Windows Vista?

[Speedo]

Well, I'm a total sucker for that aeroglass effect, personally.

I like pretty graphics in games; I like functionality in Windows. I was running the new XP interface for a while, but now I use the "classic" setup, and it's 100x better.

I don't like having to deal with semi-transparent windows. They're a royal pain in EVE-Online.
I don't want Windows leeching my CPU cycles and memory for pointless effects.

The only thing I do like is the whole Alt-Tab thing that actually shows the content of the windows, but I can get that in XP with a PowerToy

 

[dannyevilcat]

I don't want Windows leeching my CPU cycles and memory for pointless effects.

To each their own. The effects shouldn't effect games much, since they're not being used. It uses mostly video card memory, which is why the graphic requirements is so high for the full effect. So if there's a legitimate complaint here, it's the cost of video cards required to get all the eye candy, not a minor drain on system resources.

Vista also gives me one more reason to ditch my disappointing 6600GT for a high end card next summer (WGF2.0/DirectX10 compliant - w00t!)

Personally, I like software that pushes systems to use bigger and better hardware, and the same goes for operating systems. Functionality? Windows 98 is still functional. It's also dated old crap (IMHO).

 

[Speedo]

To each their own. The effects shouldn't effect games much, since they're not being used. It uses mostly video card memory, which is why the graphic requirements is so high for the full effect. So if there's a legitimate complaint here, it's the cost of video cards required to get all the eye candy, not a minor drain on system resources.

Photoshop, 3ds Max and programs like them are not games. Like I said, CPU cycles for them, not eye-candy.

Windows 98 is still functional. It's also dated old crap (IMHO).

Compared to 2000 or XP Pro, it's a piece of crap. Unless you want to run a clean install to just sit there and look at, its instability is horrendous. My computer at work (PIII 1Ghz running 2000 - it takes a beating most days) has been up currently for I think 20 days without a restart. My home PC (XP Pro) averages about 15 days between reboots, but I went 40 days on one occasion. My home file server (also XP Pro)... heck, I can't even remember the last time I rebooted it. With 98SE, I don't think I ever went more than 2 days without a crash or needing to reboot due to some issue.

So no, under a modern computing environment 98 is definetly not functional.

 

[dannyevilcat]

Photoshop, 3ds Max and programs like them are not games. Like I said, CPU cycles for them, not eye-candy.

Sorry, I misunderstood you. Still, the pretty graphics in Windows Vista will be handled by the video card, not resources that could be put to better use, so this shouldn't even be an issue

Other than that, I can't vouch for Vista's stability obviously.

 

[Goober]

Padma, remember that us young-uns like to play Games on our Computers, and Linux falls far short in the Games dept., unless you can get a good Windows Emulator working, if so, tell me!!!

I would love nothing better to go Linux only, probably have Ubuntu on one HD, and use the other to mess around with other versions, unfortunately, I need my fix of Civ3 and other games.

 

[Padma]

Goober: WINE is an excellent free "emulator" ("WINE Is Not an Emulator"), although it is far from perfect. For office apps, Crossover Office (based on WINE) is absolutely superb (and only costs ~$35).

Games are a little harder, in part because MS 'breaks' its own OS to maintain compatability with some games. (There are many, many places in the OS with code that runs roughly, "IF <running app> = <game name> THEN <ignore the fixed code and run the broken stuff>".) However, Transgaming's Cedega (also based on WINE) does a very good job with current, popular games. Cost is ~$30 minimum (6 month subscription at $5/month). I use it to play Civ3 almost daily.

 

[Speedo]

Just got my grubby hands on a copy of the Vista beta.

I'll have to dig out an old hard drive next weekend and install it.

Sorry, I misunderstood you. Still, the pretty graphics in Windows Vista will be handled by the video card, not resources that could be put to better use, so this shouldn't even be an issue

Actually Max puts your vid card to pretty good use. This is why they have workstation graphics cards (FireGL, Quadro).

 

[Gogf]

The glass status bar effect is only eye candy if you're not using the computer! If you intend the use the computer, it's a waste of resources that is very distracting. There's a reason that Apple didn't institute this when they tried it a long time ago.

 

[MarineCorps]

Just got my grubby hands on a copy of the Vista beta.

I'll have to dig out an old hard drive next weekend and install it.

How? Thats not a public beta.

 

[Speedo]

How? Thats not a public beta.

12345678

 

[MarineCorps]

12345678

Damn you. Tell me!

 

[dannyevilcat]

Damn you. Tell me!

Actually, it's quite readily available from the shadier places online. But it's still only the first of two betas, intended for IT geeks to pick at, and wouldn't be very appealing to most end users yet.

In other words, what would you even do with it?

 

[Speedo]

Actually, it's quite readily available from the shadier places online. But it's still only the first of two betas, intended for IT geeks to pick at, and wouldn't be very appealing to most end users yet.

I'm sure it is, but its easier just to tap your network of "IT geeks."

 

[tR1cKy]

So no, under a modern computing environment 98 is definetly not functional.

I'm running Windoze 98SE and it's over a year that i haven't seen a single BSOD. And no, i'm not installing over and over every week. It's the same old installation. The PC is modern and somewhat tr1cky - mobile athlon XP on a desktop machine. Watercooled. CPU waaaay overclocked. RAM overclocked. FSB overclocked. GPU overclocked. AGP overclocked. The only downside is that i see some instability after the PC has been up for a month or so and has done all sort of stuff, or when something horribly wrong happens with the java virtual machine, so i reboot just to be sure.

This lame windoze does everything i need on the windoze environment without a glich: download, surf the web, play games, use graphic programs, coding blah blah blah... under a modern computing environment (read: a new box) windoze 98 may be perfectly functional, supposing that:
- the hardware is good quality.
- the hardware vendors have good, stable drivers and you don't screw up in installing them.
- the BIOS is updated.
- the machine is kept clean.
- M$ office, internet exploder, outlook and similar pieces of crap are not used.
- the user does understand a little about computing, enough to avoid those blunders typical of a luser.

M$ Vista?!? In italian "vista" means "sight". Yes, i'll probably see it on the shelves, see loads of lusers running to buy it, and have a good laughter

EDIT: for correctness: i had a few crashes some months ago, but they turned out to be caused by a faulty memory stick. Apart from those episodes, everything is fine.

 

[Speedo]

I'm running Windoze 98SE and it's over a year that i haven't seen a single BSOD.

Then you are the 1-in-a-million case where it works decently. If you like it, have fun- but sooner or later you'll be one of the "lusers" getting a new version; more and more software is requiring 2k or XP.

Personally, the infinetly improved VMM and features of XP are more than enough reason for me to use it. Try to go back to 98 is like eating hamburger after a steady diet of filet mignon

 

[tR1cKy]

Then you are the 1-in-a-million case where it works decently.

Doesn't it sound too much as a lame excuse? Can you prove that?
Ok, seriously, there's no magic in that. I bough the right hardware components, knowing in advance that they had stable drivers (and i mean stable!) for windoze 98. I got good RAM etc... The box is quite well cooled, dust is removed periodically, the watercool system is checked periodically, tests are done, etc...

You know the problem? The luser tends to think that you power on the pc and everything should go ok forever. Nope. The PC is like a car. It require good mainteinance, both software and hardware. It requires conscious use.

Try to go back to 98 is like eating hamburger after a steady diet of filet mignon

Condidering the huge mass of bloatware WindozeXP comes bundled with, it's more the contrary.

 

[Speedo]

Doesn't it sound too much as a lame excuse? Can you prove that?

No more than you can "prove" that 98 is a stable OS for general use.

You know the problem? The luser tends to think that you power on the pc and everything should go ok forever. Nope. The PC is like a car. It require good mainteinance, both software and hardware. It requires conscious use.

Your arguments might be more effective if you didn't waste time slipping juvenile insults into every post.

I work on PCs -hardware and software- for a living and for fun. I don't need to hear a word about how you have to maintain them for the best reliability and performace.

Condidering the huge mass of bloatware WindozeXP comes bundled with

Such as?

 

[tR1cKy]

No more than you can "prove" that 98 is a stable OS for general use.

I don't have to. You made a precise statement. To prove it wrong, all i have to do is to offer a counterexample, as i did (my box). Why? (hint: scientific method).

Your arguments might be more effective if you didn't waste time slipping juvenile insults into every post.

Please show where i "slip juvenile insults into every post". (hint: you cannot.)

If you're referring to the "lame excuse", c'mon! Didn't you realize that i was joking?!?

Such as?

What is it? A test? Unless you lied when you said:

I work on PCs -hardware and software- for a living and for fun.

you should know very well the answer.

I don't need to hear a word about how you have to maintain them for the best reliability and performace.

Good for you. But what about windoze98? You clearly stated that it's crap with every modern pc, while it can be absolutely stable, assuming certain things that i listed above.

 

[Speedo]

Please show where i "slip juvenile insults into every post". (hint: you cannot.)

"the user does understand a little about computing, enough to avoid those blunders typical of a luser."
"... see loads of lusers running to buy it..."
"The luser tends to think that you power on the pc and everything should go ok forever."

you should know very well the answer.

I will take that as "I don't really know."

Good for you. But what about windoze98? You clearly stated that it's crap with every modern pc, while it can be absolutely stable, assuming certain things that i listed above.

No, I stated that it was crap in the modern computing environment. XP and 2000 do the job better, easier and more efficiently.

 

[tR1cKy]

"the user does understand a little about computing, enough to avoid those blunders typical of a luser."
"... see loads of lusers running to buy it..."
"The luser tends to think that you power on the pc and everything should go ok forever."

And you call them insults? Funny how you ignore a typical geekly slang word (luser) that stands for "computer illiterate". But it won't be insulting anyway, since it's not aimed at someone in particular. I'm just describing a cathegory of people that, like it or not, are computer illiterates. You should know very well what i'm talking about, since you claim to work in the field.

I will take that as "I don't really know."

Yes, sure
There are plenty, plenty, plenty (did i say plenty?) of data about the unnecessary bloatware that came bundled with WindozeXP. Try a google search.

No, I stated that it was crap in the modern computing environment.

That's exactly what i meant. And i showed it to be wrong. If it was not clear, my fault. Please note that i'm not born english speaking. But i know it enough to have the impression that you're just playing with semantics.

XP and 2000 do the job better, easier and more efficiently.

While i may partially agree about 2000... but "efficiency" shouldn't mean something like "obtaining the result with minimum waste of time, effort, resources..." (correct me if i'm wrong). Well, those things may be more stable (sometimes), but not exactly efficient. Disk occupation, memory usage, grafic card usage, cpu usage are greater in windoze 2000 or xp than in windoze 98. Just look at the minimum spec.

Easier? In what sense windoze 98 and 2000 are easier to use? Or what job have you exactly in mind? Those statements are too generic. They may be right or wrong, depending on what you intend with them.

Better? It depends. Same story as "easier". Most of the windoze SNAFUs are due to the luser doing something stupid, like visiting porn sites that infect the pc with some scumware, downloading illegal stuff and not scanning with an AV, deleting programs without doing the proper uninstall, opening suspicious attachments with outlook, not defragging the disk, not keeping the pc clean...

You know the impression you are giving me? That of a M$ PR trying to convince people to upgrade.

EDIT: sorry for the last sentence. It was written rightly after something heavy falled on my foot. Not wanting to offend, only to express disagreement about some things. Consider it retracted.