what old games couldn't you get to work? i haven't found anything that was impossible to run, so far... typically if the game gets old enough then I can DOS-BOX it. perhaps some things from the win95/98 era would cause trouble, I guess?
what old games couldn't you get to work? i haven't found anything that was impossible to run, so far... typically if the game gets old enough then I can DOS-BOX it. perhaps some things from the win95/98 era would cause trouble, I guess?
I have to hunt for patches for every game I install. Not a deal breaker, but it is annoying. Only because I generally play games as installed, unless the patcher is included in the launcher, because I'm lazy and tolerant of bugs.
Diablo 2
Civ 4
WoW was a nightmare to install and patch, took all afternoon
I really like vista and all, but I dual boot 64 bit home premium edition with XP, and I haven't chosen to boot to vista for a long time. I have nothing against it at all - when I do use it (primarily for gaming) it's an absolute joy - it's my fault for choosing the 64 bit version when CS3 doesn't run on it. I just don't want to be restarting every time I want to do some work. As soon as CS4 comes out, I'm an instant convert.
I'm a sucker for fancy little graphical touches and new - albeit useless - features, which is primarily why I like it, but I've never had performance issues with it at all.
what old games couldn't you get to work? i haven't found anything that was impossible to run, so far... typically if the game gets old enough then I can DOS-BOX it. perhaps some things from the win95/98 era would cause trouble, I guess?
I have to hunt for patches for every game I install. Not a deal breaker, but it is annoying. Only because I generally play games as installed, unless the patcher is included in the launcher, because I'm lazy and tolerant of bugs.
Diablo 2
Civ 4
WoW was a nightmare to install and patch, took all afternoon
I have been playing both Diablo 2 and Civ 4 with absolutely no problem at all.
what old games couldn't you get to work? i haven't found anything that was impossible to run, so far... typically if the game gets old enough then I can DOS-BOX it. perhaps some things from the win95/98 era would cause trouble, I guess?
I have to hunt for patches for every game I install. Not a deal breaker, but it is annoying. Only because I generally play games as installed, unless the patcher is included in the launcher, because I'm lazy and tolerant of bugs.
Diablo 2
Civ 4
WoW was a nightmare to install and patch, took all afternoon
I haven't done Civ 4 or D2 yet since moving to vista, but I found WOW installation to be super easy. I was pretty drunk one night in October last year, and resubscribed my account. Downloaded both clients off their website (which took like an hour total, I was getting ridiculously good transfer for some reason) and was up and running within 3 hours.
I have been playing both Diablo 2 and Civ 4 with absolutely no problem at all.
Same here, you just have to go online and patch them up to date. I haven't found anything that won't run at all. But I haven't tried anything older than D2 yet.
WoW though, fucked up constantly. It would randomly get critical errors 3 disks into the installation, wasting tons of time.
I've used Vista. I've gone back to XP for the following reasons:
Security. Instead of securing the platform to be less susceptible to attack, the only thing they can do is stop all actions unless permitted on an individual basis every single time.
Performance. I'm sorry for those of you that argue and say it's fine, or maybe you need more memory, or other component upgrades. But that is not a valid argument when Vista ships on all machines now and they are hardly worthy to run the OS. Even with my 4gigs of RAM, opening individual windows as simple as the control panel or a file explorer takes much, much longer than with XP. The OS that governs your computer and provides its productivity and accessibility should not be the software that eats all its resources.
Compatibility. I have 3 printers in my house and none of them would work on Vista. 2 Lexmark and 1 HP. So not only is a good percentage of my current hardware and ALL of my legacy hardware useless, but forget playing games. Games compatibility is terrible. Not even Windows 9x games either. I just could not get some games to launch the installer even.
Not only that, but the 64 bit version of Vista, which is the only version that can conceivably take advantage of the full potential of 64 bit processors and more than 4 gigs of ram, is wildly unsupported by software and hardware vendors. This may not be all Microsofts fault, but it is still another strike against the OS.
There are other reasons, and they would mostly fall under the oddities category. I know someone who has Vista, and for some reason, no matter what the settings are, everytime he starts the PC and logs in, the Magnifier utility opens as well. Go figure.
I have been playing both Diablo 2 and Civ 4 with absolutely no problem at all.
Same here, you just have to go online and patch them up to date. I haven't found anything that won't run at all. But I haven't tried anything older than D2 yet.
WoW though, fucked up constantly. It would randomly get critical errors 3 disks into the installation, wasting tons of time.
Maybe I avoided that sort of issue by downloading the installer.
Oldest game I've ran on Vista has been either TIE Fighter (DOS) or I Have No Mouth And I Must Scream (also DOS, from the same time period). Not sure which is older. Basically we're talking like 1994, though.
I have been playing both Diablo 2 and Civ 4 with absolutely no problem at all.
Same here, you just have to go online and patch them up to date. I haven't found anything that won't run at all. But I haven't tried anything older than D2 yet.
WoW though, fucked up constantly. It would randomly get critical errors 3 disks into the installation, wasting tons of time.
Maybe I avoided that sort of issue by downloading the installer.
Oldest game I've ran on Vista has been either TIE Fighter (DOS) or I Have No Mouth And I Must Scream (also DOS, from the same time period). Not sure which is older. Basically we're talking like 1994, though.
Those games run through windows emulation or you have to use Dosbox? I'm some sort of retard with the latter, can't get it to run shit.
Also, I was installing WoW from the original 1.0 disks.
DisruptorX2 on
0
Options
AbsoluteZeroThe new film by Quentin KoopantinoRegistered Userregular
edited July 2008
I really don't think there's any turning around the bad press and word of mouth that's killed Vista. Which is fine and well, Microsoft shouldn't have released an incomplete product.
I really don't think there's any turning around the bad press and word of mouth that's killed Vista. Which is fine and well, Microsoft shouldn't have released an incomplete product.
Right they should've had a perfect launch like XP.
RoboJesus wrote: View Post
Meh, I've used Vista, and have to troubleshoot it occasionally.
Navigating the Control Panel seems super redundant, and I end up going in circles a lot. Basic configuration is difficult because everything wants to be automated. Advanced configuration is difficult because it's all hidden behind annoying "Are you sure you want to do this" check boxes. It's prettier than XP though.
Overall, I find it annoying and unnecessary. I don't know why anyone would use it over XP, except, I guess DX10, which I have never seen in person.
You can get it stop doing the security check pop-ups you know. Just disable UAC.
Yeah, I'm sure that would work, and if I had Vista on my home PC I would definitely fix the problem, but the computers I work with are owned by idiots who do not want their settings changed from the default, so I don't have a choice but to suffer the super annoying security pop-ups
I have been playing both Diablo 2 and Civ 4 with absolutely no problem at all.
Same here, you just have to go online and patch them up to date. I haven't found anything that won't run at all. But I haven't tried anything older than D2 yet.
WoW though, fucked up constantly. It would randomly get critical errors 3 disks into the installation, wasting tons of time.
Maybe I avoided that sort of issue by downloading the installer.
Oldest game I've ran on Vista has been either TIE Fighter (DOS) or I Have No Mouth And I Must Scream (also DOS, from the same time period). Not sure which is older. Basically we're talking like 1994, though.
Those games run through windows emulation or you have to use Dosbox? I'm some sort of retard with the latter, can't get it to run shit.
Also, I was installing WoW from the original 1.0 disks.
I DOSBox'd them both, but as I understand it if you have the Win '95 edition of TIE Fighter, you can run it natively by doing a few registry additions. It can't install normally because it uses some 16 bit stuff that's unsupported. You have to do the same stuff to get it to run in XP, so I guess it's not really special or whatever.
Actually, I think I did have to reinstall WoW sometime in April-May too. I borrowed one of my roommate's discs, and don't recall any specific problems besides it being much slower than the downloaded installer was. I think he had a later pressing of the discs, though (1.4 or something like that?).
Dehumanized on
0
Options
ViscountalphaThe pen is mightier than the swordhttp://youtu.be/G_sBOsh-vyIRegistered Userregular
edited July 2008
I'm in the camp where I will use XP until its not really viable anymore. That and they have to have some major reason for me to switch. XP is still supported for a fair amount of newer games. (LOL HALO2) And I have enough compatibility.
If they fix vista enough I might upgrade but I'm in no hurry to do that. The corporate sector feels the same way as I heard many companies are not choosing to upgrade to vista.
- Windows still don't have a little box at the top to issue a command-line command. Five or six times a week I find myself typing "win-R, cmd" to do any of the hundreds of tasks that are unwieldy or impossible to accomplish with a mouse. Want to rename *.rar to old_*.rar? Sucks to be you, bitch; better get typin'!
While a command line at the top of the window would be better, there is a built-in "Open Command Window Here" command so at least you don't have to cd your way to the target directory.
Hold SHIFT and right click on an unused portion of the folder listing, and one of the choices will be Open Command Window Here.
Security. Instead of securing the platform to be less susceptible to attack, the only thing they can do is stop all actions unless permitted on an individual basis every single time.
You can't make the most hated OS in the world less susceptible to attack. People are going to attack it and they are going to succeed, because you simply can't stop it. See software piracy.
Meanwhile nobody hacks or makes viruses for Linux because those are the sort of people using it, and it's not going to infect a huge mass of people anyway.
I'm in the camp where I will use XP until its not really viable anymore. That and they have to have some major reason for me to switch. XP is still supported for a fair amount of newer games. (LOL HALO2) And I have enough compatibility.
If they fix vista enough I might upgrade but I'm in no hurry to do that. The corporate sector feels the same way as I heard many companies are not choosing to upgrade to vista.
There's no real reason to upgrade an existing computer to vista unless you really want DX10. And an existing comp isn't going to be running dx10 Crysis on high.
I just happened to get vista because I got my hands on a legit free copy and had built a new PC. DX10 is a nice perk, and my pc can handle the higher reqs. Its pretty much XP+, and I like it.
I've been using Vista for almost six months with no problems at all except for some shitty video drivers Nvidia released at one point, which somehow got it to think my monitor was tiny and 1680x1050 meant about a quarter of my desktop would fit on my monitor.
I haven't found Vista to be slow and unresponsive or noticed any problems with how bloated it is. Having 4GB of RAM might have something to do with that, but with 4GB of RAM, let me tell you, it runs pretty great. I have had some trouble getting a couple very old games to run properly, but I'm not really too upset with that.
Really, if I hadn't gotten Vista Ultimate for $50, I wouldn't have upgraded, but I'm kind of half glad I did.
I'm in the camp where I will use XP until its not really viable anymore. That and they have to have some major reason for me to switch. XP is still supported for a fair amount of newer games. (LOL HALO2) And I have enough compatibility.
If they fix vista enough I might upgrade but I'm in no hurry to do that. The corporate sector feels the same way as I heard many companies are not choosing to upgrade to vista.
There's no real reason to upgrade an existing computer to vista unless you really want DX10. And an existing comp isn't going to be running dx10 Crysis on high.
I just happened to get vista because I got my hands on a legit free copy and had build a new PC. DX10 is a nice perk, and my pc can handle the higher reqs. Its pretty much XP+, and I like it.
<.<
>.>
My computer runs dx10 Crysis on high.
I did switch it down to med for the final snow things.
Khavall on
0
Options
ViscountalphaThe pen is mightier than the swordhttp://youtu.be/G_sBOsh-vyIRegistered Userregular
I'm in the camp where I will use XP until its not really viable anymore. That and they have to have some major reason for me to switch. XP is still supported for a fair amount of newer games. (LOL HALO2) And I have enough compatibility.
If they fix vista enough I might upgrade but I'm in no hurry to do that. The corporate sector feels the same way as I heard many companies are not choosing to upgrade to vista.
There's no real reason to upgrade an existing computer to vista unless you really want DX10. And an existing comp isn't going to be running dx10 Crysis on high.
I just happened to get vista because I got my hands on a legit free copy and had build a new PC. DX10 is a nice perk, and my pc can handle the higher reqs.
Ya, a free legit copy is one thing. Paying 200$ for something that gives me nothing substantial is another. I figure something substantial is on the way though.
I use a mac at work (due to it working happily with programs like root and Geant4) and Vista at home.
Vista is vastly a superior operating system in nearly every way. File organization, stability, patching, programs in the background, tolerating program crashes. Honestly the only problems I've ever had on Vista have always been traced back to someone selling me shoddy hardware, or writing awful code. Whenever I have a problem on the Mac it always almost comes back to being a problem with the operating system itself. Vista is also faster to load, cleaner and less cluttered, and has proper office 2008, which is possibly the single greatest productivity suite ever produced. It's amazing.
The only features I'd bring from Mac to PC are apple shift 4 (to take a screenshot of a defined area and pop it on the desktop) and hot corners with all their associated multiple desktop wonder. Other than that I don't see what Mac really has. Other than an advertising campaign full of lies and nonsense about vista which should really be banned as misinformation.
For that "Screenshot section of the screen" functionality you're looking into, take a gander at Office OneNote 2007. It gives you what you're looking for, sort of. (it puts screenshot selections into a notebook, instead of direct to desktop)
RoboJesus wrote: View Post
Meh, I've used Vista, and have to troubleshoot it occasionally.
Navigating the Control Panel seems super redundant, and I end up going in circles a lot. Basic configuration is difficult because everything wants to be automated. Advanced configuration is difficult because it's all hidden behind annoying "Are you sure you want to do this" check boxes. It's prettier than XP though.
Overall, I find it annoying and unnecessary. I don't know why anyone would use it over XP, except, I guess DX10, which I have never seen in person.
You can get it stop doing the security check pop-ups you know. Just disable UAC.
Yeah, I'm sure that would work, and if I had Vista on my home PC I would definitely fix the problem, but the computers I work with are owned by idiots who do not want their settings changed from the default, so I don't have a choice but to suffer the super annoying security pop-ups
I used one of those methods before, and it really messed things up for me.
I use a mac at work (due to it working happily with programs like root and Geant4) and Vista at home.
Vista is vastly a superior operating system in nearly every way. File organization, stability, patching, programs in the background, tolerating program crashes. Honestly the only problems I've ever had on Vista have always been traced back to someone selling me shoddy hardware, or writing awful code. Whenever I have a problem on the Mac it always almost comes back to being a problem with the operating system itself. Vista is also faster to load, cleaner and less cluttered, and has proper office 2008, which is possibly the single greatest productivity suite ever produced. It's amazing.
The only features I'd bring from Mac to PC are apple shift 4 (to take a screenshot of a defined area and pop it on the desktop) and hot corners with all their associated multiple desktop wonder. Other than that I don't see what Mac really has. Other than an advertising campaign full of lies and nonsense about vista which should really be banned as misinformation.
You are using Leopard aren't you? With a decent Mac computer?
If you're going to disable UAC and run as Administrator, why run Vista? You might as well be using XP, security-wise. Honestly, UAC is a good thing if for no other reason than that software vendors are now just that much more likely to make their programs run properly when executed by a normal, unprivileged user.
Vista is also faster to load, cleaner and less cluttered, and has proper office 2008, which is possibly the single greatest productivity suite ever produced. It's amazing.
Office 2008 isn't available for Vista. Office 2007 is. Office 2008 is Mac only.
Vista is also faster to load, cleaner and less cluttered, and has proper office 2008, which is possibly the single greatest productivity suite ever produced. It's amazing.
Office 2008 isn't available for Vista. Office 2007 is. Office 2008 is Mac only.
Well, office 2008 is just office 2007 but it took them a year to release on mac and man if they released a product called office 2007 for mac in 2008 wouldn't it look like they've got egg on their faces.
Security. Instead of securing the platform to be less susceptible to attack, the only thing they can do is stop all actions unless permitted on an individual basis every single time.
You can't make the most hated OS in the world less susceptible to attack. People are going to attack it and they are going to succeed, because you simply can't stop it. See software piracy.
Meanwhile nobody hacks or makes viruses for Linux because those are the sort of people using it, and it's not going to infect a huge mass of people anyway.
So people make viruses for political reasons?
Indica1 on
If the president had any real power, he'd be able to live wherever the fuck he wanted.
I use a mac at work (due to it working happily with programs like root and Geant4) and Vista at home.
Vista is vastly a superior operating system in nearly every way. File organization, stability, patching, programs in the background, tolerating program crashes. Honestly the only problems I've ever had on Vista have always been traced back to someone selling me shoddy hardware, or writing awful code. Whenever I have a problem on the Mac it always almost comes back to being a problem with the operating system itself. Vista is also faster to load, cleaner and less cluttered, and has proper office 2008, which is possibly the single greatest productivity suite ever produced. It's amazing.
The only features I'd bring from Mac to PC are apple shift 4 (to take a screenshot of a defined area and pop it on the desktop) and hot corners with all their associated multiple desktop wonder. Other than that I don't see what Mac really has. Other than an advertising campaign full of lies and nonsense about vista which should really be banned as misinformation.
You are using Leopard aren't you? With a decent Mac computer?
OSX 10.5.4 on a 2.4 GhZ Intel Core2 duo MacBook. Oh the horrors of mac system updates. System Update has detected a new patch for you! Prepare for your computer to be out of action for hours as the patcher goes wrong! Watch the spinner with no status messages as to what you should do! Thrill as you must hard off out of it and pray the system comes back on.
I don't not like it, it's better than all the previous OSX's were, but it's still not as good as Vista, even with the hot corners (and I love the hot corners and multiple desktops a lot!) I love built in terminal and X11, thats better than having to use cygwin, but cygwin isn't bad. Honestly what I like about vista is that it's reliable, functional and pretty all at the same time.
I guess preview is pretty cool too, for looking at attachments, but as a whole package for using and finding things vista is better. Vista has voice commands that make macs look like they were written in the 70s too, Vista is smart enough to let me voice type, which is nice.
Security. Instead of securing the platform to be less susceptible to attack, the only thing they can do is stop all actions unless permitted on an individual basis every single time.
You can't make the most hated OS in the world less susceptible to attack. People are going to attack it and they are going to succeed, because you simply can't stop it. See software piracy.
Meanwhile nobody hacks or makes viruses for Linux because those are the sort of people using it, and it's not going to infect a huge mass of people anyway.
Vista is also faster to load, cleaner and less cluttered, and has proper office 2008, which is possibly the single greatest productivity suite ever produced. It's amazing.
Office 2008 isn't available for Vista. Office 2007 is. Office 2008 is Mac only.
Well, office 2008 is just office 2007 but it took them a year to release on mac and man if they released a product called office 2007 for mac in 2008 wouldn't it look like they've got egg on their faces.
Office 2008 on mac is quite different from 2007 on vista. On Vista office is excellent with all the new ribbon features which make working so much faster once you get used to them. On Mac you just have a port of the previous version which doesn't integrate well with the look and feel of the operating system.
Heck, is it even troubled? last I heard Ms sold 100 million.
I think the 'trouble' is more a question of its lack of quality. It was destined to sell well, since, you know, it's Microsoft, but now that people are shunning it as a poor product, adoption rates are slowing/regressing, and as people have mentioned before many are downgrading from Vista to XP.
And I'm not so sure it'll become the standard. I don't think Microsoft is confident enough with it to push it as thus, and instead they'll really put their weight behind Windows 7, which will be out soon enough.
If you're going to disable UAC and run as Administrator, why run Vista? You might as well be using XP, security-wise. Honestly, UAC is a good thing if for no other reason than that software vendors are now just that much more likely to make their programs run properly when executed by a normal, unprivileged user.
I've never understood the complaints about UAC. The only times I've seen that pop up is when I'm installing software or trying to mess around with sensitive parts of the system. In both instances I want that notification to be there. As far as my experience goes, it's pretty similar to Sudo, with the same requirement to input password (unless you're running as Admin, then it just notifies you that something is attempting to install). Even know you still hear the wild complaints: "But UAC is required even when you change the desktop", which is retarded and utter bull, but hey, it's Microsoft, if it's that bad it's DEFINITELY true.
Meanwhile, the one time I tried to install Prince of Persia: Two Thrones, I wasn't aware that it came with Starforce. If I had known, I never would have tried to install it.
Vista, refused to allow Starforce to run. Literally refused, it wasn't just the standard UAC prompt, it told me that this software called "Starforce" was trying to modify my core drivers and gain access to the system, and as such Vista would not allow this software to run. It didn't even give me an option, it just flat out told me "this is a bad thing and I'm not allowing it to mess around with the system".
Yeah, after that I have a hard time believing how evil Vista is compared to XP. On my XP machine, Starforce would have just installed and run and screwed up my entire system. Truly the ideal scenario.
Vista is also faster to load, cleaner and less cluttered, and has proper office 2008, which is possibly the single greatest productivity suite ever produced. It's amazing.
Office 2008 isn't available for Vista. Office 2007 is. Office 2008 is Mac only.
Well, office 2008 is just office 2007 but it took them a year to release on mac and man if they released a product called office 2007 for mac in 2008 wouldn't it look like they've got egg on their faces.
A separate division is responsible for building and producing the version of Office for Mac - it's called the Mac Business Unit (or MBU). The interface and capabilities are similar but there are vast differences - including the removal of VB scripting from Excel 2008 (it's being added back in to the next version after extremely loud customer objections).
So I guess Vista is the new ME? And 7 is the new XP?
If you had to make an analogy that'd do, but it's cruel to poor Vista. It really does a lot of things right and offers a user experience that's lightyears ahead of ME. It's a good piece of software. Not great - but good.
If 7 is really two years away... I wouldn't upgrade an old system. Then again - anyone remember the last time Microsoft delivered an OS on time?
Posts
I have to hunt for patches for every game I install. Not a deal breaker, but it is annoying. Only because I generally play games as installed, unless the patcher is included in the launcher, because I'm lazy and tolerant of bugs.
Diablo 2
Civ 4
WoW was a nightmare to install and patch, took all afternoon
You can get it OEM on Newegg for $109.99 for Home Premium, or $179.99 for Ultimate, which are perfectly acceptable prices as far as I'm concerned.
I'm a sucker for fancy little graphical touches and new - albeit useless - features, which is primarily why I like it, but I've never had performance issues with it at all.
I have been playing both Diablo 2 and Civ 4 with absolutely no problem at all.
I haven't done Civ 4 or D2 yet since moving to vista, but I found WOW installation to be super easy. I was pretty drunk one night in October last year, and resubscribed my account. Downloaded both clients off their website (which took like an hour total, I was getting ridiculously good transfer for some reason) and was up and running within 3 hours.
TBC and fullly patched, of course.
Same here, you just have to go online and patch them up to date. I haven't found anything that won't run at all. But I haven't tried anything older than D2 yet.
WoW though, fucked up constantly. It would randomly get critical errors 3 disks into the installation, wasting tons of time.
Security. Instead of securing the platform to be less susceptible to attack, the only thing they can do is stop all actions unless permitted on an individual basis every single time.
Performance. I'm sorry for those of you that argue and say it's fine, or maybe you need more memory, or other component upgrades. But that is not a valid argument when Vista ships on all machines now and they are hardly worthy to run the OS. Even with my 4gigs of RAM, opening individual windows as simple as the control panel or a file explorer takes much, much longer than with XP. The OS that governs your computer and provides its productivity and accessibility should not be the software that eats all its resources.
Compatibility. I have 3 printers in my house and none of them would work on Vista. 2 Lexmark and 1 HP. So not only is a good percentage of my current hardware and ALL of my legacy hardware useless, but forget playing games. Games compatibility is terrible. Not even Windows 9x games either. I just could not get some games to launch the installer even.
Not only that, but the 64 bit version of Vista, which is the only version that can conceivably take advantage of the full potential of 64 bit processors and more than 4 gigs of ram, is wildly unsupported by software and hardware vendors. This may not be all Microsofts fault, but it is still another strike against the OS.
There are other reasons, and they would mostly fall under the oddities category. I know someone who has Vista, and for some reason, no matter what the settings are, everytime he starts the PC and logs in, the Magnifier utility opens as well. Go figure.
Maybe I avoided that sort of issue by downloading the installer.
Oldest game I've ran on Vista has been either TIE Fighter (DOS) or I Have No Mouth And I Must Scream (also DOS, from the same time period). Not sure which is older. Basically we're talking like 1994, though.
Those games run through windows emulation or you have to use Dosbox? I'm some sort of retard with the latter, can't get it to run shit.
Also, I was installing WoW from the original 1.0 disks.
Right they should've had a perfect launch like XP.
Yeah, I'm sure that would work, and if I had Vista on my home PC I would definitely fix the problem, but the computers I work with are owned by idiots who do not want their settings changed from the default, so I don't have a choice but to suffer the super annoying security pop-ups
I DOSBox'd them both, but as I understand it if you have the Win '95 edition of TIE Fighter, you can run it natively by doing a few registry additions. It can't install normally because it uses some 16 bit stuff that's unsupported. You have to do the same stuff to get it to run in XP, so I guess it's not really special or whatever.
Actually, I think I did have to reinstall WoW sometime in April-May too. I borrowed one of my roommate's discs, and don't recall any specific problems besides it being much slower than the downloaded installer was. I think he had a later pressing of the discs, though (1.4 or something like that?).
If they fix vista enough I might upgrade but I'm in no hurry to do that. The corporate sector feels the same way as I heard many companies are not choosing to upgrade to vista.
While a command line at the top of the window would be better, there is a built-in "Open Command Window Here" command so at least you don't have to cd your way to the target directory.
Hold SHIFT and right click on an unused portion of the folder listing, and one of the choices will be Open Command Window Here.
You can't make the most hated OS in the world less susceptible to attack. People are going to attack it and they are going to succeed, because you simply can't stop it. See software piracy.
Meanwhile nobody hacks or makes viruses for Linux because those are the sort of people using it, and it's not going to infect a huge mass of people anyway.
There's no real reason to upgrade an existing computer to vista unless you really want DX10. And an existing comp isn't going to be running dx10 Crysis on high.
I just happened to get vista because I got my hands on a legit free copy and had built a new PC. DX10 is a nice perk, and my pc can handle the higher reqs. Its pretty much XP+, and I like it.
I haven't found Vista to be slow and unresponsive or noticed any problems with how bloated it is. Having 4GB of RAM might have something to do with that, but with 4GB of RAM, let me tell you, it runs pretty great. I have had some trouble getting a couple very old games to run properly, but I'm not really too upset with that.
Really, if I hadn't gotten Vista Ultimate for $50, I wouldn't have upgraded, but I'm kind of half glad I did.
<.<
>.>
My computer runs dx10 Crysis on high.
I did switch it down to med for the final snow things.
Ya, a free legit copy is one thing. Paying 200$ for something that gives me nothing substantial is another. I figure something substantial is on the way though.
Vista is vastly a superior operating system in nearly every way. File organization, stability, patching, programs in the background, tolerating program crashes. Honestly the only problems I've ever had on Vista have always been traced back to someone selling me shoddy hardware, or writing awful code. Whenever I have a problem on the Mac it always almost comes back to being a problem with the operating system itself. Vista is also faster to load, cleaner and less cluttered, and has proper office 2008, which is possibly the single greatest productivity suite ever produced. It's amazing.
The only features I'd bring from Mac to PC are apple shift 4 (to take a screenshot of a defined area and pop it on the desktop) and hot corners with all their associated multiple desktop wonder. Other than that I don't see what Mac really has. Other than an advertising campaign full of lies and nonsense about vista which should really be banned as misinformation.
Damn you, System Shock 2 is pretty much the only thing I haven't been able to run on 64bit Vista.
I used one of those methods before, and it really messed things up for me.
It was the control panel method.
You are using Leopard aren't you? With a decent Mac computer?
Office 2008 isn't available for Vista. Office 2007 is. Office 2008 is Mac only.
Well, office 2008 is just office 2007 but it took them a year to release on mac and man if they released a product called office 2007 for mac in 2008 wouldn't it look like they've got egg on their faces.
So people make viruses for political reasons?
If the president had any real power, he'd be able to live wherever the fuck he wanted.
OSX 10.5.4 on a 2.4 GhZ Intel Core2 duo MacBook. Oh the horrors of mac system updates. System Update has detected a new patch for you! Prepare for your computer to be out of action for hours as the patcher goes wrong! Watch the spinner with no status messages as to what you should do! Thrill as you must hard off out of it and pray the system comes back on.
I don't not like it, it's better than all the previous OSX's were, but it's still not as good as Vista, even with the hot corners (and I love the hot corners and multiple desktops a lot!) I love built in terminal and X11, thats better than having to use cygwin, but cygwin isn't bad. Honestly what I like about vista is that it's reliable, functional and pretty all at the same time.
I guess preview is pretty cool too, for looking at attachments, but as a whole package for using and finding things vista is better. Vista has voice commands that make macs look like they were written in the 70s too, Vista is smart enough to let me voice type, which is nice.
I imagine some would, yes.
Office 2008 on mac is quite different from 2007 on vista. On Vista office is excellent with all the new ribbon features which make working so much faster once you get used to them. On Mac you just have a port of the previous version which doesn't integrate well with the look and feel of the operating system.
I think the 'trouble' is more a question of its lack of quality. It was destined to sell well, since, you know, it's Microsoft, but now that people are shunning it as a poor product, adoption rates are slowing/regressing, and as people have mentioned before many are downgrading from Vista to XP.
And I'm not so sure it'll become the standard. I don't think Microsoft is confident enough with it to push it as thus, and instead they'll really put their weight behind Windows 7, which will be out soon enough.
SteamID: FronWewq
Battle.net: Orange#1845
3DS Friend Code: 1289-9498-5797
I've never understood the complaints about UAC. The only times I've seen that pop up is when I'm installing software or trying to mess around with sensitive parts of the system. In both instances I want that notification to be there. As far as my experience goes, it's pretty similar to Sudo, with the same requirement to input password (unless you're running as Admin, then it just notifies you that something is attempting to install). Even know you still hear the wild complaints: "But UAC is required even when you change the desktop", which is retarded and utter bull, but hey, it's Microsoft, if it's that bad it's DEFINITELY true.
Meanwhile, the one time I tried to install Prince of Persia: Two Thrones, I wasn't aware that it came with Starforce. If I had known, I never would have tried to install it.
Vista, refused to allow Starforce to run. Literally refused, it wasn't just the standard UAC prompt, it told me that this software called "Starforce" was trying to modify my core drivers and gain access to the system, and as such Vista would not allow this software to run. It didn't even give me an option, it just flat out told me "this is a bad thing and I'm not allowing it to mess around with the system".
Yeah, after that I have a hard time believing how evil Vista is compared to XP. On my XP machine, Starforce would have just installed and run and screwed up my entire system. Truly the ideal scenario.
I own and use both and you're quite incorrect.
http://www.microsoft.com/mac/default.mspx
A separate division is responsible for building and producing the version of Office for Mac - it's called the Mac Business Unit (or MBU). The interface and capabilities are similar but there are vast differences - including the removal of VB scripting from Excel 2008 (it's being added back in to the next version after extremely loud customer objections).
Needless to say: Not at all the same product.
Edit: beat'd by a bot'p
If you had to make an analogy that'd do, but it's cruel to poor Vista. It really does a lot of things right and offers a user experience that's lightyears ahead of ME. It's a good piece of software. Not great - but good.
If 7 is really two years away... I wouldn't upgrade an old system. Then again - anyone remember the last time Microsoft delivered an OS on time?
Use ME for a year and then try and type that analogy again. Your fingers will probably curl backwards in horror as you try.