Vista delayed... DX10?

[MarkG]

Well I pity your stupidity.

So do you want to explain exactly what problem Vista solves for the average user to make them want to upgrade?

3D window borders? Yeah. wonderful, Joe Sixpack has just been lining up demanding those, it makes such a huge difference when you're browsing the web or reading email.

Can you name a single benefit that he'll see from Vista? Or are you just going to insult people?

Hey, maybe that's Microsoft's new plan: don't actually produce a new operating system that provides anything that will justify the cost, but spend a billion bucks on ads saying 'If you don't buy Vista, you're stupid!'.

Great idea.

 

[Action_Man]

Sigh.

See this why I can't believe you've actually used it.

Windows Defender out of the box.

Owned.

Proper SMP support.

Owned again.

Built-in DVD recording capabilities.

Owned once again.

Proper 64bit support.

Owned yet again.

Too lazy to type out everything so I'll just provide a link.

Linkage.

 

[laitainion]

dx9 is, I think, 2 years (or there abouts) old.

dx10 (according to this fact sheet I found) also adds support for complex primitives, and if my limited graphics knowledges serves me, a primitive is part of the 'wire-frame' that is used to create scenery, models, everything in a 3d world basically, to which you apply a texture which you see in game and currently adds most of the detail. These primitives have to use all straight lines, and the more lines you have to use, the higher the polygon count and the faster a Gcard you need. I believe complex primitives is a move towards being able to use true curved lines, as to make a surface appear curved you have to use lots and lots of small straight lines to make it (although I think there are some 'cheats' that use textures or something to make it look like a curve without making the polygon count sky rocket). Most of this is just guess work, expanding what I do know, so if anyone notices a mistake, just correct me

 

[bront]

So do you want to explain exactly what problem Vista solves for the average user to make them want to upgrade?

Occasionaly, you have to build from the ground up. And in this case, this will allow for a true 64 Bit Windows OS, which will eventualy be at least applicable to most users, even if it's not "required".

Idealy, Vista will offer:
-Increased Stability (not that I've had a problem with XP)
-Additional GUI functionality and options (Some things have been in other programs, but there is no reason windows can't use them too)
-Updated features (such as DVD compatability, 3D effects, etc)
-True 64 bit base support (Like Windows NT was for 32 bit)
-Other more or less usefull updates.

Will everyone NEED it? not initialy, but not everyone needed XP over 2000 or 98/ME at the time. But the added features eventualy became more and more usefull (Things like USB plug and play support, better security, NTFS support, etc).

If you don't like it, don't buy it. But there is a market for it.

 

[mitch074]

About WinXP Home support: M$ modified their roadmap - since Vista was supposed to be out by now, and has been delayed (time and again), now end of support for XP Home will be when Vista comes out. My bad.

About Vista being componentized (bad word: use 'modular' instead - I'm not a native English speaker):
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/windowsvista/deploy/depenhnc.mspx

Modularization
Windows Vista is the first Microsoft Windows operating system built with stronger principles of modular engineering design. Modularization doesn't just mean that users can choose which optional features to install in the image.

...and I remember an interview of M$ chief engineer saying 'XP code is so bloated that you can't count on magic glue to make it work anymore' - which prompted Gates to launch a 6 months redesign binge of the system into components based on W2k3's kernel (which is used in XP 64, too).

Now Vista looks like a Linux distro, with packages. Hurray for M$.

About what's more in XP over 2k: ... apart from corrected kernel bugs and corrections of 1-2 bad architecture choices, nothing comes to mind as being revolutionary - maybe someone can explain it to me? (Security Center = annoyance, Firewall = nice addon, NoeXecute = 18 months late feature, Luna theme = resources hog)

Vista being natively 64-bit: how comes it runs on 32-bit systems, too? It shouldn't be able to do so.

 

[Action_Man]

nothing comes to mind as being revolutionary

Why does it have to be revolutionary?

Vista being natively 64-bit: how comes it runs on 32-bit systems, too? It shouldn't be able to do so.

:roll:

Have you really used it?

Did you even check out my link?

 

[mitch074]

Frankly, an OS that required 5 YEARS of development from a MULTIBILLION $ company and being touted as the best OS of all times should at least look better than a service pack.

Mac OS X: switch Macs from proprietary to Unix (more stable, better as a server, portable), with a nice, grandmother-friendly, interface (tested; tested Mac OS 8 and 9, too).

Win2K: switch from a real-time, mono-user, not memory protected batch of OSes (WinNT4 for the latter, Win9x for all) to a 'real' 386 32-bit protected mode OS.

Linux 2.4 to 2.6 + Xorg 6.x to 7: a real VM, more reactive kernel with integrated security and real-time capabilities, modular (allowing 3D rendered interface) GUI...

Now, apart from a modular kernel (like Linux or xBSD) with a few tweaks (something you get between 10.x MacOS releases or 2.6.x Linux kernel releases), what exactly do you get from this OS that hasn't been done somewhere else?

...

Mountain giving birth to a mouse.

 

[Vokofpolisiekar]

:lol: You guys have made me a little bit more curious on Vista. Truth be told, we need a new OS. The reason why i'm so anti at this stage is because I would've REALLY liked the Database type file system - but that is dropped along with other features I gather from the web - and a new OS must really lift the bar on how it enhances hardware calls and provide better performance. The DX10 API sounds interesting though...

I'll also admit that MS has gone to the ends of the earth to enhance home users entertainment value. If it wasn't for them, we'd be stuck with DX9 and XP for a very longer time. By releasing Vista, they raise the bar and set the trend for the next few years.

SO, I admit that my sceptism was ill placed, and trust that you can value my acknowledgement of your posts.

Now, can anyone tell me if DX10 can run on XP. With VISTA being delayed to 2007, what will ATi/Nvidia do in the mean time? That's 9 months of no DX10 platform...

 

[Action_Man]

should at least look better than a service pack.

You haven't used it.

Now, apart from a modular kernel (like Linux or xBSD) with a few tweaks (something you get between 10.x MacOS releases or 2.6.x Linux kernel releases),

You didn't even check out my link did you? You haven't used it either.

what exactly do you get from this OS that hasn't been done somewhere else?

Support for games and applications. Driver support. DX10. Other stuff I'm too lazy to list.

 

[Action_Man]

Now, can anyone tell me if DX10 can run on XP.

No it can't.

Seriously people get the beta and try it out before bitching. Its actually good!

 

[JeanLuc]

G80 from NV was right around the corner, with R600 from ATI slated for Fall. Since DX10 is tied to Vista, there is really no point having these GPUs released this year.

Why?

With the possible exception of Halo 2, it's not as though any DX10 _games_ would have been released this year, and it will be years before any games actually require true DX10 chips.

I'm sure both will run DX9 games faster than current chips, so what's the problem?

Totally off topic but my real name is Mark Gilbertson..........spooky.

I really can't see this being a problem form ATI and nvidia as they seem to release new chips every 6 months so there is at least one more generation to come until vista shows its head.

 

[Vokofpolisiekar]

I guess I should get the beta then... 😀

 

[mitch074]

I admit not having used it. I will however also precise having read the Wikipedia article you linked to. I've read a lot of interviews from long before it was named Vista. I've read tests of beta 1 and beta 2, and looked at a bunch of screen caps. I've installed the latest public build of IE7. I've read a bunch of MS articles and non-MS articles from guys knowing more about this OS stuff than I do, and compared articles with articles from authors of all horizons.

On my part, I've tinkered with Win2K/XP services and registry, and compared with functionalities touted in Vista; then functionalities touted in Vista absent from XP, but present in other OSes. I've experimented with stripped down versions of XP, with the 64-bit version, with 'stock' installs, with volume versions (my previous job as a comp technician helped), I've hacked at its features, crashed more than one machine by disabling this or that service, examined it almost DLL by DLL, tortured it and put it to boil.

Then I switched to Linux - and did the same.

I'm left with nothing really new. A bunch of bugfixes touted as 'features', mainly.

As for 'application support', well, winXP doesn't support pre-NT applications that easily. Then, most XP apps are programmed by morons who decided that all their clients will be running it as full-fledged administrators - even something as inane as a local database front-end. I wonder which legacy applications will be supported in Vista. The subset may be even lower than what CXoffice in Linux/BSD can run.

Let's talk about Windows Graphics Foundation or DirectX10 or whatever. There was this nice little thing that Microsoft helped design, which is called OpenGL - and no, OpenGL isn't 3D only. It can be used to design GUIs, or render existing ones, it displays real-time video quite nicely, supports advanced shader techniques, is supported by most vendors quite well and can scale down gracefully. Heck, there's even a free software renderer available!

Why not use that? It's well known, stable, current, it IS a standard, and is not much more different from DirectX9 than DX10 will be from DX9.

I'm not saying that Vista doesn't run well, I'm saying it's nothing extraordinary over what is available now and what it should have been, considering how much we'll have to spend on it and how much MS made us wait for it.

 

[RTsa]

Yay! We turned one!

The way I see it is this: (not directed to anyone in particular, I'm just using the you-passive)

Vista is coming out. You can either get it or stick to your XP or whatever you're using.

If you don't get Vista, you miss out in DX10 games and a few nice things. But you'll still manage just like you used to. Others have the opportunity to upgrade and get a few nice things, why would that bother you? You should be happy for them. 😛

The other choics is to get Vista. Spend a few hundred bucks on it and get some of the new features. If you spend even more money, you'll get a DX10 card and enjoy the eye candy. It's nothing you absolutely have to have, so you can choose not to upgrade your hardware and still run Vista if you like.

Even if Vista and DX10 weren't coming out and you didn't get a new graphics card, you'd miss out on the max settgings on newest games. DX10 isn't changing that. You can still run the DX9 versions of the games.

So, in short, what is Vista & DX10 offering? The possibility to have all the stuff in Action_Man's link. It's not taking anything away from anyone. Be happy for those, who use this opportunity to make their computers a little bit better. 😉

 

[Vokofpolisiekar]

Turned, hell no! Nudged, yes... :lol: Just kidding.

Oh well, it will come out, and I'll will buy it. Tech junkies like myself can kick and scream as much as we want to, in the end we submit to defeat. My sceptism leads me to learn, and be educated. Respect the open mindedness though...

Now, how long will it take me to download the beta with dialup? Or should I rather just wait for the release? :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[bront]

Now, how long will it take me to download the beta with dialup? Or should I rather just wait for the release? :lol: :lol: :lol:

You'll probably get it a few days before hand that way.

I should download it and try it out, just to toy with it. I'm kind of leary of beta's, but I think I can keep it seperate from my other system by using a spare HD I have floating around. Shame i'd have to burn it to a DVD though.

 

[TabrisDarkPeace]

Can you name a single benefit that he'll see from Vista? Or are you just going to insult people?

They'll be able to install Windows Updates for security fixes, long after Windows XP is not supported anymore.

Vista is more likely to take advantage of the in the hardware, and could end up being the first OS from Microsoft people end up 'supporting'.

Microsoft suggesting people move to (Registered) ECC as there is going to be so much memory in future systems.... a fine suggestion from MS IMHO.

Thats the spin I'd put on it if I was a sales person. (Reliable, Supported until 2012 give or take, Games get more resources [XNA may help there], Better overall stability, etc).


http://www.microsoft.com/xna - Might have something to do with it.

 

[Action_Man]

I'm left with nothing really new. A bunch of bugfixes touted as 'features', mainly.

:roll:

As for 'application support', well, winXP doesn't support pre-NT applications that easily.

Its called progress.

Why not use that?

Because DX10 is better. Read up on it.

I'm saying it's nothing extraordinary over what is available now

Why does it have to be?

considering how much we'll have to spend on it

No-ones forcing you to update to it.

how much MS made us wait for it.

So?

 

[mitch074]

If you like to spend 300$/€ on bugfixes for a product you already paid for, fine. That's your cash.

If you want to pay premium price for 'features' that others have been enjoying - sometimes for free - then that's fine too.

If for you progress means leaving the old behind - eventhough said 'old' stuff should still work as intended - and pay some more for those same features ported to a new OS, fine.

If for you progress means waiting for 5 years to pay for something that already existed, fine.

When I saw Vista, I decided to witch to Linux. The more I learnt about Vista, the more I thought: 'what the hell?! I already have that! and that! And bugfixes! For free! With real honest to goodness user support! For free! And I can even contribute back!

So, please do - rush to Vista's eye-candy (it's all it has to offer), wait 2 years after it's out to see Vista 2 that'll fix bugs (you'll have to pay premium price for it), I'll keep my 3D OpenGL desktop with Aqua-like theme. I'll just enjoy Linux' modular design, secure architecture, latest tech support, thousands of apps and games, and maximum optimization of my existing hardware, plus real-world user support.

For free.

 

[Action_Man]

Now you're just being a troll.

Linux will never make it on the desktop, its a niche and only good for servers.

thousands of apps and games

Compared to millions on windows.

and maximum optimization of my existing hardware

Yeah sure.

plus real-world user support.

That doesn't exist in the windows world.

If for you progress means leaving the old behind

That is progress!

If for you progress means waiting for 5 years to pay for something that already existed, fine.

Wait theres games on linux? There's applications on linux? There's good driver support?

:roll: :roll: :roll:

 

[ikjadoon]

Yo, Action Man. I think you said that we should d/l the Beta b4 we start bitching. No offense, but I can't find the actual "link" for it. I scoured their site, just telling me some stuff about the Feb CTP. Is it still only open for Developers, etc? Also, what happen to that new hard drive type thing? That instead of NTFS/FAT we'd get something new... Why did it get dropped? Was expecting that alot... A few friends of mine have tried Vista out, computer-loving-people, and they have said it was pretty good. Bring it! And for anyone who is talking about Vista just being a new GUI, are there not some Shell extension programs that'll give you a totally new GUI? I used one once, but it left a HUGE memory footprint, nearly 40,000k of memory usage in Processes...Think it was Aston Shell...Not really related, but hey

~Ibrahim~

 

[Action_Man]

You have to be part of their MSDN thing or some crap. (I get it through my work)

If you're up for the illegal way you can hit the torrent sites.

 

[mitch074]

No, I'm not being a troll - I tried many OSes, and while Linux is my OS of choice for now, I'd gladly go for MacOS X if it was available on PC - or Macs weren't so expensive. Because that is indeed an OS that innovated, that actually broadened its application and hardware support range, and that got better with time.

And it's actually nice to look at and to use.

Linux never on the desktop, niche market stranded in servers: tell that to those administrations that actually use it on the desktop, or to the guys who are supporting the $100 laptop, or to all those running SuSE, Ubuntu or another 'easy install' partitions. And yes, I'm using Linux on the desktop. I will admit to it not being widespread yet, it may never get there, but it is used by several million people. If a product is made good by the number of its users, then smoking is good for health.

Bill Gates actually scoffed at the $100 laptop, saying that people in those countries would be better off with a Windows CE cell phone (cost apiece: $600 check here).
Meaning, a computer is only worth what its interface looks like, not what you can use it for?

Call me a troll if you want, but I stand my point: Vista is a non-innovative collection of bugfixes wrapped in candy paper reverting to 1970's design practices - which have proven their efficiency.

At least they fixed bugs, increased standards support in IE and put security on par with UNIX.

 

[Action_Man]

Linux never on the desktop, niche market stranded in servers: tell that to those administrations that actually use it on the desktop, or to the guys who are supporting the $100 laptop, or to all those running SuSE, Ubuntu or another 'easy install' partitions.

Ok I'll tell less then 1% of the market.

it may never get there

You got that right.

If a product is made good by the number of its users, then smoking is good for health.

Smoking has been proven to be bad for your health, crap analogy at best.

Bill Gates actually scoffed at the $100 laptop, saying that people in those countries would be better off with a Windows CE cell phone (cost apiece: $600 check here).
Meaning, a computer is only worth what its interface looks like, not what you can use it for?

Who cares?

Vista is a non-innovative collection of bugfixes wrapped in candy paper reverting to 1970's design practices - which have proven their efficiency.

You've never used it and you don't work at MS. So I stand by the troll comment.

 

[mitch074]

Ok I'll tell less then 1% of the market.

That was its share in 2002 - now it's closer (if not over) 2%.

You got that right.

IIS may overthrow Apache, too.

Smoking has been proven to be bad for your health, crap analogy at best.

and Windows has been proven infected by 70 000 virii and several thousand unfixed bugs.

Who cares?

You don't care about what the software running on your computer actually does?

You've never used it and you don't work at MS. So I stand by the troll comment.

Easy to call someone who doesn't share your opinion a troll. So far you've insulted me - several times, haven't refuted my arguments with more than a shoulder shrug, and misinterpreted my comments. To spell it out to you in plain letters: I'm saying that Vista is what XP should have been when it came out, and that getting it is essentially paying for bugfixes.