AMIGAONE.... isn't it an obsolete technology already?

[seer]

@dylansmrjo

Nodoby with a sane mind would ever buy a Mac Mini. Mac OS X is extremely slow, and eats system resources in a way that ought to embarass Steve Jobs. It's as bad as Vista.

Have you even used Vista ? I keep reading how people call it a resource hog and is worse then XP but having used Beta1 and CTP2 on VMWare (512MB Ram allocated) I can safely say Vista outperforms XP and uses only little more then XP. Not bad for a beta.

[seer]

Look at the hardware requirements for Vista. It says all which is needed

Which one ? AFAIK there's no official final list yet. Most "requirents" I have seen are from a "in the know" journalist..

Besides, is there any OS out there that had a major upgrade and kept the same hardware requirements ? Even Amiga OS has grown in hardware requirements.. Not as bad tho but still..

Of course you can get "decent" performance if you turn of several services, just like we do on XP to get better performance.

Thats just it... I never turned of any of the services in Vista. And there are plenty more as default compared to XP..

Offcourse the "eyecandy" needs more and most hardware requirements are targeting the "eyecandy.

I also installed beta 1 on a P4 2Ghz 256MB with a "slow" Geforce4. Not the lowest spec PC out there but not what one calls high end these days. Again Vista outperformed XP without any tweaking.

Personally I prefer Windows 2003 Server of the Windows versions I've used so far

Vista is based on Win2003 code and said to be the fastest and most stable Windows available out there.

The day when Mac OS X (and newer for that matter) and Windows and Linux can run with a GUI on hardware similar to what AmigaOS 4PR can run on... then I'll stop calling it bloated and slow ;-)

That will never happen....

[seer]

It requires more work from the CPU to draw windows and widgets.

It should require less work. It's about time systems STOP getting bloated with non-functional elements dragging the computer back to the stoneage.

Let's see... Lets draw everything on screen using the GPU or using the CPU ? The whole idea of LDDM is to take even more of the GUI from CPU to the GFX card.  

Win32 is out, GDI is out. Vista is going to be the biggest change for Windows since Windows95/98 > NT4.

But all everybody sees is the "eyecandy". The 3D rotating windows are a "showcase". The are to show what  the new GUI could do. If you haven't used Vista how can you comment on "non-functional elements" ?

In regard to functionality Vista has nothing. Only bloatedness in regard to eye candy.

What eyecandy ? Again, have you used Vista ? XP was Windows 2000 + Eyecandy. The "eyecandy" in vista is functional. If you haven't used Vista you won't know what it means. Visually Vista looks prettier (IMHO) then XP but it's visual  functional. Files are better displayed, menus work better. Having directories with a few hundred (thousands) files are far better organized or can be by the user.

I dislike the GUI in Windows 2000. I turned the XP bubbly gui off to the plain looking 2000 gui and to get a nice speed increase as well. In Vista the theme was as fast or faster then the 2000 Gui.

The "current" Vista theme work great even without a super GFX card (The VMWare only has a 16Mb Gfx card emulated...) and is very useable in it as well. So much for just eyecandy..

[seer]

Rotating windows, putting them sideways, or displaying directory trees in 3D is cool, but from a usability point of view, absolutely horrible.

This is not what the GUI in vista is about, and Vista doesn't do this. (Sure it can do it but you need to turn it on, it's not part of the default features). The movies / pictures that show these things are just to show it truly is 3D and fast. Not just 2D bitmapped windows.

Besides, doesn't OSX use the GPU to speed up it's gui ?

Put another way: how is Joe User going to benefit from the truckloads of raw processing power lurking in his GeForce InsaneVersion or the ATi HahaCaughtUpAgainVersion?

A fast responsive GUI ? Why do people go on how slow Windows is in the GUI department and as soon MS does something about it, it's bad. Sure the current Beta can still be improved but it sure got a lot better since XP. IIRC the OS4 devs were also interested to use the GPU for GUI operations.

Also, if you have the hardware why not use it ? Or should Amiga OS never have used its custom chips to draw the GUI but the CPU and only used the custom chips to play games ?

[seer]

2 GB RAM, DDR-RAM2
Graphics card with no less than 256 MB RAM and support for DirectX 9 (this is just to show the desktop and the standard theme, mind you).

This is recommmended minimum, not nescessarily the lowest possible minimum.

Looks more like the "optimum requirements" as quoted on some tech sites. And are for the "glass" theme that is only standard if you have the hardware that supports it. On WinHec it was said Vista should run good on todays hardware but also on older PC's

Also can you tell me why Vista on a VirtualPC with 512MB Ram and a 16Mb (emulated) GFX card almost looks and feel identical when it runs on a 256MB Geforce7800 ? (Except for offcourse the "glass effects")

[seer]

Of course you get to play with a few extra's, namely textures nearly free of charge, and vectorised graphics nearly free of charge (at bloody long last). All new and useful features, granted, but not of the sort you need the latest in GPU performance for. Unless, of course, your fancy runs to eye candy.

Like Minator said better then I did "In other cases the "eyecandy" is just visual cues - i.e. they are there to enhance usability."

Offcourse this could have been done with plain 2D/bitmaps but vectorised graphics, as you point out, is one of the other reasons to make it 3D. I might be wrong but I believe GPU are faster at drawing 3D then 2D. (You know what I mean)

But like I said, Vista is faster (at beta stage) then XP is. And that is compared to XP without the themes service running. Sure it stil is windows but it I find Vista much nicer to work with then 2000/xp

I guess I come over as a Windows fan boy but honestly, I never really liked XP. It's as bad as most Amiga user make it out to be IMHO but Vista I like to use.

My "beef" is that people shout eyecandy OS, while it's hardly that at all. If anything, XP is the eyecandy windows with al its bright colors... :lol:

[seer]

My big beef with XP is that it complains big time whenever you swap hardware. Win2K doesn't care. I don't suppose Vista does this better, no?

Well.. I never had any problems with XP and swapping hardware.. I even swapped my motherboard and CPU and GPU to a different model and XP just needed to install the mobo drivers. It was only when my harddrive died I had to reinstall and reactivate.

Still I heared but never experienced that XP needed to be reactivated after adding something trivial as a extra HD ??