Vista blues

[detrevnisisiht]

For a medley of reasons I will not waste your time with I am unhappy with the windows Vista that came with my laptop. and I don't want to shell out $200 on Xp.

I have heard words such as Linux and Ubunto(sp) thrown about. Can you playgrounders please educate me

[SDF]

Well Ubuntu is a version of Linux.

I think it would be most important to know what exactly you want out of your computer, what you want to do with it, before anyone makes any kind of recommendation.

[Edea]

I've heard so many awful things about Vista, both online and off :(. Wish I knew more about Linux to help you (heck, I still use win2k <_<)...

[detrevnisisiht]

I mostly want to be able to play games and such, Vista is good for all my school busywork, but despite spending several hours on it and sending people from Bestbuy at it, still it complains about my games.

Also I play many games through Blizzard's Battle.net and being able to host would be amazing

[celestialkin]

I wish I could help.

However, I can suggest that you research Macs the next time you want a new computer. I refused to go Vista, so I saved up a bit to get myself a Macbook. I could not be happier.

Also, they are so good that I got Parallels, and XP now runs better simultaneously on my Mac than it did on my old PCs and laptop.

[RTGoodman]

but despite spending several hours on it and sending people from Bestbuy at it, still it complains about my games.

What do you mean by "complains?" That it asks you "Are you sure you want to let this run?" or "Do you want allow this?" or whatever? Because if that's the problem there are ways to turn that down or off.

I just got a new laptop with Vista, and I'm actually not that disappointed with it. It takes some getting used to ("YES I'M SURE, VISTA! I TOLD YOU TO RUN THAT PROGRAM!"), but overall I haven't seen anything that makes me dislike it too much.

[Haruki-kun]

I mostly want to be able to play games

er.... to be able to play games, Mac and Linux are not really the best way to go....

[Shikton]

For a medley of reasons I will not waste your time with I am unhappy with the windows Vista that came with my laptop. and I don't want to shell out $200 on Xp.

I have heard words such as Linux and Ubunto(sp) thrown about. Can you playgrounders please educate me

Over here in Norway a lot of Vista users have been given free downgrades to Windows XP. I suggest you contact the computer manufacturer (not the store you bought it from) to see if they provide that service. It's been normal with HP at least, and partly IBM and Fujitsu-Siemens too.

[Don Julio Anejo]

Vista sucks. Windows sucks. Microsoft sucks!

Mac isn't compatible with anything.

Linux looks ugly and unless you know anything about programming, you'll never fix it if something goes wrong.

It's a surprise our computers even work, isn't it? :biggrin:

[Rawhide]

What version of Vista did it come with? If you got at least Business or Ultimate, you're in luck (http://download.microsoft.com/download/2/8/6/2860872a-35dc-4a10-8617-3927aacd189a/downgradeOEMversion-020707.pdf).

[Justyn]

I have personal experience with Vista: IT STINKS! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdDMrncAy4U).

WE got a new computer after my mother's old one crapped out. Vista took up full gigabyte of memory, and it wouldn't even run the preinstalled Microsoft programs. We had to send the thing back, becuase Vista turned the computer into a fancy and expensive paperweight.

As for OSes, Windows isn't the best at anything, but it is really user friendly and most programs are compatable with it. Mac has a pretty steep learning curve and is not a competitor to Window's user freindliness, but it runs things really well. As for Linux... does anyone actualy use Linux (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TakeThat)?

[Lupy]

What don't you like about Vista? It's an excellent system as far as user friendliness, though the loss of the easy access to the C/ system bugs me to no end

[Haruki-kun]

As for OSes, Windows isn't the best at anything, but it is really user friendly and most programs are compatable with it. Mac has a pretty steep learning curve and is not a competitor to Window's user freindliness, but it runs things really well. As for Linux... does anyone actualy use Linux (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TakeThat)?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/91/Os_as_of_2008.png

[Don Julio Anejo]

I would assume a lot more people use Linux than the chart suggests. Because the main group of people using Linux are software developers, programmers and the like. And they probably also have Windows for many reasons (such as compatibility), which puts them in the "Windows" section of the pie.

PS: Vista is NOT user friendly. Anything that asks me 50 times if I want to open a file I just created is not user-friendly. Anything that I can't shut up about asking me if I want to open files is ESPECIALLY not user-friendly.

It only seems user-friendly because it looks like.. well, a Mac.

[Pyrian]

Anything that asks me 50 times if I want to open a file I just created is not user-friendly.What the heck did you do to make that happen? :smalleek: I run Vista and it's never asked me to confirm opening a file I just made.

[Don Julio Anejo]

It's called hyperbole, aka exaggeration. But it still asks whether I'm really sure if I want to do what I just told it to do way too often, hides any kind of settings and insults my intelligence by assuming I'm a complete moron who just bought his first computer.

[DraPrime]

How easy is linux to use compared to Windows for a person with pretty much no programming skills?

[Mando Knight]

I run Vista... and I make it work. It might not be as blazingly fast as XP might be on the same computer, but after upgrading the memory (shipped with 1 GB RAM, got another) it runs every program I've got with few problems. (KotOR requires that I change a setting that isn't available on the Options menu, but I think that's more of a port issue, and for some reason Age of Empires II messes up the colors unless I open a folder in the background first, but otherwise it's fine)

My computer sometimes messes up my network connections, but I think that's a hardware issue rather than a software issue. (It'll randomly quit working, and resetting the computer temporarily fixes the problem...)

If you want to play games on your computer, you'll probably need to shell out for XP or stick with Vista. Vista may be necessary for some of the newer "Games for Windows," including the Halo 2 port. UNIX-based systems (Mac, Linux, UNIX itself) will need a different compilation of the source code, so unless you've got access to the appropriate compiler and the source code, you can't run programs sold for Windows systems.

Make sure you have the newest drivers for your system, as well as all of the OS updates. The compatibility issue has improved a lot since the initial release. Another fix is to tell the computer to run the program in XP SP 2 compatibility mode. (Right-click on the program shortcut, go to "Properties," then click on the "Compatibility" tab.) This is what makes KotOR, AoE II, and NWN2 work on my computer... along with some of them being "run as administrator," which will require a confirmation every time you run the program. It's annoying, but it's better than accidentally giving malware access to administrative privileges.

[Rawhide]

How easy is linux to use compared to Windows for a person with pretty much no programming skills?

You might find it a bit like this. (http://www.desktoplinux.com/articles/AT7702650846.html)

[DanielX]

Vista, to put it bluntly, sucks. Microsoft has added some pretty nasty licensing stuff, it uses more resources, the 'Aero' interface is an eyesore (the nicest-looking versions of Windows, in my opinion? Either 2000 or XP, XP in 'classic' mode is probably best), and its 'security' consists of 'keep asking annoying yes/no questions'. I recommend going with XP - some companies sell "downgrades" (really upgrades IMHO) with their new computers, Dell offers them with some PCs (including the one I am buying now).

Linux is better in many ways than Windows, and is improving all the time (depending on distribution - there are many. A new person should try Ubuntu or a similar distribution, as they're geared more for ease-of-use). The problem is that Linux doesn't run a lot of Windows programs, including games - a handful of big-ticket games are available for Linux, and a few others can be run using WINE (free compatibility layer, works well with a few programs, requires tweaking for a lot of programs, and some don't work at all), or Cedega (for-pay fork off of WINE that focuses more on games, never used it). However, it takes a lot of aggravation to try running Windows programs on Linux, at least anything that uses Windows-specific hooks (especially undocumented ones).

Macs... well, you'll have to shell out money for XP anyway for them, and I don't like the keyboards. Plus, I find them to be a little much for the money.

[Winter_Wolf]

DanielX, if you want to play games, just bite the bullet and shell out the cash for XP, unless you can get the downgrade. I'm kicking myself for trying to save a few bucks, got stuck with Vista as well, and literally 90% of the programs I use just don't work with it, even when I "make it work". (Personally I'd be very happy to hear that the people responsible for Vista all got kicked in the crotch repeatedly, every day for the rest of their lives.)

[Pyro]

You know it's REALLY easy to turn off those security alerts. I mean they're like no joke it took me 5 seconds once someone told me how. Putting aside why someone never realized just how annoying they were, I have to give them props for making the option of turning them off easy.

[randman22222]

Err, I have had not once had a problem with Vista. And I've had it running for almost three years now.

Only problem with it is that 1 gig RAM is not enough.

[Ilena]

cough vistas not been out for 2 years yet :P came out early 2007, but ya i dont like vista in general because of the interface, ill stick with xp and probably skip vista for the new os they are working on now ...

[Pyrian]

But it still asks whether I'm really sure if I want to do what I just told it to do way too often...See, I like that feature. It's the OS confirming that the progam you're using isn't a virus trying to screw up your computer.

[Don Julio Anejo]

See, I like that feature. It's the OS confirming that the progam you're using isn't a virus trying to screw up your computer.
That's the problem. It may be a short-term cure for viruses (which I don't get anyway), but in the long-term it's a way to piss off people who use it, while virus programmers will just get more creative.

[Lord Tataraus]

I have no experience with Vista at all and I don't plan to. My college uses XP on most of the computers, a few OSX and then the CS labs are Linux. I use XP and Ubuntu Linux. The next Computer I'm going to get with be a Mac. If you look at the current trend in software and the OSes being used Windows is dropping while Macs and Linux are on the rise and games among other software are becoming more compatible basically any new and upcoming game can be run on at least Windows and Mac, some are even compatible with Linux (especially if its downloaded software). Also, the stereotype of Macs being more expensive than before is becoming less true, a laptop I looked at a couple years ago compared to the current on this year is a difference of about $1000 decrease in price. The popularity of Macs has decreased they're cost.

[Pyrian]

That's the problem. It may be a short-term cure for viruses (which I don't get anyway), but in the long-term it's a way to piss off people who use it, while virus programmers will just get more creative.No, it's a long-term feature that should have always been there in the first place. Allowing programs to go around changing fundamental settings in your computer without your knowledge or permission was a gaping security hole from the get-go. The fact that virus programmers will still find some people who can be easily convinced to click "yes" anyway is like saying the existence of bulldozers means you shouldn't bother locking your front door.

[Emperor Tippy]

If you have a computer that's actually capable of really running Vista (pretty much double the minimum settings) and even half way know what you are doing it works fine. If you don't know how to deal with the annoying bits (those security alerts for example) or don't have the system resources to actually run it then you are in for a world of hurt.

[Neftren]

For a medley of reasons I will not waste your time with I am unhappy with the windows Vista that came with my laptop. and I don't want to shell out $200 on Xp.

I have heard words such as Linux and Ubunto(sp) thrown about. Can you playgrounders please educate me

If you just want a cheap copy of XP, you can buy it for about $85. The catch? It'll be OEM, meaning you're your own tech support, it comes with no frills (no manual, no fancy box, no nothing. Just disc and sticker) and it can't be resold or transferred from computer to computer. I can provide more info on this.

Linux is an open-source operating system that has been around for a long time. There are two types of Linux. A Graphical User Interface and a Command Line Interface. Ever seen those screens with just the green or white lines of code running across? That's what Command Line Linux looks like. Linux is often used by Software Developers, Programmers and Server Administrators. A large number of the world's webpages are currently run on Linux servers.

Ubuntu is a distribution of Linux that follows the Graphical User Interface (GUI). It is by far the most common and popular one for a number of reasons. It's pretty easy to install, relatively easy to use and there is a huge online community you can turn to for help. Unfortunately their help isn't always as good. Alternative distributions that are good and that I would recommend would be RedHat (this is more of a corporate/business solution that does cost money, but has real tech support via phone/email/you name it) and the other one is Fedora. Fedora takes a bit more tweaking to get running and is a lot more annoying to install, but hey, it's Linux. Bottom line is most distributions of Linux are free.


I've heard so many awful things about Vista, both online and off :(. Wish I knew more about Linux to help you (heck, I still use win2k <_<)...

It really isn't that bad. It's not so much of a resource hog once you tweak it a bit. I disabled Aero and got a black Vista skin instead. Seriously, the only annoying things about Vista now are the annoying prompts that continually bug you about whether you want to run a program or not (which incidentally you can turn off now) and the memory hog part. It chewed up about 1 Gigabyte of RAM, but I cut that down to about 256-512 Megabytes. Which isn't too bad (on par with XP approximately).


I mostly want to be able to play games and such, Vista is good for all my school busywork, but despite spending several hours on it and sending people from Bestbuy at it, still it complains about my games.

Also I play many games through Blizzard's Battle.net and being able to host would be amazing

Which games are you having issues with? There are some games that won't run in Vista due to the way it was programmed. Vista is on a whole new kernel underneath, so anything written for an operating system before XP might have issues. Since you mentioned Battle.net, I'm gonna venture out and say that you're trying to play Warcraft III?

If you're having issues hosting with that, you may actually have an issue with your ports. You need to open a whole slew of ports to play WCIII or SC. I can provide detailed instructions on how to open the right ports if you PM me.


I wish I could help.

However, I can suggest that you research Macs the next time you want a new computer. I refused to go Vista, so I saved up a bit to get myself a Macbook. I could not be happier.

Also, they are so good that I got Parallels, and XP now runs better simultaneously on my Mac than it did on my old PCs and laptop.

Macs are an excellent solution, but they still have a few inherent flaws. I am a diehard Mac fan since they came out (I still have a PowerMac from 1991 or something and it's still alive and kicking). Software is pretty limited, but the software that does exist performs very well. Adobe CS3 runs faster on my Macbook OSX partition than it does on my Vista partition. The only downside to Macs is that they're relatively expensive and the hardware isn't the greatest on earth. I could build the equivalent of a MacPro (hardware wise) for about $800. The MacBook has a really lousy integrated graphics solution, but the MacBook Pro is a solid choice if you want to game (8800 GS anyone? :smallcool:). MacBook Air is a waste for gaming. It's a business laptop. Don't buy it.

I have yet to crack open the latest MacPro case, but if it does have an additional PCI or PCIe slot, you could dual-boot and install Windows. Within Windows, you can enable dual-graphics card utilization and then add an Nvidia 8800 GT or GTX200 series Graphics Card and get absolutely stunning graphics on the Mac. Oh and one more note, Parallels sucks compared to booting off the hard drive. It'll be much faster. Use BootCamp if you're a novice to building a computer and stuff. I can provide tech support if you need help.


er.... to be able to play games, Mac and Linux are not really the best way to go....

They're not the greatest for gaming, but Mac and Linux do have a lot of free content. Aspyr has an entire division for creating Mac ports. There are a large number of games that are available on Linux too. For example, Neverwinter Nights is on Linux.


How easy is linux to use compared to Windows for a person with pretty much no programming skills?

Command Line Linux is nigh impossible for anyone with zero programming or coding experience. GUI Linux can be reskinned and stuff, so it's basically just like OSX or XP/Vista. You can get skins for both too. I'm more inclined to say that Linux tends to look a bit more like OSX though.


I run Vista... and I make it work. It might not be as blazingly fast as XP might be on the same computer, but after upgrading the memory (shipped with 1 GB RAM, got another) it runs every program I've got with few problems. (KotOR requires that I change a setting that isn't available on the Options menu, but I think that's more of a port issue, and for some reason Age of Empires II messes up the colors unless I open a folder in the background first, but otherwise it's fine)

That's because XP had a RAM requirement of like, 128 Megs. Vista has a 1.3 Gig requirement for RAM. If you're into gaming, I suggest you upgrade all the way to 4 Gigs. of memory if you can afford it and if your motherboard can accommodate it.

Mando, the color distortion is a wierd holdover from older games. It happens to me in Starcraft if I Alt-Tab out. It's definitely a port issue, but you can change the color scheme to match whatever it was in Win98 before playing and you shouldn't have that color distortion anymore.

Mac Users: If you're intent on gaming on a Mac and have partitioned and installed Windows, replace the graphics card driver that came on your OSX disc with a driver from the manufacturer of your computer. In my case, that would be Intel.


My computer sometimes messes up my network connections, but I think that's a hardware issue rather than a software issue. (It'll randomly quit working, and resetting the computer temporarily fixes the problem...)

Send me your specs (of the computer and of your network setup) if you want. I can probably help you fix it. It could be that a LAN or Wireless network could be overriding the other.


If you want to play games on your computer, you'll probably need to shell out for XP or stick with Vista. Vista may be necessary for some of the newer "Games for Windows," including the Halo 2 port. UNIX-based systems (Mac, Linux, UNIX itself) will need a different compilation of the source code, so unless you've got access to the appropriate compiler and the source code, you can't run programs sold for Windows systems.

Vista has one huge advantage for gaming. DirectX 10. Some screenies of the difference in the spoiler box below. If your hardware can support Vista, I highly recommend buying it. It may be annoying, but DX 10 is absolutely mind blowing.


DirectX 9 - Flight Simulator
http://img258.imageshack.us/img258/6702/picture6en1.png

DirectX10 - Flight Simulator
http://img309.imageshack.us/img309/421/xbu0.png

DX9 - Halo
http://img309.imageshack.us/img309/449/91mn2.png

DX10 - Crysis
http://img258.imageshack.us/img258/3812/picture2ug3.png


Make sure you have the newest drivers for your system, as well as all of the OS updates. The compatibility issue has improved a lot since the initial release. Another fix is to tell the computer to run the program in XP SP 2 compatibility mode. (Right-click on the program shortcut, go to "Properties," then click on the "Compatibility" tab.) This is what makes KotOR, AoE II, and NWN2 work on my computer... along with some of them being "run as administrator," which will require a confirmation every time you run the program. It's annoying, but it's better than accidentally giving malware access to administrative privileges.

This is another really important thing you need. Update Update Update! If running a BootCamp'ed Mac, replace your graphics driver with the one from the manufacturer. You'll get a large performance increase...


Vista, to put it bluntly, sucks. Microsoft has added some pretty nasty licensing stuff, it uses more resources, the 'Aero' interface is an eyesore (the nicest-looking versions of Windows, in my opinion? Either 2000 or XP, XP in 'classic' mode is probably best), and its 'security' consists of 'keep asking annoying yes/no questions'. I recommend going with XP - some companies sell "downgrades" (really upgrades IMHO) with their new computers, Dell offers them with some PCs (including the one I am buying now).

The licensing stuff and popups is more annoying. While I'm not trying to defend it, you do have to give it some credit. The hardware requirements are a given. When XP came it, it had steep requirements at the time. I could say the same about Vista. Give hardware a few years to catch up.

Windows offers free downgrades if you have Business or Ultimate editions of Vista. See WampaX' link somewhere in this thread.

As for appearance? You can get skins for just about every OS. My XP Desktop has a Vista Black Glass theme. My Vista computer has a black glossy non-Aero theme. It gave me a huge performance boost. I believe an XP skin exists out there for Vista. I have yet to check.

By the way, the so called "Aero" interface... really is only the Glass effect. It's basically whether you like it or not. If you dislike it, you can turn it off and get some performance out of it.


Linux is better in many ways than Windows, and is improving all the time (depending on distribution - there are many. A new person should try Ubuntu or a similar distribution, as they're geared more for ease-of-use). The problem is that Linux doesn't run a lot of Windows programs, including games - a handful of big-ticket games are available for Linux, and a few others can be run using WINE (free compatibility layer, works well with a few programs, requires tweaking for a lot of programs, and some don't work at all), or Cedega (for-pay fork off of WINE that focuses more on games, never used it). However, it takes a lot of aggravation to try running Windows programs on Linux, at least anything that uses Windows-specific hooks (especially undocumented ones).

Linux still has a limited amount of programs compared to Windows. A newbie definitely should try Ubuntu or RedHat if they're not quite so tech savvy. WINE (Wine Is Not an Emulator) allows you to run Windows programs, but they're significantly slower because you're not running it natively. Cedega is a waste of money. I suggest sticking to Windows if you aren't quite so tech smart and want the ability to call for help.

Windows programs on Linux are a huge pain to get running.


Macs... well, you'll have to shell out money for XP anyway for them, and I don't like the keyboards. Plus, I find them to be a little much for the money.

Which keyboard? There are a number of different styles. There's the spaced keyboard on the MacBook and the Keyboard/Mighty Mouse configuration (which incidentally has 360 degree scrolling and bluetooth capacity) and then there's the MacBook Pro configuration without spacing between keys. It's a keyboard that you can replace (if on a desktop) so it doesn't make too much of a difference anyway.


DanielX, if you want to play games, just bite the bullet and shell out the cash for XP, unless you can get the downgrade. I'm kicking myself for trying to save a few bucks, got stuck with Vista as well, and literally 90% of the programs I use just don't work with it, even when I "make it work". (Personally I'd be very happy to hear that the people responsible for Vista all got kicked in the crotch repeatedly, every day for the rest of their lives.)

I have no comment I'd like to point out. I don't have enough information about what "make it work" means to be able to say anything.


cough vistas not been out for 2 years yet :P came out early 2007, but ya i dont like vista in general because of the interface, ill stick with xp and probably skip vista for the new os they are working on now ...

You can reskin the interface. It's not that hard. There are tons of third party developers out there making skins and stuff. Yes, there is a new OS coming out in like, three years or so? That'll be buggy at the start as well. People will complain. Live with it.


I have no experience with Vista at all and I don't plan to. My college uses XP on most of the computers, a few OSX and then the CS labs are Linux. I use XP and Ubuntu Linux. The next Computer I'm going to get with be a Mac. If you look at the current trend in software and the OSes being used Windows is dropping while Macs and Linux are on the rise and games among other software are becoming more compatible basically any new and upcoming game can be run on at least Windows and Mac, some are even compatible with Linux (especially if its downloaded software). Also, the stereotype of Macs being more expensive than before is becoming less true, a laptop I looked at a couple years ago compared to the current on this year is a difference of about $1000 decrease in price. The popularity of Macs has decreased they're cost.

Macs are still slightly more expensive, but more and more programs are getting ported over by the day. They're also not really increasing in price. It's still better to use Windows if you're gonna game though. OSX still has some performance issues when it comes to a few games. Mainly the games aren't using the hardware to the fullest.


No, it's a long-term feature that should have always been there in the first place. Allowing programs to go around changing fundamental settings in your computer without your knowledge or permission was a gaping security hole from the get-go. The fact that virus programmers will still find some people who can be easily convinced to click "yes" anyway is like saying the existence of bulldozers means you shouldn't bother locking your front door.

Agreed. People have just become complacent, that's all.

[Winter_Wolf]

In my case, "make it work" means make it work for more than a couple minutes after tinkering with it for hours trying to find a configuration that runs at all. Usually the progs end up running for about 10-15 minutes before they fail. True enough all of my programs are older, and weren't designed with Vista in mind. But none of that excuses a fresh out of the box computer with a clean Vista install from giving me a Black Screen. Less than three days in, no less.

I blame myself for spending the money on a new comp instead of spending the money to repair my old one, but the price difference in repairing and getting a new comp was negligible and I (quite mistakenly, as it turns out for me) thought that I'd be better of with a new machine for that price. Hindsight is 20/20 and all that jazz that people say to try and make ourselves feel better about making a poor choice.

I still maintain my stance about those who brought Vista upon the world, and if I have to modify that sentiment, it's only to include the 'lovely' people at the computer manufacturer who wouldn't even allow me the option of paying extra to get XP on this machine because it wasn't one of their more expensive models. I won't name names, but they're a mainstream brand. :smallmad:

[Neftren]

In my case, "make it work" means make it work for more than a couple minutes after tinkering with it for hours trying to find a configuration that runs at all. Usually the progs end up running for about 10-15 minutes before they fail. True enough all of my programs are older, and weren't designed with Vista in mind. But none of that excuses a fresh out of the box computer with a clean Vista install from giving me a Black Screen. Less than three days in, no less.

Send me your system specifications. Vista Version (Basic/Premium/Enterprise/Ultimate// Service Pack 1?). Hardware, etc. Oh and send me a list of what you're trying to run. It could be you just need to get SP1 and a list of new drivers, but I could be wrong. BSOD is when you need to get worried. Black Screen can usually be rectified.


I blame myself for spending the money on a new comp instead of spending the money to repair my old one, but the price difference in repairing and getting a new comp was negligible and I (quite mistakenly, as it turns out for me) thought that I'd be better of with a new machine for that price. Hindsight is 20/20 and all that jazz that people say to try and make ourselves feel better about making a poor choice.

I still maintain my stance about those who brought Vista upon the world, and if I have to modify that sentiment, it's only to include the 'lovely' people at the computer manufacturer who wouldn't even allow me the option of paying extra to get XP on this machine because it wasn't one of their more expensive models. I won't name names, but they're a mainstream brand. :smallmad:

I'm going to guess Dell or Toshiba. I believe HP does offer downgrades. However, if you have Vista Business or Ultimate, you can get a downgrade free of charge. I think. I have yet to check on that.

If I ever do buy a non-Apple computer, it'll be just hardware that I buy off Newegg or something and then assemble myself. Besides, I get a cooler lookin' case for the deal.

[Kaihaku]

er.... to be able to play games, Mac and Linux are not really the best way to go....

Neither is Vista. :/

Shell out some money for a cheap version of XP. It's not the best operating system but its compatible and with the right third party software even stable.

That said, I'm on a Macintosh and my next computer will probably run Ubuntu. Both of which have become much more compatible over the last five years. In another five, I expect most new games will run on Ubuntu or Windows out of the box.

[turkishproverb]

Neither is Vista. :/

Shell out some money for a cheap version of XP. It's not the best operating system but its compatible and with the right third party software even stable.

That said, I'm on a Macintosh and my next computer will probably run Ubuntu. Both of which have become much more compatible over the last five years. In another five, I expect most new games will run on Ubuntu or Windows out of the box.

heck, if you have an old copy of windows 98 or 95 you can just by the upgrade edition.

Although vista has gotten alot better if you have SP1 and At least 3.5 gigs of ram.

[Neftren]

Neither is Vista. :/

Shell out some money for a cheap version of XP. It's not the best operating system but its compatible and with the right third party software even stable.

That said, I'm on a Macintosh and my next computer will probably run Ubuntu. Both of which have become much more compatible over the last five years. In another five, I expect most new games will run on Ubuntu or Windows out of the box.

I'd be more inclined to say that OSX products will come out before Ubuntu. The market share isn't exactly growing at the rate that Apple is growing at, hence game designers might be a bit shy about developing into a stagnant or slow market.



I do recommend Vista just for the fact that DirectX 10 exists for it. It runs so much better. If it's out of your budget or your hardware isn't up to specs to run Vista, you're gonna have a much harder time trying to run games at good graphics settings. Sure, you could shell out $250 for the latest 8800 GT or something, but you won't get DX10. See my screenshots in the spoiler above and compare.

[Kaihaku]

I've been using a Mac for a long while and I think there's been a shift in the tide...

Software designers aren't making software compatible for OSX, Apple is making OSX compatible with Windows software. It's more difficult to track because, well freely distributed, but Ubuntu is picking up at an amazing pace. Then there's that just last month IBM decided to start shipping computers with Ubuntu installed instead of Vista as an option. :smallsmile:

[Neftren]

I've been using a Mac for a long while and I think there's been a shift in the tide...

Software designers aren't making software compatible for OSX, Apple is making OSX compatible with Windows software. It's more difficult to track because, well freely distributed, but Ubuntu is picking up at an amazing pace. Then there's that just last month IBM decided to start shipping computers with Ubuntu installed instead of Vista as an option. :smallsmile:

True. Either way, it'll be a long time in the future before most games come out for all three operating systems. If you're going to hardcore game, Windows is probably still the way to go.

[Don Julio Anejo]

I do recommend Vista just for the fact that DirectX 10 exists for it. It runs so much better. If it's out of your budget or your hardware isn't up to specs to run Vista, you're gonna have a much harder time trying to run games at good graphics settings. Sure, you could shell out $250 for the latest 8800 GT or something, but you won't get DX10. See my screenshots in the spoiler above and compare.
I bought my 8800GT for $170. Now it's down to $130-150 depending on rebates, sales, etc. And you don't have to live with crap that is Vista. And DX10 isn't going to be needed in the near future anyway. And you still have to get 9600GT or something along those lines that supports DX10. Which costs the same as 8800GT. So there's really no point to it.

[Nychta]

I would go with whoever suggested the cheap version of XP. Judging by the response here, there are plenty of people who could help with tech issues.

[InksGuy]

I have used Ubuntu as my primary OS for quite some time now. As for any command line worries you have- don't worry. You probably won't even have to use it.

One of the best things about Ubuntu is that you can try it out before you actually install it on your system. http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu is where you can source a brilliant little disk called a Live CD. You can download and burn it to a blank CD, or alternatively, they might well be able to send you a free disk. You get a sheet of stickers too that way :smallsmile:.

But I digress. Pop it into your CD drive, re-boot the computer, and away you go. You will boot into a fully-functional OS running right off of the CD. No change to your computer whatsoever. Then, if you like it enough, you can click "install" on the desktop, which will install it to your system.

Plus, if you read the options, it can set up your computer to be "Dual-Boot", meaning that you'll be presented with a little menu at startup where you can select either your original Windows installation, or Ubuntu Linux to boot up into. Neat, eh?

Ubuntu is the traditional package, and you get a good feel of what it's about by using the Live CD. There are also other versions- Kubuntu is, essentially, prettier- and Xubuntu was written primarily for lower spec systems, with less graphical prowess.

You might also be interested to know that there's a thing called Wubi, which is a windows-based installer for Ubuntu. Download it at http://wubi-installer.org/. Another advantage of this is that you can easily uninstall Ubuntu from the Windows Add/Remove Programs thing- no tedious mucking about with bootloaders! Having been a windows user before, I can really recommend this to you- being a new user and all. It's awesome.

So, all in all, you really have no excuse for not trying it! Also, I'd be more than happy to assist with any questions you have when you get it running - just PM me!

Come on, convert! :smallbiggrin:

Also, OT- detrevnisisiht, I love your signature :smallbiggrin:.

[Hzurr]

An excellent post by Neftren. Until my computer exploded at the beginning of the summer, I was running Vista Ultimate (cost me a grand total of $35. Woohoo for university discounts!) with 3 gigs of RAM and a decent video card, and I didn't have problems (I did change it to "I'm not a moron" settings, however). Right now, I'm back to XP with my work computer, and I quite honestly miss some Vista features. I'm in the process of ordering pieces from newegg, and my next computer is going to dual-boot vista/ubantu.

However, if you're wanting games, XP/Vista is the way to go. You won't find any mainstream games that won't run on windows, (which will happen on macs and linux, despite what the fanboys will say). Also, hardware upgrades is a huge thing, and upgrading hardware on windows is significantly easier than upgrading it on a mac.

[Mando Knight]

Shell out some money for a cheap version of XP. It's not the best operating system but its compatible and with the right third party software even stable.

Depends on how much you figure your hassle is worth. I consider my haggling with Vista to be ~$5-10 USD worth, compared to ~$100 USD for XP (or whatever it is right now...). A $100 solution for a $5-10 problem is about 90-95% waste. Now, my roommate, he's a Computer Science major, so he got his upgrade/downgrade/whatevergrade for free from his department, so he had no reason not to switch.

[Neftren]

I bought my 8800GT for $170. Now it's down to $130-150 depending on rebates, sales, etc. And you don't have to live with crap that is Vista. And DX10 isn't going to be needed in the near future anyway. And you still have to get 9600GT or something along those lines that supports DX10. Which costs the same as 8800GT. So there's really no point to it.

Let me see... XP support will be dropped in a few years, so those who aren't exactly the most tech savvy... won't really have a place to turn if something goes wrong with the OS. Sure you can get the 9600GT, but my point remains... if your computer is built for games, it can probably run Vista without a sweat. Seriously.

Any gamer worth his salt will have between two and four Gigs of RAM. Hardcore gamers will be running 8 Gigs on a 64 bit system. Which brings me to another point. With Vista, a 64 bit copy of the installation disk is readily available. That means you get to use more than 4 Gigs of RAM (the maximum RAM a 32 bit OS can support) in addition to infinite virtual RAM. Now here's the question. Would you rather shell out $100 for Windows Vista 64 Bit Edition (that also comes with 32 bit disks?)? Or do you want to shell out what is it now... like $200-300 for Windows XP Professional x64 Edition? Which has even worse driver support compared to Windows Vista x64. 64 Bit XP was a nightmare for me.

[Lord Tataraus]

Let me see... XP support will be dropped in a few years, so those who aren't exactly the most tech savvy... won't really have a place to turn if something goes wrong with the OS. Sure you can get the 9600GT, but my point remains... if your computer is built for games, it can probably run Vista without a sweat. Seriously.

Any gamer worth his salt will have between two and four Gigs of RAM. Hardcore gamers will be running 8 Gigs on a 64 bit system. Which brings me to another point. With Vista, a 64 bit copy of the installation disk is readily available. That means you get to use more than 4 Gigs of RAM (the maximum RAM a 32 bit OS can support) in addition to infinite virtual RAM. Now here's the question. Would you rather shell out $100 for Windows Vista 64 Bit Edition (that also comes with 32 bit disks?)? Or do you want to shell out what is it now... like $200-300 for Windows XP Professional x64 Edition? Which has even worse driver support compared to Windows Vista x64. 64 Bit XP was a nightmare for me.

...or you could wait a for year and a half for Windows 7, it's supposed to come out at the end of 2009-beginning of 2010 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7562720.stm?hpg1=bn). I've heard rumors of a bit earlier and of course the skeptics that say it'll be delayed a year, but expect to here about it more in 09.

[Neftren]

...or you could wait a for year and a half for Windows 7, it's supposed to come out at the end of 2009-beginning of 2010 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7562720.stm?hpg1=bn). I've heard rumors of a bit earlier and of course the skeptics that say it'll be delayed a year, but expect to here about it more in 09.

You could. I guess we'll all find out. If you already have XP, you really don't need to buy a new copy of Vista. If you're going to buy a new computer, I suggest you try Vista and if you don't like it, then downgrade to XP. I seriously must wonder whether the people who think XP looks better than Vista is a reason to get XP really understand that you can get a Vista skin for XP and an XP skin for Vista. If your hardware can support Vista, I suggest you get it. Besides, if you're running fullscreen games, your desktop won't be rendering, so your graphics card really doesn't take much of a hit.

[potatocubed]

Just a quick question - several people in this thread have mentioned being able to turn off the confirmation boxes that pop up every time you try to install something. Where can I find that option? I had a dig through the control panel a few months back but couldn't see it.

[Gorbash Kazdar]

It's called User Account Control. You want to go into the User Accounts section on the Control Panel (I suggest switching it to classic view). Then, on an individual account, you should see a list of options. The last one should be "Turn User Account Control on or off." Click there, uncheck a box, restart. Should clear it up.

One thing to note about Vista's RAM use - it preloads a lot of stuff during idle time, so its not always exactly the OS itself using those resources. If you open something else that needs those resources, the OS dumps the preload information. It still does have pretty sizable resource needs compared to XP, though.

[Neftren]

It's called User Account Control. You want to go into the User Accounts section on the Control Panel (I suggest switching it to classic view). Then, on an individual account, you should see a list of options. The last one should be "Turn User Account Control on or off." Click there, uncheck a box, restart. Should clear it up.

One thing to note about Vista's RAM use - it preloads a lot of stuff during idle time, so its not always exactly the OS itself using those resources. If you open something else that needs those resources, the OS dumps the preload information. It still does have pretty sizable resource needs compared to XP, though.

Vista needs approximately 1.3 Gigabytes (or so says Microsoft on my OEM box), while XP only needs 128 Megabytes (or so says Microsoft on my OEM box). Basically, XP needs a tenth of the RAM that Vista does. I don't actually buy into that, but Microsoft seems to believe that.

Either way, I don't really care since I have 4 Gigabytes in my computer.

[Gorbash Kazdar]

Vista needs approximately 1.3 Gigabytes (or so says Microsoft on my OEM box), while XP only needs 128 Megabytes (or so says Microsoft on my OEM box). Basically, XP needs a tenth of the RAM that Vista does. I don't actually buy into that, but Microsoft seems to believe that.

Either way, I don't really care since I have 4 Gigabytes in my computer.
I have seen the Home 32bit version running on a 1GB machine, though it didn't seem happy. OTOH, I had XP on a 1GB machine for quite a while and it wasn't significantly better overall. Currently I am dual-booting XP and Vista Home 32bit on my 3GB laptop, and Vista actually boots faster and runs as fast, despite the fact that I only use XP for about 3 programs and have almost nothing loaded under that OS. Of course, my laptop is my secondary machine anyways, so I don't have much on it in general.

[pendell]

As it happens, I run Fedora at work and XP at home. Some random thoughts in addition to those already covered:

1) I have been a professional SE for 13 years, so I can't really say how easy it is to use for a 'normal' person. It is ... different.

As a rule, I would say you can pretty much do any non-game activity on Linux as well as you can on XP. OpenOffice is slightly inferior to real Office, but still works well.

There is a *lot* of user community support for Linux on the web, and I find it superior to Microsoft's 'help' functionality.

The thing I like best about Linux is that it is foundational UNIX at it's core, which means there are a lot of people who understand it worldwide, even if you personally don't. UNIX is standard fare in every university that teaches CS, which means that it's not hard to find someone who can find their way around the system.

The other thing I like about it is the compatibility; Unix, unlike Windows, still uses the same basic structure as it did back in the 1980s. I collect computer games. Dos games do not run under Windows 95 do not run on Windows XP does not run on Vista. But a computer program written for System V in 1978 will still run on Fedora today, with very little change. I *like* that.

2) Be that as it may, I still have a home XP system for games. Unless you're a fan of open source games like Ur-quan Masters or NetHack, you won't be playing the latest and greatest.

3) Thing about XP: It's not just whether it's XP or not, it's also what upgrades you have loaded.

Last week, all my games built using Direct3D (which is to say, every game since about 2002) suddenly stopped working on my XP system. I had to roll back a couple of updates that my automatic update software had stuck on, which coincidentally broke Direct3D. I eventually had to roll back to February 2008.


The same problem just happened to a customer of mine:

Customer: "Hey, I'm running <product> on 3 of my XP machines and it just stopped working for no apparent reason."

Me: "Have you changed anything on those systems?"

Customer: "No. I've left it alone for a few weeks and so has everyone else. Then I cam e back and nothing's working."

Me: "All right, let's look at your update history. Has your OS updated?"

Customer: "Wait a minute ... yeah, it has."

Me: "Why don't you roll back to the last time the software worked and see what happens?"

<Half an hour later>

Customer: "Yeah, that did the trick. Thanks!"

Lesson: FEAR the automatic update utility. Disable it. Allow no update to your system that you have not personally overseen, and thoroughly test afterwards. Be familiar with how to install and take off OS updates under XP. I imagine the same applies to Vista.

4) It is my understanding that the latest version of Direct3D does not run under XP at all. The entire OS has been re-designed.

Nonetheless, I recommend waiting out Vista for the next Windows release. I have no personal experience with Vista, but the rumblings I have head throughout the community suggest it leaves much to be desired.

I'm certain Microsoft has attempted to cut XPs throat a time or two and force people to go Vista entirely. Those efforts have failed so far because customers -- BIG, Fortune 500 and government customers -- have refused to go along.

It seems to me that Vista is another Windows ME, stumbling along through a few years before coming to an unlamented end. Hopefully the next OS will be better.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Mando Knight]

Vista needs approximately 1.3 Gigabytes (or so says Microsoft on my OEM box), while XP only needs 128 Megabytes (or so says Microsoft on my OEM box). Basically, XP needs a tenth of the RAM that Vista does. I don't actually buy into that, but Microsoft seems to believe that.

If I remember correctly, a lot of that extra space is in storing the data necessary for running the Aero tab-switching at a moment's notice (which is, by the way, basically the only new feature of Vista that I know that I use...)

[Lord Tataraus]

Oh wow, automatic updates are evil, I have never allowed them and I will definitely second the advice to disable them, its the first thing I do when I get a new computer.

[Neftren]

I have seen the Home 32bit version running on a 1GB machine, though it didn't seem happy. OTOH, I had XP on a 1GB machine for quite a while and it wasn't significantly better overall. Currently I am dual-booting XP and Vista Home 32bit on my 3GB laptop, and Vista actually boots faster and runs as fast, despite the fact that I only use XP for about 3 programs and have almost nothing loaded under that OS. Of course, my laptop is my secondary machine anyways, so I don't have much on it in general.

I have yet to test my theories, but I believe Vista boots faster through storing a chunk of the boot-up files on your RAM. Or so I've heard. I haven't looked into it since I don't care if I have to wait five minutes to boot up.


As it happens, I run Fedora at work and XP at home. Some random thoughts in addition to those already covered:

1) I have been a professional SE for 13 years, so I can't really say how easy it is to use for a 'normal' person. It is ... different.

Agreed. It's much different if you actually know your way around a computer.


As a rule, I would say you can pretty much do any non-game activity on Linux as well as you can on XP. OpenOffice is slightly inferior to real Office, but still works well.

There is a *lot* of user community support for Linux on the web, and I find it superior to Microsoft's 'help' functionality.

Meh. OpenOffice. Useful, but extremely slow. Microsoft has always been notorious for their poor help menus. Vista has attempted to rectify that error (and it has, to some degree). It's not the greatest thing on earth, but to the common user, it does its best to explain what went wrong.

What really annoys me is how XP keeps giving me "Catastrophic Failures" while trying to install certain applications.


The thing I like best about Linux is that it is foundational UNIX at it's core, which means there are a lot of people who understand it worldwide, even if you personally don't. UNIX is standard fare in every university that teaches CS, which means that it's not hard to find someone who can find their way around the system.

The other thing I like about it is the compatibility; Unix, unlike Windows, still uses the same basic structure as it did back in the 1980s. I collect computer games. Dos games do not run under Windows 95 do not run on Windows XP does not run on Vista. But a computer program written for System V in 1978 will still run on Fedora today, with very little change. I *like* that.

I'm a huge fan of NeTrek and MacTrek (especially the Linux Paradise Client). However, not everyone plays ancient games like I do. The latest Call of Duty won't be on Linux when the PC version comes out. I think Linux tends to be for people who either want a free OS, aren't frequent gamers or are people who like to tinker with code. There are always exceptions though.


Lesson: FEAR the automatic update utility. Disable it. Allow no update to your system that you have not personally overseen, and thoroughly test afterwards. Be familiar with how to install and take off OS updates under XP. I imagine the same applies to Vista.

Actually, Vista has been really terrible about updating automatically. I've had to manually install multiple things. However, if you're on the gaming track, you've probably learned enough to replace your crappy drivers with the latest and greatest pre-beta editions of your graphics card drivers.


Nonetheless, I recommend waiting out Vista for the next Windows release. I have no personal experience with Vista, but the rumblings I have head throughout the community suggest it leaves much to be desired.

I still think that it's not worth buying XP if you're building a new system. If you're assembling a new rig, there's no reason to not buy Vista. However, I don't think Vista is worth the investment to upgrade. If you have XP, stick with it. If you need a fresh OS for a fresh computer, get Vista relatively cheaply off Amazon or something.


If I remember correctly, a lot of that extra space is in storing the data necessary for running the Aero tab-switching at a moment's notice (which is, by the way, basically the only new feature of Vista that I know that I use...)

I think I nabbed another 50 Megs of VRAM off my graphics card by disabling Aero. Oh and I also gained a small processor improvement.


Oh wow, automatic updates are evil, I have never allowed them and I will definitely second the advice to disable them, its the first thing I do when I get a new computer.

Really. Just update by hand. That way you know what will work and what you'll need.