What is Digg?94 Comments
- quadvods, on 10/12/2007, -2/+24Articles spread over 6 pages... no!
on 1 page... yes!
http://consumer.hardocp.com/articleprint.html?art=MTA5MQ== - emosewami, on 10/12/2007, -7/+26Problems with beta software? Get out!
- Taikun, on 10/12/2007, -5/+18In his defence, the Celeron isn't really a very good processor.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -10/+22"I keep seeing people use the "this is only a beta" as an excuse for terrible performance. Expect the shipped version to perform relatively the same."
thats a bunch of ***** - ippersiel, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14 I read the article thinking that some systems were real shams to push computers out the door, but it's just an attention grabber.
Kind of a dull article. It basically spends it's time mentioning the pretty interface and some changes, as well as mentioning that Vista will be a hardware /resource pig. (which almost all articles about vista mentions)
Nothing new here. - Yogurth, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13Dont spread the FUD. Windows XP beta know also as Whistler used 5% more resources than Released version of XP.
Whistler was completely production ready as beta, it only lacked Visual polish. 95% drivers for windows 2000 worked on Whistler and 95% of apps written for Windows 2000. - JakeMcMahon, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15My laptop is classified as 'Windows Vista Hard Drive Will Melt'.
- analgesia, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13" Windows Vista is like a perfection of Windows XP. And I mean that as a testament to just how good Windows XP really is."
WTF. This is like propaganda. No digg - leobaby, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9In awe of the perty graphics.
Confused about where everything got moved to.
Frustrated at the lack of menu's or folder trees.
Unimpressed witht the application changes and additions.
That pretty much sums up every comment I've personally heard about vista, not to mention half of the reviews. - thegreatsam, on 10/12/2007, -7/+14It would be an interesting read to revisit this article when Vista is actually released, instead of testing it with a Beta. Performance is sure to be different, not to mention stability.
- titlesaysitall, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8You just made yourself and every Mac fanboy look like a total dumbass. Thanks alot.
- emosewami, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11@neoform:
Yes, as the purpose of the beta program is to discover things that don't work (ie drivers) and get them working before final release. Whether you like Microsoft or not, they're not going to simply rename the beta as the final version and release it. - OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Serious question; does Quartz Extreme and XGL kill laptop battery life as much as Aero?
Well, at least now those Virtua Girl desktop stripper apps are going to look alot more realistic. I think this is the real reason Steve Ballmer wanted a full 3D desktop. - skoles, on 10/12/2007, -10/+16I still don't understand why they had to go full-on 3D for what is basicly 2D eye candy with such heavy requirements.
Apple has had 2D transparencies & effects that mimic the 3D stuff Vista pulls off (dashboard, Expose') that work on systems up to 4-5 years old with it's latest OS. Why couldn't MS just use a slick 2D interface, which many cards can handle easily. - chucker, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Yoghurt, I'm assuming 95% of the statistics in your post are made up on the spot?
- aconbere, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Since OS 10.2 Apple has used Quartz Extreme to render desktop elements which uses Opengl to render desktop elements in a 3D context. This is exactly the same type technology Microsoft will be putting out with Vista, and that XGL is offering on the Linux desktop, The reasoning behind it is fairly straight forward, that simply be offloading the processing power for rendering these elements to a 3d accelerated gpu, one can dramatically increase the speed of rendering. Also because they are created in a 3d context you are given significantly greater power about their display, transforms acted upon them, etc. etc. etc.
More power, faster rendering, 3d context (so transparency support isn't faked in 2D, and moving/shrinking windows can be done without expensive 2d operations). - wpholmes, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9I don't want to start a flame war, and I'm not trying to troll. I simply noticed that all the new features listed on that site are already present in Mac OS X Tiger.
- deadbaby, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8They had to figure out some way to tie DirectX into the OS. When 2k/XP users beg for DX10 they can simply say "sorry, it's tied into the OS... it's too hard to backport"
- Mejogid, on 10/12/2007, -6/+12Vista has another 6 months to go (assuming no further delays) - cleaning up beta code and making various other performance optimisations will bring a huge performance boost.
- Jeebugorn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"That means the average 3D game is going to need 2 GB!"
ummmm, no *****! games are getting more advanced every 6 months. 1 gig is the MINIMUM to run some games now. so of course the next generation is going to use more. - superkendall, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5So the underlying question no-one has answered is why a Mac from five years ago can handle effects that Vista is going to require a more modern PC for.
Yes Vista and OS X are using the same techniques and relying on the video card - it could be OS X has had much longer to add optimizations to help support older systems. - raid517, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7I am not going to repeat myself, so I will just say what I said before about this.
The only 'concept' behind Vista that I can see (and don't kill me for saying it guys as I am using it and probably have used it for a lot longer than most people here) is to run with Windows XP and then do a mash-up between this and (what MS view as) the best features of OS X and KDE (and possibly some other Linux type environments too) in the hope I presume of attracting users from all three of these camps.
You would think that having the best of all three worlds would be pretty neat... But currently what you end up with isn't much more than a mangled mess, where none of it really seems to fit together very smoothly and where it looks like the level of copying - the all out burning imperative of copying - has overwhelmed the engineers common sense.
All you end up with is Windows trying to do a very poor impersonation of a lot of features from other environments, features that they have spent so long (and a lot of money) ridiculing in the past, so that the result is a very poor combination of these; which only serves to leave you with the distinct impression that MS engineers did not quite understand them, and/or exactly what it was that they were attempting to achieve. It's almost like MS hired some really bad engineers, who interpreted their brief badly and who decided to give up on any attempt at innovation at all and who advised MS that the best route to success was through straightforward unabashed all out mimicry. The OS simply lacks coherence - and it is very difficult to see how MS will get things back on track in time for their stated release date of January/February 2007. This is it seems the strange direction they have said they intend to go in - so I don't see them changing course this late in the game. But from what I have seen so far, Vista is nothing more than Windows suffering from what seems to be an identity crisis. It just doesn't seem to know what it is supposed to be.
BTW I know I will probably be marked down by the hardcore MS fanatics and fan boys for saying this. However you should know that I am neither a fanboy or a supporter of any particular OS - and on the whole I like them all. (And even despite it's many faults I still kind of like Vista - or at least I think I could if MS sorted out all of the issues with it.) I use Windows, Linux, OS X (although I sometimes find OS X a little 'too' simplified for my tastes) almost equally - as well as BSD and several virtual machines running less well known OS' too. I'm an OS' nut and just like to learn how everything works. So I can't help drawing comparisons. Moreover, really more than anything I am just overcome with a sense of disappointment at Vista. It seems what we are getting is nothing much more than an improved XP skin that most of us have probably ran something very similar too (via apps like style XP or Stardock's object desktop http://www.stardock.com/index.10.jpg) over this last 5 year period of owning XP. Nearly 6 years for a skin and we get to pay a whopping $500+ for it? To put it bluntly, it just seems a bit rough. I know there are extra features for admins, like some new policy rules etc - but in terms of new features for actual real users, there really doesn't seem to be anything very new or innovative at all. So OK you have flip 3D, but I've also had stuff installed in XP that could do very similar things too - and I quickly tired of them - just as I did of this - and switched them off.
Anyway just in case anyone imagines I am an anti-MS troll, I use XP too and I think it is a great OS. I think it terms of simplicity, ease of use, and cleanness of layout it has it all pretty much nailed. I just find it very hard to imagine (other than for genuine power users/administrators/engineers and so on - which pretty much excludes 98% of the population) who exactly Vista is aimed at? - dWhisper, on 10/12/2007, -10/+14A good article that cuts through a lot of the hype and half-truths of Vista, and aims simply at the overall experience. Thankfully, there's little debate over the OS itself, which makes for a good read.
- Stiffler, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@OBKenobi
Vista unloads some resources when you load up a game. Your memory will go further with apps under Vista than the same apps under XP. Also, keep in mind that you can turn all the eye candy and such off in Vista... - lonnieh, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Apple ads also portray the PC as an office machine thats virtually useless for anything else but pie charts and calc.exe. Just forget about the amount of software for the Windows or Linux platform, they want you to think that this doesn't exist.
- Dawnspire, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6*sniff* "I cant find anything in a new environment.. Ive been testing this OS for almost an hour now!! "
Honestly do people expect to know where everything is immediately? USE Vista for a day or two, just like most other OS', finding your way around becomes just as easy or easier than XP. Take a lifetime Windows user and shove them into OSX/Linux, have them write a 'review' for their 'blog' within the same day and see what they say. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5simply put, its the most efficient way to create the eye candy is to treat the 2d windows and planes as texture objects. try doing the transformation and alpha effects in software rendering (which is basically what you're suggesting because 2d chips have hit a wall in performance, expandable really only by more memory and perhaps clever tiling tricks, ask Matrox king of 2D). It's just much easier to treat each object as 3d and texture it, then transform the 3d object, rather than the many per-pixel operations required by 2D.
This is what your accelerators are best at doing...juggling frame buffers, multiple textures and transforming objects in 3d. What, did you think you were actually using that GPU while you surfed the net? :) - deadbaby, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Why do they have to change the Control Panel/Start Menu/Explorer layout for _every single_ release? OSX is pretty much the same GUI that was introduced in 10.1 and Linux is even more consistent than Windows at this point. (GNOME & KDE are largely unchanged in the last 5 years, most command line tools go back decades)
If there was some logic or benifit from the changes it would be fine. Instead it's just random changes that don't really improve the OS at all. - lonnieh, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@mancat: Read my post again, or however many times you need to understand it. "if your not looking for anything other than a pretty facelift..."
- spuggy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@lonnieh -- Exactly
Apples are so easy to use eh? Then find me a freaking usable Personal Finance program. I've literally invested days trying to find something even close to Microsoft Money on OSX. - wpholmes, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6It's exposé, but your comment is still valid. :)
- estvir, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2umm.. and how many ppl dare run os x on 512 and not 1gb ? yeah.
- 0crabby0, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Next year Vista is not going to decide your hardware requirements...
Blu-ray and HD-DVD are...
Is your graphics card blu-ray or hd-dvd compatible???
Is you monitor 1080i compatible???
These are the things that are more than likely, going to decide your pc purchase... - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3^leobaby,
exactly?! I mean, only time will tell if Vista solves MS's rampant security issues etc. If it does then that plus the eye candy etc. will make it a winner. Time will tell, but what happens if say a month after gold release there are a slew of exploits? If my XP install is rock solid now, why even bother upgrading?
I find myself saying something that I never thought I'd say. Microsoft may only see market penetration via new computer sales for Vista. There really doesn't appear to be much reason to upgrade if the security issues are not resolved. 98 was a better solution than 95. 2000 was a better solution than NT or 95, and XP was a better solution than those before it. Will Vista be? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4It's the missing cache that's stunting his performance. But hey, you get what you pay for. Or in the words of Celeron, "all of paid for get what you want, no Dell kthx".
- leobaby, on 10/12/2007, -8/+10I have to agree with you, turn off the eye candy themes and THEN a look around the os and you are left scratching your head wondering what they've been working on for the last four years...
- reevolutn, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4think forward... in a year all computers will be able to run vista competently with no problems what so ever, with computers doubling in speed so fast, i think they are trying to provide an OS for tomorows computer, not todays
- d3m3, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3My computer will never know...
- bleutuna, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8Real-world experience: I have Vista and its never crashed, and I've had no problems. So, there we go :D
- Yogurth, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5No they are from my 1 year of beta testing XP amongst other MS beta systems. Vista is the only one this far into development that is unusable for everyday work.
If You have problem of beleiving me, well go check for Yourself, internet is big place I'm sure You can find copy of whistler for Yourself. - AceGoober, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Dugg.
Despite the obvious fact Vista is still in the BETA stage, Chris's comments are completely valid with reference to the experienced gained from the computers he tested the O/S on.
It's anyone's guess whether or not Vista will improvie resource usage and performance. Looking back on history, however, shows-us that previous MS O/Ss followed that trend. Only time will tell. - OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Will memory usage be reduced in the final version too? 512MB not enough to run a simple app? That's unacceptable. That means the average 3D game is going to need 2 GB!
I'm going to hope DDR2 RAM prices come down, because it is futile to depend on MS for improvement . - OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4I think [H] is cashing in on [MS] advertorial $$$.
They seem to forget that we know what Vista is really like, we're running Vista beta ourselves! I guess they're hoping this article might fool the PC Magazine, ZDNet/CNet crowd.
The only excuse right now is that it is still beta. But that excuse won't last long. When PR1 is released, are MS trolls going to go around saying "It's only a PR1! You stupid noobs! You don't know anything about software development!" - feanor512, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Vista on 512MB of RAM? It takes 700-800MB of RAM on my PC right after boot
- heresy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Digg bombing? http://hardforum.com/announcement.php?f=5&announcementid=65
Marked as spam. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5ddr2 ram prices ARE down. theyre like cheaper than ddr 75% of the time
- adiggtion, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Where is your proof of "all this debugging code" present in Vista?
- feanor512, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1> if you are a hardcore fan of...games...then vista will make your life eaiser
Actually that's not the case. In my experience games run much more slowly in Vista and Vista uses much more RAM than XP, leaving little for games if you don't have several GB. - raid517, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Ps.
Death to all fanboys! Death to MS, Linux, Apple, AMD, Intel, Nvidia, ATI and all other kinds of fan boys everywhere. I hate you all!!!
Sorry, I just thought I would slip that in... Given that even mild criticism like this is likely to cause one of them to have a fit at some point. - OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I've got a Dell laptop and a custom-built OC'd desktop. High-end Dell laptops are pretty nice. Nice configs (no skimpy GPU, like just about everyone else), big 17-20" widescreen displays, easy to upgrade, very good prices if you find one of those instant online rebates. They make great multimedia/gaming laptops.
-
Show 51 - 89 of 89 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is ){kind=link}