Anyone using Windows Vista?

[skeeder]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jokieman /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm just tired of the bloated O.S. Microsoft keeps pushing on us. Every single upgrade basically requires a doubling of hardware resources to make it run as efficiently. I never understood why people kept insisting Windows XP was faster because it wasn't faster, it was slower until you added a gig or two of memory, upgraded your hard drives, video cards, cables, motherboards etc. So was XP faster? Not at all. Vista will be the same way.

okay...while your argument is intelligent you picked a stupid company to point to. let see...Have you tried running OSX on a G3? PAINFUL! Talk about bloated? Lets see, OSX installed is over 10GB's XP is what? 2gbs?

Don't get me wrong, I like mac's. (except when they break) just don't go off saying OSX is not bloated. Vista is still pre-service pack 1, so I'm not expecting much, but since I got mine for free from work, I figured I'd try it.

Now if you had gone to the gentoo or DSL side instead of OSX...I wouldn't of fought ya!

 

[Zanth]

I like OS X for many things, stability being one of them but quickest out of the gate it is not. I have a Macbook Pro Core duo with a 7200 rpm drive and 2 gigs of ram., this thing should scream. Granted...many of my binaries are PPC run through Rosetta so to be fair, there is going to be some lag time, not to mention any progs that run through X11. Still.. even some features of OS X itself have delays.

Thus far, my Ubuntu install is the quickest I've used with Gnome installed and plenty of eye candy so the comparisons can be made. I mean...Linux will always win out if one guts it to something very basic, but when comparing Aqua, XP, Gnome 2, and Aero, Gnome 2 is the quickest, though I would think that if I did a fresh install of XP, XP after it was tweaked...would be the quickest (until 30 days later when the registry becomes all bloated again).

An interesting test is comparing XP run through Bootcamp vs. Aqua. XP smokes OS X here. But...BSOD happens every once in a while...and I would rather be in OS X any day, even if I can develop with cygwin, OS X is more fun.

 

[porschemad911]

When the sweetest new racing games start coming out for DX10 only I'll upgrade. But Vista'd better support my Logitech G25 (of course I'm sure it will ...)

 

[Zanth]

Last night I hung out with one of the Vista developers (got to play Halo 3 better known as Pimps at Sea!) and we were discussing Vista. He himself
(even though running on his tablet) was bashing it claiming he has yet to find a printer that works with the OS. I believe it will be quite some time before Vista is ready, SP1 can't come quickly enough.

 

[wanderman]

I can't get the drivers for my card and audio to work. But vista is significantly more secure. They did implement a feature that mimics the nix idea of logging into to root to make changes that damage the feature. Program can actually run in the limited user mode.

The aero desktop is nice but it is no xgl. Alt-tab is nice but multi-desktop is that much better.

 

[James63]

Very funny video...mac is always ahead of windows....vista=OSX. Not sure how micorsoft does not get sued.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDNuq94Zg_8

 

[Zanth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwkarth /img/forum/go_quote.gif Hey Zanth, have you tried "Parallels" on an OS X platform yet? I'm running XP Pro in a VM on a host MacBook Pro/OS X, and I kid you not, it is without a doubt, the most stable XP platform I have ever had. Performance is very impressive as well. Far superior to Bootcamp. If I ever decide to go to Vista, it will be in a VM hosted by a real OS. Cheers!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zanth /img/forum/go_quote.gif I tried out their beta version in the summer, but moved to dual booting with bootcamp and have not got around to buying Parallels yet. The big advantage for Parallels...no blooming rebooting to get to the two windows amps I need. I'll look into Parallels again, if XP is that stable...and I can alot a full 1 gig of ram to it while working...that would sure suit be better than doing this reboot thing. I have heard rumors that Leopard may have special capabilities, if one has XP installed (a la separate partition) then something like Wine/Crossover Office will run to permit windows apps to run in OS X. If this can happen, I would be one happy camper.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary1 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Didja know with the new beta of Parallels you can use your BootCamp installation of XP as your VM. No need to install 2 copies (and Microsoft's activation nightmare). It's a little buggy, but they have the right idea. Parallels is what Virtual PC longed to be.... I also beta tested Vista, I just don't get it. How much do they pay these people to program this bloatware? As someone else already stated, they are just getting XP right (well, sorta), and now this?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zanth /img/forum/go_quote.gif No way!!! This is fantastic! This is EXACTLY what Leopard promises to do but instead of having to run the VM, it will instead just run the software. Hmmm methinks it is time to reinstall Parallels. Sounds like a good weekend project

So I got around to installing Parallels, the latest build and right now, I'm posting using Firefox, within Parallels, while running a full system scan by Kasperksy, and Spybot's doing its thing...all the while watching the Sopranos with VLC media player. Not a hint of a hiccup and all this with only 1 GB of ram allocated! Parallels has now saved me from having to use bootcamp at all! The only thing that could be an improvement would be if Leopard incorporates Parallels (rumors of a buyout) and/or incorporates its own virtualization (heavy rumors on this) so that anyone who has a legit install of Windows via Bootcamp won't even need to run a VM, instead, one can just click on an app symlink and off we go! I'm so very very pleased!

 

[kwkarth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zanth /img/forum/go_quote.gif So I got around to installing Parallels, the latest build and right now, I'm posting using Firefox, within Parallels, while running a full system scan by Kasperksy, and Spybot's doing its thing...all the while watching the Sopranos with VLC media player. Not a hint of a hiccup and all this with only 1 GB of ram allocated! Parallels has not saved me from having to use bootcamp at all! The only thing that could be an improvement would be if Leopard incorporates Parallels (rumors of a buyout) and/or incorporates its own virtualization (heavy rumors on this) so that anyone who has a legit install of Windows via Bootcamp won't even need to run a VM, instead, one can just click on an app symlink and off we go! I'm so very very pleased!

Very cool! The rumor I've heard about Leopard is that it will incorporate "Bootcamp" functionality, but I can't imagine Apple would waste their time given the obvious improvement in efficiency with Parallels. Maybe they'll buy Parallels??

BTW, I have to use XP for some business functions, but prefer to do as much as possible in OS X, so I have a shared directory tree that I can access simultaneously from either OS and it works great... Now, if only I didn't have to run all that AV cruft, or the defraggers, or the registry fixers, or the ... in the XP VM...

 

[Solitary1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwkarth /img/forum/go_quote.gif Very cool! The rumor I've heard about Leopard is that it will incorporate "Bootcamp" functionality, but I can't imagine Apple would waste their time given the obvious improvement in efficiency with Parallels. Maybe they'll buy Parallels?? BTW, I have to use XP for some business functions, but prefer to do as much as possible in OS X, so I have a shared directory tree that I can access simultaneously from either OS and it works great... Now, if only I didn't have to run all that AV cruft, or the defraggers, or the registry fixers, or the ... in the XP VM...

Microsoft buys the competition, Apple usually just makes a clone of the product and gives it away for free.

 

[Zanth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwkarth /img/forum/go_quote.gif BTW, I have to use XP for some business functions, but prefer to do as much as possible in OS X, so I have a shared directory tree that I can access simultaneously from either OS and it works great... Now, if only I didn't have to run all that AV cruft, or the defraggers, or the registry fixers, or the ... in the XP VM...

Same here, some things I do just require XP (or well Windows in general) and so something like Bootcamp or this VM is required. Funny how you mention the defraggers and registry fixers etc in the VM. As soon as I loaded up Parallels because the network was bridged I was like...better get going on my virus updates and my malware/spyware updates and do a quick scan! Meh!

 

[torjeh]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary1 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Microsoft buys the competition, Apple usually just makes a clone of the product and gives it away for free.

I'm sure you have a very good point there, but I just wanted to add that Apple actually did buy the new iTunes feature "CoverFlow" http://www.steelskies.com/coverflow/

I'm on ubuntu amd64 by the way. Carry on with the Vista discussion

 

[dwc]

Here is some more detail on the Vista DRM nightmare:

http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut00...vista_cost.txt

 

[Jokieman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by skeeder /img/forum/go_quote.gif okay...while your argument is intelligent you picked a stupid company to point to. let see...Have you tried running OSX on a G3? PAINFUL! Talk about bloated? Lets see, OSX installed is over 10GB's XP is what? 2gbs? Don't get me wrong, I like mac's. (except when they break) just don't go off saying OSX is not bloated. Vista is still pre-service pack 1, so I'm not expecting much, but since I got mine for free from work, I figured I'd try it. Now if you had gone to the gentoo or DSL side instead of OSX...I wouldn't of fought ya!

XP is apprx 10 gigs, not 2. Win 95 was around 2-3

 

[Zanth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jokieman /img/forum/go_quote.gif XP is apprx 10 gigs, not 2. Win 95 was around 2-3

I'm no windows fanboy but come on...10 gigs? No way. I'm running XP Pro with MS SQL 2005 on my Macbook Pro in a 10 gig partition and these alone take up 3.4 gigs. I have 4 gigs free and another gig or so of progs and then an encrypted drive.

No, XP is NOT 10 gigs. Not even on my home box which has all the bells and whistles...still at about 3 gigs.

 

[Solitary1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by skeeder /img/forum/go_quote.gif okay...while your argument is intelligent you picked a stupid company to point to. let see...Have you tried running OSX on a G3? PAINFUL! Talk about bloated? Lets see, OSX installed is over 10GB's XP is what? 2gbs? Don't get me wrong, I like mac's. (except when they break) just don't go off saying OSX is not bloated. Vista is still pre-service pack 1, so I'm not expecting much, but since I got mine for free from work, I figured I'd try it. Now if you had gone to the gentoo or DSL side instead of OSX...I wouldn't of fought ya!

I'm not so sure that's a fair analogy either. G3's are what, 8 year old technology. Try running XP on a Pentium 3, not much better. You CAN slim down that OSX installation by removing language packs also.