Reminds me of Vista...

Been going through some DOS games and came across this in a Help file:

reminds me of Vista...

BTW what happened to Microprose and Apogee?

 

They got pwned by capitalism?

 

I think you misunderstand Vista.... Vista doens't have to have a ton of memory. the reason it shows so much used is because it allocates the momery for windows to use. doesn't mean the memory is actually being used. It is only allocated for potential use. My vista has run problem free since I have gotten it. Don't understand why every one else has had problems with it.

 

Perhaps Vista doesn't have to have a lot of memory, but it certainly has to have more than XP does on a similar rig to come anywhere close to similar performance. New operating systems are supposed to be faster, not slower, than the technology they replace.

 

well, with the drop of prices on hardware, it costs the same to run 2 gigs or mem on vista as it did a couple years ago to run 1 gig on xp... M$ knows this and create things to keep prices about the same for computers but with better/updated parts. That is marketing for you.

 

no thats bloatware

 

well, we can always cut out the bloatware and go back to running basic dos on a 286 it is the want to play better games, the need to have better graphics in movies, games, cg that causes this. If you don't have the want for better stuff, we would still be running on these slow machines. If you don't like it, stop buying the latest and greatest technology and then manufactures wont have the need to upgrade and creat new OS's.

 

Haha. Vista makes your games slower, your graphics poorer, and treats you like a thief for trying out HD content on your own computer. That's not progress - that's regression. While Apple allows you to do increasingly cooler things with each OS, Microsoft allows you to do increasingly fewer tasks...

 

I'm doubting that you've really used Vista Overclocker. My Vista setup runs quicker on my laptop than either XP, Ubuntu or Kubuntu. Vista also boots up quicker even though I have more items running on start up on that OS than any of the others I have used. Have you seen the progression you're getting with Leopard? Timemachine? So fantastic you'll need another hard drive! Aren't we not better off simply backing up the files we don't want to lose?

I really can't comment on the gaming side of things since I only play WoW but wasn't the major issue concerning games on Vista before based on the fact that a lot of drivers weren't ready (even though the launch of Vista was delayed) but hasn't the majority of that been sorted out?

 

Nope, Driver support is still a bit iffy for Vista.. I want to run FEAR under DOS and then get some benchmarks lol, I loved Apogee, they made some nice ad addiciting DOS games...

LOL I'm such a dumb@$$, Apogee is under the name 3D Realms which they used in the 90's for 3D games, now that well, all games are 3D they publish under 3D realms but they're still called Apogee Software... and guess what their latest game was? Prey

 

Ragging on it is fun, but I have spent a fair amount of time on it. It was my main OS for at least a week or two back in June, before I decided to wipe and reinstall XP. It wasn't dog slow, but on my rig, at least, it wasn't faster than XP. It made my computer run hotter, consumed greater resources, and didn't give me a speed boost.

The bootup also definitely took more time on V than it does on XP. I've spent a little time on Ubuntu, but I wouldn't call it slow either. With regards to Leopard, I do agree Time Machine isn't more than a built in Acronis. Still, I always hear (though I confess not to have first-hand knowledge) that each new version of OSX runs as fast or usually *faster* than the previous version. That's impressive, and it's something I'd like to see in Microsoft. If they spent more time designing sleeker operating systems and less time trying to cram DRM into them, things would be a lot better for all of us, I think.

On games, I agree that things should likely improve significantly once more mature drivers have been developed for the OS. Personally, I'm not even a gamer (though I did enjoy playing Tomb Raider on Vista just for kicks), but benchmark after benchmark suggests Aero takes a good chunk out of graphic cards, resulting in poorer performance in games.

 

I guess a lot of it does depend on the type of system you are using but I'm convinced (even with all the DRM) that Windows is a better OS for the masses. As I said before, Vista was a lot quicker than any of the other OSes I tried. This may be due to Vista being able to make better use of dual core processors than XP but I can't comment on the Linux operating systems since I'm not too clued on them. Suffice to say, I installed (k)ubuntu at the advice of a friend that it was proven to run 22 times quicker than Vista. I concluded that it was lies.

The one thing that detracts from the Mac side of life is the extra expense of the systems, poorer software compatibility AND nearly ever app starting with the prefix "i". The latter is enough to keep me at bay from any sort of apple product.

Whats worth mentioning is that Vista appears to use more resources but as explained earlier it marks them for potential use and will happily relinquish them when other apps need them.

 

Well, Kubuntu is one of the slower distros. Something like Arch of Slackware would show you a greater speed increase. Now Linux distro would be 22 times faster than Vista, but on the same hardware, you can certainly notice a difference.

Vista's precaching is still in it's infancy. Hopefully the next iteration of Windows will allow better management of existing resources, rather than expecting you to pay for more.

 

Would that have more to do with what feature set is started by default ? I don't notice a particular difference, so long both setup reaches the necessary RAM threhold. The only difference I would say is when NT/XP is starving for RAM, it can be dead slow but linux suffers much less in the same situation. However, starving an OS with RAM is not a situation any long term setup should have, at least not for desktop.

 

I wonder how many people who find Vista to be faster than XP have actually spent time with both OS's on the same computer, either via double-boot, or by using each OS successively as their main operating systems. When I make my judgment calls on Vista, this comes from having used both Vista and XP on my laptop, and comparing overall impressions between the two.

 

I don't find Vista to be faster than XP and given those eye candys, I would say it "feels" a bit slower though not to the annoying level. Overall, more or less the same speed wise from a usage perspective.

But there are a few tiny little things that I like it more so I use it most of the time.

 

Depending on the configuration i guess.

 

i want some proof. half my games run quicker, and my graphics don't run poorer, with the dx10 patch for CoH, it actually looks much better.

 

how about right here, i installed xp pro to play patrician 3 and find that it isn't any better games wise, and much slower in general applications like PS pro, openoffice etc. did you do a clean install with vista. that is most peopels problem when they find vista slow, and then when they install xp of course it is going to be faster without the bloatware.

edit: oops, double post

 

Well it appears that with newer ATi drivers that the Vista gui doesn't slow down performance anymore