|
| Thread: What OS are you running, and why? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
posted September 22, 2008 04:44 PM |
|
|
I run Vista currently. I liked XP more but I'm too lazy to uninstall Vista and hunt for my XP disc and install it.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted September 22, 2008 04:45 PM |
|
|
My rig came with Vista and so far it's running quite well. Haven't really encountered any problems with it so far. *signs against the evil eye*
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
doomnezeu
Supreme Hero
Miaumiaumiau
|
|
posted September 22, 2008 06:03 PM |
|
|
To all you people who say "Vista suxx0rz lololo", it is obviously you have never made decent tests to compare it with XP on a high end machines. Sure, if you have a comp from the Paleolitic, with 512 RAM and stuff like that, it will run like crap. But on systems with 2+ GM RAM and a decent video card, with all updates, etc., games and, in general, multimedia applications run much better than on XP.
And if you don't like the looks of it, you can always customize it to look like an "ordinary" Windows. I was, myself an anti Vista noob until I actually got to test it on my machine (8 GB RAM, Ati H4870), and trust me, games run much better.
Plus, Vista is more stable when it comes to the classical Windows "WTF Happened?" crashes.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 22, 2008 06:10 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Sure, if you have a comp from the Paleolitic, with 512 RAM and stuff like that, it will run like crap. But on systems with 2+ GM RAM and a decent video card, with all updates, etc., games and, in general, multimedia applications run much better than on XP.
How about XP on the SAME machines huh? Still same performance? 
Why should Vista get "new hardware" when comparing?
oh and I haven't got a crash since a long time ago, that is a software crash (I had some hardware-based crashes).
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted September 22, 2008 06:51 PM |
|
|
Quote:
And if you don't like the looks of it, you can always customize it to look like an "ordinary" Windows. I was, myself an anti Vista noob until I actually got to test it on my machine (8 GB RAM, Ati H4870), and trust me, games run much better.
A few questions:
*32x or 64x
*Turned of UAC?
*Did you use this uber bbq computer on XP first for a test?
*You know that XP does not support more than 4GB ram no? That means its not a fair comparision either(Vista can use 8, but your XP was limited to 4).
Fotnotes for myself:
*Vista handles memory bad
*Managed to achive bluescreen
*Managed to get fatal error
*Managed to completely freeze it
|
|
yasmiel
Supreme Hero
Former Chessmaster
|
|
posted September 22, 2008 07:07 PM |
|
Edited by yasmiel at 19:14, 22 Sep 2008.
|
I'm still to see any problems with my Vista, and i have by no means uber configuration:
Prescott 3Ghz, 1 GB Ram, X550 graphics card.
I used the same configuration with both OS-s and noticed very slight differences (tho they were noticeable while i only had 512MB ram).
All games work pretty much the same, all applications as well. just in nicer and refreshed looks.
So in any case, my call is that Vista is as good as (if not better than) XP on its own, but fails to be an real "upgrade". This is from basic home user perspective of course.
And yes, in order to have more than 4GB (closer to 3,5GB actually) you have to have 64 bit processor and 64 bit OS since its impossible for 32 bit ones to address more than above mentioned 3 point something GB.
I agree that above mentioned machine with 8Gb ram and top notch graphic card would eat up games regardless of OS
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 22, 2008 10:37 PM |
|
|
William:
Quote:
And Mvass, I have a hard time believing that. Seriously.
Consider this: TheDeath is basically saying the same thing, and he definitely knows what he's talking about.
Quote:
This topic is finally a topic which strays away from the usual stuff we have in OSM and it would be good if you could take this at least a little seriously just like you treat your most replied to subjects like God threads, Politics etc.
If you think that IGUOBIG and the other threads are 100% serious, then you are wrong.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted September 23, 2008 12:06 AM |
|
Edited by Moonlith at 00:06, 23 Sep 2008.
|
Quote:
To all you people who say "Vista suxx0rz lololo", it is obviously you have never made decent tests to compare it with XP on a high end machines.
Should we?
If you say you need to be have a high level of nerdness in order to understand and configure Vista properly, at the very least we can say Vista is user-unfriendly.
XP never gave me any trouble whatsoever, ran like a charm and never crashed.
Vista smacks me in the face repeatedly with silly messages.
Vista: "OMG someone wishes to start this program! Are you okay with this??"
Me: "DUHR! I doubleclicked it you dumb dipsh*t!"
"extra security"
Sounds more like a more pointless burden. Mind you, my games run fine on Vista.... But they did as well on XP.
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted September 23, 2008 12:18 AM |
|
|
The allowance thing does get old fast.
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
william
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
LummoxLewis
|
|
posted September 23, 2008 02:08 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Consider this: TheDeath is basically saying the same thing, and he definitely knows what he's talking about.
And you're saying that I don't know what I'm talking about? TheDeath knows that I too am good at computers, so maybe instead os resorting to those kind of cheap posts, maybe you could post something on-topic for a change?
|
|
kookastar
Honorable
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted September 23, 2008 02:33 AM |
|
|
Quote:
What OS are you running, and why
vista, because i felt like experiencing the frustration that usually only comes with glove-clad men directing sharp pointy objects towards your eyeballs
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 23, 2008 02:41 AM |
|
|
Come on, William. Let's get back on topic: Vista sucks. Agreed?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
william
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
LummoxLewis
|
|
posted September 23, 2008 02:42 AM |
|
|
Mvass....
I agree!
Have you used Linux before though?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 23, 2008 03:02 AM |
|
|
No, I must say I haven't. I like having my programs more or less compatible.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
william
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
LummoxLewis
|
|
posted September 23, 2008 05:52 AM |
|
|
I guess I understand what you mean, however, Linux does have its own array of programs which are similar to the windows versions. Big difference is that since Linux is a faster OS than Windows is, then the programs run more quickly as well, which is quite convenient. For anyone here who hasn't yet used Linux, I seriously recommend that you do. It's worth it. 
|
|
Lexxan
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Unimpressed by your logic
|
|
posted September 23, 2008 07:39 AM |
|
|
XP 
____________
Coincidence? I think not!!!!
|
|
william
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
LummoxLewis
|
|
posted September 23, 2008 07:44 AM |
|
|
Well I am glad Lexxan. At least you aren't too much of a noob that I thought you were. j/k
I am hoping that for the next Windows release, that they concentrate more on the actual performance than the graphics and style of the OS.
|
|
eugen_cosmarul
Famous Hero
hey
|
|
posted September 23, 2008 09:56 AM |
|
|
My paleolithic computer can only support XP. 
And if it would support Vista, I would still use XP.
____________
|
|
dimis
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Digitally signed by FoG
|
posted September 23, 2008 11:31 AM |
|
Edited by dimis at 11:43, 23 Sep 2008.
|
:agree: My pentium II @ 350 was really fast with XP - at least for my needs... waaaay faster than anything else.
/back-on-topic I voted others just for the fun.
At home I have dual boot mac / winXP, but really, the only reason that I need windows is because I play Heroes III every 3 - 6 months. lol
At work I have single boot debian lenny. Therefore, "others" is my vote.
I also think that the best operating system for a user is the one that helps him fullfil his/her needs in the easiest and hassle-free way. Besides, experimenting with new stuff requires patience and time. Are you willing to sacrifice your free time for that?
At some point, ..., I think 7 years ago, I *could* do everything under windows. But the point is, that for *all* the things that I wanted to work with, I could work with free/open-source software. In fact, it's not just I "could". I actually did that. And in many cases, I had to emulate unix environment under windows inorder to make things work; e.g. cygwin. So the question was: Why do I have to tweak every little bit and byte of the software that I install, in order to make it actually work the way I want? I mean not "customizing" applications, but merely handling some problematic situations that arose here and there with installations under windows. The funny thing was that I had written scripts to run every time I re-formatted the drive. Oh, yes, once upon a time, formats were scheduled frequently throughout the year. No, I don't miss those days!
Anyway, at some point I decided to use windows only for games. That's exactly the last day that I used windows as my primary system. And to state it simply, chances are that I will never see windows my main operating system ever again. Why is that? First of all, even if you get hacked / get a virus under linux, the effect is merely restrained to a single user account. So, in the worst case, you delete the account and create a new one. Even if you don't have any backups, you 'll create a "fresh" and "healthy" account within 20-25 secs. How much time do you need to spend to re-install windows with all the applications that you like, customized the way you like ?  But even that is an extreme scenario. I have never encountered / heard of someone being hacked by a random intruder (i.e. not intruder on purpose  ) who erased his/her files (similarly of a virus doing so).
Other pros: When I first started using linux as main I had ssh, sftp, and apache effortlessly. I mean literally, it was one "click" away. And I was really proud I had my servers running and I could log in from anywhere I was and fetch/send files. Plus secure, without tweaking the slightest bit. I also had compilers for free. That was a pain under windows. At least in the pre-broadband/dsl era. You couldn't download a CD online from home with dial-up. You know that this is a joke, right? Oh, and I don't want to pay the $$$ that ms demanded for visual studio. Btw, that's the only thing that I miss from windows. VS 6.0 was *by far* the best IDE I have worked on. And I mean, really far. 
There are other pros as well, but I think they are technical, and more or less meaningless. I think the "most important" difference, is that under windows you have to login with administrative privileges in order to have a fully functional and working user account, while under unix you are merely another user who *can not* harm the system. That's exactly the point where all the viruses point at and are so popular for windows. That's the place where you can have real "fun" if you design a virus!
Windows 2000, was the only OS that was soooo close to revert the situation. Multiple levels of user accounts, and by being a power user, you had the power you needed and certain "good" limitations. That's all of course, in the before "sasher"-era (I think that was the name of the virus), which by the way I "got" from MS while updating the system. lol If that isn't insane, then what is?
Ooops, I wrote many things. Cheers!
P.S.: As of Vista, I 've *never* tried them. I am more interested on trying minix though. Plan9 is certainly not my choice!
____________
The empty set
|
|
doomnezeu
Supreme Hero
Miaumiaumiau
|
|
posted September 23, 2008 12:29 PM |
|
|
Quote:
A few questions:
*32x or 64x
*Turned of UAC?
*Did you use this uber bbq computer on XP first for a test?
*You know that XP does not support more than 4GB ram no? That means its not a fair comparision either(Vista can use 8, but your XP was limited to 4).
* 32 bits. I do not own a 64 bit Vista yet and, unlike 99% of my fellow Romanians, I DO NOT use pirated software. I find it a lack of disrespect for those who worked their asses off to give us the said software.
* UAC on, I have root kits phobia
* Yes, it came with XP preinstalled at first. To mi surprise, most games acted slower, especially those that eat hardware (Crysis, Jericho, The Witcher, GoW)
*Yes, I know. But since my Vista is currently 32 bits, it only aknowledges at most 4 GB RAM. Don't blame me, I ordered the system with only 4 GB RAM, the other 4 came as a free bonus.
Edit:
The point is, I use this computer exclusively for games, since I work in the gaming industry. So I try to optimize it for "brute" performance only, I don't care about appearance, message boxes. I only need to get the highest framerate possible. So far, Vista did the job.
____________
|
| |
|
|
