[Kappuru]

[CubaLibre]

Well, like I said, I'm not a true tech-type; everything I know about Windows and PCs in general is stuff I've picked up to get games running.

That being said, Vista's been more stable for me than XP ever was, in terms of remaining up after an application crashes. Occasionally CoD4 will even crash my display driver, and Vista will restart it like a champ, oftentimes without even crashing the game itself.

But yeah, I don't look around on the internet collecting rumors, I only have my own anecdotal experience to go on, and it's worked well enough for me.

(Also, speaking of better menus etc., Office 2007 is awesome. Much bigger step up than the small Start menu improvements and whatnot.)
_________________
Let's Play, starring me.

[108]

[evnvnv]

if anyone here is actually interested in buying one of these (which should imply you've got money to burn?) might i direct your attention to this fine accessory that is being made by some people who are very dear to me

i know its silly but selling them seems like a pretty good idea! apparently they're quite popular!

[Talbain]

[Takashi]

The most amusing thing about Vista, is that the only thing that worked fine in XP, namely the ability that if you pressed Crtl+Alt+Del, you _would_ get the window with the task-manager / shut off buttons, even if the system was falling apart. Vista replaces that with a custom non-standard gui screen so heavy that crashes if a program is hoarding the processor, hence making it useless.

Also, Office 2007 is actually way different from Office 2003 in many ways. If anything, the closest thing to Office 2003 nowadays is erm, OpenOffice.

Thing is, my experience with the latter OSX aren't really any better than Vista.
I'll buy a Air when Steve decides to swap OSX for BeOS.

EDIT: On a side-note, most of the "resource hogging" of vista is part of a caching strategy. It's actually good, since it spares disc usage (and allows for readyboost technology, etc). The problem is that Vista doesn't let us control it in any significant way, so we just have to look at the memory go to whatever _it_ thinks is important.
_________________

low-end.net | Whimsy (soon) | Serfdom 2.0

[XORDYH]

The problem with Vista (or any OS) as an OS for gaming is that it _is_ an OS. What we really need is just a thin kernel that provides a standard API to the hardware, so that games don't have to compete with anything for system resources. I would rather boot into that for my games, and have a separate, full-featured OS for everything else, rather than try to balance tuning a general OS for both gaming and non-gaming tasks.

[!=]

[Takashi]

[XORDYH]

Mac OS X, while not a true microkernel architecture, is quite close.

[CubaLibre]

[!=]

[Toptube]

Vista is only 10 days shy of being out for 1 year. for that short amount of time, I think its doing pretty fine. with Vista in its current (initial) form, there are more degrees of seperation between it and XP then there was XP and 2000. especially if you install a 64 bit Vista, which any full owners of home premium or up also have a license for.

when XP first came out, people were wondering why they needed it instead of windows 2000. you could actually use many windows 2000 drivers for XP because they were so similar. and then SP1 hit, and we started to see some degrees of separation, started to "get" XP. and when SP2 finally hit, it was like you just installed a whole new OS.

Vista already is a whole new OS. sure, its got some little negative quirks, wierd performance things like copying large amounts of files, the volume controls taking forever to access sometimes, etc. EVERYTHING has its own icon. but many small things about it make it quite different from XP, and for the better. every new OS uses more ram, more resources. but Vista does a pretty nice job of only doing that when you are using Vista, and not other programs. for all of the extra ram that it uses, its application and game performance is right with XP. sometimes a lot better. and yes, sometimes a little bit worse, but not much worse. not something you'd notice without a benchmark. and this time, most of those extra resources go into making your computer experience snappier and more transparent. and it works. it made my single core Athlon 64 feel 500mhz faster. and now that I have a dual core, i'm pretty much wating for nothing. even on intial boot. once I login, i'm using Vista. not wating for it to load for another 30 seconds to a minute. actually, I do have to wait about 10 seconds, but that's because Avast starts up and does its intial scan and grabbing control of things.

and regarding the UAC or whatever that prompts you for admin actions and whatnot. its not really annoying to me, and I've had way less problems with it than people scream about on the internet. the only real problem I've had with it is Bitcomet won't save any configuration settings unless I "run as admin"

[Takashi]

[XORDYH]

[Kappuru]

AFAIK, all releases of OSX up until leopard generally ran faster on the same hardware. That is to say, if you jumped from 10.2 to 10.4, it would at least 'feel' snappier due to streamlining of code and other things not transparent to the average user.
_________________

[108]

In other news, you can replace the Macbook Air battery.

So.

Seems like everyone was getting all worked up without ever having seen the actual machine. (Which is something people do a lot for Apple products, I guess.)
_________________