First (?) call for Micro$oft to abandon Vista.

[Hammer]

I haven't read this entire thread, bui I say screw XP, Vista and all this other crap. Get a cou[ple dedicated software enthusiasts, code an os, and you have one of the most responsive, intuitive OSes on the market. Gates don't know the first thing abput software.

Microsoft knows about business desktop software and the middleware to support it. Refer to Windows CE/PocketPC for Microsoft's lite OSes.

[coldfish]

This thread is heavy on the wishful thinking and light on rational thinking.

I see a trend forming...

[sir_inferno]

i dislike linux, i'm not getting a mac, so as soon as i'm getting my new laptop i'm formatting it and putting windows xp on. if somebody else doesn't like vista they should do the same instead of posting retarded blogs.

[AeroMan]

sir_inferno wrote:
 if somebody else doesn't like vista they should do the same instead of posting retarded blogs.

I don't like Vista, neither XP. That's why I still use 98. Guess what ? My computer boots in seconds... I have to use XP at the office, and I have to wait 6 minutes to start working.
Of course, the IT guys there make sure our network is slow, and the computers runs loads of useless scrips.
Anyway, I don't see any reason to upgrade now...

[amigadave]

AeroMan wrote:
I don't like Vista, neither XP. That's why I still use 98. Guess what ? My computer boots in seconds... I have to use XP at the office, and I have to wait 6 minutes to start working.
Of course, the IT guys there make sure our network is slow, and the computers runs loads of useless scrips.
Anyway, I don't see any reason to upgrade now...

Hmmmm..... Windows98, maybe I should think about going back to that and see how this 2.4GHz Core2Duo w/2GB RAM and 7200rpm HD runs.  I am sick of having to wait 5 to 7 minutes on boot to start doing anything.

[little]

Conquest of oil supplies??? ... but don't be naive and think that the US is profiting from this war in any way other than attempting to bring stability to the region,

1. The region was stable before GDW invaded it. Maybe it was far from peaceful and there was a dictator controlling the country, but people seem to forget that said dictator was supported by the USA for decades and that there are dozens of regions in the world that are not peaceful with their own dictators, one of those has ruled unimpaired for decades and lives a few hunres miles south of florida, if GDW he had an itch to remove world dicators he could have started there, don't you think?

2. Many people seem to think that "conquesting oil supplies" is akin of "getting cheap oil", truth is never has and never will be about that. It is about securing supply. People have forgotten that the reason behind WWII in the pacific was because the US cut oil supplies to the japanese. People do not seem to undestand that the reason the chinese buy oil from sudan(darfur), venezuela and iran is because the best way to secure oil supplies is to buy from countries outside of the influence of the US. People have yet to grasp that in out lifetimes world oil reserves will dry up and decades before that happens there will be not be enough oil to meet world demand, so only the few that have secured some source of supply will not see their economies go downhill.

Education is the answer to World Peace.

Bah, humbug! Food is the answer to world peace, try to be enlightned with an empty stomach.

[arkanoid]

Just as a side note, tonight I installed the latest version of Ubuntu (7.10) on my mother's new Sony Vaio laptop which came pre-installed with Vista. She was not comfortable with Vista because of it's generally stupid interface and has been pestering me to install Windows XP which she's already familiar with from her old desktop. I suggested she gave Linux a try first before I purchased a copy of XP for her. She's been using the new install for a few hours now and absolutely loves it and finds it easy and straight forward to use.

Bare in mind this is a Sony Vaio which uses a lot of proprietary Sony hardware and the Ubuntu installation was just as easy as Windows. Anyone considering Linux should give Ubuntu a try, it's truly amazing.

Watch out Microsoft...you have a REAL contender for your throne!

[coldfish]

Ubuntu's great for the average user, email, browsing, accounts ect.  Cant be beaten for value!

I had it dual boot with XP on my laptop for a while, but eventually the novelty wore off and I was booting it maybe once a month, just because.
Also, Ubuntu did take about twice as long to boot compared to XP and had very buggy hibernate/standby features.  It's media playing features are a little lacklustre too, DVD playback was choppy at best compared to <20% CPU usage under XP.

The final nail in the... partition, was when Ubuntu broke for some reason, and would lock half way through boot.  I couldnt be bothered trying to fix it.

Ubuntu's great when it works and/or you have time & energy to problem solve.

[stefcep2]

[

Why isn't the computer ready to go when I power it up, why don't we have zero boot times, why don't programs start instantaneously when I double click on their icon

On my laptop (ASUS G1S) laptop, wordpad.exe starts instantaneously when I double click on it's icon.


it damn well ought to its a crappy little text editor that if there were an equivalent on C64 would also start instantaneously


WHY ??Because the hardware architecture that any new computer you can now buy is based on the Windows-design[/quote]
This statement is false.

ACPI (Advanced Configuration and Power Interface) architecture was developed by HP, Intel, Microsoft, Phoenix and Toshiba. Note Microsoft and Toshiba in HD-DVD(another topic)...

Look in "Device Manager" -> Computer -> "ACPI x86 based PC" (HAL.dll, HALACPI, HALMACPI.dll). HAL = hardware abstraction layer.

Anyway, Intel and Phoenix are developing embedded style lite OS(extensions for firmware) for the X64 PCs i.e. Hyperspace.


Yep,  and only ONE of these companies makes an OS: guess who?


[

[coldfish]

Why isn't the computer ready to go when I power it up, why don't we have zero boot times, why don't programs start instantaneously when I double click on their icon.

Welcome to the physical limitations of hard-disk technology.  

[stefcep2]

coldfish wrote:

Why isn't the computer ready to go when I power it up, why don't we have zero boot times, why don't programs start instantaneously when I double click on their icon.

Welcome to the physical limitations of hard-disk technology.  

yep ok hard disks take time to spin up, but the data transfer rates and data densities are 100 times more than they were in the days when a 20 meg hd for an A500 was huge yet, booting up takes ten times as long.  why does 1000 times more data need to be loaded at boot to make a gui appear and get the mouse, and kb to work?

[coldfish]

yep ok hard disks take time to spin up, but the data transfer rates and data densities are 100 times more than they were in the days when a 20 meg hd for an A500 was huge yet, booting up takes ten times as long.  why does 1000 times more data need to be loaded at boot to make a gui appear and get the mouse, and kb to work?

This next bit will rouse some controversy...

-My XP PC boots faster than my A1200 did, it's true.
-From standby/hibernate its even faster, <20 seconds.
-The PC can do, and does do so much more than the Amiga, start filling the latter up with modern-day apps/requrements like a USB, IP stacks, mediator, RTG drivers etc, and watch what happens...
-HD speed is an even bigger bottleneck today than it was 15 years ago, thats why things are a changing.

Some perspective;

I remember when my C64 took 5+ minutes to load a game, now I get FarCry up and running in less time from a cold boot.  I for one would say thats actually not too bad.

[motrucker]

Vista is still beta!! That came from a M$ Tech when pressed!  The first Service Pack is supped to be issued in mid January, 08. Who knows what it will fix. XP wasn't worth a tinkers damn until SP2 was released - Then it worked quite well (for most people/machines).

[HopperJF]

Some perspective;

I remember when my C64 took 5+ minutes to load a game, now I get FarCry up and running in less time from a cold boot.  I for one would say thats actually not too bad.

Yes but you are comparing cassette media to CD/hard disk media. Not a fair comparison!

Try putting FarCry onto cassette and then see how far you get. :-P

[Darrin]

I remember when my C64 took 5+ minutes to load a game, now I get FarCry up and running in less time from a cold boot.  I for one would say thats actually not too bad.

I think it was "Arcadia" that took 20 minutes to load off tape on the C64.  God it felt good when I had saved up enough pocket money to buy a floppy drive and Action Replay cartridge to transfer my cassette games.

I agree with you that the myth that the Amiga used to boot to Workbench fast really doesn't hold up unless I'm using a no-frills OS3.1 intstall.  OS3.9 with it's added bells & whistles and a hi-res backdrop certainly takes longer.   :-)

[Darrin]

Yes but you are comparing cassette media to CD/hard disk media. Not a fair comparison!

Try putting FarCry onto cassette and then see how far you get. :-P

For a real PC retro experience, try installing Windows 95 off floppy disk!   :-o