Windows Vista Unnecessary

Good news Halo, thanks. Now where's the other half of Vista, meaning Vienna beta. It's been a nice ride since Longhorn 4015 (in my case).

 

On a side note:

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_Vista

If you believe everything the wikipedia says is fact.

 

Here is a link for all the people that say that Vista has a brand new kernel.
http://www.dailytechnobabble.com/2006/11/09/4-reasons-why-windows-vista-is-just-not-worth-it/
Apparently the author feels like I do about Vista. He just puts it in a more eloquent way,

 

An article I read gave the impression that you can back up the os partition using vista alone (and ditch ghost). Is this true?
It also said that system restore now backs up everything (? details (??as a series of mirrors). If the kernal core has been locked their should be less to back up?
In xp I have always left system restore switched off and relied on separating data and os/programmes and regular ghosts which has saved my goose a few times.

 

I tend to agree with your thesis on UAC as well Halo......Having played with 5744 for a few weeks now, it is not really that much of a PITA once you become accustomed to it and i felt that their criticism of it was unjustified.

Ofcourse i experimented with the UAC disabled as well and actually found the 'security centre' warning in my system tray to be more annoying in itself.
One cannot afford to ignore the latest security measures IMHO!

Regards.....

 

Both C64/128 and TRS80 used M$ BASIC, and yes, they were the OS for both computers. Microsoft failed to release the later version of BASIC that was originally planned for the C64, thus contractually losing the rights to Commodore 64 BASIC (aka the one that got away). They learned from this, quite a bit actually, and haven't come close to repeating the mistake ever.

I don't know who wrote the Atari BASIC, but it was an OS too, BASIC was a pretty accepted standard at the time, and existed long before M$ DOS. When MS DOS started coming out several BASIC packages came out as part of the DOS package. I'll go out on a limb here and state that QBASIC was part of the Win98SE package, but I'm not sure about that statement.

The disk drive routines for the C64 were pretty lame, and kept 3rd party developers/retailers in biz (one I know of is still manufactureing hardware like hard drives and drive interface upgrades, the old computer has a hard core following).

Your age is showing Goldie. Takes an old fart like me to remember the early machines. One of the many things I liked about C64s is they were completely comprehensible. They are complete computers, but the OS and hardware are completely documented for all to see, at an affordible price, and small enough code to memorize. You'd be suprised at the hardware still being developed for these 8 bit machines by people slightly more nuts than me. It is a 1st love thing.

 

A Windows Vista Capable PC includes at least:

A modern processor (at least 800MHz1).
512 MB of system memory.
A graphics processor that is DirectX 9 capable.

If this is correct, I'm good to go. (I've upgraded since I got 98.) Though I'm going to need a bigger HD. (Consider my last upgrade in size was from 2GB, to 40GB.)

I think it's coming to a point where MS should consider a 'Gamers Windows'. I don't really need a fancy interface to click an icon to start my game. I'm not going to need thousands of dollars worth of anti(blank) software to play an FPS. I don't need MS office to play a Strategy game. (Though some of them feel like I'm using MS office.) I'm not going to be organizing photos either. And unless you're auto-updating my game, I don't care.

I do need DirectX, I have to have internet access and a firewall.

 

You can check your compatibility for Vista here.

 

I'm also one of the people who wont upgrade until absolutely necessary and its no longer supported,XP does everything I want it to has,never crashed on me,its secure and runs the latest games

I also wanted to stick with windows 98,stick with what I knew,now I have XP going back to 98 would be unthinkable,I'll probably feel the same once I have vista and by that time the bugs and driver situation will have been ironed out

 

XP is great....but are you not the slightest bit curious?

dual boot rikky....you then have the oportunity to test the best of both worlds!

I loaded RC2 x86 in dual boot with XP, and to my surprise, every driver i needed was included, this really is an awesome OS....dont believe the masses and knockers mate!

It makes XP look like 98' IMHO

I fly on the cutting edge, and have never been happier.

Regards...

 

This is what I cant get my head around,what is the definition of a good operating system?Stability,security,navigation,appearance,performance,XP is Totally stable "unlike 98",XP is very secure,"unlike 98",XP is easy simple enough to navigate pretty much the same as 98 no real innovation which could be improved I suppose is the navigation so much better in vista?Are you getting to files in half the time ect.,I run xp in classic mode anyway in storm VGA as I really dont care graphically what the OS looks like,in essence Vista also doesnt perform as well as you need higher end hardware to run as you did when xp came out sending your computer to the knackers yard a little bit sooner

You see I dont know what I'm looking for,what do I gain,I totally understand that I wont know I need the extra features until I live with them for a while to be honest I just cant be bothered at the moment

So what makes it a good operating system to you what key points do you consider I havnt read every post in this thread so I apologize if my points have already been discussed and concluded either way

I believe everything on the internet

 

Stability,security,navigation,appearance,performance...it has it all!

Remember that MS are getting better with each new OS they design, they have learnt from the programming designs starting with 95, to 98 and to XP!

Security is A1.....stability is A1....appearance and performance is A1 from the conclusions of my testing and all this i run on an AMD athlon 64 3000, 2 gig of DDR pc400 RAM (wow), with a pissy ATI radeon 9250 graphics card, based on a Asus A8V deluxe mobo, and a generic 400w PSU which is hardly cutting edge!
But i have DX10 shaders ready to go if needed.

I am a huge fan of XP Pro and never thought for a minute that it could be beat.....but i was wrong!

 

It's goodbye to XP for me....but don't take my word for it, try it for yourself mate!

You will not be disappointed.

Regards...