Sorry your browser is not supported!

You are using an outdated browser that does not support modern web technologies, in order to use this site please update to a new browser.

Browsers supported include Chrome, FireFox, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer 10+ or Microsoft Edge.

Geek Culture / windows vista, its neat

Author
Message
Benjamin
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Nov 2002
Location: France
Posted: 1st Apr 2006 13:11 Edited at: 1st Apr 2006 13:14
Link
WinXP sucks cause it's for stupids and I don't like it. I don't use MacOS cause it's crap and doesn't work lol. Linux gets no look at cause it isn't popular enough to deserve my use.

Tempest - P2P UDP Multiplayer Plugin - 70%
Download the free version
Back to top
Profile PM Email
John Y
Synergy Editor Developer
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Sep 2002
Location: UK
Posted: 1st Apr 2006 13:32
Link
Quote: "What is using 100% of your CPU"


I had just bought it out of hibernation (the default option when you shut down your computer), so it was still doing things in the background.

Considering this is the ultimate edition, and that it has all of the services running e.g. Remote Desktop, Remote Registry, Indexing Service, then 531Mb is not too bad. Considering you can buy 1Gb for £20, computers should have enough RAM by next January. I built my pc last July, and it has 2Gb in it.


Http://synergyide.thegamecreators.com
Http://omegabasic.thegamecreators.com
Back to top
Profile PM Website
David R
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Sep 2003
Location: 3.14
Posted: 1st Apr 2006 14:06
Link
Quote: "Considering you can buy 1Gb for £20"


Where in God's name can you buy RAM at that price? A stick of 1 gig (unbuffered non-parity DDR 400) for my motherboard costed about £55. Not to mention Post and packaging

Quote: "Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable, let's prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all."
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Retarded Sausage
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Aug 2005
Location: canadia
Posted: 12th Apr 2006 09:48
Link
Quote: "you shouldnt need 512 mb, just to run the os. that's bullocks."


thats almost exactly what people said when xp needed 64mb of ram
Back to top
Profile PM
_Nemesis_
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Nov 2003
Location: Liverpool, UK
Posted: 12th Apr 2006 14:37
Link
Quote: "thats almost exactly what people said when xp needed 64mb of ram"

I don't think XP SP2 installs without 128mb now.

[url="http://www.devhat.net"]www.devhat.net[/url] :: Devhat IRC Network.
Current Project: ASP Content Management System
Back to top
Profile PM Email
himynameisali
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Nov 2003
Location: England, You...Rastards!
Posted: 12th Apr 2006 14:55
Link
How do you get it?

Life is music, Music is Life......
Back to top
Profile PM Email
OSX Using Happy Dude
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Aug 2003
Location: At home
Posted: 12th Apr 2006 14:57
Link
How do you get what ?

Blog:http://spaces.msn.com/members/BouncyBrick/
Web Site:http://www.nicholaskingsley.co.uk
Trust me, I know what I'm doing.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Chris Franklin
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Aug 2005
Location: UK
Posted: 12th Apr 2006 14:58 Edited at: 12th Apr 2006 14:58
Link
O...M...G

You get invited do you really think m$ would give os's in beta form complete out to the public?

@Bouncy Brick
He's talking about getting windows vista

Theme park simulator wip

Back to top
Profile PM Website
David T
Retired Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Aug 2002
Location: England
Posted: 12th Apr 2006 15:01
Link
Quote: "You get invited do you really think m$ would give os's in beta form complete out to the public? "


Yeah, if you're a member of MSDN...

That RAM usage pic looks around what I've got right now with XP.

Still, not too worried, I plan to run Vista on a new machine - one suitably pimped.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Me!
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th Jul 2005
Location:
Posted: 12th Apr 2006 15:04 Edited at: 12th Apr 2006 15:11
Link
@Phaelax:
Quote: "But I agree with others' viewports"


I think you ought to slow up on the programming, I think you meant Viewpoints.

Quote: "Quote: "you shouldnt need 512 mb, just to run the os. that's bullocks."

thats almost exactly what people said when xp needed 64mb of ram "


that doesn`t mean that now another OS uses even more memory that they where wrong about xp, it uses way too many resources IMO, it`s only an OS, you know?, lists files and lets you manipulate em?, you don`t actualy need any more than 64K <<< thats a K guys, to do that, I know, cos I have owned PC`s that did just that.



Dr Frankenstiens mum told him to make some new friends, not knowing where this was going to lead.
Back to top
Profile PM
_Nemesis_
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Nov 2003
Location: Liverpool, UK
Posted: 12th Apr 2006 15:34 Edited at: 12th Apr 2006 15:35
Link
Quote: "Yeah, if you're a member of MSDN... "

I don't have a subscription of MSDN, they just contacted me because I had been a regular participant in other, smaller beta programs from betaplace.

[url="http://www.devhat.net"]www.devhat.net[/url] :: Devhat IRC Network.
Current Project: ASP Content Management System
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Jeku
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 12th Apr 2006 21:39
Link
Quote: "you don`t actualy need any more than 64K <<< thats a K guys, to do that, I know, cos I have owned PC`s that did just that."


No OS that runs in 64K has the complexity of Windows, sorry to say.

And large bloated software is not a new thing. I remember being shocked that Doom 2 took up 30MB of HD space on my 120MB drive. Now Battle for Middle Earth II takes up 6Gigs. The times change, but the games aren't getting substantially "better".


Automaton Games website has been revamped! Check it out!
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Me!
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th Jul 2005
Location:
Posted: 12th Apr 2006 22:24 Edited at: 12th Apr 2006 22:28
Link
Quote: "No OS that runs in 64K has the complexity of Windows, sorry to say.
"


no it doesn`t, I didn`t say it had the complexity of Windows, but it could find files and run programs from a disk, connect to the internet etc, I don`t buy that adding a GUI to an OS requires half a gig of ram and another gig of hard drive space, you can get a fully working Linux distro in 50mb of HD and 64mb of ram with full networking, device support and a GUI, AND it doesn`t need a state of the art machine, 3D acceleration or half a gig of ram to run in, hell!, you could load the entire system into ramdisk on my current PC, have a stunningly fast OS and STILL use less than 10% of what Vista is demanding, thats not an advance in my reconing, reminds me of the old saw "Intel giveth and Microsoft taketh away", it`s like they are on a race to see if they can make an OS thats so huge it can`t run on any available machine or something , I would rather my 1 gig of ram was being used more by my apps than the OS, strangley enough I bought it to speed up the apps, not Microsofts OS.



[edit] btw, I thought Doom took up 15mb?, anyway, thats something you can choose to install, it`s not the same as waving bye bye to a gig of HD and half a gig of ram just to boot your PC.

Dr Frankenstiens mum told him to make some new friends, not knowing where this was going to lead.
Back to top
Profile PM
Jeku
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 12th Apr 2006 23:24
Link
Doom 2

I happen to enjoy the graphical niceties inside of Windows. If I wanted to have a crappy ASCII-based OS I would boot up my Linux and hang out in the shell. If today's computer hardware is driven by the gaming industry (which it is), then why not have Windows take advantage of that power?

And Windows doesn't take up half a gig of memory *just* because of its graphics


Automaton Games website has been revamped! Check it out!
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Me!
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th Jul 2005
Location:
Posted: 12th Apr 2006 23:47
Link
you should try Puppy linux live CD, no text console



Dr Frankenstiens mum told him to make some new friends, not knowing where this was going to lead.
Back to top
Profile PM
Les Horribres
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Nov 2005
Location: My Name is... Merry
Posted: 14th Apr 2006 00:53
Link
To the guy who said XP need 64MB.

ONLY if you optimize your system by shutting down the crap process', and then re-writting code to LET you. Rollz eyes, 128MB MIN, but it quickly will climb. 256MB is more accurate.

I find it funny that all the complaints I had about windows XP and windows Vista are accurate, at least for this build. It DID use my predicted 512 ram, apearantly is cited to use more resources then normal XP, and over all, is a very usless upgrade.

Finally, I will state my point from last time. The OS shouldn't do ANYTHING that it is not ment to. Do you need your OS to,
Check your mail?
Update your computer?
Backup your harddrive?
Keep Process Running that do nothing that 'you' use?
load a printer service when there is no printer connected?
Seach the INTERNET for what you want even though you don't want it to? (early article)

Just run the damn programs, that is all you need to do. It helps if you have some networking capabilitys, but keep them turned off unless I want them on.

We all have our inner noob.
Join the NJL: We have MORE fun!
When in doubt, blame a mod!
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Agent Dink
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Mar 2004
Location:
Posted: 14th Apr 2006 03:26
Link
To confirm it is reccommended with XP to have 256 megs of ram if you plan to do anything else. I am not really looking forward to this Vista stuff, I am not gonna buy it until I am forced to because everything requires it.

www.badpicsofmatt.tk
www.silver-dawn.net
Back to top
Profile PM
_Nemesis_
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Nov 2003
Location: Liverpool, UK
Posted: 14th Apr 2006 04:18 Edited at: 14th Apr 2006 04:22
Link
Quote: "Finally, I will state my point from last time. The OS shouldn't do ANYTHING that it is not ment to. Do you need your OS to,
Check your mail?
Update your computer?
Backup your harddrive?
Keep Process Running that do nothing that 'you' use?
load a printer service when there is no printer connected?
Seach the INTERNET for what you want even though you don't want it to? (early article)
"


Aye, but you see, your point differs entirely to mine. I'd LIKE it to do all those things. Hmm... does that mean it shouldn't do them because it's not what an OS 'needs' to do?
If you don't like it, disable it.. I'd only complain if there was an inability to do that.
You sound like you want your operating system to be a bit psychic here. How does it know that a process will be of no use to you? - It'd suck if you were a beginner and you couldn't get networking to work because it'd been disabled since installation (because of cause! The operating system lacks psychic powers and failed to realise that you might want to install a network one day). Seems better to bloat it and let you disable it than to enable very little and leave it down to the user to enable everything one by one (one of the reasons I use windows over linux).

I think whether you'd want to upgrade or not is down to how much you'd make use of the new features. I know I certainly would, and the speed is a bonus. For me, a new installation of Vista is much faster (even at this stage) to a new installation of XP. I'd give it a good 2 or 3 years after release before we start seeing discontinued support for XP with regards to both software and hardware. Probably similar to what we saw with XP.

[url="http://www.devhat.net"]www.devhat.net[/url] :: Devhat IRC Network.
Current Project: ASP Content Management System
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Les Horribres
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Nov 2005
Location: My Name is... Merry
Posted: 14th Apr 2006 05:24
Link
I'd only complain if there was an inability to do that.

Have you ever looked in the 'services' catagory? Yep, not alot can be disabled.

Quote: "Keep Process Running that do nothing that 'you' use?"

Uhh, lets see... this guy NEVER uses themes, instead of keeping the service running, lets ACTUALLY disable it.

Or how about, this guy has turned off our firewall everytime he starts his computer lets stop turning it on.

Or I have NEVER used windows search, turn that keymap and service off.

But more importantly, several processes are tied into other process' that are uneeded. For instance, I have my computer set up to NOT share anything, but just to access another computer and send stuff over. I do NOT need a service running designed to allow this computer to be accessed remotly. But it is connected to other network services making it hard to turn off.

And then there are the background services which NEVER turn off, probally doing nothing to help RUN xp, but are used by random 'perks' such as what I listed.

I want all that CRAP separated from the OS, technically it is, but I want it as it should be. Manual Installation. If I want you to put a 'security center' on my task bar, I will install it, STOP MAKING ME edit the registry to get your idiotic stuff to stop running. If I want a background service to run, I will tell it to run. Plain and simple.

And By the Way, DLLCACHE is not an easy thing to turn off (meaning not a option on the menus). A Gig wasted, as IF i am gonna edit one of my dlls. And the thing is, it is a dynamic service, constantly detecting the dll + exe + whatever after installations.

We all have our inner noob.
Join the NJL: We have MORE fun!
When in doubt, blame a mod!
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
_Nemesis_
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Nov 2003
Location: Liverpool, UK
Posted: 14th Apr 2006 05:38
Link
I'd put that down to lazyness! It's hardly any extra effort to disable a process. Anyway, I've found that anything you could want to disable, you can in the services category.

Think of it like this.. If you didn't use a theme for a few months because you had a real crap processor and wanted to squeeze as much out of it as possible, windows automatically disabled themes for you. After your processor upgrade, you'd probably come back here whining about how it disabled it without even asking you.

Quote: "
And By the Way, DLLCACHE is not an easy thing to turn off (meaning not a option on the menus). A Gig wasted, as IF i am gonna edit one of my dlls. And the thing is, it is a dynamic service, constantly detecting the dll + exe + whatever after installations."

Who says you're gonna be the one editing the DLL? Could very easily be a virus, one of these dodgy theme cracks that installed wrong. It's a security procedure which I've found more helpful than an interference of any kind.

Quote: "I do NOT need a service running designed to allow this computer to be accessed remotly."

You'd be surprised how often things like Remote Registry are used. For me, a lot of my programs would refuse to run. Symantec Anti-Virus, O&O Defrag, Firewall, Exchange, MsTSC, IIS, Admin-Pak, Media Encoder,

[url="http://www.devhat.net"]www.devhat.net[/url] :: Devhat IRC Network.
Current Project: ASP Content Management System
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Les Horribres
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Nov 2005
Location: My Name is... Merry
Posted: 16th Apr 2006 01:36
Link
Hardly Lazyness, if 98 needs only 16mb to run, why does XP need 128 [after running a RAM Optimizer] (which will climb up [dramatically]). Even if you turn off every process, I still have found that windows chews memory. Which leads to the logical conclusion that once again, there is more running then needs to, and these aren't accessable by ordinary methods.


That is just a permission, and shouldn't be anything else. A registry file is sent, and run by a program. Why do you need a service to deal with it?

We all have our inner noob. Join the NJL, and have more fun!
I believe society is flawed; our notions on life, on child rearing, stem too far back to be of relevance in this day and time.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
_Nemesis_
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Nov 2003
Location: Liverpool, UK
Posted: 16th Apr 2006 01:54
Link
Quote: "Hardly Lazyness, if 98 needs only 16mb to run, why does XP need 128 [after running a RAM Optimizer] (which will climb up [dramatically])."

Err... Why, that's because it's had so much added to it of cause! Are you saying that regardless of what's actually constitues the operating system, it should only need 16mb? Anyway, you can't really compare 98 and XP.

The reason you can't disable more, is because disabling more componants would have an adverse effect on the system - more than likely causing instability.

Quote: " there is more running then needs to"

Your definition of 'needs' is quite clearly different to mine as I clarified in an earlier post, so I'm not going to comment on this statement.

Quote: "A registry file is sent, and run by a program."

A lot more than that and It's probably a service for speed and stability. It'll be a lot slower to start a program for every remote registry modification. Like I say, a lot of the programs I run rely on it, so I'm glad it's a service.

Realistically, 128mb is nothing at all. I think if you consider that a lot, you should buy yourself an upgrade and stop living in the 90s! Technology updates, so does it's requirements.

[url="http://www.devhat.net"]www.devhat.net[/url] :: Devhat IRC Network.
Current Project: ASP Content Management System
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Agent Dink
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Mar 2004
Location:
Posted: 16th Apr 2006 03:21
Link
Quote: "Realistically, 128mb is nothing at all. I think if you consider that a lot, you should buy yourself an upgrade and stop living in the 90s! Technology updates, so does it's requirements."


128 is not alot, but what we are saying is that Vista is demanding alot for an OS, just to make your computer run. I want a fast stable OS that won't adversely effect my performace. XP was bad enough as it was when it came out. Its fine now that we all have computers roughly 2x as powerful as what was realisticly available to the common person at the time, and it will be the same with Vista, but unfortunately we can't look forward to a speed increase with a new OS, and we aren't getting much in exchange.

Now don't forget alot of us come from the era of wondering if Windows 95 would run on the 4 megs of ram on our 386s

www.badpicsofmatt.tk
www.silver-dawn.net
Back to top
Profile PM
_Nemesis_
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Nov 2003
Location: Liverpool, UK
Posted: 16th Apr 2006 03:29
Link
Quote: "but unfortunately we can't look forward to a speed increase with a new OS"

I can see what you're coming from, it doesn't seem logical for it to run any faster. Though, i've gotta say, the bottleneck in most clean Vista installations are the display drivers. If you use ones from your graphics card manufacturer rather than the suppliment ones from Microsoft, the Aero theme runs pretty damn smooth. My fresh Vista installation is faster than a clean XP one for me. Startup is faster, on to a usable desktop within 20 seconds which is great. Apparently there's better memory management (surprising, I know, considering it appears to use a hell of the lot of RAM out of the box) which makes it run much nicer and a load of optimized bits and bobs.
Also looking forward to this new file system, not sure what effect it will have on system performance, but If it's anything like the upgrade from FAT32 to NTFS I'll be impressed.

[url="http://www.devhat.net"]www.devhat.net[/url] :: Devhat IRC Network.
Current Project: ASP Content Management System
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Les Horribres
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Nov 2005
Location: My Name is... Merry
Posted: 16th Apr 2006 03:39
Link
128 is alot in this century. it is an eigth of a decent gig, and XP expands to fill up mabey 172, as I said, I only get 128 after optimizing the ram, a little lower if I force off the services.

Now, in comparison to 98, what additions require 112 more megs?

We all have our inner noob. Join the NJL, and have more fun!
I believe society is flawed; our notions on life, on child rearing, stem too far back to be of relevance in this day and time.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
_Nemesis_
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Nov 2003
Location: Liverpool, UK
Posted: 16th Apr 2006 04:13
Link
Quote: "Now, in comparison to 98, what additions require 112 more megs?"

To name 25...




Quote: "128 is alot in this century."

Not in my opinion. I would consider 4gb a lot, but certainly not 128mb. You rarely see a computer running XP with less than 512mb now anyways, 256mb if you're pushing it. I think XP wouldn't be worth running with a machine with so little RAM anyway. You'd benefit much more out of say Windows 2000.
But, to keep this thread on-topic, the same goes with Vista. Come early 2007, you probably won't see people bothering to install it on machines with less than 1gb RAM.

[url="http://www.devhat.net"]www.devhat.net[/url] :: Devhat IRC Network.
Current Project: ASP Content Management System
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Les Horribres
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Nov 2005
Location: My Name is... Merry
Posted: 16th Apr 2006 04:22 Edited at: 16th Apr 2006 04:24
Link
come vista, computers will still be comming out with 512 standard. XP came out with computers using 256 even though that was the bare minimum...

Over 70% of your list is, or well was, off. And those are just services that run. I was refering to the stuff that is non-negociable, such as (sorry for misquote) "a dual layer protection that makes the whole system a lot more stable". Well, that is acceptable, but that can't account for all of the 128/172

4gigs is not the norm, 1 gig is an acceptable norm, but the real norm is 512MB. Normally computers have 512MB, some computers have 786 or 1gig, but after that it starts becomming uncommon.

We all have our inner noob. Join the NJL, and have more fun!
I believe society is flawed; our notions on life, on child rearing, stem too far back to be of relevance in this day and time.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
_Nemesis_
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Nov 2003
Location: Liverpool, UK
Posted: 16th Apr 2006 04:32
Link
Quote: ""a dual layer protection that makes the whole system a lot more stable""

I don't know of such a thing. Unless you're referring to the new file system, I don't think Microsoft has been very clear about all of that yet.

I consider 1GB to almost be standard now. I'm sure with the coming of Vista, computers will be sold with 1GB to support the new operating system. I mean, XP could run with 128mb, but you never really saw machines with 128mb being sold (at least, I didn't)

A lot of stuff on that list was stuff that you couldn't turn off and weren't services. Data execution prevention, Windows File Protection (without a hack last time I checked), the NTFS file system (I can't see any reason for people to be using other file systems on a dedicated XP machine) and EFS.
You'd probably run into problems if you disabled things such as Net Logon, Cryptographic Services and the RPC!
Quote: "Well, that is acceptable, but that can't account for all of the 128/172"

True, and there'll be much more that I didn't add to the list I'm sure.

I don't really think it's fair to compare 98 and XP though to be honest, 2000 and XP would be better. I mean, 98 and XP have entirely different kernels.

[url="http://www.devhat.net"]www.devhat.net[/url] :: Devhat IRC Network.
Current Project: ASP Content Management System
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Les Horribres
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Nov 2005
Location: My Name is... Merry
Posted: 16th Apr 2006 05:19
Link
Quote: "I don't know of such a thing. Unless you're referring to the new file system, I don't think Microsoft has been very clear about all of that yet."

Jeku said something about it, he knows I am much hating of Microsoft's new platforms. I'm not sure if he was refering to the Operating System or the NTFS though, now that I think of it.

Quote: "Data execution prevention, Windows File Protection, (without a hack last time I checked)"

And that is how I screwed up my registy

Quote: "I mean, 98 and XP have entirely different kernels."

Yeah, and at that you are right, but I use 98 as an example because
a) I used it happly for 5 years before switching to XP for a massive computer upgrade.
b) Because I have it installed, so I can refrence back to it at will.

p.s. FireFox is starting to give me a headache.

We all have our inner noob. Join the NJL, and have more fun!
I believe society is flawed; our notions on life, on child rearing, stem too far back to be of relevance in this day and time.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Jeku
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 16th Apr 2006 05:47
Link
What is this fear that people have of faster computers? Who cares if Windows takes up 1GB of RAM if you have 4GB? We have kickass computers at work, but management is giving us upgrades to 4GB+ RAM--- I want my Vista with its Aero visual themes thankyouverymuch.

It's impossible to list everything that Microsoft did different with XP than 98, but it's not really a fair comparison of Vista to XP. Vista is being rewritten from the ground up--- i.e. there shouldn't be any legacy code in there. XP is basically built from 2k, which was built from NT and '98, and on down.

The same as there is a huge market for brand new cars, when the price is a lot higher than used.


Automaton Games website has been revamped! Check it out!
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Les Horribres
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Nov 2005
Location: My Name is... Merry
Posted: 16th Apr 2006 06:06
Link
Quote: "What is this fear that people have of faster computers?"

celenunticomputusphobia

Quote: "Who cares if Windows takes up 1GB of RAM if you have 4GB?"

First, you have to buy 4GB and depending if you prefer a laptop or desktop, there is a difference in pricing.

But more importantly, how much of a speed difference are we really talking about? 1%? .1%? .01%?

We all have our inner noob. Join the NJL, and have more fun!
I believe society is flawed; our notions on life, on child rearing, stem too far back to be of relevance in this day and time.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Jeku
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 16th Apr 2006 06:11
Link
For a complete rewrite of the Windows core, I would say you would have quite a good speed increase over XP. Faster booting, faster driver maintenance, faster task switching, faster application loading and shutdown, etc.


Automaton Games website has been revamped! Check it out!
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Les Horribres
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Nov 2005
Location: My Name is... Merry
Posted: 16th Apr 2006 06:36
Link
Yes, we get the idea of 'faster' .
Notice that this is the same thing you said about XP, being a complete rewrite of the NT OS (misquote).
How many revolutionary ideas can Microsoft get over 4 years that will result in an dramatic increase of speed?

We all have our inner noob. Join the NJL, and have more fun!
I believe society is flawed; our notions on life, on child rearing, stem too far back to be of relevance in this day and time.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Jeku
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 16th Apr 2006 07:22
Link
Wait a sec, I *never* said that XP was a rewrite of NT

Quote: "How many revolutionary ideas can Microsoft get over 4 years that will result in an dramatic increase of speed?"


Where do you get 4 years? XP came out in 2001, so that is 6 years b/w XP and Vista.

Seeing as MS has a large army of programmers, I'd say they can come up with many revolutionary ideas. Hell, MS has had them in the past, that's for sure.


Automaton Games website has been revamped! Check it out!
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Les Horribres
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Nov 2005
Location: My Name is... Merry
Posted: 16th Apr 2006 07:33 Edited at: 16th Apr 2006 07:34
Link
I put misqoute in there, But I do remeber that you said that XP was completly rewritten... or perhaps you were doing that in comparison to 98... I need to find those old threads.

Revolutinary idea #1, make an os that works
#2, Stop wasting so much ram

#3, Allow the user to strip the OS down to an insane level. (Meaning, don't tell me what I can't turn off)
#4, Actually make a HELPFUL bootdisk. We all can hack NTFS, so provide tools instead of some lunitics idea of ultimate security.
#5, Introduce a RAM compression scheme if you insisit on useing so much.

We all have our inner noob. Join the NJL, and have more fun!
I believe society is flawed; our notions on life, on child rearing, stem too far back to be of relevance in this day and time.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
re faze
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Sep 2004
Location: The shores of hell.
Posted: 16th Apr 2006 08:02
Link
Quote: " I certainly hope DDS does NOT become mainstream. Huge sizes, blocky compression and low colour amounts are my pet hates."


what the hell are you saying? ive had bitmap quality images that compress smaller than the equivalent jpeg! your using the wrong tools/settings. use dxtex.

Dont code slowly be SWIFT about it!
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Back to top

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2024-11-16 21:35:53
Your offset time is: 2024-11-16 21:35:53