General Chat / Windoez Vista.

Even worse is Vista's ad campaign: the whole wow thing is awesome until you realize its for a goddam operating system. And just Alt -Tabbing no less. That's not something to brag about.

EastBayDre, my main problem is understanding the Linux file structure. Everything is a file, I can understand that. What gets me is opening the hardware. For instance, I can't find how to view files on a disk, or a usb device, even though I've located them in /dev/hda or whathaveyou.

Any articles/tutorials you recommend would be appreciated.

you spelt windows wrong.

If you're gonna stay on the 32-bit version, looks like 3GB is the max ram you can have...

http://www.codinghor...ves/000811.html

Even worse is Vista's ad campaign: the whole wow thing is awesome until you realize its for a goddam operating system. And just Alt -Tabbing no less. That's not something to brag about.

EastBayDre, my main problem is understanding the Linux file structure. Everything is a file, I can understand that. What gets me is opening the hardware. For instance, I can't find how to view files on a disk, or a usb device, even though I've located them in /dev/hda or whathaveyou.

Any articles/tutorials you recommend would be appreciated.

Everything is in the same file system unlike windows where there's separate drives. So every device/partition has to be 'mounted' somewhere (anywhere) within in the Unix file system. You can be done using the mount command, e.g. 'mount /dev/scd0 /media/cdrom'. Although more usefully, the configuration file fstab (generally /etc/fstab) specifies what should be mounted at startup. There are also many programs that will automatically detect cameras/memory sticks/cds etc and mount them, on most user-friendly distros this will be enabled by default.

Hope that helps.

P.S. The high memory usage is because vista caches frequently used programs, just like linux and other operating systems use free memory to cache frequently accessed files. If the memory is needed it will be freed up.

Interestingly enough, after I read Tyler's positive Vista report, I ran into a whole slew of negative Vista posts on other message boards.

In any case, since I'm too lazy/computer deficient to switch to Linux, and most of the programs I use are either Windows exclusive or just easier to use (for me) on Windows, I'll just wait till Windows gets their shit fixed before getting a computer with Vista.

But I guess I'll definitely be outfitting it with 4 gigs of RAM.

Vista has mixed reviews. but the overall consensus is that it is better than XP. naturally, it will take them a while to iron out "all" of the bugs, but it's not that bad.

and also, as Brent said, 3 gigs of ram is supposedly more efficient than 4 gigs. unless you have the 64-bit version.

I have yet to find any feature of XP or Vista that I've NEEDED. Windows 2000 does everything I need an OS to do. All that useless garbage MS keeps adding to Windows doesn't do anything for me except require MORE hardware.

I have yet to find any feature of XP or Vista that I've NEEDED. Windows 2000 does everything I need an OS to do. All that useless garbage MS keeps adding to Windows doesn't do anything for me except require MORE hardware.

ROFL.

Windows 2000. oh man, that's a good one. Microsoft has recently stopped supporting it completely. Windows 98 > 2000 imo. maybe you should run that instead.

Actually it's no problem to have 4GB, you just can't use all off it and that's the problem. If I had 4GB I would loose 512MB because of the memory on my graphicscard. The point atm what the heck you are going to do with more than 2GB. There are only very specific cases that require more. As the article states it's not the fault of m$ this time. You could go for 64-bit, but as far as I've heard a lot of programs are harder to get them working on a 64-bit windows. There isn't much stuff for it to begin with anyway and the transition form 32 to 64 isn't going very fast.
As far as Vista goes, it indeed caches a lot. When I boot up I have about 1.3GB in use of my 2GB. 'Only' 500MB of that is from Vista. The rest are cached programs which will be dumped from the memory when they get in the way, so the memory usage is slightly excagarated... although it's still 200MB more than XP (should be more difference because XP caches too I believe)

Edited by tyandor, 09 March 2007 - 05:54 PM.

ROFL.

Windows 98 > 2000 imo.

Pfft, i still have a PC that runs Windows 95.

Not that i use it, or it's set-up...but it's right there.

I must revive it. It had Aquanoid.

I have yet to find any feature of XP or Vista that I've NEEDED. Windows 2000 does everything I need an OS to do. All that useless garbage MS keeps adding to Windows doesn't do anything for me except require MORE hardware.

Man, my neck hurts from nodding in agreement so much. New features in WIN XP/Vista = all flash and no substance.

ROFL.

Windows 2000. oh man, that's a good one. Microsoft has recently stopped supporting it completely. Windows 98 > 2000 imo. maybe you should run that instead.

Wow. You managed to kill absolutely all your credibility in two completely ignorant statements.

Microsoft has not stopped supporting Windows 2000. They have announced that it is at the end of its lifecycle and will stop supporting it but have not yet given a firm date. I still get my automated Windows updates such as the MS anti-malware removal utility I got yesterday.

And if you seriously think that the modified Windows 3.1 kernel that Windows 98 used was superior to the Windows NT based kernel that Windows 2000 (and XP) uses then you clearly have no idea WTF you're talking about.

it's good that you're still getting support from MS for 2000. because, we sure aren't. as a matter of fact, it received hardly any support for the DST updates. MS's only fix was to download some shareware called "TZedit" and run it on the machine. hardly support.

XP is by far more stable than any Microsoft operating system before it. period. what purpose does running 2000 over XP serve? if you are in love with the classic look (gag me), there is an option to enable it on XP. other than that, why wouldn't you upgrade? unless for some reason you're using a server as your personal computer.

WIN2K is easily as stable as WINXP, and upgrading doesn't get you anything except a lighter wallet.

Edited by ride_exchanger, 16 March 2007 - 12:55 PM.

it's good that you're still getting support from MS for 2000. because, we sure aren't. as a matter of fact, it received hardly any support for the DST updates. MS's only fix was to download some shareware called "TZedit" and run it on the machine. hardly support.

My solution was to click-click-click and the time was changed. Five seconds MAX. I'll do the same when it incorrectly changes my time in 3 weeks.

XP is by far more stable than any Microsoft operating system before it. period. what purpose does running 2000 over XP serve? if you are in love with the classic look (gag me), there is an option to enable it on XP. other than that, why wouldn't you upgrade? unless for some reason you're using a server as your personal computer.

You're wrong about XP being far more stable than any operating system before it. You obviously never used NT 3.51 or NT 4.0 or 2000 because if you did you'd know that they were all VERY stable (as they should since they all use basically the same kernel). I would like you to go read that statement again because it means that 2000 and XP are nearly identical except for the eye candy. Your statement only applies to Win95/98/ME which were basically running on top of a version of DOS 6.0.

Now, Vista is a different bird entirely. It's not based off either kernel. It uses a modified version of Windows 2003 Server Edition. Whether or not that turns out to be more stable than 2000/XP we won't know for quite a while.

And, yes, I've enabled the Win2000 classic interface on my XP computer here at work. The XP and Vista interfaces bother me. A lot.

Okay the difference between XP and classic is basically that XP is smoother and curvier. It's not exactly a huge difference. God you computer nerds are sticklers for the most pointless of things.

yes, normally changing the time manually does work. unless you are dealing with a computer that has severe user restrictions and limitations. in any case, i really don't know much about NT (or really 2000, for that matter). however, i have heard the "horror stories" from seasoned IT veterans. so, meh. personally, i prefer XP and Vista to the older OS's.

what is wrong with Vista's interface? i'll give you that XP's is lame. but Vista is pretty.
anyway.

LOL OS X LEOPARD!

I just got Vista this weekend, and it IS pretty. The Aero desktop is one thing I love, but the new interface and especially start menu are amazingly easy... Totally worth th money (only problem so far is that 8cars and SoB trainers are working very selectively - everything else including RCT1-3 works fine)

I just got Vista this weekend, and it IS pretty. The Aero desktop is one thing I love, but the new interface and especially start menu are amazingly easy... Totally worth th money (only problem so far is that 8cars and SoB trainers are working very selectively - everything else including RCT1-3 works fine)

Umm, RCT3 does NOT work fine on Vista without modification. Microsoft moved the documents directory so all the user stored stuff can't be found. You have to create linked directories from the old XP location to the new Vista location. See the Atari forums for more info.

Last I heard Frontier is not planning a patch for this. Shame on them. It's a 5 minute code fix that should have been unnecessary if they would have done it right in the first place. That doesn't excuse Microsoft from being dumbasses and moving the document directory AGAIN.

yeah, okay... I loaded all of my games fine two days ago and yesterday, got work done, saved and loaded, and everything works fine. Maybe these people's Vista is just fucking retarded?

I want Vista, but I'm waiting until they get iTunes to work out on it. Plus I want that DreamScenes thingy that you can run on Vista (I think that's what it's called, but I know it's the moving background).