PDA

View Full Version : Windows Vista: I think I hate it



bigbarada
01-09-2008, 10:27 PM
I've been helping a buddy of mine buy a new laptop and he's kind of a frugal (read:cheap) guy, so I thought that he would appreciate me saving him some money. I originally told him to get a $500 Compaq that had 1GB of RAM (all he does is surf around on Ebay and check emails), but I didn't realize that Vista came pre-installed and I definitely didn't realize that Vista is such a RAM hog. The thing ran like it was full of molasses.

So we swapped it out for a Dell Inspiron 1521 with 2GB of RAM, and it seems to run okay but still it just feels a hair too slow.

I know that Macintoshes tend to run a bit slow the first few times you start them up; but they run normal once all the user accounts are set up.

Is it the same with Vista? I sure hope so.

I just can't imagine how Microsoft could take the world's worst operating system and make it even more of a piece of crap.:upset:

stillakid
01-10-2008, 02:13 AM
I just can't imagine how Microsoft could take the world's worst operating system and make it even more of a piece of crap.:upset:

It's called "progress." When you're good at something.... ;)

El Chuxter
01-10-2008, 02:40 AM
I understand Vista is always a memory hog, makes your computer run more slowly, and actually cuts the efficiency of peripheral devices. I have very limited experience, but enough to know it's bad. Really bad. It's next to impossible to troubleshoot or customize. It is a major step backwards. My computer illiterate parents are likely getting a Mac soon because they had to get a new computer, which had Vista, and they hate it so much.

jedi master sal
01-10-2008, 03:02 AM
In my experience MACs have never runs slow due to what was described. can't even run Vista that I know of. Maybe through an emulator, but that's not recommended.

I'll always highly tout using a MAC. Sure we have font issues, but those are few and far between. Otherwise, it's smooth sailing virtually all the time. Personally I haven't had any computer problems (Other than fonts) in well over two years. Font problems crop up maybe once every 9 months or so. But it's usually a fairly easy fix.

Kidhuman
01-10-2008, 03:44 AM
BigB, try getting into a program called MSCONFIG.(Microsoft configuration). What it is is all [programs running in the backgeround of the computer. Try setting it to classic view. Press ctrl + R and then type in MSCONFIG. Then click on the startup tab and it will list all programs runing on the comp at start up. Sut all down sans Security and any wireless systems(uncheck them) Reboot, hopefully it will run faster after shuttion them down. MS always packs junk programs to run at startup using alot of memory. ope that helps and I agree Vista sucks vintage Yak c*ck.

bigbarada
01-10-2008, 07:49 AM
BigB, try getting into a program called MSCONFIG.(Microsoft configuration). What it is is all [programs running in the backgeround of the computer. Try setting it to classic view. Press ctrl + R and then type in MSCONFIG. Then click on the startup tab and it will list all programs runing on the comp at start up. Sut all down sans Security and any wireless systems(uncheck them) Reboot, hopefully it will run faster after shuttion them down. MS always packs junk programs to run at startup using alot of memory. ope that helps and I agree Vista sucks vintage Yak c*ck.

Alright, I'll try that to see if it helps. Is it something that they would have to do every time they start up the computer or can you just do it once?

I'm so used to a Mac that I think all PC's are slow, but if my friend complains about the performance of this one also, then I guess I'll have to try to convince him to make the jump over to Apple. Sure their laptops are more expensive, but you get what you pay for.

bigbarada
01-10-2008, 07:51 AM
In my experience MACs have never runs slow due to what was described.

Maybe that was just a Tiger thing. We always noticed a significant "drag" on start-up when first turning on a machine with Tiger installed.

Kidhuman
01-10-2008, 08:19 AM
Alright, I'll try that to see if it helps. Is it something that they would have to do every time they start up the computer or can you just do it once?

I'm so used to a Mac that I think all PC's are slow, but if my friend complains about the performance of this one also, then I guess I'll have to try to convince him to make the jump over to Apple. Sure their laptops are more expensive, but you get what you pay for.

You will only do it once, but after you do it, it will prompt to reboot the computer and then when it starts up a message should appear stating you ran the system configuration tool, just check do not show me again and ok and it will take care of it.

jedi master sal
01-10-2008, 10:03 AM
Maybe that was just a Tiger thing. We always noticed a significant "drag" on start-up when first turning on a machine with Tiger installed.

Ah could be could be. I forgot what I have installed at the moment. What are we up to, Leopard??
Panther/Jaguar/Tiger/Leopard, Liono, Cheetara, etc....lol ThuderMACS HO!

UKWildcat
01-10-2008, 01:29 PM
Ah could be could be. I forgot what I have installed at the moment. What are we up to, Leopard??
Panther/Jaguar/Tiger/Leopard, Liono, Cheetara, etc....lol ThuderMACS HO!

It's leopard!!! (http://osxleopard.ytmnd.com/)

bigbarada
01-10-2008, 02:58 PM
Ah could be could be. I forgot what I have installed at the moment. What are we up to, Leopard??
Panther/Jaguar/Tiger/Leopard, Liono, Cheetara, etc....lol ThuderMACS HO!

I'm still on Tiger right now and I have no plans to upgrade. Too many nightmares of switching a bunch of old IBM G5s from Panther to Tiger.

So what happens when they run out of cats to name their OS after? I don't think they'll ever use Lion, since it sounds too much like "lying." But do we get Black Panther, Ocelot, Siamese, Tabby?:D

jedi master sal
01-10-2008, 03:06 PM
I'm still on Tiger right now and I have no plans to upgrade. Too many nightmares of switching a bunch of old IBM G5s from Panther to Tiger.

So what happens when they run out of cats to name their OS after? I don't think they'll ever use Lion, since it sounds too much like "lying." But do we get Black Panther, Ocelot, Siamese, Tabby?:D

Serval
Cougar
Caracal
and last but most definitely not least...Liger!

Kidhuman
01-10-2008, 03:26 PM
BigB, did that work on your friends Laptop?

bigbarada
01-10-2008, 03:33 PM
BigB, did that work on your friends Laptop?

It seems to have helped a bit, I'm going through now and getting rid of stuff I know he won't need (like AOL).

There was some stuff that I wasn't sure if I should turn off or not. If I turn off the Dell Pointing Devices driver will it disable the touchpad? Also, I'm assuming that I want to continue to let the Windows Operating System run on startup.

JediTricks
01-10-2008, 04:35 PM
My Compaq laptop has Vista Home Premium in it, Best Buy wouldn't sell me one with XP in it even though HP/Compaq was still allowed to sell them at the time. It's a memory hog, no question, but the pretty "Aero" system doubles the amount of RAM it uses from half a gig to a full gig - that's insane! I did actually like what Aero did with the clear glass look and window previews, but not that much, geez! I don't even remember what I did to deactivate it, but it was a pain in the arse to find. And it turns out Aero significantly drains laptop batteries, without it, Vista is as power-friendly as XP.

For now I'm keeping Vista for 2 reasons:
1) it's a fun "toy" system since it does have Media Center built in and a few other pieces of junk, and it does look better than XP;
2) in order to install XP on my laptop, I'd need to own another f'ing copy of XP which is another $100.

However, HP/Compaq support did mail me step-by-step instructions and links on what I'd need to switch it to XP, drivers and such.

Hibernate mode is more pleasant on Vista, on XP it's all but a hidden option and slow as hell. I use Hibernate pretty much always with the laptop. On the flip side of system advantages, Vista is such a pain if you want to save files or run programs, there's always a permission-required box popping up and slowing down the work.

I find that Vista uses about 65% of my 1gb of RAM on cold startup, and after about 20 minutes of just doing light stuff like running the browser, it dips to the high 40s (I know this because I use the system meter gadget in the windows sidebar, which is actually pretty helpful - it helped me diagnose the fact that Vista + Zone Alarm Antivirus for vista + incomplete ZA AV update download = serious problem).

Oh, and you'll notice I said "Zone Alarm Antivirus FOR VISTA" because ZA regular, which I already have a license for on my XP machine, doesn't work with Vista - thanks a lot Bill Gates... jerk. I haven't gone through most of my other programs to find out what misery is ahead in that department as I've been trying to keep the laptop from having too many compromising programs - if it ever gets lost, I don't want someone getting into my email or FTPing into my servers.

The real reason to hate Vista though is that it runs some programs slower than XP, anything to do with compression takes way longer such as creating a zip file or converting an audio or video file. Some days, that's pretty much all I do!

Kidhuman
01-10-2008, 04:40 PM
It seems to have helped a bit, I'm going through now and getting rid of stuff I know he won't need (like AOL).

There was some stuff that I wasn't sure if I should turn off or not. If I turn off the Dell Pointing Devices driver will it disable the touchpad? Also, I'm assuming that I want to continue to let the Windows Operating System run on startup.

The only things I have running in MSCONFIG are my security devices(norton and zone alarm). I dont know if that would disable the touchpad or not. I dont know much about laptops.

bigbarada
01-10-2008, 05:13 PM
I'm just going to let them take it for now and see if they think it's still too slow.

If they're still unhappy with it, we can just take it back; but it's going to be tough finding a new laptop without Vista installed.

I would love to get them an Apple laptop, but I think most of them will just be out of their price range (a 13" barebones Macbook starts at $1100, that's $600 more than a basic 15" PC laptop). However, I'm a big believer in "you get what you pay for" when it comes to computers. Just like cars, if you spend $13,000 on a Hyndai, then you will notice a definite drop in quality if you are used to driving $30,000 BMWs.

I'll explain the situation to them and if they get frustrated enough they might just spring for the more expensive Apple.

JediTricks
01-10-2008, 05:22 PM
With this Dell Pointing Device driver, just run a system restore point, delete the driver, if the touchpad stops working, use the system restore point.

bigbarada
01-10-2008, 06:11 PM
With this Dell Pointing Device driver, just run a system restore point, delete the driver, if the touchpad stops working, use the system restore point.

If they still feel that the computer is running too slow, I'll give that a try. Thanks.

For the last year or so, they've been borrowing my Sony Vaio laptop and wanted to get their own, so they could give me my computer back. I'm half tempted to just take this Dell back for a refund and sell them my Vaio for about $400. Unfortunately, I have about $9000 worth of software on that laptop that I just can't afford to replace right now.

It's just amazing that a computer I bought over a year ago on clearance that has been dropped twice (once by the cashier who sold it to me) and only has 512MB of RAM, can still run circles around a brand new laptop that has 2GB of RAM and, according to it's specs, should be twice as powerful. All because of the operating system.

jjreason
01-10-2008, 06:18 PM
No Vista for me. I've got a 64bit AMD chip that was designed with Vista in mind, and I have 2gb of RAM operating in dual channel... but XP is just too stable and things are working too well as is (my PC has only hung once or twice in the 2 years since I built it, and I'm on it all the time).

Kidhuman
01-10-2008, 06:20 PM
Vista sucks arse no matter how you look at it. The best way to fix Vista is to install XP.

DarthQuack
01-10-2008, 07:47 PM
Or go back to Windows 3.1. Oh how I miss it.

JediTricks
01-10-2008, 09:14 PM
If they still feel that the computer is running too slow, I'll give that a try. Thanks.Check task manager, it shows a lot more than XP's if you want it to, and it can show what prog is using what resources.


For the last year or so, they've been borrowing my Sony Vaio laptop and wanted to get their own, so they could give me my computer back. I'm half tempted to just take this Dell back for a refund and sell them my Vaio for about $400. Unfortunately, I have about $9000 worth of software on that laptop that I just can't afford to replace right now.Unless they're looking for super slim or styling, the Dell is probably good enough. Actually, my Compaq was $450 new (on sale), is really decent, has its warranty, and nobody else has used it - can't get that from a used computer.


It's just amazing that a computer I bought over a year ago on clearance that has been dropped twice (once by the cashier who sold it to me) and only has 512MB of RAM, can still run circles around a brand new laptop that has 2GB of RAM and, according to it's specs, should be twice as powerful. All because of the operating system.If it has 2gb of RAM, the problem shouldn't be the operating system, that's a whole gig more than Vista Premium running Aero needs. Either the chip is too slow (if it's a Intel Celeron or the AMD equivalent, that's your problem right there), there's a hardware issue like a bad RAM board, or there's some sort of non-OS software running that's draining or holding up resources.



I miss Win 3.1 like I miss being kicked in the crotch, which is to say, not at all.

bigbarada
01-10-2008, 09:55 PM
Check task manager, it shows a lot more than XP's if you want it to, and it can show what prog is using what resources.

Unless they're looking for super slim or styling, the Dell is probably good enough. Actually, my Compaq was $450 new (on sale), is really decent, has its warranty, and nobody else has used it - can't get that from a used computer.

If it has 2gb of RAM, the problem shouldn't be the operating system, that's a whole gig more than Vista Premium running Aero needs. Either the chip is too slow (if it's a Intel Celeron or the AMD equivalent, that's your problem right there), there's a hardware issue like a bad RAM board, or there's some sort of non-OS software running that's draining or holding up resources.


Keep in mind that you are speaking to an Apple-guy here, we don't understand too much beyond "drag-n-drop.":D

What's Task Manager and where do I find it?

Kidhuman
01-10-2008, 10:14 PM
Click start, programs, accessories, system tools and then scheduled task(task manager) close em all and run them on your own.

CaptainSolo1138
01-11-2008, 07:55 AM
Click start, programs, accessories, system tools and then scheduled task(task manager) close em all and run them on your own.

Isn't ctrl+alt+del quicker? Or does that not work on Macs?

Kidhuman
01-11-2008, 12:29 PM
I dont know if that works on Vista

scruffziller
01-11-2008, 04:11 PM
It's called "progress." When you're good at something.... ;)


I whole heartedly agree.

scruffziller
01-13-2008, 08:27 PM
I love Vista. I am biased because I have a brand new kick arse system. Quad core, 9 fan case, faster than Raid dual linked hard drives hard drive, dual linked SLI video cards. They are 512 MB each with the new efficient chipset that runs just a few FPS behind the old chipset that was 768 MB; plus $250 cheaper. Not doing anything, it eats up only 33% of the memory I have. I have 4 gig of RAM but it only uses 3 because it only the 32 bit version. Everything runs smooth and it is cool looking. The "safeguard" aspects are a little annoying but I am glad that they are there. People have always gotten upset when their computer stops working due to something they messed with. Now that an OS has safeguards built in to guard against those things, people can't stand it.:rolleyes:

bigbarada
01-14-2008, 01:48 AM
I love Vista. I am biased because I have a brand new kick arse system. Quad core, 9 fan case, faster than Raid dual linked hard drives hard drive, dual linked SLI video cards. They are 512 MB each with the new efficient chipset that runs just a few FPS behind the old chipset that was 768 MB; plus $250 cheaper. Not doing anything, it eats up only 33% of the memory I have. I have 4 gig of RAM but it only uses 3 because it only the 32 bit version. Everything runs smooth and it is cool looking. The "safeguard" aspects are a little annoying but I am glad that they are there. People have always gotten upset when their computer stops working due to something they messed with. Now that an OS has safeguards built in to guard against those things, people can't stand it.:rolleyes:

I'm a Mac user, so I can see where Vista is trying to copy the Mac OS, but it's still substandard. Mac has had one of the most reliable and stable operating systems for years now and it still manages to be easy to use. Of course, if you are coming over from a PC background, the Mac OS takes some getting used to, but that's mainly because what would take 2 or 3 steps on a PC can usually be performed in one step on a Mac.

For instance, I've owned two different digital cameras in the last year and how many "device drivers" have I had to install on my Macintosh? None. The computer just automatically recognizes the camera and I can download my photos with no fuss whatsoever.

There is no "uninstall" process when you want to get rid of a program, either. If I want to delete Photoshop from my computer, I simply drag the icon to the trash and empty it. Simple as that and it's gone forever, until I reinstall it. Which I love, because I hate how PC programs like to get their hooks into your operating system and don't want to let go.

Add to that the security of Macs, viruses are essentially non-existent. There have been maybe 2 documented viruses for Apple systems since 1984. Compare that to the millions and millions of PC viruses out there. It's primarily because PCs are DOS based and Macs are UNIX based and UNIX has a built in file permission system that essentially blocks viruses from having an effect at the basic code level. So, you can actually get PC viruses on your Mac, but they just sit harmlessly on your hard drive taking up a few KBs here and there. Not the optimal way to run your Mac, but not the death sentence that would be for a PC.

So, yes I hate Vista, but only because it is Microsoft's vain attempt to catch up with Apple. Even with all their resources, however, Vista still fails miserably at every turn.

JediTricks
01-14-2008, 06:30 PM
Keep in mind that you are speaking to an Apple-guy here, we don't understand too much beyond "drag-n-drop.":D

What's Task Manager and where do I find it?Right-click the task bar (the bottom of Windows, where the system tray with the clock and other icons lives) and it'll be one of the options.


I dont know if that works on VistaIt (ctrl-alt-dlt) does, but not as directly as XP and previous, first it brings up a "you sure you wanna do this?!?" dialogue box (like nearly EVERY ****ING THING YOU MIGHT EVER DO IN VISTA! Soooo annoying) and then it brings up a list of choices that CTRL-ALT-DLT can do, which is now a lot more than Task Manager. My aforementioned "right-click the main task bar" method is faster (it works in XP as well).



I love Vista. I am biased because I have a brand new kick arse system. Quad core, 9 fan case, faster than Raid dual linked hard drives hard drive, dual linked SLI video cards. They are 512 MB each with the new efficient chipset that runs just a few FPS behind the old chipset that was 768 MB; plus $250 cheaper. Not doing anything, it eats up only 33% of the memory I have. I have 4 gig of RAM but it only uses 3 because it only the 32 bit version. Everything runs smooth and it is cool looking. The "safeguard" aspects are a little annoying but I am glad that they are there. People have always gotten upset when their computer stops working due to something they messed with. Now that an OS has safeguards built in to guard against those things, people can't stand it.:rolleyes:Sure, now your operating system can stop working without outside influences. :p I've had a lot more problems with Vista than XP. Also, I'd point out that your system would be twice as kickass cool if you were running XP, freeing up a ton more CPU, RAM, and GPU to go even more nuts.



I'm a Mac user, so I can see where Vista is trying to copy the Mac OS, but it's still substandard. Mac has had one of the most reliable and stable operating systems for years now and it still manages to be easy to use. Of course, if you are coming over from a PC background, the Mac OS takes some getting used to, but that's mainly because what would take 2 or 3 steps on a PC can usually be performed in one step on a Mac.And here I thought it was because the Mac mouse has 1 friggin' button. :p



For instance, I've owned two different digital cameras in the last year and how many "device drivers" have I had to install on my Macintosh? None. The computer just automatically recognizes the camera and I can download my photos with no fuss whatsoever.Which is how many XP has had to install as well. And with XP and Vista, you can also plug in any USB scanner and the same thing, it'll automatically recognize it and control it without need of software.



There is no "uninstall" process when you want to get rid of a program, either. If I want to delete Photoshop from my computer, I simply drag the icon to the trash and empty it. Simple as that and it's gone forever, until I reinstall it. Which I love, because I hate how PC programs like to get their hooks into your operating system and don't want to let go.You can do that with PC as well, it's just that Windows has registries to worry about and shared programs, if you delete your Photoshop that way in PC, anything that formerly opened with Photoshop now calls to a missing program; anything that shared a TWAIN driver (for example) with Photoshop now has a missing component.

And the only reason there aren't more Mac viruses is because there's not enough Mac users to warrant spending time writing them, nor is there a big powerbase to take down by doing so.

stillakid
01-14-2008, 08:14 PM
I what would take 2 or 3 steps on a PC can usually be performed in one step on a Mac.

Can you provide some examples? :confused: I haven't used MAC in years so I truly don't know.

scruffziller
01-15-2008, 11:49 AM
Sure, now your operating system can stop working without outside influences. :p


Like Gene Wilder asked in Blazing Saddles, "When?"



Also, I'd point out that your system would be twice as kickass cool if you were running XP, freeing up a ton more CPU, RAM, and GPU to go even more nuts. I certainly had thought of getting XP once again but it was hella boring. I like Vista's smoothness and the way it looks and feels so I made sure that I had enough hardware to go around for it. As a matter of fact, my system is actually way overkill for Vista's needs. But I did it for longevity for things for the years to come. So it goes nuts all that I need it to. I could even go 64 bit down the road if I wanted to. I just need to get a Hi-Def monitor and faster internet. That is all that is holding my computer back and even with those minor inconsistencies, I am not in that big of a hurry. All you need for Vista to work correctly is to have the system to sustain it. And, the computer knowledge and heads up on things to know what to expect and why. Given time, Vista's kinks will be worked out due to the attention given to make it as stable as XP is now. Which a good deal of is that the manufacturers of other pieces of software have had their products evolve with XP over the years and they have become the new standard.
Back when XP was brand new, I had alot of people complain about the same thing. They couldn't do stuff on XP now and wanted to do things on 98 that someone else was doing on XP.

I have always admired Macs' reliability and stability BigB, but it is just way to limited in versatility for my tastes.

bigbarada
01-15-2008, 01:59 PM
And the only reason there aren't more Mac viruses is because there's not enough Mac users to warrant spending time writing them, nor is there a big powerbase to take down by doing so.

I've heard, but I don't think I believe it. Mainly because Macs have been around for a while and the commercial campaign of Macintosh making fun of PCs have run for years. Plenty of time for a annoyed PC user to come up with a virus to disable Mac computers. But, in the 6 years that I've been using Macs, there hasn't been a single virus alert. Again, I believe that the UNIX file permissions system has a lot to do with that.


Can you provide some examples? :confused: I haven't used MAC in years so I truly don't know.

Unfortunately, all of the examples I had of that were related to Windows 98, since I jumped from that OS to the Mac OS 9, which just seemed lightyears easier to use. Then OSX came out and it got even better. I didn't even start using XP until late last year and last week was my first experience with Vista.

The easiest example for me would have to do with "thumbdrives" those little 1-4GB mini-harddrives that you can buy just about anywhere now. On a PC, I plug in the drive and have to wait for it to be detected and install some drivers, then I get a dialog box that asks me what I want to with it. I can select a default function from there, but if I want to access the files at a later time, I would have to double click on the My Computer shortcut, then find the drive in the menu and double click on that to view it's contents. Then when I'm done with it, I have to click on the icon in the task bar and select "Safely Remove Hardware," then I have to select "stop" from another menu, then wait for the prompt to tell me that the drive can now be safely removed.

On a Mac, you plug in the thumbdrive and, after a few seconds, an icon representing that drive appears on your desktop. You just double click on it to view it's contents and when you are done with it, you simply drag it to the Trash and it ejects it. Simple as that.


I have always admired Macs' reliability and stability BigB, but it is just way to limited in versatility for my tastes.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. I've used all the professional grade software for graphic design, video editing and 3D animation: Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign, Quark, Dreamweaver, Final Cut Pro, Maya, Cinema 4D, Zbrush, etc. We haven't had problems with any of it. Of course, the compatibility wasn't always there (Maya and Zbrush are relatively new additions), but it's there now.

There are also plenty of games available for the Mac, including stuff like Halo 3, Doom 3, Star Wars Battlefront, Guitar Hero, WOW, and so on.
http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/wa/RSLID?nnmm=browse&mco=2E630EB&node=home/shop_mac/software/action_games

Now, if by "versatility" you are talking about those $10 pieces of software that you buy at Wal-Mart, no that stuff isn't very compatible with Mac; but why would you want to put that cheap garbage on your computer is beyond me.

El Chuxter
01-15-2008, 02:05 PM
I was troubleshooting my parents' slow-arse computer again this weekend. All the Vista diagnostics showed it was operating at peak efficiency, but didn't have the processor power to run the stupid visual effects Vista touts as an actual advantage. (I'd turned them all off last time I was up, and it was still crawling.)

Turns out the problem was that three different antivirus programs were installed and running at once! I just happened to notice this. Vista didn't seem to think anything was out of the ordinary. So much for user-friendly and intuitive.

But a truly odd thing: when I restarted the computer, I absent-mindedly hit the power button to turn it back on (when it was still on, only restarting). When I realized what I'd done and tried to turn it on again, it popped up with a debugging screen of some sort. Though it gave me "Cancel" as an option, it told me when I hit it that it could not be cancelled. Finally, after five minutes or so, it told me the computer could not be automatically fixed, and to contact someone.

Knowing that a mere unexpected shutoff wasn't likely to do severe damage, I just turned it off and turned it on again. No problems this time. So why did the stupid thing tell me I had to contact someone to repair it?

Oh, and the computer's running at a normal speed now.

scruffziller
01-16-2008, 12:45 PM
Now, if by "versatility" you are talking about those $10 pieces of software that you buy at Wal-Mart, no that stuff isn't very compatible with Mac; but why would you want to put that cheap garbage on your computer is beyond me.

I'm probably being ignorant when I say that because I haven't been keeping up with the Mac world so there is probably a good deal of things that are written for Mac that wasn't say, even 5 years ago. So i guess I have been living in that world all this time. But there is probably alot more to offer than I am aware of. My brother is a computer technical manager, I will have to ask him what his experience has been in detail. All I know is, is that he leans toward PCs in general. Plus there is alot of "independent";) software out there that I like to use that maybe is hard to find for Macs. Not necessarily illegal stuff but software that is written to do things that the general market software doesn't do. And yes, I don't touch the Wal-Mart software rack with a 50 foot pole. But, having a PC, I like the peace of mind that any software I do pick up I don't really have to worry if it is PC compatible.

JediTricks
01-16-2008, 07:19 PM
My favorite was the Get A Mac commercial last year that came out touting Mac's lack of viruses the same day a new Mac virus was found in the wild. :p Unix ain't some magical lockbox, I've known of several Unix and Linux-based servers that have been hacked or virused, including one of my own. Like I said, it's just that there's few people interested in writing a Mac virus or trojan because it won't affect many people.

El Chuxter
01-17-2008, 08:08 PM
Due to unforeseen circumstances beyond my control, I'm going to have to get a new computer very soon. Since all of my software is Windows-format, I'm going to unfortunately have to get Vista.

Dammit.

Kidhuman
01-17-2008, 08:13 PM
Due to unforeseen circumstances beyond my control, I'm going to have to get a new computer very soon. Since all of my software is Windows-format, I'm going to unfortunately have to get Vista.

Dammit.

You will be in my thoughts and prayers.

El Chuxter
01-17-2008, 08:17 PM
Yeah, this technically ain't my computer. It was bought by the yearbook publisher's rep for my wife for use on the yearbook, and would become hers after five years (since it'll be obsolete).

The incompetent administration at her school just axed the class with barely a week's notice, told the students before telling my wife, and wanted her to continue to teach it "off the record." Meaning the kids would be listed and graded as if they were in the newspaper class, but my wife would be teaching them yearbook for no pay.

As you can surmise, she wisely told them that they were on their own. But that means that, instead of paying off the bills I incurred for Christmas presents and other stuff in December, I'll be buying a computer within the next week. And Adobe Creative Suite, since I need that for my work, and it costs about as much as the computer itself (if not more). :(

On the plus side, she gains about 20-30 hours a week (no exaggeration) and will be less likely to turn grey-haired.

JediTricks
01-18-2008, 02:40 PM
Due to unforeseen circumstances beyond my control, I'm going to have to get a new computer very soon. Since all of my software is Windows-format, I'm going to unfortunately have to get Vista.

Dammit.A lot of folks are downgrading to XP, which is a pretty easy install, but you'll have to drop around $100 for the OS. If your new PC has at least 1.5 gig of RAM, Vista will have you stylin' and profilin' though (there's probably some administrator settings to shut the security whinings up too, I just haven't bothered as to this point).

A lot of older Adobe products don't work on Vista though, so you will want to look it up and see if yours is among them. It'd probably be wise to buy a used XP computer if that is the case, as Adobe software is nothing if not expensive to replace.

El Chuxter
01-18-2008, 02:53 PM
The one we're looking at has 3 GB of RAM, so that shouldn't be a problem. (We haven't picked it up yet since Costco's running a special on it a week from now.) However, Adobe CS2 could be an issue. It'd be cheaper to downgrade to XP than to upgrade that bundle of fun. :) Thanks for the heads-up there; I hadn't even considered compatibility issues with software that's only a couple of years old. Adobe says the only known major issue deals with Acrobat 7.0, but, still, updating just Acrobat would be considerably more than downgrading to XP.

JediTricks
01-18-2008, 03:30 PM
Vista and CS2 don't work together well, and have a difficult installation problem: http://www.adobeforums.com/webx/.3c052a39

3gb is pretty swanky though, but downgrading is still gonna be another $100.

El Chuxter
01-18-2008, 03:51 PM
Wow. After looking at prices for CS3, as well as all the confusing options for combinations of software, $100 for XP is looking like a major, major bargain.

bigbarada
01-18-2008, 04:01 PM
Wow. After looking at prices for CS3, as well as all the confusing options for combinations of software, $100 for XP is looking like a major, major bargain.

Is CS3 significantly more expensive than CS2? I bought the entire CS2 package for about $1000 back in early 2006. Unfortunately, it was for the old IBM-processor Macs, so I've been running them on decreased functionality since buying my new Intel iMac a year and a half ago. So I really need to upgrade. But if the price is significantly higher, I might just buy Photoshop for now and get Illustrator later on. I don't use InDesign, GoLive or any of the other CS programs nearly enough to justify buying them again.

JediTricks
01-18-2008, 04:16 PM
Yeah, downgrading is probably a good idea then. Make sure you buy a legal copy of XP that is a full version, not a cheaper upgrade pack or bootleg, or else you risk lockout.

El Chuxter
01-18-2008, 04:24 PM
CS3 starts around $1200 on the Adobe site. Part of the problem is there are like three thousand variations of it. I know I need InDesign and PhotoShop, and Illustrator and Acrobat are only a slight notch below those two. But most of these variants seem to be geared toward animation and the like. I expected the Macromedia products to be worked in to CS, but not in such a confusing way. I suppose it allows you to get what you need and not what you don't. But it would be nice to get a fairly limited web design program, like GoLive (which no longer exists, apparently). And I'll have to research whether "PhotoShop Extended Version" is extended with junk I don't need or stuff that might actually be useful.

Man, the easier they supposedly try to make this stuff, the more convoluted it becomes.

I'd buy CS3 and write it off as a business expense in a heartbeat... if I was making enough to drop that much money in addition to buying the new computer.

El Chuxter
01-20-2008, 12:10 AM
I may be getting CS3 after all....

Doing some research, Costco has another special on a Dell computer, comparable to the HP we were looking at, but with about double the hard drive space, for $100 more. Since my work, and my future business endeavors, involve a carpload of hi-res pics, it may be the better way to go. It also includes the updated version of Office; I'm not sure I could live without Excel and Word, though the rest I can leave.

However, an off-hand remark from my wife led me to do some digging, and it looks like she can get CS3 Design Standard (InDesign, PhotoShop, Illustrator, and Acrobat) with a pretty hefty educational discount. As in closer to the price of XP than CS3 without the discount.

I have this feeling we'll be going that route after investigating a little further.

scruffziller
08-03-2008, 08:54 AM
Check this out.

http://www.mojaveexperiment.com/

Vista here in my place is still going strong!!!!

JediTricks
08-03-2008, 03:32 PM
IMO, that's total marketing bullcrap. A sampling of 140? Yeah, I'm sure they were really picked randomly too. Riiiight. :rolleyes: And wow, a high rating on a machine of unknown configuration with users enjoying only the surface systems in ideal circumstances? Gee, that's not at all a ridiculous slant on the fact that the OS's failures are all core issues far beyond skin deep. My hatred for Microsoft has renewed itself with that website, they've re-surpassed my distaste for the Apple cultists on that one.


That reminds me, my laptop's Vista completely embarrassed us in front of Hasbro when it hung while loading a flash drive from Hasbro's digital resources. And this wasn't a weird flash drive, this was a 2gb Sandisk cruzer, the EXACT same one I use most often (and theirs had only 1 file on it). They couldn't remove their drive without fear of it corrupting, and I couldn't get Vista to do anything for 5 minutes while it ate up my laptop battery grinding away loading a simple driver that it already had. That was only 1 of about a dozen "Vista moments" during the convention which cost me greatly, Vista is a piece of garbage and my opinion of it has dropped considerably since last year (when it was none too high to begin with).

The only thing that kept me from being entirely mortified by the Hasbro flash drive experience is that the other site trying to get those resources had NO power in their laptop battery and there was nowhere to plug in, so it was funny that we each had to wait for different technical delays. :p

scruffziller
08-03-2008, 05:24 PM
IMO, that's total marketing bullcrap. A sampling of 140? Yeah, I'm sure they were really picked randomly too. Riiiight. :rolleyes: And wow, a high rating on a machine of unknown configuration with users enjoying only the surface systems in ideal circumstances? Gee, that's not at all a ridiculous slant on the fact that the OS's failures are all core issues far beyond skin deep. My hatred for Microsoft has renewed itself with that website, they've re-surpassed my distaste for the Apple cultists on that one.


That reminds me, my laptop's Vista completely embarrassed us in front of Hasbro when it hung while loading a flash drive from Hasbro's digital resources. And this wasn't a weird flash drive, this was a 2gb Sandisk cruzer, the EXACT same one I use most often (and theirs had only 1 file on it). They couldn't remove their drive without fear of it corrupting, and I couldn't get Vista to do anything for 5 minutes while it ate up my laptop battery grinding away loading a simple driver that it already had. That was only 1 of about a dozen "Vista moments" during the convention which cost me greatly, Vista is a piece of garbage and my opinion of it has dropped considerably since last year (when it was none too high to begin with).

The only thing that kept me from being entirely mortified by the Hasbro flash drive experience is that the other site trying to get those resources had NO power in their laptop battery and there was nowhere to plug in, so it was funny that we each had to wait for different technical delays. :p

Ok, so what am I doing wrong then? :Par: No matter what I do, Vista still runs nominally for me. I guess I am just a screw up then.

sith_killer_99
08-03-2008, 05:48 PM
First of all, XP is a more stable operating system. It's also had 7 years to mature. However, when it was released I heard all the same complaints...memory hog, weak security, poor driver support, blah blah blah. Now, after 7 years and numerous updates, we have a solid mature OS.

Vista is not a bad OS, it just needs time to mature, like XP. It has bugs that will need to be worked out, that takes time.

As for laptop computers, we just bought my daughter a new 15.4 inch HP from Wal-mart. We paid $598 for a 15.4 inch, AMD TL-60 (2.0 GHz 64 bit dual core), 3GB ram, 120GB HDD, Nvidia geforce 7150M graphics, b/g wi-fi, and vista home premium.

It run vista home premium without any major issues.

bigbarada
08-03-2008, 06:13 PM
I've been running Mac OS 10.4 for going on two years now. In that time I've never had to download a single driver, never gotten a virus or installed a single byte of internet security software, and my computer has never crashed even once.

Considering I run programs like Photoshop and Illustrator for hours every single day, I think that's a pretty good record.:yes:

sith_killer_99
08-03-2008, 08:51 PM
I've been running Mac OS 10.4 for going on two years now. In that time I've never had to download a single driver, never gotten a virus or installed a single byte of internet security software, and my computer has never crashed even once.

Now that's just CRAZY talk.:crazed:

Granted there are less viruses designed to attack MAC's, but apple has 5-10% of the market share.

Virus programmers want to inflict mass damage. Thus they target the widest audience...Windows users.

However, a clever criminal will quickly learn that MAC users are so confident in their "secure" OS that they seldom if ever use any kind of security software. This makes a VERY tempting target for identity theft and/or data mining. Worms, trojan horses and other maleware designed to give up access to your system without causing obvious damage.

Windows, Linux, or OS X a person would have to be crazy to go online without some kind of protection.

It's like saying "oh she's on the pill, so I don't have to use protection" there are still a lot of STD's out there.;)

I would give you the same advise I gave a buddy of mine, who's girlfriend was "on the pill"...go get tested.

There are some good programs out there...for free, to run security checks on your computer...Windows and OS X.

Just my 2 cents.

JediTricks
08-04-2008, 11:19 PM
Ok, so what am I doing wrong then? :Par: No matter what I do, Vista still runs nominally for me. I guess I am just a screw up then.Low expectations perhaps?

C'mon, how are you not annoyed by not being able to save files off the web anywhere you want on your harddrive? Or being CONSTANTLY bombarded with the OS asking if you really want to take an action you just called up? Or those extra beats that each folder takes to open up? Or having windows explorer or networking hang for no reason, grinding away while displaying only that slow-moving green progress bar that ultimately ends up meaning nothing when it totally fails to deliver? Or the error box that gives you 3 options for help that all result in failure? Or the OS eating up twice your RAM and 4 times if you're using Aero? Or Aero halving your laptop battery (if you don't run a laptop, then it just doubles your electric bill for your PC instead)? Or the large number of programs that don't work with Vista, or work with it on a reduced behavior level? Or the OS being 70% slower at compressing data such as with making a video file, audio file, or zip file?

Vista can be a fun toy at times, it has some nice surface features, but NOTHING about the usability I've seen so far compares favorably with XP, and a lot of Vista's real usability ends up with problems like load-lag and hanging.



First of all, XP is a more stable operating system. It's also had 7 years to mature. However, when it was released I heard all the same complaints...memory hog, weak security, poor driver support, blah blah blah. Now, after 7 years and numerous updates, we have a solid mature OS.

Vista is not a bad OS, it just needs time to mature, like XP. It has bugs that will need to be worked out, that takes time.

As for laptop computers, we just bought my daughter a new 15.4 inch HP from Wal-mart. We paid $598 for a 15.4 inch, AMD TL-60 (2.0 GHz 64 bit dual core), 3GB ram, 120GB HDD, Nvidia geforce 7150M graphics, b/g wi-fi, and vista home premium.

It run vista home premium without any major issues.XP's first service pack addressed a lot of the OS problems. Vista's first service pack has solved NONE of it's problems, and in fact the new search indexing system has actually caused increased performance issues on my Vista machine.

Vista is a worthless update, it doesn't DO anything substantially better than XP (sorry, but 64-bit XP exists so even that isn't better) and it limits usability of many existing programs. They knew it was a billion dollar waste of time, they released it to explain why they drilled through all that money with nothing but a bloated Mac OS wannabe that looked slightly better than XP.



I've been running Mac OS 10.4 for going on two years now. In that time I've never had to download a single driver, never gotten a virus or installed a single byte of internet security software, and my computer has never crashed even once.

Considering I run programs like Photoshop and Illustrator for hours every single day, I think that's a pretty good record.:yes:First off, you're not helping by sticking your Apple cultism into our faces. :p

Second, power Mac users are going to be complaining soon when the next version of Photoshop comes out at 64bit and Mac can't use it (Mac changed to a new 64-bit language late, told Adobe it's their way or the highway, so 64-bit Photoshop is PC-only because they couldn't strip all that work away and rebuild a new program from the bolts up simply to accommodate 10% of the market share).

Third, with a comparable PC version of what you got, hardware and software, you could have bought a couple used cars with the money saved from buying Apple.

Fourth, I run Photoshop all the time on XP and no problems. Hell, even when I run Photoshop on Vista (I don't do it often because photoshop on my laptop is a pain to use, even with a wireless mouse) that program doesn't have problems.

scruffziller
08-06-2008, 02:14 PM
Low expectations perhaps?

Or just more patience and understanding of what computers are all about. I've been working with them since the early 80s and in order to make them a part of your life, you must have a non-Hollywood view of them. The only main determining factor that makes an operating system work the best is the flexibility of the hardware. Which I have. XP and all the previous operating systems only worked as good as the level of hardware I had. Because my current PC is the best I have ever had; proportionate to the time, my OS has the best it has ever had.



C'mon, how are you not annoyed by not being able to save files off the web anywhere you want on your harddrive?


Ummmm, I can. I disabled that safeguard.



Or having windows explorer or networking hang for no reason, grinding away while displaying only that slow-moving green progress bar that ultimately ends up meaning nothing when it totally fails to deliver?


The only time that that happens for me is if the website's server is lagging; which happens no matter how good your computer or OS is. Because I will check another website or sites and they will load fine.



Or the error box that gives you 3 options for help that all result in failure?


Mine has always fixed the problem. Every computer I have ever had has always had glitches that will occur, but my experience with Vista has been the best of them all. XP was/is still good. But like I have said, your hardware is the key factor.





Or the OS eating up twice your RAM and 4 times if you're using Aero? Or Aero halving your laptop battery (if you don't run a laptop, then it just doubles your electric bill for your PC instead)? Or the large number of programs that don't work with Vista, or work with it on a reduced behavior level? Or the OS being 70% slower at compressing data such as with making a video file, audio file, or zip file?



Yes, Vista does eat up RAM. You have to have the proper weapon to slay the beast. Have LOTS of RAM. I have 3 Gig for my 32 bit version.
And yes, I have had one program that was not supported by Vista but it eventually came out with a patch to where it did. But I guarantee that Mac has MANY programs that will not run on it or ever will. Knowing the reasoning of the computer market and considerations allow me to be patient on this stuff and allow me to sail smooth through the experience. So I would say your expectations are much higher than mine that would be low.

JediTricks
08-09-2008, 08:46 PM
Or just more patience and understanding of what computers are all about. I've been working with them since the early 80s and in order to make them a part of your life, you must have a non-Hollywood view of them. The only main determining factor that makes an operating system work the best is the flexibility of the hardware. Which I have. XP and all the previous operating systems only worked as good as the level of hardware I had. Because my current PC is the best I have ever had; proportionate to the time, my OS has the best it has ever had.I'm not buying this, my aunt and uncle were designing computers in the '70s, writing some of the first AI software, and I got a lot of hand-me-down PCs back in the early '80s. I was one of the first users of Santa Monica's Public Electronic Network, the world's first municipal public network (years before the public internet), and for the past 12 years I've made my living entirely on the internet. I have a 166mhz 16mb RAM pc on my floor that runs win 95 (I refused to update to '98 or ME), I've got a Palm IIIxe handheld, my step-dad was an early adopter of Linux and my mom has a Linux-based UMPC. So I'm well aware of patience with computers, and Vista is a HUGE step backwards from XP in that area, I just don't buy your argument at all. My laptop is superior in hardware to my desktop PC that runs XP, but in terms of usability there's no comparison, my desktop PC is the machine I use for everything because of stability and response, the only thing Vista offers that XP doesn't (out of box, mind you) is a superior hibernate system and better built-in games. An upgraded operating system shouldn't ask the user to be MORE patient than the previous version. Microsoft knows it's a failure, they knew it offered nothing important, that's why they ran a year long cramming toys into it to make up for the billion bucks the dumped coming up with nothing, why they were forced by market forces to extend support for XP until 2013, and why they're now already planning a new OS release in a year or so. Vista is a lemon, it's another Win 2000, and all the patience in the world won't make that false.

If I were to backgrade my laptop to XP, it'd be easily the best machine I've ever used, but with Vista it is not. That is tragic.



Ummmm, I can. I disabled that safeguard.How is that a reasonable answer? You had to disable one of the key measures that makes Vista supposedly safer than XP, its enhanced security, and I'm betting it wasn't easy to disable either (I'm guessing you're running the browser as the administrator rather than user, right?)


The only time that that happens for me is if the website's server is lagging; which happens no matter how good your computer or OS is. Because I will check another website or sites and they will load fine.No no, not Internet Explorer, Windows Explorer, the program that explores your folders and files, as well as network locations. With Vista, this often misbehaves and the location bar slowly turns green as it pretends it's getting the job done instead of just eating time, which is what it normally means.

BTW, if you're using an HP or a Compaq that had Vista pre-installed, you're using a proprietary version of Vista that has been rewritten to take out aspects that HP deemed too unstable or unusable for their customers - the MS version of the OS is so inferior that HP felt they had to alter several aspects to make it usable.


Mine has always fixed the problem. Every computer I have ever had has always had glitches that will occur, but my experience with Vista has been the best of them all. XP was/is still good. But like I have said, your hardware is the key factor.I've not had one of those "answer" things work, the networking ones are the worst because they end up with vague responses that don't fix anything and then I just go into the settings or the networking connections and the fix is right there. XP I almost NEVER run into those sorts of situations, yet almost every boot of Vista on every machine I've used so far has had at least 1.


Yes, Vista does eat up RAM. You have to have the proper weapon to slay the beast. Have LOTS of RAM. I have 3 Gig for my 32 bit version.That's an Apple answer, just keep spending until it works better. My XP is a destroyer at 512mb of RAM (it had 768 for a while, but one of the boards died), my Vista runs 1gb with a 30% faster processor and yet is an inferior performer in nearly every way.

bigbarada
08-10-2008, 09:47 PM
First off, you're not helping by sticking your Apple cultism into our faces. :p

Second, power Mac users are going to be complaining soon when the next version of Photoshop comes out at 64bit and Mac can't use it (Mac changed to a new 64-bit language late, told Adobe it's their way or the highway, so 64-bit Photoshop is PC-only because they couldn't strip all that work away and rebuild a new program from the bolts up simply to accommodate 10% of the market share).

Third, with a comparable PC version of what you got, hardware and software, you could have bought a couple used cars with the money saved from buying Apple.

Fourth, I run Photoshop all the time on XP and no problems. Hell, even when I run Photoshop on Vista (I don't do it often because photoshop on my laptop is a pain to use, even with a wireless mouse) that program doesn't have problems.

Ouch, that's going to suck.:upset:

For the record, I have a Sony VAIO that runs XP and I've used Photoshop, Illustrator, Dreamweaver and Maya on it with zero problems whatsoever.

Photoshop and Illustrator on my Mac crash occasionally, but only because I'm using the Intel processor and my Adobe software isn't the Universal version.

I think the internet security aspect of Macintosh is one of the biggest selling points, but I don't have any anti-virus installed on my PC either and I haven't had any problems. Mainly because I don't surf around on my PC, I spend most of my time on YouTube, Ebay, here, or on websites that I built myself.

So I'm not an Apple cultist, I've just had the most experience with them and all the hand-me-down software that I got from my college was Apple compatible. Thus it was cheaper to buy an Apple because I already had over $2,000 of Apple software.

JediTricks
08-11-2008, 12:35 AM
Sounds like even when you don't want to believe in The Apple, you have to. :p

Oh man, I almost lost it this afternoon when Vista started freaking out on me. I couldn't even access the task manager, so I ctrl-alt-dlt to access task manager, tried to shut down the Vista program that was hanging the OS, and it kept going to black screen then said "security measures failure" with "ok" as my only choice. Eventually, I had to hard-reboot the laptop and get nagged about choosing the proper reboot scenario (with 1 less choice than the XP version, and it's the most important one, what's up with that?). So yeah, Vista = the suck.

Oh yeah, and strangely, it locked out the ability to access the web, except the forums through links.

scruffziller
08-11-2008, 03:12 PM
I'm not buying this, my aunt and uncle were designing computers in the '70s, writing some of the first AI software, and I got a lot of hand-me-down PCs back in the early '80s. I was one of the first users of Santa Monica's Public Electronic Network, the world's first municipal public network (years before the public internet), and for the past 12 years I've made my living entirely on the internet. I have a MHz MB RAM PC on my floor that runs win 95 (I refused to update to '98 or ME), I've got a Palm IIIxe handheld, my step-dad was an early adopter of Linux and my mom has a Linux-based UMPC. So I'm well aware of patience with computers, and Vista is a HUGE step backwards from XP in that area, I just don't buy your argument at all. My laptop is superior in hardware to my desktop PC that runs XP, but in terms of usability there's no comparison, my desktop PC is the machine I use for everything because of stability and response, the only thing Vista offers that XP doesn't (out of box, mind you) is a superior hibernate system and better built-in games. An upgraded operating system shouldn't ask the user to be MORE patient than the previous version. Microsoft knows it's a failure, they knew it offered nothing important, that's why they ran a year long cramming toys into it to make up for the billion bucks the dumped coming up with nothing, why they were forced by market forces to extend support for XP until 2013, and why they're now already planning a new OS release in a year or so. Vista is a lemon, it's another Win 2000, and all the patience in the world won't make that false.

If I were to back grade my laptop to XP, it'd be easily the best machine I've ever used, but with Vista it is not. That is tragic.



Call my attitude what you will, stupid, low standards, ignorance, denial, etc.. Your arms are flailing, mine are not.



How is that a reasonable answer? You had to disable one of the key measures that makes Vista supposedly safer than XP, its enhanced security, and I'm betting it wasn't easy to disable either (I'm guessing you're running the browser as the administrator rather than user, right?)


I could care less about Vista's enhanced security. I got my own safeguards that I use. The same ones that I used when I had XP. I disabled the "User Account Control". And it was easy to find. And like I said, XP was a fine operating system and still is. But it is out of date. Time to move on. You can still use XP, but when will you decide to move one?



No no, not Internet Explorer, Windows Explorer, the program that explores your folders and files, as well as network locations. With Vista, this often misbehaves and the location bar slowly turns green as it pretends it's getting the job done instead of just eating time, which is what it normally means.


I have no idea what you are talking about. I have never had a problem like that.




BTW, if you're using an HP or a Compaq that had Vista pre-installed, you're using a proprietary version of Vista that has been rewritten to take out aspects that HP deemed too unstable or unusable for their customers - the MS version of the OS is so inferior that HP felt they had to alter several aspects to make it usable.

I am NOT using manufactured crap for my computers. Mine is a custom-built, top of the line, gaming powerhouse computer. It's price tag was $2500.



That's an Apple answer, just keep spending until it works better. My XP is a destroyer at MB of RAM (it had 768 for a while, but one of the boards died), my Vista runs GB with a 30% faster processor and yet is an inferior performer in nearly every way.


You had to spend money on new computers to get from Windows 3.1, Windows 95 etc. to XP. I KNEW exactly what I had to spend to allow Vista to work for me. I went into the situation completely prepared and have not regretted it one bit. Besides, it isn't just Vista that I have 3 gigs of RAM for (4, when I get 64 bit), it's all the other programs that I use demand WAY more than a measly 512 MB. Heck, I couldn't even stand 1 gig of Ram on my XP machine back in 2002. I had to have at least 2 gig. If Vista is as bad as you say, then I should be having the same problems as you. I am not, on my powerhouse computer
This is an argument of computer use capacity and what one is wanting. It has nothing to do with the OS.
If you try to take a Ford Accord onto a racetrack and wonder why you are coming in last place. Well, I think you need to spend some more money on a different race car.

JediTricks
08-12-2008, 11:57 PM
Call my attitude what you will, stupid, low standards, ignorance, denial, etc.. Your arms are flailing, mine are not.Funny, I don't see where I called you stupid or ignorant or in denial. Which one of us called the other out on something? Oh, that's right, you, when you suggested I had less patience and understanding of what computers are all about which is why I was having issues with Vista.


I could care less about Vista's enhanced security. I got my own safeguards that I use. The same ones that I used when I had XP. I disabled the "User Account Control". And it was easy to find. And like I said, XP was a fine operating system and still is. But it is out of date. Time to move on. You can still use XP, but when will you decide to move one?Enhanced security is one of its only reasons to exist. That and the new indexing system are pretty much all that turkey has over XP, the rest is toys (new programs, new icons, new graphics, all stuff you could tack onto XP if you so desired). XP's automatic updates has kept it an up-to-date OS, and Vista is not a significant improvement from it except in "security" (program behavior management, which most folks are confused by, and you disabled) and the shell's indexing system (searching files, which has 1 significant improvement and 1 significant drawback to XP), so I don't see how you can claim Vista is moving on when it's not an evolutionary leap ahead of XP except in marketing.


I have no idea what you are talking about. I have never had a problem like that.Then you must not look for files a lot, because this is a commonly complained-about issue with the program and well-documented in most professional bench tests of the OS.


I am NOT using manufactured crap for my computers. Mine is a custom-built, top of the line, gaming powerhouse computer. It's price tag was $2500.My point wasn't what you are using, but that one of the largest manufacturers of computers in the world felt Vista was problematic enough to have to rewrite. I said "if you had an HP with Vista pre-installed".... And I can't imagine why someone would pay $2500 for a PC and then want to drop another $125 for Vista separately.

BTW, I guess I see now why you're so defensive of Vista, it runs DirectX 10 which XP currently does not, and that's a gamer-centric issue. As I'm not a PC gamer, and I don't really care about the 18 games that currently run DirectX 10 or the dozen more announced games, it's not a big major element. Also, there have been ports of DirectX 10 for XP, and rumor has it that MS is considering bringing it over officially before DirectX 11 comes out.


You had to spend money on new computers to get from Windows 3.1, Windows 95 etc. to XP. I KNEW exactly what I had to spend to allow Vista to work for me. I went into the situation completely prepared and have not regretted it one bit. Besides, it isn't just Vista that I have 3 gigs of RAM for (4, when I get 64 bit), it's all the other programs that I use demand WAY more than a measly 512 MB. Heck, I couldn't even stand 1 gig of Ram on my XP machine back in 2002. I had to have at least 2 gig. If Vista is as bad as you say, then I should be having the same problems as you. I am not, on my powerhouse computerWell, considering how great the minority you are in for Vista satisfied customers out there, I have to assume either you're very lucky or you're not noticing what everybody else, including unbiased scientific testing, has shown to be the numerous problems with the OS.


This is an argument of computer use capacity and what one is wanting. It has nothing to do with the OS.
If you try to take a Ford Accord onto a racetrack and wonder why you are coming in last place. Well, I think you need to spend some more money on a different race car.What's a "Ford Accord"? Anyway, that's a crock of crap and I've already explained why in previous posts, but the short version: My DESKTOP pc, running XP with just half a gig of RAM and an old, slower CPU with a mere 32mb of video RAM outperforms my Vista LAPTOP with a very new Intel dual-core processor, a gig of RAM, and 224mb of v-ram (as well as a faster front-side-bus speed and double the L2 writeback cache) when running the exact same programs, and in the Windows environment performing similar behavior encounters a lot less issues than Vista - which is consistent with the numerous Vista complaints out there.

scruffziller
08-13-2008, 09:32 AM
What's a "Ford Accord"?

Wow, that was a major brain fart on my part.lol I meant to say Honda Accord and I was thinking Ford Tempo. I was going to use either one but messed it up.

JT I think we understand each other and I am satisfied with our discussion. So I think at this point we can agree to disagree or at least see the perspective of each other.:)



I have to assume either you're very lucky or you're not noticing what everybody else, including unbiased scientific testing, has shown to be the numerous problems with the OS.


Could you provide me a link to the reports on the scientific testing?

JediTricks
08-16-2008, 11:58 PM
Honda Accord is not that bad a car, very easy to make into a tuner and burn the motor out on... I mean "go fast". ;) Hackable which is good.

Ford Tempo is pretty much the bottom of the f'ing barrel, my grandmother just got rid of hers after far too long. I looked it up in Kelley blue book long before she sold it, you pretty much can't find a non-maintenance repair on it that is CHEAPER than its blue book value, it was worth in running "good" condition $380, and it drove like it was worth at least 125% of that - at least!


Testing is not hard to find, google vista vs xp testing and you get a lot of tests. I like this one, you'll notice it isn't "vista is pure suck!", the results are decidedly mixed, but considering vista's new and requires more system resources, it seems unacceptable to me that it should come up anything less than "obviously better":
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/xp-vs-vista,1531.html

I've never read this one before, it's more explaining (and editorializing) results than showing them, but it's new to me and makes some good points without being too numbers-y:
http://www.infoworld.com/article/08/03/17/12TC-vista-versus-xp_1.html


By the way, I had a very interesting Vista thing happen today that I don't think I've ever had happen before. I was comparing some web pages I had written between my Firefox browser and my IE6 browser while talking to SirSteve about web development (not uncommon for us to talk stuff like HTML and CSS) when I groused about IE6 not being w3c-compliant and said at least IE7 was, to which he told me that one of the problems he and I were discussing on his other site was in how IE7 was not correctly parsing and handling the CSS, to which I was stunned because my assumption was that "compliant" didn't mean "ummm mostly". So I turned on the laptop to check my pages in IE7 and viewed them, then closed the lid to put it into sleep mode (a standard behavior, it does hibernate ALL the time). About 10 mins later, I went to see something else and was greeted with the login password screen, I entered it and after its standard grind it opened the OS and displayed a very unfriendly window that mentioned Vista had hit a blue-screen-of-death scenario and restarted. I found it amusing that they still call it a blue-screen failure despite Windows XP and on not displaying the BSOD. But it took another few minutes before it'd allow IE7 to start again, despite Firefox responding fine. Very strange behavior, even from Vista.

El Chuxter
08-19-2008, 04:41 PM
I got an alert that something called "Superfetch" had stopped working on my computer. "What the hell is Superfetch?" I wondered. "Does Krypto the Superdog play games on my computer?"

I did some looking around. Microsoft touts is as the best thing since sliced bread, and maybe even better. It monitors your program usage so that it can keep the programs you use the most running in the background! Huh? That sounded stupid. So I looked for sites not actually by Microsoft.

Looks like this POS add-on eats up RAM like a mofo, especially if you use a lot of different programs that take up memory. It looks as if there's a lot of disagreement about whether this should be deactivated or not. Any thoughts here?

bigbarada
08-19-2008, 05:03 PM
I got an alert that something called "Superfetch" had stopped working on my computer. "What the hell is Superfetch?" I wondered. "Does Krypto the Superdog play games on my computer?"

I did some looking around. Microsoft touts is as the best thing since sliced bread, and maybe even better. It monitors your program usage so that it can keep the programs you use the most running in the background! Huh? That sounded stupid. So I looked for sites not actually by Microsoft.

Looks like this POS add-on eats up RAM like a mofo, especially if you use a lot of different programs that take up memory. It looks as if there's a lot of disagreement about whether this should be deactivated or not. Any thoughts here?

I guess that would be a good idea for those users who don't do anything more complicated than Powerpoint on their computers. However, if you run the big programs like Photoshop, Illustrator, Dreamweaver, Maya, Premiere, etc., then I couldn't imagine what it would do to your processor to have to keep all of these running at the same time.

This program probably sounded great in the concept stage and maybe on paper, but it probably does more harm than good in the real world.

JediTricks
08-20-2008, 12:35 AM
I got an alert that something called "Superfetch" had stopped working on my computer. "What the hell is Superfetch?" I wondered. "Does Krypto the Superdog play games on my computer?"

I did some looking around. Microsoft touts is as the best thing since sliced bread, and maybe even better. It monitors your program usage so that it can keep the programs you use the most running in the background! Huh? That sounded stupid. So I looked for sites not actually by Microsoft.

Looks like this POS add-on eats up RAM like a mofo, especially if you use a lot of different programs that take up memory. It looks as if there's a lot of disagreement about whether this should be deactivated or not. Any thoughts here?I deactivated it immediately, one of the first things. I also deactivated Readyboost using any flash drives that Vista would otherwise try to usurp as bonus RAM. If you want a program in the background, my thinking is, LEAVE IT IN THE BACKGROUND!!! How hard is it to not close Notepad? :p

sith_killer_99
08-20-2008, 04:30 AM
The basic idea behind superfetch is:

Let's say it's tuesday night...new release night. Let's say that every tuesday night around 6 p.m. you pop in a dvd on your computer and play it using Windows Media Player.

Superfetch...over time, learns your computing habits, like every tuesday you load Media Player at 6 p.m. So, in theory, after a while, when you load Media Player at 6 p.m. on a tuesday, there will be a 1.5 second increase in load time, because Windows has pre-fetched it and has it running in the background.:rolleyes:

It's a nice theory, but it does consume resources and can certainly slow down your system, esp. if you don't like the new releases on the upcoming tuesday, and opt instead to play the latest game you just had to try out...like Crysis.

Now consider the impact of losing resources when you need every drop you can get and you start to see why superfetch can be a real drawback.

So, yeah turn it off.;)

El Chuxter
08-20-2008, 10:19 AM
However, if you run the big programs like Photoshop, Illustrator, Dreamweaver, Maya, Premiere, etc., then I couldn't imagine what it would do to your processor to have to keep all of these running at the same time.

That was my thought exactly. While most people mentioned games as being affected, Adobe programs eat up so much memory, I have a tough time imagining what would go on if extra programs were just there running without my needing them.

PowerPoint.... ha ha ha! That is the most moronic program ever made. I hate PowerPoint, and I despise people who use it to make presentations that they just read verbatim from the screen, after handing out full printouts. We used to have some tools like that where I used to work. There's nothing more suitable to wasting time while someone pretends he knows computers.

JediTricks
08-21-2008, 05:33 PM
The basic idea behind superfetch is:

Let's say it's tuesday night...new release night. Let's say that every tuesday night around 6 p.m. you pop in a dvd on your computer and play it using Windows Media Player.

Superfetch...over time, learns your computing habits, like every tuesday you load Media Player at 6 p.m. So, in theory, after a while, when you load Media Player at 6 p.m. on a tuesday, there will be a 1.5 second increase in load time, because Windows has pre-fetched it and has it running in the background.:rolleyes:

It's a nice theory, but it does consume resources and can certainly slow down your system, esp. if you don't like the new releases on the upcoming tuesday, and opt instead to play the latest game you just had to try out...like Crysis.

Now consider the impact of losing resources when you need every drop you can get and you start to see why superfetch can be a real drawback.

So, yeah turn it off.;)That's a pretty silly gimmick IMO, most programs load fairly quickly even on rather underperforming systems. Plus, isn't that what Task Scheduler can do if you want it to, only without the whole "we're thinking for you" aspect?

scruffziller
09-07-2008, 08:45 PM
Another something something to rile you anti-Microsoft folks. I think this is kinda dumb anyway.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImyK29QLs_A

sith_killer_99
09-07-2008, 11:14 PM
That's a pretty silly gimmick IMO

HA! You think that's a silly gimmick, you obviously haven't seen the "Mojave" experiment! Now that's a silly gimmick!

http://www.mojaveexperiment.com/html/?fbid=BsdTlo

"We've secretly replaced these consumers "Mojave" coffee with "Vista" coffee, let's see if they'll notice."

LOL

Never underestimate Microsoft's ability to sink to any level to get their way. hehehe...;)

scruffziller
09-07-2008, 11:37 PM
you obviously haven't seen the "Mojave" experiment! Now that's a silly gimmick!

Scroll towards the top of the page.....

El Chuxter
09-07-2008, 11:55 PM
The silliest gimmick: in the initial test versions, Windows Vista opened up and fired a rocket.

sith_killer_99
09-08-2008, 12:27 AM
Scroll towards the top of the page.....

Ooops, how'd I miss that.:Ponder:

JediTricks
09-08-2008, 06:02 AM
Another something something to rile you anti-Microsoft folks. I think this is kinds dumb anyway.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImyK29QLs_AI've been seeing this on TV, it's lame, and I think unintentionally sells the idea that MS has nothing positive to say about Vista so they just waste a ton of money and time on branding.


BTW, did you know that retailers who are stuck selling Vista computers are now allowed to offer a free downgrade to XP, especially the pro and ultimate which downgrade to XP pro? Apparently this is counting for a significant portion of Vista's sales numbers claims, which are already weak. And questions about downgrading from Vista to XP are the first and second of the MS licensing department's "top 5 questions" list.


And btw, I'm an XP user, so I'm not "anti-Microsoft" in this thread (though they've done plenty over the years to gain my ire), I'm anti-Vista and that's only because it's earned that honor through its hefty number of issues and failures.

bigbarada
09-08-2008, 07:16 AM
Another something something to rile you anti-Microsoft folks. I think this is kinds dumb anyway.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImyK29QLs_A

I saw that on TV and I didn't even know it was a Vista ad. Is "Shoe Circus" supposed to represent something?

I think JT has it right, they can't say anything good about Vista; so they're not even going to try to sell you Windows Vista, they're just going to use Jerry Seinfeld to sell Bill Gates and hope that "cool factor" will rub off on anything Microsoft related.:rolleyes:

stillakid
09-08-2008, 09:05 AM
I've had my Sony Vaio T series for a few months now. Still struggling with Vista. Processing is SO slow. It hangs frequently. "Explorer" shuts down then has to start back up often.

It also came with the new Office. It just looks prettier, but now in addition to being slow, it's hard to find functions.

I swear they just sit around thinking of ways to complicate things then test these systems out on super computers. OS and programs should be optimized on the lower-end machines first instead of assuming everyone has a CRAY. grrrr.

So how does one go about "down grading" to XP? I'm ready to do it.

scruffziller
09-08-2008, 11:19 AM
They're just going to use Jerry Seinfeld to sell Bill Gates and hope that "cool factor" will rub off on anything Microsoft related.:rolleyes:
That was the impression I got because I was looking for the point the whole time. When it was over, I was confused as to what the hell that was all about. When Gates shifted his shorts, that disturbed the hell outta me!!!:eek:

The Mac commercials were/are always hilarious. Even if I disagreed with the Mac guy's point 100%.

El Chuxter
09-08-2008, 11:23 AM
So, could someone come along in a year or so and sue them for false advertising since they never released edible computers?

JediTricks
09-08-2008, 07:37 PM
So how does one go about "down grading" to XP? I'm ready to do it.You have to have a copy of XP, this can be one you own, someone else owns, or one provided by the reseller. Then you run a clean install of that OS. Once installed, you'll need to choose "activate by phone" and explain yourself to a live person while using your Vista key as MS leaves some trace Vista rights in the system that downgrading doesn't cover and the key needs to activate that way instead. Ultimately, I chose not to do this because my laptop has a few extra steps I just didn't want to deal with (extra drivers specific to running the laptop itself, HP was very forthcoming with step-by-step instructions and files, but as my laptop is a plaything rather than a workhorse, I decided not to spend a few extra hours doing all that for the lark pc).

Alternately, you could run XP as a Virtualization Machine instead, but I don't know much about that except you need to own that copy of XP that you install as a virtual.



So, could someone come along in a year or so and sue them for false advertising since they never released edible computers?They said they were working on it. Just like Vista in prelim, they could end up completely erasing it and starting over in a different direction (Vista, aka Longhorn, rebooted to a new build in '04, scrapping 3 years worth of development on the OS).

JediTricks
11-29-2008, 05:14 PM
Ugh, my laptop has been giving me misery all morning thanks to Vista. I've not eaten breakfast because of the myriad of problems and lockups and stalls. Right now it's in safe mode and SAYS it's preparing to use the latest restore point, but the harddrive isn't doing a damned thing. I haven't felt so frustrated with Windows since v3.1, I want to chuck this laptop off my 3rd story balcony. I think I'm going to have to do a hard shutdown in the middle of a restore point, which is essentially committing OS suicide, but I can't leave it like this all day.

UPDATE: Not a big shocker, but it's responding slowly to standard bootup now. However, it did get past the login screen, better than I expected, and the system is clearly doing SOMETHING, the harddrive is flashing away and there's a cursor on a black background. Still, none of this would have gone down like this on XP, it would have been smooth and not required any of this bunk.

I'm getting a new 3ghz dualcore or quadcore intel desktop pc for xmas, and there's no way in hell I'm putting Vista on it, I'm probably going to use the XP disk from my current desktop pc since it's a 1-pc license and I won't need this old pc anymore.

UPDATE 2: well, it looks as if Vista has turned my laptop into a $500 paperweight. It will not complete booting, and it will not complete a system-restore in safe mode.

JediTricks
11-30-2008, 03:37 AM
And Vista has to be reinstalled. Fabulous. The tech support guy at HP was really hopeful that my idea of reinstalling certain drivers might work, but Vista Safe Mode wouldn't shut down because of the way Vista wouldn't finish its boot all the way. Way to go, Microsoft's largest blunder to date! So now that I'm out of options, I've set the system to reinstall Vista from the recovery partition. I would have gone there sooner actually, as I've always kept my system fairly loose for just such an occasion, but I didn't want to have to go through the hassle of setting up all my home networking crap again - wifi password, mac address, network stuff, etc.. And setting up my antivirus/firewall again is going to be no fun.

It's 26% complete, it started with 15 minutes remaining and is up to 18 minutes remaining. Way to go Windows Sh*tsta!

stillakid
11-30-2008, 11:11 AM
And Vista has to be reinstalled. Fabulous. The tech support guy at HP was really hopeful that my idea of reinstalling certain drivers might work, but Vista Safe Mode wouldn't shut down because of the way Vista wouldn't finish its boot all the way. Way to go, Microsoft's largest blunder to date! So now that I'm out of options, I've set the system to reinstall Vista from the recovery partition. I would have gone there sooner actually, as I've always kept my system fairly loose for just such an occasion, but I didn't want to have to go through the hassle of setting up all my home networking crap again - wifi password, mac address, network stuff, etc.. And setting up my antivirus/firewall again is going to be no fun.

It's 26% complete, it started with 15 minutes remaining and is up to 18 minutes remaining. Way to go Windows Sh*tsta!

I have people asking me all the time what the best format is to shoot their movie on. Film is the number one choice for a lot of reasons, but primarily, because it works 99% of the time and is the best medium for archiving. People like to argue that digital is best because film degrades. I try to remind them that electronic technology is always changing and unless regular "upgrades" to the newer systems are made, the work will be lost forever. But I can still see pictures of film that my grandparents shot fifty years ago.

Computers are SO dangerous. I've got four harddrives on my desktop system plus three laptops and numerous CDs/DVDs with backups of all my data. I don't backup as often as I do... I may make that a project to tackle today. As they say, your car usually doesn't break down in the driveway. In the same way, a harddrive or OS won't stop working at a convenient time either.

JediTricks
11-30-2008, 08:33 PM
I am quite happy with my XP machine, and have never had a harddrive break down on my system (I had one break down on a work machine, but that was no surprise considering the brand and the fact that it was constantly spinning for work). I have an external that I'm fairly happy with as well, not that I use it all that much but still. I'm even happy with my home wireless network. And I shoot digital photography and digital video on occasion, all of which comes out fine. If I was doing movies for a living, I'd have redundant harddrives for my shoots, I wouldn't depend on just 1, but I'd prefer it over film because I don't like the processing aspect, letting a bath of chemicals determine whether or not your work turns out or not, having to wait to see if the film worked out, then having only 1 original that you have to make optical copies of to make copies. I like digital in that regard. Your original material can be copied over and over without any loss at all, you can house 20 different versions across the globe in vaults. You can beam it into a satellite in space. You can do pretty much anything. And computers are backwards-compatible, if you rediscover your material in 15 years, you will be able to install something to make it work. Try playing old super-8 home movies today without a projector, try finding a working projector, try FIXING a projector.


So, I stayed up until 4:40am last night reinstalling Vista, and have spent all of today reloading the few pieces of software and files I keep on that machine. Vista ran into some Vista-troubles midway through, but nothing severe this time. Lots of "oooh, wait, what's in that folder, hang on, I'm looking, wait, almost got it, wait... wait... uh oh, that folder won't open despite having just 3 simple files in it. Close explorer. Reboot computer. Hey look, that folder was really easy to open, here are your files, only 5 minutes later."

Obsession is Nute
12-02-2008, 04:08 PM
I am very cautious to form my own opinion on things and avoid the bandwagon effect.

However, in this case the "Vista sucks" crowd is 100% right. I absolutely despise this OS. I had XP, and it worked wonderfully, rarely froze, never crashed. I recently bought a new laptop, which it so happens was built with Vista in mind. ::Shakes head in shame.::

Nothing but problems, had to reboot the whole thing after 3 weeks, it has behaved somewhat since then, but I am very paranoid about a crash.

It hates Starcraft and SimCity, too.

It better not interfere with the EAW:Imperial Assault 2 MOD, when it is released, or this thing is going in the garbage and I am getting a MAC.

DarthQuack
12-02-2008, 08:20 PM
Quick question for anyone that can help....a friend of mine is having issues with Vista...she said she just got it in June or so....but now her computer is only letting her run in safemode....she bought her Dell from BestBuy...and tried contacting Dell's support and they're telling her to go to BB to have them look at it and probably charge her through the roof for it.....any suggestions?

stillakid
12-03-2008, 01:23 AM
I am quite happy with my XP machine, and have never had a harddrive break down on my system (I had one break down on a work machine, but that was no surprise considering the brand and the fact that it was constantly spinning for work). I have an external that I'm fairly happy with as well, not that I use it all that much but still. I'm even happy with my home wireless network. And I shoot digital photography and digital video on occasion, all of which comes out fine. If I was doing movies for a living, I'd have redundant harddrives for my shoots, I wouldn't depend on just 1, but I'd prefer it over film because I don't like the processing aspect, letting a bath of chemicals determine whether or not your work turns out or not, having to wait to see if the film worked out, then having only 1 original that you have to make optical copies of to make copies. I like digital in that regard. Your original material can be copied over and over without any loss at all, you can house 20 different versions across the globe in vaults. You can beam it into a satellite in space. You can do pretty much anything. And computers are backwards-compatible, if you rediscover your material in 15 years, you will be able to install something to make it work. Try playing old super-8 home movies today without a projector, try finding a working projector, try FIXING a projector.


So, I stayed up until 4:40am last night reinstalling Vista, and have spent all of today reloading the few pieces of software and files I keep on that machine. Vista ran into some Vista-troubles midway through, but nothing severe this time. Lots of "oooh, wait, what's in that folder, hang on, I'm looking, wait, almost got it, wait... wait... uh oh, that folder won't open despite having just 3 simple files in it. Close explorer. Reboot computer. Hey look, that folder was really easy to open, here are your files, only 5 minutes later."


I'll put my Grandparent's 8mm film against reams of unreadable punchcards from the 1960's any day.

In fifty years, I'll put my film negatives against burned DVDs in a heartbeat.

JediTricks
12-04-2008, 06:14 AM
Quick question for anyone that can help....a friend of mine is having issues with Vista...she said she just got it in June or so....but now her computer is only letting her run in safemode....she bought her Dell from BestBuy...and tried contacting Dell's support and they're telling her to go to BB to have them look at it and probably charge her through the roof for it.....any suggestions?If it RUNS in safe mode, it's salvageable, but the program is such a mess that it's hard to determine what's what. I'd probably ask BB how much to take a look, if it's still covered under warranty.



I'll put my Grandparent's 8mm film against reams of unreadable punchcards from the 1960's any day.

In fifty years, I'll put my film negatives against burned DVDs in a heartbeat.Punch cards are merely visual data. Here's a punchcard emulator: http://www.kloth.net/services/cardpunch.php
If that exists, then it can be easily reverse-engineered to convert digital visual data back into computer data, all one would need to do is scan it and run it through the decoding system. ... In fact, here's a converter for inputting and even outputting punch cards: http://www.cs.uiowa.edu/~jones/cards/ (http://www.cs.uiowa.edu/%7Ejones/cards/)
So punch cards are VERY readable, and by modern computing quality, could be quite easy and fast to convert from paper onto a digital storage medium.

DVDs are compressed, so it's not ideal for a storage medium, but something like Blu-Ray is essentially uncompressed data and it's optical so it's a very good storage medium. But optical is losing ground to flash memory, which is cheap enough and has a fast enough read/write speed that one could simply make a thousand copies, or since computers are an evolving technology, one could keep making copies from one medium to the next with zero loss of information quality. In 50 years, your negatives are going to be decaying no matter how you store them, negatives have a relatively long shelf life if they're not used and stored properly, but they are still limited to about 100 years or so, I believe (unless you store them in a vacuum, though I wonder if the extremes there might degrade the physical materials), and unbelievably difficult to make exact-quality copies of for archiving.

bigbarada
01-16-2010, 11:31 AM
Sooooo, has anyone here had a chance to mess around with Windows 7? Is it significantly improved over Vista?

The reason I ask is that my Sony laptop is dropping some hints that it's ready to die. I've been needing to buy a new laptop for a while now, but Mac's are out of my price range and I didn't want to get stuck with a Vista machine. So I've been wondering if it's safe to step back into the laptop market now that Vista seems to be completely dead (BTW, where can I sign up to go dance on the grave?).

Also, does anyone know where I can buy "new" copies of outdated software? If I get a new machine, I'll want to install Maya back onto it, but I'm not interested in upgrading to the latest version (since Autodesk bought the program from Alias and I've heard that not all of their changes have been good ones). So, I'm kind of hoping that I can find an unused copy of Maya 7.0 Unlimited for cheap.

sith_killer_99
01-16-2010, 01:49 PM
I have heard that Windows 7 > Vista.

Faster, more stable, more compatible, easier to use, blah blah blah.

What has your computer been doing? Most electronic devices are pretty reliable, barring hard drive and software issues, both of which are easily fixed.

I just upgraded my second drive on my laptop, replaced a 100GB drive with a new 500GB drive with shock protection.:thumbsup:

I have been considering upgrading my OS to Windows 7, but I am reluctant to shell out the cash for the upgrade.:( Besides my system is running good right now and I don't really want to mess take the risk of messing it up.

If you are looking to upgrade to a newer laptop I recommend looking for something that will last a while in terms of technology.

Direct X 10, blu-ray drive, higher end graphics card, if your have to sacrifice performance for cost do so with stuff that you can easily upgrade later like RAM and hard drives. Graphics chip sets are nearly impossible to upgrade in a laptop.

bigbarada
01-16-2010, 06:52 PM
I have heard that Windows 7 > Vista.

Faster, more stable, more compatible, easier to use, blah blah blah.

What has your computer been doing? Most electronic devices are pretty reliable, barring hard drive and software issues, both of which are easily fixed.

I just upgraded my second drive on my laptop, replaced a 100GB drive with a new 500GB drive with shock protection.:thumbsup:

I have been considering upgrading my OS to Windows 7, but I am reluctant to shell out the cash for the upgrade.:( Besides my system is running good right now and I don't really want to mess take the risk of messing it up.

If you are looking to upgrade to a newer laptop I recommend looking for something that will last a while in terms of technology.

Direct X 10, blu-ray drive, higher end graphics card, if your have to sacrifice performance for cost do so with stuff that you can easily upgrade later like RAM and hard drives. Graphics chip sets are nearly impossible to upgrade in a laptop.

The most worrisome thing right now is that my power button is becoming unresponsive, so it takes a bit of work just to turn the computer on. So that's probably just a hardware issue. But it's also running slower and slower and my video card crashes occasionally. This is possibly due to all the rendering in Maya that I've been doing.

However, a new machine is useless to me unless I can continue to run Maya and Photoshop on it.

Right now I have a Sony Vaio with Windows XP and I use it to run Maya, Photoshop, Dreamweaver and programs like that. Although I have watched a lot of videos on Youtube with it, so maybe I need to get it swept for viruses or spyware.

Of course, it might be cheaper to just look into purchasing Maya for my iMac.

JediTricks
01-16-2010, 08:28 PM
You may want to check to see if the machine is overheating, that would cause video card crashes. Laptop components aren't as hardy as desktop ones though, so don't be too surprised if that's not the culprit. Now that I think about it, couple that with the power button issue, and I'll bet the power supply is toast which would mean a new motherboard probably. It might be cheaper just to buy a new laptop at that point.

XP I think runs Maya and Photoshop and the like a bit faster than Vista/Win7 (Windows 7 is the same kernel as Vista, just retooled to avoid some of Vista's problems), anything with compression or decompression runs faster on XP.

That said, Win 7 supposedly has dealt with the major annoyances of Vista pretty well, though I don't have it myself. One of the main changes is the way it handles background RAM differently so it doesn't overwhelm foreground programs. Win 7 supposedly runs older programs better too, has a backwards-compatibility mode that's more effective than Vista's.

Keep in mind, if you're buying a new laptop, you'll pretty much be able to get the best of the best cheap now. PCs are maxing out at around 3ghz multi-core processing and 2gb of RAM, the 32-bit version of Windows can't run more than 3gb of RAM anyway. Everything seems to be switching to adding gimmicks to raise prices.

bigbarada
01-16-2010, 11:22 PM
You may want to check to see if the machine is overheating, that would cause video card crashes. Laptop components aren't as hardy as desktop ones though, so don't be too surprised if that's not the culprit. Now that I think about it, couple that with the power button issue, and I'll bet the power supply is toast which would mean a new motherboard probably. It might be cheaper just to buy a new laptop at that point.

XP I think runs Maya and Photoshop and the like a bit faster than Vista/Win7 (Windows 7 is the same kernel as Vista, just retooled to avoid some of Vista's problems), anything with compression or decompression runs faster on XP.

That said, Win 7 supposedly has dealt with the major annoyances of Vista pretty well, though I don't have it myself. One of the main changes is the way it handles background RAM differently so it doesn't overwhelm foreground programs. Win 7 supposedly runs older programs better too, has a backwards-compatibility mode that's more effective than Vista's.

Keep in mind, if you're buying a new laptop, you'll pretty much be able to get the best of the best cheap now. PCs are maxing out at around 3ghz multi-core processing and 2gb of RAM, the 32-bit version of Windows can't run more than 3gb of RAM anyway. Everything seems to be switching to adding gimmicks to raise prices.

Overheating is probably the culprit since I only have problems when I'm doing a lot of big renders in Maya using mental ray. I've heard that the high end 3D renders can be brutal on computer hardware; since the processor is crunching some major numbers for 15-20 minutes at a time (for the renders I'm doing). So I'm probably starting to see the results of that.

BTW, my video card crashed while doing this render this morning:
http://NMRosario.deviantart.com/art/10-000-Pageviews-Stump-Render-150655090
It was done in mental ray using an HDR image, global illumination, final gather, raytraced shadows from 9 different light sources and a low grade sub-surface scatter skin shader. I was able to get the computer running again and just reduced the pixel dimensions to get the render done.

Now that I think about it, I've been doing several of these per day (at 1024x1024 pixels each); then bouncing back and forth between Maya and Photoshop. So it's amazing that my little laptop has lasted this long. :o

I guess I'm going to have to start limiting myself to rendering in Maya software.:( I'll lose A LOT in terms of quality, but at least my computer will survive a little longer.

sith_killer_99
01-17-2010, 02:20 AM
Wow!

Yeah, I'm kinda surprised as well.

I hope you are doing routine maintenance on your hardware. Cleaning out dust, dirt, and debris, HEAT is the worst enemy of electronic components!!! Dust and dirt hold in heat and cause early wear. You are also doing a lot of graphics intensive work, so your system will run hot the more renderings you perform. The program is irrelevant, if you render in Maya or Photoshop the results will be the same, heavy use of your graphics card, so don't worry too much about switching between programs, worry more about how much rendering you are performing.

To be honest with you, for extended heavy graphics use you really need a better set up than an old Sony Vaio running XP.

I understand your loyalty to XP, but you would benefit greatly from an entire system upgrade including a 64 bit OS. Also Nvidia graphics chip sets are optimized for Windows 7, which will give you much better results.

I recommend an Intel i7 (8MB cache), high end graphics chip set (ATI HD 4800-5800 series, AMD GTX 280M, or AMD Quadro FX 3800M), and lots of RAM (4GB-8GB). You really need a complete package if you want longevity from your system. If you go high end on CPU/GPU/RAM you will see big gains in performance and the work will be spread out more evenly between components, which will make for a more stable system, which will increase the life of your machine.

I don't really recommend running "dual graphics cards" on a laptop as heat can become a big problem.

I also recommend you get a REALLY good cooling pad for your machine. Something heavy duty with lots of good air flow. I just bought my wife a Swiss Army cooling pad. She does a lot of graphics intensive work and runs a cooling pad religiously. Also, clean your machine regularly, an ounce or prevention and all that.

The system will cost more money, but will pay off in the long run.

How much are you looking to spend?

bigbarada
01-17-2010, 03:19 AM
Wow!

Yeah, I'm kinda surprised as well.

I hope you are doing routine maintenance on your hardware. Cleaning out dust, dirt, and debris, HEAT is the worst enemy of electronic components!!! Dust and dirt hold in heat and cause early wear. You are also doing a lot of graphics intensive work, so your system will run hot the more renderings you perform. The program is irrelevant, if you render in Maya or Photoshop the results will be the same, heavy use of your graphics card, so don't worry too much about switching between programs, worry more about how much rendering you are performing.

To be honest with you, for extended heavy graphics use you really need a better set up than an old Sony Vaio running XP.

I understand your loyalty to XP, but you would benefit greatly from an entire system upgrade including a 64 bit OS. Also Nvidia graphics chip sets are optimized for Windows 7, which will give you much better results.

I recommend an Intel i7 (8MB cache), high end graphics chip set (ATI HD 4800-5800 series, AMD GTX 280M, or AMD Quadro FX 3800M), and lots of RAM (4GB-8GB). You really need a complete package if you want longevity from your system. If you go high end on CPU/GPU/RAM you will see big gains in performance and the work will be spread out more evenly between components, which will make for a more stable system, which will increase the life of your machine.

I don't really recommend running "dual graphics cards" on a laptop as heat can become a big problem.

I also recommend you get a REALLY good cooling pad for your machine. Something heavy duty with lots of good air flow. I just bought my wife a Swiss Army cooling pad. She does a lot of graphics intensive work and runs a cooling pad religiously. Also, clean your machine regularly, an ounce or prevention and all that.

The system will cost more money, but will pay off in the long run.

How much are you looking to spend?

Regular maintenance is probably where I've really been dropping the ball. As far as the overheating goes, I usually keep my laptop near the window which keeps it pretty cool this time of year. When it crashed today, it was actually away from the window, sitting on a coffee table.

I have thought about those cooling pads and it would probably be a good idea, even if I just used them when I'm doing renders.

I'll keep those specs in mind when I start pricing systems. I've probably got a max of $3000 to spend on this (assuming everyone who owes me money pays me soon). But if I spend all of my money on the hardware and can't afford the software, then it's really pointless. My Maya license can't be transferred to another machine, so I would have to buy a new copy if I bought a new computer.

Although I've been researching this today and I'm thinking about making the switch over to Zbrush, which is significantly cheaper than Maya. Most of my time is spent on modeling and that's what I enjoy doing the most, so I think Zbrush might be a better choice (besides it really is the future of 3D modeling). It would only cost me about $600 for the software and I could just stick to using Photoshop on my Mac if necessary.

sith_killer_99
01-17-2010, 05:20 AM
$3,000 can get you a pretty smokin' system!

You may want to look here:

http://www.sagernotebook.com/default.php

If I were looking for a new 17 inch laptop I would go with Sager. Top of the line components, great price!!! Alienware has top of the line components, but lacks a blu-ray drive option and costs more. HP has good prices and a blu-ray option, but the components are not top of the line, more budget oriented.

Just did a search and found it even cheaper here:

http://www.xoticpc.com/sager-np9280-built-clevo-d900f-ultimate-custom-laptop-p-2577.html?wconfigure=yes&change_view=ddm

Frak man, now I wish I were in the market for a new laptop.:mad::D

JediTricks
01-17-2010, 04:27 PM
Overheating is probably the culprit since I only have problems when I'm doing a lot of big renders in Maya using mental ray. I've heard that the high end 3D renders can be brutal on computer hardware; since the processor is crunching some major numbers for 15-20 minutes at a time (for the renders I'm doing). So I'm probably starting to see the results of that.

BTW, my video card crashed while doing this render this morning:
http://NMRosario.deviantart.com/art/10-000-Pageviews-Stump-Render-150655090
It was done in mental ray using an HDR image, global illumination, final gather, raytraced shadows from 9 different light sources and a low grade sub-surface scatter skin shader. I was able to get the computer running again and just reduced the pixel dimensions to get the render done.

Now that I think about it, I've been doing several of these per day (at 1024x1024 pixels each); then bouncing back and forth between Maya and Photoshop. So it's amazing that my little laptop has lasted this long. :o

I guess I'm going to have to start limiting myself to rendering in Maya software.:( I'll lose A LOT in terms of quality, but at least my computer will survive a little longer.Why are you doing this on a laptop?



I understand your loyalty to XP, but you would benefit greatly from an entire system upgrade including a 64 bit OS. Also Nvidia graphics chip sets are optimized for Windows 7, which will give you much better results.I have read that until we get to 16-core processors, XP 64bit will be faster and more efficient at these tasks than Vista or Win7.



I'll keep those specs in mind when I start pricing systems. I've probably got a max of $3000 to spend on this (assuming everyone who owes me money pays me soon). But if I spend all of my money on the hardware and can't afford the software, then it's really pointless. My Maya license can't be transferred to another machine, so I would have to buy a new copy if I bought a new computer.Wow, that's a big chunk of coin. For that price, you could buy components to build a badass desktop machine and get a wireless router and cheap laptop to run it remotely and software.

sith_killer_99
01-17-2010, 06:09 PM
I have read that until we get to 16-core processors, XP 64bit will be faster and more efficient at these tasks than Vista or Win7.

Benchmark testing does not support that statement, for the most part. If you are running new hardware then Windows 7 is faster. If you are running older hardware or low end stuff then yes, XP will perform faster than Windows 7...on that device. It only makes sense. Older hardware was designed to work with XP in mind. However new hardware is designed to take advantage of the newer operating system and vice versa.

However, if you are running XP on an older or low end system then you will be running a LOT slower than if you are running Windows 7 on a high end machine.


Conclusion

Windows 7 performs better than Vista and is also faster than XP, although XP remains more capable for devices with limited memory and outdated graphics.

Subjectively, the change from Vista to Windows 7 is like releasing a car’s handbrake. This significant increase in performance has several causes: faster system startup and shutdown compared to XP and Vista; improved parallel processing; and faster loading of drivers and operating system components. Enterprise users will also appreciate the faster login to a domain.

Microsoft has also thoroughly revised the SuperFetch feature, which results in quicker operational readiness after startup. Anyone migrating from Vista will notice a reduction in disk activity after startup, because SuperFetch spends less time loading applications into memory in Windows 7, which means less waiting for the system to be ready to use after launch.

Windows 7 is more cache-frugal thanks to improved display drivers. No matter how many windows are open, the memory usage of the Desktop Window Manager (DWM) remains constant, the video card’s memory taking on the load of opening of additional windows. However, under Windows 7 this load is half what it was with Vista. Windows 7 also introduces Direct2D, which further speeds up 2D graphics rendering. However, the standard WDDM 1.1 driver is required to enjoy the improved 2D graphics performance. For graphics cards containing ATI and Nvidia chips, this is not an issue, since a driver has existed for a long time. However, these drivers are not yet available for older Intel graphics chipsets.

Users can employ the built-in Windows 7 DirectX 11 interface to access the graphics power of the GPU (Compute Shader) using appropriate graphics hardware. This feature could prove particularly useful to those who provide video-encoding tools. However, there are still no third-party products that support this new standard.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=22006&tag=col1;post-22006

As more products (software/hardware) are released the performance gap between Windows 7 and XP will only widen further. Also keep in mind that the top of the line Nvidia GPU is running 128 cores! lol


Wow, that's a big chunk of coin. For that price, you could buy components to build a badass desktop machine and get a wireless router and cheap laptop to run it remotely and software.

That's the price you pay for portability. For people on the go, who need to be able to use their system anywhere then it is a matter of convenience. Certainly a desktop is a much better choice for top level performance, much easier to run dual graphics cards, support for additional RAM, more space for HDD's, etc.

In terms of sheer performance and price. Desktop > Laptop:yes:

bigbarada
01-17-2010, 06:23 PM
Why are you doing this on a laptop?


Well, it's a long story. I own three computers, one iMac G5 with the Intel chip, one Mac G4 with the old IBM processor, and the Sony laptop. Since I bought my iMac right around the time of the big switch from IBM to Intel chips, I couldn't afford to buy all of my software again. So the only machines that I have Maya installed on are the Mac G4 and the Vaio. I've tried doing the big HDR renders on the G4 but it just locks up, so the laptop is the only computer I have that is currently capable of doing these renders (technically the iMac could, but I don't have Maya installed on it, since it's not compatible with the other 2 machines and the licenses wouldn't transfer anyway).

So I do most of my work on the iMac, I keep the G4 around for Maya 6 and Final Cut Pro, and the laptop is primarily for when I need to update websites while I'm traveling; but I also use it to create these renders (I just need to start showing some restraint in the future).

bigbarada
01-17-2010, 06:26 PM
Benchmark testing does not support that statement, for the most part. If you are running new hardware then Windows 7 is faster. If you are running older hardware or low end stuff then yes, XP will perform faster than Windows 7...on that device. It only makes sense. Older hardware was designed to work with XP in mind. However new hardware is designed to take advantage of the newer operating system and vice versa.

However, if you are running XP on an older or low end system then you will be running a LOT slower than if you are running Windows 7 on a high end machine.



http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=22006&tag=col1;post-22006

As more products (software/hardware) are released the performance gap between Windows 7 and XP will only widen further. Also keep in mind that the top of the line Nvidia GPU is running 128 cores! lol



That's the price you pay for portability. For people on the go, who need to be able to use their system anywhere then it is a matter of convenience. Certainly a desktop is a much better choice for top level performance, much easier to run dual graphics cards, support for additional RAM, more space for HDD's, etc.

In terms of sheer performance and price. Desktop > Laptop:yes:

If someone bought a laptop with Vista installed, would they be able to upgrade to Windows 7? I might have to recommend that to my friend. I helped him buy a new laptop a couple of years ago and I still feel guilty that he ended up with a Vista machine since that was the only operating system on the market at the time.

EDIT: Nevermind, I did some quick searching and found the answer. It costs about $119 to upgrade, which isn't bad.

JediTricks
01-18-2010, 05:47 PM
Benchmark testing does not support that statement, for the most part. If you are running new hardware then Windows 7 is faster. If you are running older hardware or low end stuff then yes, XP will perform faster than Windows 7...on that device. It only makes sense. Older hardware was designed to work with XP in mind. However new hardware is designed to take advantage of the newer operating system and vice versa.

However, if you are running XP on an older or low end system then you will be running a LOT slower than if you are running Windows 7 on a high end machine.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=22006&tag=col1;post-22006

As more products (software/hardware) are released the performance gap between Windows 7 and XP will only widen further. Also keep in mind that the top of the line Nvidia GPU is running 128 cores! lolThat's a dubious claim listed there, XP is not included in the "every day" tests.

There are plenty of high-end components that work with XP still, claiming all video cards are only Win7 is suspect. DirectX11 requires buying new hardware and software, much of which is currently still in development, so it's not what I consider when I am talking about XP vs Win7.

Look at MaximumPC's application bench results, almost everything XP is faster than or comparable to Win7:
http://www.maximumpc.com/article/reviews/windows_7_review?page=0%2C3
Gaming too.

And check out these test results on CPU, video conversion, and 3D:
http://www.testfreaks.com/blog/information/windows-xp-vs-vista-vs-7/
It's not even close, XP still schools.

Faster and more efficient on multicore:
http://www.infoworld.com/t/business/windows-multicore-test-results-247

Yes, in the future when there is more out there, Win7 will be better at this job. But for today's real-world applications, XP is still superior on nearly all fronts, and doesn't require dropping another $200 or more on another Windows license.


That's the price you pay for portability. For people on the go, who need to be able to use their system anywhere then it is a matter of convenience. Certainly a desktop is a much better choice for top level performance, much easier to run dual graphics cards, support for additional RAM, more space for HDD's, etc.

In terms of sheer performance and price. Desktop > Laptop:yes:Yeah, but these days, one can buy that swank desktop and run it remotely from anywhere with wifi or 3G access on a $275 netbook. Believe me, I don't want to champion cloud computing, but it makes no sense to carry a $3k laptop that's still going to burn out on you sooner and be less of a performer than a desktop half its price.



Well, it's a long story. I own three computers, one iMac G5 with the Intel chip, one Mac G4 with the old IBM processor, and the Sony laptop. Since I bought my iMac right around the time of the big switch from IBM to Intel chips, I couldn't afford to buy all of my software again. So the only machines that I have Maya installed on are the Mac G4 and the Vaio. I've tried doing the big HDR renders on the G4 but it just locks up, so the laptop is the only computer I have that is currently capable of doing these renders (technically the iMac could, but I don't have Maya installed on it, since it's not compatible with the other 2 machines and the licenses wouldn't transfer anyway).

So I do most of my work on the iMac, I keep the G4 around for Maya 6 and Final Cut Pro, and the laptop is primarily for when I need to update websites while I'm traveling; but I also use it to create these renders (I just need to start showing some restraint in the future).Hmm, that's a bummer, I forgot how stuck you were with that software situation. Still, at $3k you could easily build a powerful PC desktop to run Maya and have plenty left over to also get a nice laptop that's just not a super power-player.