Windows 7

MikeWhitehead

I never need to use Macs, but I have to admit that from an audio/video editing point of view, Macs are "the daddy", hands down. Every recording studio I've recorded in, it's been Macs doing the business.

I'd never buy one though - I don't sleep on a bed of banknotes!

timbim_2

I see no reason that a well specced XP machine with adobe CS3 Master Edition can't handle any audio/video editing task. I regularly edit in a PC edit suite on Premier Pro CS3, and absolutely love the software.

Conor_3

MikeWhitehead wrote: »

1) "Windows 7 is based on Vista" is such a blanket statement. Vista is based on XP,

No it isn't. It uses a different version of NTFS which has a different bootloader. It has a completely different kernel and completely different driver model. Drivers etc are no longer allowed access to the kernel. It implements proper user account control. It has a completely different TCP/IP stack. It has a different indexing system, search system, Explorer behaves differently, Internet Explorer is sandboxed...want me to go on?

2) Not misinformed. Vista is an overly-bloated operating system. FACT. Windows Vista SP1 was designed to help performance, SP2 is aiming to do the same.

So no different to XP's development then. XP was called bloated compared to Win98. SP1 was designed to help performance and stability, likewise SP2.

Look at WINE, I think you'll find a very large portion of games are supported, or unsupported but work.

As long as you don't mind having the equivalent of DirectX7 graphics on the 9600GT DX10 card you need to use to get a decent framerate, don't go on servers that run Punkbuster and don't have games which have copy protection.

Conor_3

MikeWhitehead wrote: »

Lets look at the facts shall we?

1) RAM Requirements
2) Drive Requirements
3) CPU Requirements
4) Windows XP is released on a CD. How many Vista copies have you found on a CD?
5) Performance benchmarks between the two operating systems show XP at a higher mark.
6) Compare any Linux distro with Vista (turn both/either/none of the advanced graphic displays). Which of the two can do IDENTICAL tasks as the other, while running on around 1/4-1/8 of the RAM without paging?

Must I go on?

1) And? Every new version of Windows has wanted more RAM just like every new version of Linux. Linux is on 256MB now as the recommended minimum for a Gnome/KDE desktop environment compared to 64MB 8 years ago. 2GB of RAM can be found for under £10. It's a non issue.
2) And? See 1. Hard drives are cheap. It currently costs 8 1/2 pence per GB.
3) See 1
4) Different versions of XP had a CD dedicated to them. ALL versions of Vista are included on the one DVD and what gets installed is dictated by the licence key entered. Oh, and DVDROM drives are £5 a pop in case you were going to bleat on about that.
5) See 1. I'm running Vista just fine on a CPU discontinued THREE YEARS AGO and still getting 180FPS in Counterstrike:Source.
6) Vista uses Superfetch which preloads unused RAM with the most common applications to speed up load time of an application. The RAM can be instantly freed when needed. Perhaps you'd rather the RAM went completely unused, thus wasting money? The Linux community think that Superfetch is such a good idea, they came up with preload which does a poor job of trying to do the same thing.

All you've done in your attempt to have a go is make yourself look more like a clown.

Conor_3

MikeWhitehead wrote: »

When did you try Linux last?

Ubuntu 8.10 good enough for you? Perhaps you'd like to tell me how to browse password protected Windows shares in Gnome without knowing the IP address of the computer its on or the shared name? Haven't been able to do it since it was broken in Gome 2.22 (Ubuntu 8.04 and later) when the project moved to gvfs.

They ARE, however, taking the right steps in pushing people towards *nix by releasing poor operating systems!

Yeah because the fact Vista has gained TWENTY TIMES MORE desktop market share in two years than Linux has managed in fifteen really proves it's a fail, eh?

MikeWhitehead

Conor wrote: »

No it isn't. It uses a different version of NTFS which has a different bootloader. It has a completely different kernel and completely different driver model. Drivers etc are no longer allowed access to the kernel. It implements proper user account control. It has a completely different TCP/IP stack. It has a different indexing system, search system, Explorer behaves differently, Internet Explorer is sandboxed...want me to go on?

So no different to XP's development then. XP was called bloated compared to Win98. SP1 was designed to help performance and stability, likewise SP2.

As long as you don't mind having the equivalent of DirectX7 graphics on the 9600GT DX10 card you need to use to get a decent framerate, don't go on servers that run Punkbuster and don't have games which have copy protection.

*Yawn*

What has changes in NTFS (a file system) got to do with changes to a kernel? Same goes with every point you just made.

The fact remains that the kernel is all the same kernel, simply altered. Check the command prompt (ever used edlin?) - it's a pre-MS-DOS command which is still included today. there is a system folder (derived from 16bit platform usage), a system32 folder (derived from 32bit platform usage). I think you need to learn the difference between SHELLS and KERNELS. The kernel isn't (directly) what makes the UI different.

And I have to laugh at you honestly saying it implements user access control properly.

Your comments on WINE are also based somewhat in the past.

When your comments are more coherent than an irate rabble and concise, then I'll be glad to discuss this further with you. My head is in my hands - I really don't know where to start first.

DatabaseError

Conor wrote: »

.....

Could you please refrain from posting facts into what is a very emotive argument, requiring emotional answers, not any of that factual rubbish you are peddling....begone...
:A

next up...
Elite (bbc) vs Elite (Atari ST500) vs Elite (PC Dos)
My vote goes for the 1st one, 32k ram, 2k+ planets, 3d spaceships, console and movement. Seminal in it's brilliance. The other versions added colours and filled polygons, but didn't really enhance the game in any meaningful way. Discuss without arguing or throwing toys out of the pram.

MikeWhitehead

Conor wrote: »

Yeah because the fact Vista has gained TWENTY TIMES MORE desktop market share in two years than Linux has managed in fifteen really proves it's a fail, eh?

Ummmm...you may feel rather foolish now that you've said that.

Vista hasn't gained, Windows has LOST market share.

MikeWhitehead

Conor wrote: »

No it isn't. It uses a different version of NTFS which has a different bootloader. It has a completely different kernel and completely different driver model. Drivers etc are no longer allowed access to the kernel. It implements proper user account control. It has a completely different TCP/IP stack. It has a different indexing system, search system, Explorer behaves differently, Internet Explorer is sandboxed...want me to go on?

So are you trying to say Vista was a complete code restructure? If not, then what was it based on? Ding ding ding, we have a winner.

Goodnight.

Jaffa.

I like the look of vistas GUI, compared to Windows XP, blue and green what were they thinking

I take it Windows 7 will have the same sort of look. I've seen some screen shots of it, it looked like the KDE desktop? or at least it was customised to look like that.