If you would rather keep XP...
-
HELP SAVE XP Petition [^] Not so much that someone would bother to do this (good luck to them) but that Microsloth is steadfastly ignoring the (apparent) 100,000 consumers who have already signed it. I'm not one as I have learnt to live with the wonderfully quirky Vista and can't be asked to go to all the trouble of backgrading to the livelier XP.
In a more serious vein, you might be taken more seriously if you used "Microsoft" and also realized that just because someone signed a petition means nothing--are they willing to actually make purchases? The reality is that if you want to keep using XP, nothing and nobody is stopping you. There are plenty of legitimate copies available. Casting aspersions at a company for simply following good business practices is rather lame.
Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
-
Eh, they'll just have to get with the times. I remember back when i was upgrading from win98 to XP. XP tacked on the new Playschool interface and I didn't like that eating up my precious cpu cycles. "My games ran faster/better on 98" I would say. Now when XP is the norm I got Vista with it's even shinier Playschool interface. I went right back to complaining that "My games ran faster/better on XP" I finally just came to grips with the fact that every 5 or 6 years Microsoft will dump out a spiffy new OS and I'll complain that "My games ran faster/better on [previous OS here]"
I actually kept a Windows 98 SE system around since Need For Speed III wouldn't run on XP. A few other games also had problems, mostly due to weirdo CD copy protection schemes. The funny thing is that the Fat32 drive was constantly getting corrupting just by normal gaming usage.
Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
-
Eh, they'll just have to get with the times. I remember back when i was upgrading from win98 to XP. XP tacked on the new Playschool interface and I didn't like that eating up my precious cpu cycles. "My games ran faster/better on 98" I would say. Now when XP is the norm I got Vista with it's even shinier Playschool interface. I went right back to complaining that "My games ran faster/better on XP" I finally just came to grips with the fact that every 5 or 6 years Microsoft will dump out a spiffy new OS and I'll complain that "My games ran faster/better on [previous OS here]"
Actually, Microsoft said they would never go another 5 years without a new OS version. You'll be complaining about your game speed/quality a little more frequently. :-D
Broken Bokken http://www.brokenbokken.com
-
I have no problems with Vista and don't know what why people are having problems with it, cast your minds back remember when XP was first released, that too had problems which were addressed with a couple SPs.
I've often made the same point. Using the way back machine, NT 4 wasn't such a belly of laughs when it first came out--it was damn near unusable until SP3 or SP4 (was it NT4 or 3.51 that had an early service pack that corrupted the existing system?) That said, I do think there was a distinct lack of discipline in Vista development from the engineers and way to much interference from marketing. This latter claim has been supported by the recent release of court documents. The speed improvements in SP1 support the former claim, as does the bloat and instability of Office 2008 and VS 2005 and VS 2008. (If every engineer from the driver developer to the UI accepts just "a little" bloat and "a little" non-optimization, you end up with lots of bloat and poor performance. Add idiot management meddling and you have a mess.)
Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
-
Very interesting. What are the programming languages used to develop it? Is it another flavor of Linux or a completely new OS? I several times was thinking about creating a new small OS kernel and recreating Win32, so that it could run windows apps, while keep it speedy, stable, secure and small rather than beautiful. I thought if some one stops thinking about compatibility issues from Dos to XP, it might be possible to create a small fast one. Better than them all, it's free and it can run all new Windows apps. Many times, I just forced my brain to stop dreaming! It would be a tough job. Now this one might be going to implement an idea like mine. Let's take closer look. Thanks for the link.
// "In the end it's a little boy expressing himself." Yanni while (I_am_alive)
{
cout<<"I love to do more than just programming.";
}Doing so is far from a trivial task. Just look at the Wine Project. They've been doing a zenos paradox in versioning for several years as they run out of space between the current number and the mythical 1.0 where everything works. :doh:
You know, every time I tried to win a bar-bet about being able to count to 1000 using my fingers I always get punched out when I reach 4.... -- El Corazon
-
I've often made the same point. Using the way back machine, NT 4 wasn't such a belly of laughs when it first came out--it was damn near unusable until SP3 or SP4 (was it NT4 or 3.51 that had an early service pack that corrupted the existing system?) That said, I do think there was a distinct lack of discipline in Vista development from the engineers and way to much interference from marketing. This latter claim has been supported by the recent release of court documents. The speed improvements in SP1 support the former claim, as does the bloat and instability of Office 2008 and VS 2005 and VS 2008. (If every engineer from the driver developer to the UI accepts just "a little" bloat and "a little" non-optimization, you end up with lots of bloat and poor performance. Add idiot management meddling and you have a mess.)
Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
Joe Woodbury wrote:
That said, I do think there was a distinct lack of discipline in Vista development from the engineers and way to much interference from marketing. This latter claim has been supported by the recent release of court documents. The speed improvements in SP1 support the former claim,
If you're refering to the copy speed it's mainly optimization gone amuck with a side of being more truthful in reporting. The big hit was from optimizing for high latency networks (crappy wireless) at the expense of normal performance. This one really blows my mind since it's not as if one more service spattering an occasional packet to measure performance and choose which stack to use behind the scene would really made that much of a difference at this point. :doh: The second related part is that XP and prior used buffered IO for network copies. Buffered IO reports DONE when the last of the data is written to the in memory disk cache not the HD platter/flash chips. One of the changes for high latency network performance was to use unbuffered IO which doesn't report DONE until the data is written on the platter/flash chips. This meant that even if everything went perfectly (no packets arrived out of order) the reported time on the UI would be a few seconds longer even if performance was otherwise identical.
You know, every time I tried to win a bar-bet about being able to count to 1000 using my fingers I always get punched out when I reach 4.... -- El Corazon
-
Joe Woodbury wrote:
That said, I do think there was a distinct lack of discipline in Vista development from the engineers and way to much interference from marketing. This latter claim has been supported by the recent release of court documents. The speed improvements in SP1 support the former claim,
If you're refering to the copy speed it's mainly optimization gone amuck with a side of being more truthful in reporting. The big hit was from optimizing for high latency networks (crappy wireless) at the expense of normal performance. This one really blows my mind since it's not as if one more service spattering an occasional packet to measure performance and choose which stack to use behind the scene would really made that much of a difference at this point. :doh: The second related part is that XP and prior used buffered IO for network copies. Buffered IO reports DONE when the last of the data is written to the in memory disk cache not the HD platter/flash chips. One of the changes for high latency network performance was to use unbuffered IO which doesn't report DONE until the data is written on the platter/flash chips. This meant that even if everything went perfectly (no packets arrived out of order) the reported time on the UI would be a few seconds longer even if performance was otherwise identical.
You know, every time I tried to win a bar-bet about being able to count to 1000 using my fingers I always get punched out when I reach 4.... -- El Corazon
I'm referring to the whole enchilada, as they say. Even XP could use some serious size and speed optimizations (though apparently, XP is now perfect.... :) )
Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
-
Doing so is far from a trivial task. Just look at the Wine Project. They've been doing a zenos paradox in versioning for several years as they run out of space between the current number and the mythical 1.0 where everything works. :doh:
You know, every time I tried to win a bar-bet about being able to count to 1000 using my fingers I always get punched out when I reach 4.... -- El Corazon
dan neely wrote:
Doing so is far from a trivial task. Just look at the Wine Project. They've been doing a zenos paradox in versioning for several years as they run out of space between the current number and the mythical 1.0 where everything works.
I'm not holding my breath. :laugh:
-
Hmm, am I the only one who's had absolutely no problems with Vista? I was very suprised when even games performed perfectly on a 64-bit install of Vista Ultimate. The only issue so far has had nothing to do with Vista but Abit not producing a reliable driver for my wireless card (doesn't really matter since it's a desktop). Will have to see how games perform on my new laptop which has a 32 bit install. Wasn't intended as a gaming laptop though, just something portable for train journeys and uni.
It works great for me! I have a DELL XPS 410 and a XPS M1530, both with Vista Home Premium. They both run all the games I've tried perfectly...and I'm quite happy using Visual Studio 2008 on them as well.
-
I have no problems either, some games and applications required a bit of thought to fix after install, but so far everything except my memory card reader is solvable. TI simply refuses to make 64bit drivers and I don't feel like writing my own, so I use a non TI solution. I also run ultimate.
-
Ed.Poore wrote:
Plus I really like the new management interface for IIS 7.
Yes, it's sort of ironic that to get the really pretty stuff you have to work on a service.:)
Pits fall into Chuck Norris.
-
HELP SAVE XP Petition [^] Not so much that someone would bother to do this (good luck to them) but that Microsloth is steadfastly ignoring the (apparent) 100,000 consumers who have already signed it. I'm not one as I have learnt to live with the wonderfully quirky Vista and can't be asked to go to all the trouble of backgrading to the livelier XP.
digital man wrote:
Microsloth is steadfastly ignoring the (apparent) 100,000 consumers who have already signed it
That cuts no ice. Microsoft sell 100s of millions of copies of Windows. The demand to keep XP going indefinitely is ridiculous. No-one does that kind of thing.
Kevin
-
XP is nice, but I do enjoy my Vista. For development, it works great, even with the UAC on. For gaming, well, not so fine - but Dell + laptop hardware + vista != good gaming solution
Josh Christensen wrote:
Dell + laptop hardware + vista != good gaming solution
I think it works quite well for gaming.... I have a Dell laptop running Vista and I can run all current games on highest graphics @ 1920x1200... smoothly However, XP is still my favorite OS by a long shot
"There are three sides to every story. Yours, mine and the truth" ~ unknown "All things good to know are difficult to learn" ~ Greek Proverb "The only place success comes before work is in the dictionary" ~ Vidal Sassoon
-
well, no EA games perform correctly. I have a Dell XPS M1710 with a Geforce 7900 GS and some games will completely crash my computer, other games don't render correctly. Dell has a driver that is 2 years old, where as Microsoft and Nvidia have released upgraded drives for the card, which neither seem to help. I can play guild wars at maximum graphic settings and it runs fine. Go figure.
Broken Bokken http://www.brokenbokken.com
Josh Christensen wrote:
Dell XPS M1710 with a Geforce 7900 GS
I think you may have a different issue then the dell drivers. I have the M1730 with 2x 7900's and it runs COD4, Colin Mcrae Dirt, Assasins Creed, etc all on highest without crashing. What games are crashing?
"There are three sides to every story. Yours, mine and the truth" ~ unknown "All things good to know are difficult to learn" ~ Greek Proverb "The only place success comes before work is in the dictionary" ~ Vidal Sassoon
-
originSH wrote:
2003 is a delight to use, the majority of stuff is straight forward and easily accessed via the GUI. I've only had a dabble with 2008 but thankfully it seems to take this and just improve on it It was very easy to setup for my home network (very simple) and I've had no issues with it since,
Isn't a server license rather expensive for a home network.
You know, every time I tried to win a bar-bet about being able to count to 1000 using my fingers I always get punched out when I reach 4.... -- El Corazon
-
Josh Christensen wrote:
Dell XPS M1710 with a Geforce 7900 GS
I think you may have a different issue then the dell drivers. I have the M1730 with 2x 7900's and it runs COD4, Colin Mcrae Dirt, Assasins Creed, etc all on highest without crashing. What games are crashing?
"There are three sides to every story. Yours, mine and the truth" ~ unknown "All things good to know are difficult to learn" ~ Greek Proverb "The only place success comes before work is in the dictionary" ~ Vidal Sassoon
Black and White 2 will BSOD my system. It is periodic. Sometimes I can play for several hours, other times just 10 minutes. Battlefield 1942 runs, but there is no aiming reticle and none of the menus have any controls. Star Craft has had some issues in the screens and menus where it renders as a negative. I ruled out a heat issue because I can play Guild Wars at the highest graphics setting for as long as I want. Other games, like Diablo 2, Star Wars BattleGrounds, Jedi Academy, Warcraft 2 and Warcraft 3 all work fine. I've tried a bunch of hotfixes that are supposed to be for my card, but all of them show a message saying they are not for my configuration and then close out. I have posted to the Nvidia forums at http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=52887[^] but nothing suggested works to fix the games. BF1942 and BW2 are both owned by EA so I'm beginning to wonder if their graphics engines don't play well with my configuration. Nvidia and Dell play the blame game rather than actually trying to help me fix my issue.
Broken Bokken http://www.brokenbokken.com
-
XP is nice, but I do enjoy my Vista. For development, it works great, even with the UAC on. For gaming, well, not so fine - but Dell + laptop hardware + vista != good gaming solution
It's fine at home. At work it would probably be fine except that I need Microsoft's eMbedded Visual C++ 3.0 and 4.0 which flat-out do not work. It was possible to massage them into working (mostly) as a non-admin in XP, but no combination of compatibility settings or running as administrator can make them load a project. I was going to add, 'and compile it', but actually, they crash on trying to load or create a project.
DoEvents: Generating unexpected recursion since 1991