Forums

Forums (http://www.abandonia.com/vbullet/index.php)
-   Tech Corner (http://www.abandonia.com/vbullet/forumdisplay.php?f=23)
-   -   Windows Vista ? (http://www.abandonia.com/vbullet/showthread.php?t=8090)

efthimios 17-11-2005 03:16 PM

I can't figure out how what I said was difficult to be understood.

Since future games will be XP compatible, I see no reason to upgrade to Vista. Is that more clear?


As for choosing an OS purely for its gimmicks, I beg to differ. If I wanted a secure OS I would stick to TOS. I am not going to buy the resources hog Vista even if it is more secure, stable, etc.

Nikson 17-11-2005 09:11 PM

Windows 98 needed more system resources than 95 did.
NT and 2000 needed way more than 98.
compared to both 98 and NT, windows XP was an awful resource hog (200MB+ of RAM being used just while idling on the desktop)

And you went from one to the other, didn't you?
And you don't know just how much of a resource hog its going to be. Yeah, there's preliminary minimum specs on the website, but nobody will know for sure until its released. Plus, it could have a very good memory management system, where it drastically reduces memory requirements for windows itself while you're in a full-screen application (game) to maximize efficiency.

Besides, its going to be the newest and supposedly bleeding edge operating system. It's obvioulsy not intended to run on a pentium 3 for example! And keep in mind that by this time next year, when Vista will still be brand new, buying a computer that meets the Vista minimum specs will cost something like $1000.

Dino 17-11-2005 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nikson@Nov 17 2005, 11:11 PM
And keep in mind that by this time next year, when Vista will still be brand new, buying a computer that meets the Vista minimum specs will cost something like $1000.
I should say even less than $1000, if we're talking Vista's minimum requirements.

efthimios 17-11-2005 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nikson@Nov 17 2005, 11:11 PM
Windows 98 needed more system resources than 95 did.
NT and 2000 needed way more than 98.
compared to both 98 and NT, windows XP was an awful resource hog (200MB+ of RAM being used just while idling on the desktop)

And you went from one to the other, didn't you?
And you don't know just how much of a resource hog its going to be. Yeah, there's preliminary minimum specs on the website, but nobody will know for sure until its released. Plus, it could have a very good memory management system, where it drastically reduces memory requirements for windows itself while you're in a full-screen application (game) to maximize efficiency.

Besides, its going to be the newest and supposedly bleeding edge operating system. It's obvioulsy not intended to run on a pentium 3 for example! And keep in mind that by this time next year, when Vista will still be brand new, buying a computer that meets the Vista minimum specs will cost something like $1000.

I did go from Windows 98 to windows XP, mainly because I couldn't find my w98 cd and had to install an OS.
Windows 98 was heavier than 95, but I am not so sure the difference was as big as from XP to Vista.
So, Vista will have better memory management system to manage the extra memory it needs? It doesn't sound very much of an upgrade to me.

If I remember correctly, the min specs from MS are usualy a bit of understatement, and you usualy do need quite a lot more than the quoted ones to run the OS at more than crawling speed. I am curious indeed as to what the realistic requirements for Vista will be, and think of all the time how many of those extra resources would better be spend on the actual games/applications than on running the OS itself.

As for the money, you can buy a sub $1000 PC now that passes the Vista requirements, that is not my point at all.

JimmyJ 17-11-2005 11:41 PM

Microsoft is caving in....In walmart, i saw some guy playing XBOX 360, before i looked at waht controller he was using, the game on teh screen looked like PS2 GC or normal X-Box, I saw nothing remotely new...

chickenman 18-11-2005 10:02 PM

Microsoft is going to die within the next 10 years, I don't know why they just don't make a "new" operating system not use all the old crappy code.

Microsoft has had about 20 years to make a good operating system, where as Linux was a good OS in about 5 years.

Windows Vista still uses old code, all they have done is added some new things, and most of these things are just to make it look better.

It may be a bit more secure but it's still far away from how secure Linux is, I hope Microsoft dies I hope they die soon, if you want a "real" OS use Linux.

efthimios 18-11-2005 10:44 PM

I am not a supporter of MS but calling for its death is a bit too much for my taste.
I consider the fragmentation of Linux worse than the monopoly of Windows, from a gamer and business point of view. Of course with monopoly there are other problems too.
What I do NOT want is a return to the 80s where we had like 10 OSs, usualy one per computer, MS-DOS, TOS, AmigaOS, etc etc.

I also disagree that Windows is not a "real" OS. If it isn't, it sure fakes it very well. :D

win98 19-11-2005 04:17 PM

I am not about to return to the command line because ms dies no I will not.

chickenman 21-11-2005 10:53 AM

@ win98
If windows was to die you would not need to use any command line, you can use Linux without knowing how to use the command line.

Nikson 21-11-2005 11:16 AM

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you chickenman, the Linux Zealot. Please do not taunt, encourage or feed him. Also please keep away from the bars.
:D


The current time is 06:05 AM (GMT)

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.