle speculation and so on, why don't we just wait and see what happens when Vista comes out...

We don't need to wait, the current betas give us a preview of what we're going to see. Albeit with many speed problems (it is beta people) and many features missing.

MS privately released a beta last week that has the majority of the cosmetic features enabled again (ex: the Vista Sidebar) and I can't wait to see this new version. Visually, it's going to be the closet to the final look of Vista.

Of course expect a ton of 'under the hood' improvements, and Microsoft hasn't even begun their optimization phase where they get rid of all the bottle necks.

Edited October 17, 2005 by Rhelic

[gdogg]

I am sure nuhi will figure it out.