Windows XP or Vista

[CaptainKirk]

Re: Windows XP or Vista

There is no need to argue about the technical aspects of Superfetch. Unless someone can start linking to microsoft.com based articles, that line of discussion is over. Please feel free to continue discussing the pros and cons of Vista vs XP, but please do so in a manner that is not attacking any of the other members.

Thanks.

[imported_Recon]

Re: Windows XP or Vista

Try Crysis.

i have it and i can run it :)
not on high graphics but it runs smooth.. :thumbsup:

[n00bhaus3r]

Re: Windows XP or Vista

There is no need to argue about the technical aspects of Superfetch. Unless someone can start linking to microsoft.com based articles, that line of discussion is over. Please feel free to continue discussing the pros and cons of Vista vs XP, but please do so in a manner that is not attacking any of the other members.

Thanks.

I was just waiting for you to come in, Kirk.

i have it and i can run it :)
not on high graphics but it runs smooth.. :thumbsup:

I had to do a lot of tweaking to make run smoothly on very high with only one 3870. :thumbsup:

[Death Merchant]

Re: Windows XP or Vista

Dont forget microsoft is the company that popularised propietary operating systems i.e having to pay for them

it is possible that without microsoft operating systems would be free of charge, so im not going be buying a windows operating system anytime soon (i can get windows vista free as i am a student on the msdn program but choose not to)

[n00bhaus3r]

Re: Windows XP or Vista

Linux is the way to go for most things, though it's a hassle. You have to admit that some proprietary software just can't be replaced, like Office 2007 and Media Monkey.

[AlecJ32]

Re: Windows XP or Vista

Linux is the way to go for most things, though it's a hassle. You have to admit that some proprietary software just can't be replaced, like Office 2007 and Media Monkey.

Well, you'll get the Open Office argument if you say that. However, there is a huge list of other software people may use that you can't get on Linux.

[n00bhaus3r]

Re: Windows XP or Vista

Yo. I've been using Open Office for a while now. Its interface doesn't even come close to that of Office 2007's.

[AlecJ32]

Re: Windows XP or Vista

Yo. I've been using Open Office for a while now. Its interface doesn't even come close to that of Office 2007's.

I agree, and I'd never be caught dead using Open Office, however, that won't stop GNU fanboys from attacking anybody who uses Microsoft Office.

[n00bhaus3r]

Re: Windows XP or Vista

I gotta say though, Ubuntu desktop effects are pretty nifty and come without the Vista lag. Beryl is nice, too. :)

[TheHeartSmasher]

Re: Windows XP or Vista

Yeah but people say that about the Mac too, even though it's probably the least used operating system compared to regular Linux or even FreeBSD. But you do have to admit they are the nicest looking as for hardware/software, may not be the best of choices but it looks nice.

If you purchase a machine that is modern and has a nice amount of resources then Vista will run very nice on your PC. Example if you have:
Intel Core 2 Duo at 2.66Ghz, 4GBs of RAM, 160GB Hard Drive, a decent screen resolution + graphics card and only install what you need and keep your system clean and defragged then it should perform very well.

I remember when I switched to Vista :), I have never switched back to XP. I do still use Windows XP from time to time for testing but when looking at what one can do with Vista compared to XP on the System Administration side Vista wins hands down. As the features in Vista don't exist in XP and never willl which make it a very good choice of os if you have the hardware and software that works properly with it.

Windows 7 is supposed to fix some compatibility problems in Vista so things that did not work in Vista will work in Windows 7 which is even faster then XP and Vista from my experience. If you are looking for pure speed and complete control of your operating system then windows is not the operating system for you and you should look at using a linux or unix disrtros like Gentoo, Debian, Redhat, Centos, SUSE, etc.

If you want the nicest GUI possible you can go for a Mac and use Bootcamp, hopefully Apple will one day allow their OS to be installed on non Mac machines without the need for any modifications.

[Death Merchant]

Re: Windows XP or Vista

Linux is the way to go for most things, though it's a hassle. You have to admit that some proprietary software just can't be replaced, like Office 2007 and Media Monkey.

I think office 2007 is terrible, i cant find where anything is now they have messed with the location of stuff

Open Office is good, just like office 2003 :)

bad thing about linux is that you cant really play games on it, sure theres the wine emulator you can download but games just arent designed to run on UNIX

Also its a real pain to install drivers, sometimes you cant find any

I remember when I switched to Vista :), I have never switched back to XP. I do still use Windows XP from time to time for testing but when looking at what one can do with Vista compared to XP on the System Administration side Vista wins hands down. As the features in Vista don't exist in XP and never willl which make it a very good choice of os if you have the hardware and software that works properly with it.

One thing i hate about vista's system administration is that only administrator users can write data to a disk theres no middle user that cant change system files and such things but can write normal data to disk

[AlecJ32]

Re: Windows XP or Vista

I gotta say though, Ubuntu desktop effects are pretty nifty and come without the Vista lag. Beryl is nice, too. :)

Vista lag? There's no such thing.

Not to mention that Compiz-Fusion is an extremely volatile environment, and should NOT be used in any situation where stability is critical, whereas Aero can be used without destabilizing your system.

Windows 7 is supposed to fix some compatibility problems in Vista so things that did not work in Vista will work in Windows 7 which is even faster then XP and Vista from my experience. If you are looking for pure speed and complete control of your operating system then windows is not the operating system for you and you should look at using a linux or unix disrtros like Gentoo, Debian, Redhat, Centos, SUSE, etc.

Red Hat and SuSE cost money for the sole purpose of tech support, so using one of them would be a silly thing to do. If you're looking for performance, you wouldn't use CentOS, since CentOS is a server distro designed for stability, not bleeding edge performance. It has extremely long release cycles, since updates aren't released until they're absolutely sure it's stable. Again, using CentOS in that situation would be a silly thing to do.

Debian is good, but it's hardly what I'd call a 'pure speed' distribution. For that, you'd want to use something like Arch or Gentoo.

With that in mind, Gentoo has it's set of issues to remember. Gentoo is a difficult distribution to learn if you've never used Linux or FreeBSD before. It's a bleeding edge distribution with a source-based compiling system. Everything gets downloaded as a source, then compiled, so if you're on a lower end PC it can take a while to install packages. Also, Gentoo doesn't come with any of those scripts and managers that Ubuntu has, which do all the hard stuff for you. On Ubuntu, you can install a package through the Add/Remove Programs Window. On Gentoo, you need to know how to use the Portage package manager in terminal.

I think office 2007 is terrible, i cant find where anything is now they have messed with the location of stuff

I have that problem too. I still use Office 2003, and I'm not letting go of it!

Open Office is good, just like office 2003 :)

I hate it, but it's all subjective.

Also its a real pain to install drivers, sometimes you cant find any

Sometimes you don't need any. That said, drivers are still a major pain in Linux.

One thing i hate about vista's system administration is that only administrator users can write data to a disk theres no middle user that cant change system files and such things but can write normal data to disk

I'm not positive of what you're trying to say, but it sounds like you've got your permissions set up funny.

[n00bhaus3r]

Re: Windows XP or Vista

Vista lag? There's no such thing.

It exists.

Not to mention that Compiz-Fusion is an extremely volatile environment, and should NOT be used in any situation where stability is critical, whereas Aero can be used without destabilizing your system.

I was merely referring to the hardware requirements for nice desktop effects.

Red Hat and SuSE cost money for the sole purpose of tech support, so using one of them would be a silly thing to do.

It's not a silly thing to do. In the corporate world, people want accountability. This is why business still run Microsoft server software instead of Open Source stuff, especially in data centers. If **** hits the fan,
there has to be someone to blame.

If you're looking for performance, you wouldn't use CentOS, since CentOS is a server distro designed for stability, not bleeding edge performance. It has extremely long release cycles, since updates aren't released until they're absolutely sure it's stable. Again, using CentOS in that situation would be a silly thing to do.

Keep in mind that CentOS is based on Red Hat. From a working standpoint as a workstation OS, CentOS is a pain in the tush to set up. It does not come with any office suite, IDE, or web editor. That's a lot of software to install.
You talk about long release cycles, but one of the perks of CentOS is the quick updates.

Debian is good, but it's hardly what I'd call a 'pure speed' distribution. For that, you'd want to use something like Arch or Gentoo.

Sure.

Also, Gentoo doesn't come with any of those scripts and managers that Ubuntu has, which do all the hard stuff for you. On Ubuntu, you can install a package through the Add/Remove Programs Window. On Gentoo, you need to know how to use the Portage package manager in terminal.

It's not that much work if you're willing to learn.

I have that problem too. I still use Office 2003, and I'm not letting go of it!

To my knowledge there's no office productivity suite that is fully visual, or one that offers live preview of styles be merely hovering over the right place, or one that offers anything remotely close to the amount of effects.

Sometimes you don't need any. That said, drivers are still a major pain in Linux.

While that may be true, driver management in Linux is easier than in Vista.

I'm not positive of what you're trying to say, but it sounds like you've got your permissions set up funny.

For a default install, when you edit system files, sometimes you have to take ownership first, etc. It's annoying as hell.

[AlecJ32]

Re: Windows XP or Vista

It's not a silly thing to do. In the corporate world, people want accountability. This is why business still run Microsoft server software instead of Open Source stuff, especially in data centers. If **** hits the fan,
there has to be someone to blame.

Right. I was referring to home use.

It's not that much work if you're willing to learn.

If you're willing to devote 2 months of your life to nothing but learning Linux, sure. However, most people have more important things to do than just sit there and 'tweak' their PC and make it 'hardcore'. If you want to learn Gentoo, it's better if you already have a working knowledge of terminal, X Server, at least one of the major desktop environments, and configuring Linux. A first time Linux user trying to install and configure Gentoo is going to be rather frustrated by the complicated and obscure install process, and by the time they actually get a proper install working, they'll be left with an environment they don't know how to use. Starting with an easier distro will teach them how to be productive in a GNU operating system environment and will teach them how to properly use terminal before they start to dig deeper and move into a distro as complicated as Gentoo.

Trying to learn Linux by starting with Gentoo would be a bit like trying to learn Math by starting with Calculus.

While that may be true, driver management in Linux is easier than in Vista.

Windows Vista has graphical installers for every driver you could possibly decide to install. In Linux, Nvidia drivers must be compiled as kernel modules from a command line.

Managing drivers in Windows is so easy that the average gamer knows how to do it with ease. With Linux, it's much more complicated and requires much more work on the part of the end user.

For a default install, when you edit system files, sometimes you have to take ownership first, etc. It's annoying as hell.

....But ultimately more secure. Likewise, it's annoying as hell to use the super user command for so many things in Unix/Unix-Like systems, but ultimately worth it because it's far more secure than allowing non-root/super users to access vital system resources.

[n00bhaus3r]

Re: Windows XP or Vista

Trying to learn Linux by starting with Gentoo would be a bit like trying to learn Math by starting with Calculus.

I didn't have a problem with learning calculus.

If you're willing to devote 2 months of your life to nothing but learning Linux, sure.

Ok. I'll admit that Linux isn't as user friendly as Vista, but it's not as bad as you make it out to be. There are plenty of informative guides and tutorials out on the web. It certainly didn't take me months to figure out Linux to a usable level.

Windows Vista has graphical installers for every driver you could possibly decide to install. In Linux, Nvidia drivers must be compiled as kernel modules from a command line.

Managing drivers in Windows is so easy that the average gamer knows how to do it with ease. With Linux, it's much more complicated and requires much more work on the part of the end user.

While it's user friendly, doing things from console is faster for me than from graphical stuff in Vista. Plus, installers often ask you to install random crap (as is the case with the Windows ATi installer). With Linux, you get want you want and you do it. It may require some knowledge on the user's part, but it does exactly what you tell it to do.

....But ultimately more secure. Likewise, it's annoying as hell to use the super user command for so many things in Unix/Unix-Like systems, but ultimately worth it because it's far more secure than allowing non-root/super users to access vital system resources.

Taking ownership from command line takes far more key presses than say... "sudo" or "gksudo."