Operating Systems (Split)

[Fuzznut]

I'm for backwards compatibility as much as possible so people have a choice. I cannot stand the M$ corralling everyone and forcing them to get their latest crap all the time.

That being said, I also have heard good things about Windows 7 that it runs like XP. What do you guys think? It will be a couple years before I upgrade to it as I want to see how it pans out first.

[Panix]

You said it runs like a champ on a P3 500 with 512MB RAM so just get a P3 500 with 512MB RAM.

I wouldn't be doing everything I wanted if that machine had Win2K, nevermind Win7 regardless of how well it runs.

[MH]

I'm for backwards compatibility as much as possible so people have a choice. I cannot stand the M$ corralling everyone and forcing them to get their latest crap all the time.

That being said, I also have heard good things about Windows 7 that it runs like XP. What do you guys think? It will be a couple years before I upgrade to it as I want to see how it pans out first.

I don't think MS are forcing anybody to get anything. XP is an 8 year old OS, do you know of any companies who still offer the same level of support for 8 year old software as MS do? Certainly not Oracle, certainly not Apple. I can't say for certain about the Linux vendors, but I would seriously doubt if any of them would likewise support an 8 year old distro.

OK, I won't argue that the push for Vista was anything other than obnoxious, but if you read around the MS tech blogs I think you'll find that there's a fairly honest acceptance that the whole thing backfired badly and that lessons have been learned. You won't get an official admission of that, but there's layers and layers of PR, marketing and sales people at work there too.

There are 2 major backwards compatibility improvements in 7 over Vista. Firstly there's the famous XP mode in Professional and upwards, but secondly is the fact that most of the time you won't even need it. I've tested plenty of old apps (and by this I mean disgusting old line of business apps) on both Vista and 7 that ran fine under XP, and in every single case anything that bombed in Vista ran perfectly in 7 without any hacks or compatibility settings at all.

[spooker]

One thing that REALLY bothered me was how they only released Halo 2 for Vista. It ran just fine on XP after some shmuck made a tiny bat file launcher

[foq]

That was another way of conning gamers into jumping ship to Vista. MS made a huge push on gamers to move to Vista because they wouldn't incorporate DX10 support for XP. However, old hardware eventually needs upgraded. Nobody really wants to run current applications (including operating systems) on 10 year old hardware.

[Baker]

OK, I won't argue that the push for Vista was anything other than obnoxious, but if you read around the MS tech blogs I think you'll find that there's a fairly honest acceptance that the whole thing backfired badly and that lessons have been learned. You won't get an official admission of that, but there's layers and layers of PR, marketing and sales people at work there too.

There are 2 major backwards compatibility improvements in 7 over Vista. Firstly there's the famous XP mode in Professional and upwards, but secondly is the fact that most of the time you won't even need it. I've tested plenty of old apps (and by this I mean disgusting old line of business apps) on both Vista and 7 that ran fine under XP, and in every single case anything that bombed in Vista ran perfectly in 7 without any hacks or compatibility settings at all.

Of the Vista computers I have used, most of them are constantly in a near out of memory state and clicking on things doesn't immediately respond (lag).

I'm not sure of the reason for this (the user interface?) but XP really was a crowning achievement of an operating system. I hope Windows 7 doesn't have the Vista issues.

[MH]

That was another way of conning gamers into jumping ship to Vista. MS made a huge push on gamers to move to Vista because they wouldn't incorporate DX10 support for XP. However, old hardware eventually needs upgraded. Nobody really wants to run current applications (including operating systems) on 10 year old hardware.

The really irritating thing is that OpenGL is perfectly capable of providing D3D10 functionality on XP. And what also they don't tell you is that even the most basic D3D10 code (clearing a screen and drawing a triangle) won't run unless you have D3D10 hardware.

Bottom line here I think is that D3D10 was (ab)used as a Vista marketing tool. Once again though the lesson has been (kinda) learned and D3D11 will work on Vista (but not XP possibly because that would mean having to back down from the D3D10 position).

@Baker: 7 doesn't behave like that with your memory; it's a bit heavier than XP for the OS alone (about 400 MB) but it doesn't also gobble up everything you have to spare.

[foq]

You know, I remember playing S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Clear Sky in XP with a 7900GS (DX9 hardware) and I could play with Enhanced Full Dynamic Lighting. Now the DX10 options like SASO were greyed-out in the menu, but when I played the game on Vista with my 9800GT, it didn't look any different with Enhanced Full Dynamic Lighting on. DX10 bought nothing or very little over DX9 in terms of software capability, at least that we've seen. It's simply not worth upgrading to Vista just for DX10. I would still buy a DX10 card though because the performance is worlds apart from the old DX9 cards.

[MH]

The major D3D10 feature that would be attractive to me is geometry shaders. I've already hit one case in DirectQ (particles) where I just felt that a geometry shader path would have been of genuine benefit, and would have loved to have had them available.

I remain unconvinced about super-turbo-mega-nutter-bastard-hyper lighting modes. They can look nice, but ultimately the quality of the source material is the biggest factor here.

[Fuzznut]

I don't think MS are forcing anybody to get anything. XP is an 8 year old OS, do you know of any companies who still offer the same level of support for 8 year old software as MS do? Certainly not Oracle, certainly not Apple. I can't say for certain about the Linux vendors, but I would seriously doubt if any of them would likewise support an 8 year old distro.

M$ stranglehold on the industry and its push to make people upgrade has always been obnoxious on some level. There is too much going out of the way to make things uncompatible with the older stuff when it hasn't been necessary from a functionality standpoint. in some cases maybe it has but most of the time it hasnt been.

[Baker]

M$ stranglehold on the industry and its push to make people upgrade has always been obnoxious on some level.

Fuzznut, I think when people look back at where Microsoft blew it, it is going to be Vista and the idea of forced upgrades.

First, it didn't happen. Corporations rejected Vista.

Second, for someone like me if I have to choose between Vista and trying something else ... well ... OS X has me hooked largely because my Vista notebook proved to mostly be only capable of playing DVDs.

Vista was bad. This wasn't apparent when I first used it, but the longer I used it the less useful it was (ate memory, the inconveniences, things that worked on XP and didn't on Vista, not being able to find what I wanted in the control panel as easily).

[MH]

There is too much going out of the way to make things uncompatible with the older stuff when it hasn't been necessary from a functionality standpoint. in some cases maybe it has but most of the time it hasnt been.

Not necessarily the case. You should read some of Raymond Chen's blog for a fairly good handle on where things really stand.

In a nutshell however:

• Compatibility is king.
• Once upon a time programmers were trusted not to be evil.
• Despite a perfectly good documented way of doing things, there are always seat-of-the-pants programmers who insist on doing things in a hacky unsupported way.
• This hacky unsupported code can frequently make it's way into big commercial applications.
• Support for this hacky unsupported code must be retained no matter how much one may wish not to.

Start with something like The long and sad story of the Shell Folders key if you want to know the way things really are.

[Fuzznut]

Fuzznut, I think when people look back at where Microsoft blew it, it is going to be Vista and the idea of forced upgrades.

First, it didn't happen. Corporations rejected Vista.

Yes it did happen. Its always happened. Its their business model. I am talking about their constant PUSH to get people to upgrade. I am not talking about whether so and so rejected it or not. I've rejected it for years.

[alexseinicolaev]

Need key to game Farm 3.

Hello, dear colleagues. Sorry that it was not on site

[edited out by Baker .. commercial spammer links]

[foq]

I just installed Windows 7 on my desktop setup. Aside from the painstaking process of reinstalling and reconfiguring shit, which I am still going through, it has been a pleasant experiance.