What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
See the new YouTube feature trailer for Dragon Age: Origins view!
youtube.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
138 Comments
- Topher06, on 10/12/2007, -1/+38Sorry, all file systems cause fragmentations, however most OS'es have implemented real time defragging, on OSX for instance, they simply call it System Optimization, and happens whether you want it to or not when you install applications.
Its a process of having files write as quickly as possible to the hard drive. If your reading and writing gigabyte worth of data, believe me, its getting fragmented. It just depends on how well the OS is "defraging" files in the background.
True though, I wish Microsoft would have implemented some form of real-time system defrag, like most other file systems. - estvir, on 10/12/2007, -8/+43Have you actually used Vista yet ? The default install and everything is still easy as hell.
I've installed Vista on my family's computer and there have been basically 0 problems and they use it as well as they did XP. - joe90210, on 10/12/2007, -1/+34pretty good review except for a few things,
1) java applications no longer disable Aero with the latest version
2) there is still the issue of the Windows Ultimate Extras that have no been revealed yet. - MioTheGreat, on 10/12/2007, -6/+37Unless you have bad hardware, or are a total ***** moron with computers (The kind of person who will click OMGPORN.JPG.PIF), that statement is perfectly correct.
- JeffH, on 10/12/2007, -5/+35I agree, the review was pretty much spot on. But i'm surprised this got to the front page of Digg when it has lines such as:
"...no matter how much anti-Microsoft folk who never used Vista in the first place want you to believe. Vista is a huge step forward for the Windows world."
Did the average users Digg-Bias just pass them over when they read the review? Or did they just miss the lines where he said positive things? An article makes the front page that's about Microsoft/Vista and isn't bashing, one for the records. - r3zonance, on 10/12/2007, -4/+28I've got Vista Ultimate installed and the Control Panel is a right pain in the ass. Most of the things have had their names changed, and some of the options are buried a couple of levels down, and it is as annoying as hell.
Like the various display options. There are about 7 different display related areas (where there would have been one before) and 2 or 3 of them are very similar to each other, containing a slightly different way of doing what appears to be the same thing.
But overall I am well impressed. For example I can use AreoGlass in 1440x900 on my 64MB graphics card. - aahpandasrun, on 10/12/2007, -3/+22I use both OSX and XP. I'd say that worrying about system stability with either isn't that much of an issue, since you can force quit or end task on pretty much anything that goes wrong without bringing down the entire OS.
- cyanid3, on 10/12/2007, -9/+27@schestowitz:
We get the point. You. Hate. Everything. Microsoft.
Now can you stop trolling in every ***** Microsoft article?
And talking about FUD, you're one of the most notorious people here spreading FUD all the time. Seriously, just try to ignore the Microsoft-related Diggs. Easier for you, me and the rest of the people here. - Ranneko, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17Being able to set volumes per app? Awesome!
That is something I have been wanting to do for a while in especially to deal with websites and flash games that have one volume setting, too ***** loud. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17For the beginner who has never used a computer, Vista may actually be better than XP.
The super techies and business folk are the ones pulling their hair out right now cause of the changes. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17I too found the name changes in control panel really annoying, however they DO make more sense if you look at them from the perspective of a 1st time user or someone who has never had to delve too deeply into system settings before.
I've been running 'ultimate' since pre-RC1, and while the first few versions sucked (sped and stability) RC2 and the releases after it have been great.
It will be interesting to see what direct X 10 will offer in upcoming games, I don't want to have bought my 8800 for nothing! - rompom7, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15Nope, its called being balanced. You Mac fanboys might not know what that is since all your reviews either come from apple.com or just fail to consider the cons of your beloved Mac.
- Kazbaeden, on 10/12/2007, -6/+18@heffer2k02
Wow, or instead of being an obnoxious child about it the author's opinon, you could simply say "I don't prefer eye candy and am inclined to turn it off, given the opportunity." I'm sure we'd all be more inclined to hear your opinon if you didn't act like a prick. As it stands, you need to work on talking with the adults and then maybe we'll start digging your comments up. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15I'm running Vista on parallels on a macbook pro which I can only give 604 mgs to of course running on top of os x and its pretty fast man. I'll even go as far to say its faster than XP in the same scenario. Note though I can't run it in Aero with this configuration. But to me this is proof positive there's a major speed boost.
- MioTheGreat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12When you have a lot of memory/faster process/dual core/etc, Vista knows how to manage it a lot better, and you get better speeds. Task scheduling and memory managment have been vastly improved from XP's. I mean, it makes sense, XP's was finished way back in 2000-2001.
- MioTheGreat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12That's not microsoft's fault. Blame nVidia for your woes.
- aahpandasrun, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11I want to know how efficient and fast it runs compared to XP. Anyone know?
- omatsei, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11No, security is why Microsoft stated Vista was a complete overhaul. They started with just minor tweaking here and there, until Bill Gates' memo about security went out... then they basically started from scratch and went from there. Vista would have been out in 2004 or 2005 if not for the security concerns.
- MioTheGreat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10thespace, are you an idiot?
- StevoCJ, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14@ r3zonance
It will definitely be faster then. ;)
I'm sticking with XP until I see any point whatsoever in upgrading.
By then I'll probably have bought a mac.... - Slovenian6474, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't that the same kinda thing as XP Home, Pro, and Media Center?
- rompom7, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Windows XP is just as stable as OS X. The problem lies in the hardware causing crashing and errors. Since OS X only has a certain hardware scope, theres going to be less crashing... Nothing to do with the OS, it's all to do with the hardware.
I've NEVER had XP crash that couldn't be linked to a hardware issue. - spyrochaete, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Do you know how much battery is wasted keeping a notebook in a state of catlike readiness?
- TheOther1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9@ r3zonance
There were 19,467,000 kids between 5 and 9 in 2005 in the US alone. 20,838,000 between 10 and 14.
I'd say pretty good odds at least some of them have never used a computer before.
http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/idbsum.pl?cty=US - eplawless, on 10/12/2007, -6/+14I found the control panel much easier and more intuitive. Especially the file associations, so much nicer than the ones in XP buried in the folder options.
- aahpandasrun, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11It's just that I heard a lot of flack from users through vista's development about how bulky and inefficient it was, and I wanted to know if it's gotten any better since, and how it compares to xp.
- rpike, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8The article stated that connecting to a wireless network after waking took upwards of 30 seconds. Vista waking up is just as fast as the other OSs.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9In Vista, just type "Defrag" on any search box in explorer...
it will then show you the defrag app as one of the help choices. In the defrag window, you can then schedule the hard disk to defrag every night if you wish.
Now... that doesn't mean I like Vista, I am still getting used to it...
For those thinking about getting it for the office... DON'T DO IT!! You will get lots of support calls from people. Some inhouse apps may not work either...
But most of all the support calls will be crazy, because people will need to be educated a bit... I would suggest giving your workers a copy to use at home, then six months later, switch your work computers... but then the expense will be nuts.
so there you go... best thing to do if your a business? Stick with XP for a year... then comeback and think about it again. - LMN8R, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6god you're an idiot
- spyrochaete, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8@omatsei
Don't plan on leaving your job if you want Vista to continue working. Corporate editions of Vista will be WGA-authenticated from a server installed at your company. If you stop working there they can and will cancel your license and you'll be stuck in kiosk mode until you buy a new one. - Zipp425, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6r3zonance
Thats not true. I have a computer with just 256 RAM and it runs vista fine... - Retuobak, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5So turn it off Horseshoe.
You do realize that's a possibility right? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5What I'd like to see is a review from a systems administrator's standpoint. How well do the new group policy rules in Active Directory function? Have they made it easier to troubleshoot why workstations don't pull down group policies sometimes? What about the GPO search? What about how the client workstations handle drive mappings when you have things like card readers, USB drives, and network drives (abysmal in XP sad to say)? Is the new TCP/IP stack helpful in keeping workstations/servers from being so 'chatty'? What about user account priviledges - what has changed for the limited user accounts?
These are the questions *I* care about - you know, actually getting under the hood a bit. Not the same BS rehashed points I've seen in every other review. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@omatsei - I think its safe to assume that all operating systems need to be looked at with every major version for the possibility of a complete overhaul based on the technology available or planned. Its pretty safe to assume that it wasn't just about security but a multitude of technicals needs and demands.
- archer75, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Having run both OSX and Windows XP side by side I can say that XP is certainly as stable as OSX. Maybe even more so.
I had issues with apps failing to launch in OSX which was quite irritating. - MioTheGreat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4What's really great is that there is apparently some API in place for the program knowing what it's volume state is. For example, if you move Windows Media Player's volume down in the mixer, WMP's built in volume bar goes down as well. So soon, hopefully, we'll see games and programs that do the same thing.
- h00ligan, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10i use os x all day and xp all night/weekend. My os x macbook behaves more strangely and iin mre of a buggy fashion than my xp. but it's a lot faster to fix too.
- Smily, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4thespace I think you mixed up Aero and Apollo, Aero - new Windows skin/gui/whatever you want to call it (the glassy windows), Apollo - not yet released Adobe runtime desktop enviroment (the one you were mentioning, running flash apps on the desktop)
oh and MioTheGreat, no need to insult :) - Ramble, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Actually a good review, he pointed out some bad bits while not being an arsing fanboy.
I disagree with his opinion on the shell though, explorer is now a dream to use. - WiBu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I can't believe he didn't mention the memory caching feature. All of the programs I use most often load in a fraction of the time when compared to XP thanks to it.
Also, the Aero GUI will/should deliver better performance than XP's GUI as it's all done on the GPU and uses very little GPU cycles in comparison (it should also take up less ram). - Gerz1219, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I'm pretty sure that the maximum system specs allowed by an nForce2 based system are below what Microsoft is recommending for Vista. I bet Intel isn't writing Vista drivers for 286-based systems either.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I love his review on the explorer interface, its almost the same 'amount' of gripes mac users have with the finder. You'd think that after all this time someone would finally get the file browsing interface down to a science. Can't someone make like a preset template that the use can choose for file browsing when the os starts and then give them more detail later in a non-techy way then give a completely seperate list of settings for the hardcore users?
- uownedge, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I do agree with WeBDaEMoN on this, but the problem here is, it's really hard to compare the two systems in the area of stability because of how they work under the hood. The problem lies in the fact that so much of Windows really needs retooled to fix stability issues. While a lot has been fixed in Vista, it's probably still not as stable as it could be. That's a really tough area for Microsoft though, especially in terms of hardware, because there are so many different configurations out there. Apple already knows exactly what motherboards are going to be used with OS X, only have one brand of CPU to support, etc. With Windows, there are a ton of different makes/models of motherboards, at least two brands of popular CPUs, etc.
This is one area where I can somewhat argue in Microsoft's favor, simply because it's impossible to test every possible configuration. - Topher06, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Running Vista on a Core 2 Duo system with an x1900xt video card and 2gb of DDR2 RAM, and its running smoothly and without problems. System boot from cold state takes about 10 seconds to the login screen after the BIOS finishes its nonsense. Boot from hibernation state takes about 5 seconds. I'm running a fast Raid stripe set on SATA2 drives which accounts for the fast start-up.
Honestly, most people griping about Vista being slow or buggy are doing so forcing Vista to run the Aero interface on slower hardware. I only recommend to upgrade to Vista if your upgrading your computer to new hardware, or if you get a new computer. If your b*tching about performance, stop trying to run the OS in Aero. Vista is the Windows for new hardware, XP is for older hardware. - Retuobak, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3For home users it's home, home premium and ultimate.
That's still three versions, just like home, pro and MCE. - spyrochaete, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I don't think any version will perform better than others. The lowest versions don't have the Aero theme, but this will actually speed up performance for less powerful PCs. Otherwise they're all built on the same Longhorn code and are all packaged on the same DVD. You can even upgrade your license to a higher version just by ordering a new license key.
- LilRabbitFooFoo, on 08/11/2008, -0/+3thespace, Windows XP (based on the 2000/NT) kernel was the version of Windows to address reliability/stability of the Windows 95/98/Dos kernel (which was never designed for 24/7 use). Vista's development is about removing legacy issues, like the GDI, and addressing security. It also gave them a chance to integrate and expand on some things developed for Windows Media Center, etc. And it adds a spiffy new interface to boot. While I think it is going to be an improvement over XP once all the kinks are ironed out (some vendors are WAY behind on driver development - ahem CREATIVE), I don't think it is worth the premium price MS wants for it. It's going to FEEL like an XP v2 to most end users, not an entirely new OS experience. Maybe by next summer, when more applications are Vista-ized, it'll be seen as something more.
- FBMGriever, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I don't agree with him with his hatred for the Detailed List view in Explorer.
I absolutely hate the massive thumbnail one. Switched all my directories to follow the detailed list view at all times. - DigitalDud, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I'd love to see a review of Vista from a developer's persepective, since apparently that was where most of the efforts were focused in creating the OS.
- omatsei, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@spyrochaete: It's not a corporate version. It's the regular retail version, but since we're such a large purchaser of Microsoft products (20,000+ employees, plus 40,000+ students), we get it at a HUGE discount. We currently get XP Pro for somewhere around $55. The final, complete Office 2007 is available for $10 (no, I'm not kidding). We're estimating that Vista Ultimate will cost more, but not much... maybe $75-80.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 138 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is