Yep, that could lead to an absolute truth for sure
Vista optimization tips for rendering
YayI do have OSX you know
I just don't like when a OS doesn't follow it's own set of rules and change it altogether, I call it bad practice
Correction, it's called progress... Microsoft is gunning full speed ahead at multi-touch interactive work surfaces. The old rules do not apply.namely for all that I've studied on the subject
I think I'll just walk away now as this is only going to get uglier and ultimately achieve nothing.
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds..." - Emerson 1841-
Bogey Jammer
- Posts: 44
- Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 12:37 am
- Location: France
Code: Select all
This post was useless for this topic, self-deletion.
Last edited by Bogey Jammer on Sat Sep 27, 2008 4:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
Indigo 1.1.11 32bit + Blendigo 1.1.7
My render supercomputer:
My render supercomputer:
- Acer aspire 5612Zwlmi
- Intel T2060 dual core 1.6 GHz
- 1GB RAM
- vista home premium 32bit
-
pixie
- Posts: 2345
- Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 4:54 am
- Location: Away from paradise
- 3D Software: Cinema 4D
- Contact:
But progress is only progress if actually needed, you see, those who do not have multi-touch doesn't need a new paradigm shift when the old way works... progress is IMO on doing more with less, OSX has it, Vista IMO don't...WytRaven wrote:I do have OSX you know
What are its benefits btw, what are all these innovations in your point of view? I know what I dislike, but what makes you liking it?
Well I guess consumerism is pushing "progress" in a way the needs arise... well I haven't given Vista a chance yet, if that was not for drivers I'd be running win2k (what my current xp looks like anyway) to preserve ressources (xp uses twice the ressources of w2k, and I guess vista "progressed" in that field to).
I haven't given Vista a chance yet, if that was not for drivers I'd be running win2k (what my current xp looks like anyway) to preserve ressources (xp uses twice the ressources of w2k, and I guess vista "progressed" in that field to).Where did I read that a Windows license was entitling you to run any previous version of it as well ?Maybe it's also due to the fact I hate to throw away my vista license I bought, even if I was forced to get it
obsolete asset
That was the most stupid stuff I ever heard. You didnt even read my post.
I loved 98, NT, 2000 and XP
I hated Vista, ME and 95
I like Microsoft products and I am not resistant to change.
Being resistant to CRAP is not a bad thing last time i checked.
What is GOOD with vista? Please let me know before you continue on your failing argument. Just because it's the latest doesn't mean its better. If that was the case we would all be dating 14 year olds, driving electric cars, and taking designer drugs.
I loved 98, NT, 2000 and XP
I hated Vista, ME and 95
I like Microsoft products and I am not resistant to change.
Being resistant to CRAP is not a bad thing last time i checked.
What is GOOD with vista? Please let me know before you continue on your failing argument. Just because it's the latest doesn't mean its better. If that was the case we would all be dating 14 year olds, driving electric cars, and taking designer drugs.
In my opinion...
it works very well (after disabling UAC).
.. + ..
all the same points that made XP GOOD.
I find that when I "using" windows, I spend less time "using" it and more time doing useful work.
Whereas with linux, somehow it is a bit more "present" - that's not that it's diffucult or tasks take any longer, or any less efficient - just marginally more "fiddly".
What did you find good with 98? I thought that was the biggest piece of shit I ever used (after 95, of course).
it looks great.Deus wrote:What is GOOD with vista?
it works very well (after disabling UAC).
.. + ..
all the same points that made XP GOOD.
I find that when I "using" windows, I spend less time "using" it and more time doing useful work.
Whereas with linux, somehow it is a bit more "present" - that's not that it's diffucult or tasks take any longer, or any less efficient - just marginally more "fiddly".
What did you find good with 98? I thought that was the biggest piece of shit I ever used (after 95, of course).
Enough rope? I dont get it. Was that some sort of threat?
Also. 95 was a HUGE improvement over Windows 3.x in terms of user friendliness, however it was resource hungry and really unstable with bluescreens, many restarts after installing a program and also your PC required complete format and reinstall every six months. Windows 98 adressed alot of those issues.
"
it looks great.
it works very well (after disabling UAC).
.. + ..
all the same points that made XP GOOD.
"
"it looks great" - That would be like caring if a spoon looks great. That I will leave to girls and gays
"It works very well" - Well so does XP
I don't see the reason to run Vista and that was the INITIAL reason for my FIRST post. You clearly have problems with Vista and because it doesnt have ANY real advantage but many REAL problems, why not stick with XP.
Also. 95 was a HUGE improvement over Windows 3.x in terms of user friendliness, however it was resource hungry and really unstable with bluescreens, many restarts after installing a program and also your PC required complete format and reinstall every six months. Windows 98 adressed alot of those issues.
"
it looks great.
it works very well (after disabling UAC).
.. + ..
all the same points that made XP GOOD.
"
"it looks great" - That would be like caring if a spoon looks great. That I will leave to girls and gays
"It works very well" - Well so does XP
I don't see the reason to run Vista and that was the INITIAL reason for my FIRST post. You clearly have problems with Vista and because it doesnt have ANY real advantage but many REAL problems, why not stick with XP.
Ok I wasn't going to bother but I will for the sake of others unfortunate enough to read this.
Here are just some of the reasons that Vista is good:
1. The DWM; the first and most fundamental step toward the next generation UIs envisioned by Microsoft (and other independant research groups at earlier times)
2. A vastly improved driver model; something that is going to be developed further going forward and will eventually result in the so called Minimal Kernel becoming a reality. Also known as Microsoft not copying what Linux has been doing for years :/
3. The Explorer shell; Explorer has finally been brought up to spec to match, and in some cases surpass, the capabilities of file managers such as those commonly found in linux shells such as gnome
4. Efficient memory management; Vista utilises that "cheap" RAM we pack our machines with these days in an attempt to keep the system nice and snappy and gives it back when we do something that requires it and does so very smoothly
5. Ink; 10 points to MS on this one as they have straight up nailed it first time around (ok second time as they did have a shot in XP Tablet Edition) which is good as it's another of the fundamental steps toward next generation interfaces
Things not so good about Vista (but still better than XP):
1. User management; MS doesn't have a very good record here and although they tried to do better in Vista it really isn't much better (try mounting a partition to the users folder...no banana...still about as flexible as a steel rod
2. UAC; Oh my gawd it's bad. I understand the principle (which is why it's here under still better than XP as XP doesn't have any equivalent) but the implementation is evil bad so bad that unless you turn it off it's likely to cause you to inflict injury upon yourself in frustration. I think the word would be "overdone" to the extreme! Simple answer is turn it off in which case it becomes irrelevant and you are no better/worse off than you were under XP
So there are a couple of reasons. There are more but I'm not wasting any more time writing it all down.
Here are just some of the reasons that Vista is good:
1. The DWM; the first and most fundamental step toward the next generation UIs envisioned by Microsoft (and other independant research groups at earlier times)
2. A vastly improved driver model; something that is going to be developed further going forward and will eventually result in the so called Minimal Kernel becoming a reality. Also known as Microsoft not copying what Linux has been doing for years :/
3. The Explorer shell; Explorer has finally been brought up to spec to match, and in some cases surpass, the capabilities of file managers such as those commonly found in linux shells such as gnome
4. Efficient memory management; Vista utilises that "cheap" RAM we pack our machines with these days in an attempt to keep the system nice and snappy and gives it back when we do something that requires it and does so very smoothly
5. Ink; 10 points to MS on this one as they have straight up nailed it first time around (ok second time as they did have a shot in XP Tablet Edition) which is good as it's another of the fundamental steps toward next generation interfaces
Things not so good about Vista (but still better than XP):
1. User management; MS doesn't have a very good record here and although they tried to do better in Vista it really isn't much better (try mounting a partition to the users folder...no banana...still about as flexible as a steel rod
2. UAC; Oh my gawd it's bad. I understand the principle (which is why it's here under still better than XP as XP doesn't have any equivalent) but the implementation is evil bad so bad that unless you turn it off it's likely to cause you to inflict injury upon yourself in frustration. I think the word would be "overdone" to the extreme! Simple answer is turn it off in which case it becomes irrelevant and you are no better/worse off than you were under XP
So there are a couple of reasons. There are more but I'm not wasting any more time writing it all down.
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds..." - Emerson 1841You are obviously not an engineer and I am. (Software engineer to be exact)
A wise person never jumps on new technology. Early adopters do that.
Historical examples:
Mp3 players: The first had 8-16 Mb of memory. Thats like 3-4 songs at the bit rate of the time. A portable casette player was obviously a better choice
The first customers of breast enhancements had bad implants implanted by a cut under breast or removal of nipple. Bad scarring and other very malicious side effects. Nowadays the insection is under the armpit with barely visible scars or no side effects.
Mobile phones: Big clunky, batter hungry expensive pieces. No sane person would use it
Dual core: Expensive, and very few applications supported multithreading that the average consumers would use.
Widescreen: Expensive and very few games supported, OS support was lacking too.
You catching the drift here? Microsoft added alot of NEW technology in Vista. Thats the reason I DONT WANT IT. BECAUSE ITS NOT SAFE.
In all my examples above SOME people really wanted that tech early. But for the mainstream consumer it was pure evil. (People relevant to the techs above were in order: techjunkies, pornstars, yuppies, server farms and CAD/Graphical designer pros). For them the upside was worth the downside.
Do I want to have a hassle finding drivers, worrying about my old programs wont work correctly, do I want to learn a new UI. No all I want is to run Visual studio, Word, Cubase, a browser, messaging, Indigo <3 and my games. And I want it to be snappy and I dont want to spend time on it. I rather make money than spend my time betatesting new technology.
Next OS that has the adopted and mature version of that tech will be a blast and I'll use that.
So take your "I need the latest and greatest" foolishness elswhere. Thank you.
And.. as all see I am right as always
A wise person never jumps on new technology. Early adopters do that.
Historical examples:
Mp3 players: The first had 8-16 Mb of memory. Thats like 3-4 songs at the bit rate of the time. A portable casette player was obviously a better choice
The first customers of breast enhancements had bad implants implanted by a cut under breast or removal of nipple. Bad scarring and other very malicious side effects. Nowadays the insection is under the armpit with barely visible scars or no side effects.
Mobile phones: Big clunky, batter hungry expensive pieces. No sane person would use it
Dual core: Expensive, and very few applications supported multithreading that the average consumers would use.
Widescreen: Expensive and very few games supported, OS support was lacking too.
You catching the drift here? Microsoft added alot of NEW technology in Vista. Thats the reason I DONT WANT IT. BECAUSE ITS NOT SAFE.
In all my examples above SOME people really wanted that tech early. But for the mainstream consumer it was pure evil. (People relevant to the techs above were in order: techjunkies, pornstars, yuppies, server farms and CAD/Graphical designer pros). For them the upside was worth the downside.
Do I want to have a hassle finding drivers, worrying about my old programs wont work correctly, do I want to learn a new UI. No all I want is to run Visual studio, Word, Cubase, a browser, messaging, Indigo <3 and my games. And I want it to be snappy and I dont want to spend time on it. I rather make money than spend my time betatesting new technology.
Next OS that has the adopted and mature version of that tech will be a blast and I'll use that.
So take your "I need the latest and greatest" foolishness elswhere. Thank you.
And.. as all see I am right as always
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests