Only the default (TGN Light) theme for now. Dark them is also coming back soon. Then CSN. Then Wrestlin' Nation. A lot of WIP stuff right now. There are a couple of things still not working either. Sorry.
Pretty good OS, I've only had two problems with it compatibility wise:
My old HP printer just refused to work.
Some software I need for school won't install.
But apart from that it's been great, very stable. And one thing I do like, when compared to XP, is that it'll always go to task manager when you Ctrl+Alt+Del. It's never unresponsive.
you wouldn't even get the extra .75GB if it wasn't 64bit vista
It doesn't matter if he'd get the extra memory or not. He'd still get much more out of his computer's memory on Vista, since Windows XP's memory management model is obsolete and horribly inefficient compared to that of Windows Vista, Windows 7, Mac OS X, Linux, FreeBSD and Solaris.
Windows Vista is much more aggressive and much more efficient in it's memory management. It also attempts to squeeze every last ounce of performance from your memory, by using any free memory as a cache for frequently used programs.
Whether or not he feels that is worth the investment in Windows Vista/Windows 7, well, that's up to him.
Originally posted by CrAzY eYeD cAt =^O.o^=
XP is for noobs..
Unfortunately, yes. I can understand people not wanting to spend money to upgrade to Vista if they don't have to, but the people running around saying things like "Vista suxorz" or "Dunt buy Vistaz", or the people who bought a copy of Windows XP even though Windows Vista was the same price are a huge pet peeve for me. It's that whole "I know more about operating systems than the teams of software engineers at Microsoft who get paid to design, code and build them do." mentality.
For gamers specifically, there's not a lot that Vista offers the end-user, aside from DirectX 10. DirectX 10 would be worth it, if more titles were using it properly. DirectX 10 is all about allowing developers to do things more efficiently and with fewer system calls, resulting in better performance and allowing them to implement more intricate visual effects. However most developers have to spend too much energy developing the game for DirectX 9, and end up porting the game to DirectX 10 and not taking advantage of DirectX 10 very well. Windows XP/DirectX 9 are a major pain in the *** for game developers to work with. If I were a game developer, I would drop support for that platform in a heartbeat.(Fortunately, I'm not)
First of all, Windows XP's Display Driver Model is very heavily based off of the Windows 95 driver model, which isn't really a good model for Windows NT 5 operating systems. Windows Vista contains a completely new Display Driver Model, called WDDM, which makes the lives of both driver developers and game developers easier and makes many of Vista's other features, like DWM, Aero, and DirectX 10 possible.
Also, DirectX 9 requires support for different hardware to be coded into the games with compatibility packets, since not all DirectX 9 hardware supports the same features. DirectX 10 on the other hand mandates that all DirectX 10 compatible hardware must support every graphical feature used by DirectX 10, which removes the need for compatibility packets.
Unfortunately, yes. I can understand people not wanting to spend money to upgrade to Vista if they don't have to, but the people running around saying things like "Vista suxorz" or "Dunt buy Vistaz", or the people who bought a copy of Windows XP even though Windows Vista was the same price are a huge pet peeve for me. It's that whole "I know more about operating systems than the teams of software engineers at Microsoft who get paid to design, code and build them do." mentality.
So Windows Millennium was perfect? You know, because Microsoft never screws up anything with their OS's?
You went right out and bought Millennium and got rid of 98 that day, right?
And never looked back, because each subsequent Windows OS is always leaps and bounds ahead of the previous version.
So Windows Millennium was perfect? You know, because Microsoft never screws up anything with their OS's?
You went right out and bought Millennium and got rid of 98 that day, right?
And never looked back, because each subsequent Windows OS is always leaps and bounds ahead of the previous version.
I think every company is entitled to one screw up, and in Microsoft's case that'd be Windows Millennium Edition.
However, Millennium Edition is completely unrelated to the Windows Vista discussion. They don't share any similarities at all. Windows ME wasn't a very good product at all, while Vista on the other hand is vastly superior to Windows XP, it's predecessor.
I think every company is entitled to one screw up, and in Microsoft's case that'd be Windows Millennium Edition.
However, Millennium Edition is completely unrelated to the Windows Vista discussion. They don't share any similarities at all. Windows ME wasn't a very good product at all, while Vista on the other hand is vastly superior to Windows XP, it's predecessor.
Of course it's related. You said people aren't smart enough to second guess Microsoft and dislike Vista because Microsoft has teams of software engineers.
Millennium is an example that proves they aren't infallible.
Some of us did actually pony up the money for Vista, and still don't like it.
Of course it's related. You said people aren't smart enough to second guess Microsoft and dislike Vista because Microsoft has teams of software engineers.
Millennium is an example that proves they aren't infallible.
Some of us did actually pony up the money for Vista, and still don't like it.
Windows Millennium Edition's problems were more stability related than anything else. Most of the people criticizing Vista are criticizing low-level design choices, such as memory management, that they really don't understand.
Of course it's related. You said people aren't smart enough to second guess Microsoft and dislike Vista because Microsoft has teams of software engineers.
Millennium is an example that proves they aren't infallible.
Some of us did actually pony up the money for Vista, and still don't like it.
I think he's trying to point out that Vista haters tend to pick holes in coding and logic they don't understand, Superfetch is a very good example of this.
I've heard numerous times people saying "Z0mfG Vista'z eating Mah R@M"..."it's such a memory hog". Whilst it does use more memory (which coincides with the greater amount of memory that comes with PC's now), it actually uses it rather than letting it sit there empty twiddling it's thumbs. If I buy 4GB of RAM, I couldn't care less if Vista used it all, as long as it didn't cause any latency issues when accessing or putting new data in. If it's using it for a good reason, such as minimizing application loading times, i'm all for it.
My main reason for switching to Vista is WDDM as Abj pointed out. It's brilliant for gaming and overclocking. It used to drive me nuts having to deal with constant BSOD's whilst GPU overclocking in XP. Splitting the kernal into 2 and shoving most of it at Vista's end (as opposed to the hardware end) is one of their best ideas to date!
We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, personalize advertising, and to analyze site activity. We may share certain information about our users with our advertising and analytics partners. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
Comment