"Sean Kelly" <sean@f4.ca> wrote in message news:f0l19u$qso$1@digitalmars.com...
> Saaa wrote:
>> Are even programmers against vista?
>> Is it because of the price? Or maybe you think it isn't necessary?
>
> It isn't necessary.  The only notable feature over XP is DX10.  But performance is abysmal, partially because of immature drivers and partially (it seems) because of DRM enforcement (read reviews that discuss file copying across drives or across the network).  And I object to the DRM features on purely idealistic grounds.
>
>> You must understand that the real features of vista which are interesting can't be shown in general commercials, right?
>
> Please name one.  I'll admit that as a programmer I like some of the new API features they've added, but at the same time, I can't use them because Vista is too new.
>
>
> Sean

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_and_safety_features_new_to_Windows_Vista http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Management_features_new_to_Windows_Vista

Compared with XP it is a lot safer and as I made clear before, I need a
windows system.
But as another post says it cripples file copying which really is an
argument for me not to upgrade.
Also, as long as the drivers are crap I wont.
The font which is made for readability on low dpi does interest me, together
with the upgraded hinting (see video)
I've never worked with Vista, I have with Ubuntu. Before using ubuntu I
thought I might be swayed and at least wanted to install it on my parents
computer, but I wasn't really satisfied with compatibility of software(which
isn't listed as ubuntu'safe'?) and the explorer was kinda not really
user-friendly for me :) (and then there is the drag drop which won't bring a
window to front when I have something hanging above it and the dead keys
(which I had to enable) which keeps on bleeping when I hit ' + t in "don't"
and last my videocard wasn't supported, my screen didn't want to go to
100Hz, and colour management is crap)
But then again I need Photoshop :D
I'm thinking about helping ubuntu thou, my first would be to let beryl show
system info on its background :)

Saaa wrote:
> "Sean Kelly" <sean@f4.ca> wrote in message news:f0l19u$qso$1@digitalmars.com...
>> Saaa wrote:
>>> Are even programmers against vista?
>>> Is it because of the price? Or maybe you think it isn't necessary?
>> It isn't necessary.  The only notable feature over XP is DX10.  But performance is abysmal, partially because of immature drivers and partially (it seems) because of DRM enforcement (read reviews that discuss file copying across drives or across the network).  And I object to the DRM features on purely idealistic grounds.
>>
>>> You must understand that the real features of vista which are interesting can't be shown in general commercials, right?
>> Please name one.  I'll admit that as a programmer I like some of the new API features they've added, but at the same time, I can't use them because Vista is too new.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_and_safety_features_new_to_Windows_Vista

I evaluated the code security features in .NET ages ago, and I'm pretty sure these are the features Vista uses for all code.  It's a nice idea, but the administrative features are incomprehensibly complex, and the security features can actually be overridden at the code level.  In short, I don't have any interest in this.  For the rest, I'd prefer just using some firewall software, etc.

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Management_features_new_to_Windows_Vista

I'm actually very encouraged (and surprised) that Vista bundles Interix by default, since Microsoft dropped support for it a few years ago. Perhaps this means it has gained new life and will get the attention it needs.  However, Interix has always been available as a separate download, so this isn't a reason to upgrade to Vista.  As for the rest, I suppose it's useful for corporate installations, but I don't have any use for group policies, etc, at home.

So some of these are good features in general, but they either aren't features I care about or they are available for XP as well.  This is actually a good thing, since I don't want to upgrade my OS anyway :-)


Sean

I find this whole Vista vs XP thing interesting.

The truth is I don't think Vista has any really compelling features.  So people (some? most?) aren't willing to go through the hardware upgrade pain or the learning curve.  If Vista just had some really compelling thing about it - like better paging, better performance, easier to use, something - then people would upgrade.  The switch from Win98 to XP was compelling.  XP was much better.

Reminds me of the D vs. C++ (your favorite language here) discussions.

None us want to upgrade / change unless there's something really compelling about the change.  It's a given that we're all D fans here. But the average guy...what does he think?

Mark


Saaa wrote:
> Are even programmers against vista?
> Is it because of the price? Or maybe you think it isn't necessary?
> You must understand that the real features of vista which are interesting can't be shown in general commercials, right?
> 
<snip>

Mark Wrenn wrote:
> 
> None us want to upgrade / change unless there's something really compelling about the change.  It's a given that we're all D fans here. But the average guy...what does he think?

The average guy will get Vista on his next Dell but isn't likely to go out and purchase an upgrade on his own.  Vista is expensive, and upgrading Windows is a fairly involved process.  If geeks can't think of a good reason to go through all that expense and trouble, I doubt the average guy can either.


Sean

Reply to Sean,

> Mark Wrenn wrote:
> 
>> None us want to upgrade / change unless there's something really
>> compelling about the change.  It's a given that we're all D fans
>> here. But the average guy...what does he think?
>> 
> The average guy will get Vista on his next Dell but isn't likely to go
> out and purchase an upgrade on his own.  Vista is expensive, and
> upgrading Windows is a fairly involved process.  If geeks can't think
> of a good reason to go through all that expense and trouble, I doubt
> the average guy can either.
> 
> Sean
> 

If the average guy  is anything like me he will get Vista on his next PC and go out an "buy" a copy of XP to get that POS OS/resource hog off his system. Or maybe he will just dump it for Linux.

I'll wait and see how good dx10 and the removal of the hardware sound layer
works..
I think that in combo with aero and the new colour management its worth the
switch for me.
It could and should be a lot faster than xp for games at least ;)

> So some of these are good features in general, but they either aren't features I care about or they are available for XP as well.  This is actually a good thing, since I don't want to upgrade my OS anyway :-)
>
>
> Sean

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=39095

:D:D

Bruno Medeiros wrote:
> Daniel Keep wrote:
>> ...
>> Yeah, but if I write for DX10, it runs on... Vista.  Only.  Not even XP.
>>   When I found out that Alan Wake was Vista only, I was *seriously*
>> pissed off.  I was *really* looking forward to that after Max Payne 1
>> and 2.  I'm not going to forgive Microsoft for that one easily.
>> ...
> 
> What?? Say it ain't so :(
> The Max Payne series were (are!) awesome games!

It's so.  I feel your pain, believe me.

	-- Daniel

-- 
int getRandomNumber()
{
    return 4; // chosen by fair dice roll.
              // guaranteed to be random.
}

http://xkcd.com/

v2sw5+8Yhw5ln4+5pr6OFPma8u6+7Lw4Tm6+7l6+7D i28a2Xs3MSr2e4/6+7t4TNSMb6HTOp5en5g6RAHCP  http://hackerkey.com/

"Charlie" <charlie.fats@gmail.com> kirjoitti viestissä news:462E12D8.7020406@gmail.com...
>
>I had Vista pre-installed on my new lenovo laptop and absolutely could not stand it.  I'm mostly OS neutral, I like XP and Ubuntu , but Vista is absolutely god awful, I had to jump through so many hoops to get it configured, and now instead of configuration files the have *registry patches* , good lord!
>
> I have a core duo 2 and Vista ran so slow, it literally took over 5 minutes to boot up.

Comparing my computers, a P4 3.0GHz (not dual-core but hyper-threading)
with 1GB of memory running XP Pro SP2 and my C2D E6400 with 2GB
memory running Vista Ultimate, I've found that the newer computer is
decidedly faster in booting up and in general running of the operating system,
as well. (My third computer (a Celeron) is running Fedora, so I know the
Linux world, too.)

> And besides eye candy it has no new features that would make it more productive.

But it does increase security rather considerably when compared to XP:
using XP, you almost had to use accounts with administrative privileges,
while Vista can be used with a limited account. It's like having to log in
as root to use the OS compared to using su or sudo.

Also, the Vista firewall is by far better than the XP one - basically, with
Vista you can manage running a third-party virus scanner, while with XP
you really need the third-party firewall, as well. 

Daniel Keep wrote:
> 
> Bruno Medeiros wrote:
>> Daniel Keep wrote:
>>> ...
>>> Yeah, but if I write for DX10, it runs on... Vista.  Only.  Not even XP.
>>>   When I found out that Alan Wake was Vista only, I was *seriously*
>>> pissed off.  I was *really* looking forward to that after Max Payne 1
>>> and 2.  I'm not going to forgive Microsoft for that one easily.
>>> ...
>> What?? Say it ain't so :(
>> The Max Payne series were (are!) awesome games!
> 
> It's so.  I feel your pain, believe me.
> 
> 	-- Daniel
> 

And no amount of painkillers can disable it. xD

-- 
Bruno Medeiros - MSc in CS/E student
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?BrunoMedeiros#D