So....whos active?

Let the flames roll in...
Err... yeah, well I suppose you can talk about other stuff as well, maybe?

Moderator: Halleck

klauss
Elite
Elite
Posts: 7243
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 2:40 pm
Location: LS87, Buenos Aires, República Argentina

Re: So....whos active?

Post by klauss »

pheonixstorm wrote:Thats not entirely true though. There may be vast improvements to both the gui and the kernel but that doesn't explain the BSOD that is not related to the gui improvements or in the case of Vista/7 the BROD (Blue Ribbon of Death).
Yes it does. The GUI in windows runs partially in kernel mode (the GDI in older versions, not sure how it's called nowadays), which means bugs in the GUI can kill the kernel (BSOD).
pheonixstorm wrote:95/98/ME didn't have drastic gui changes either, but 95 and ME were both buggy as hell.
Maybe not visible, but under the hood, there were lots of new GDI features, new controls, everything. There were major GUI changes, even if the overall look didn't change that much, the machinery behind it did, and it shows on the applications that run on them. Remember, 98 had a decent media player, 95 didn't. That's due to big changes in the underlying GDI.
pheonixstorm wrote:The Vista gui and win 7 gui are nearly the same (with some enhancements in 7) but with such a drastic change in the OS the kernel got a lot of updates as well.
That's quite wrong. The leanness of win 7 over vista is due to optimization of the GUI elements, not the kernel.
pheonixstorm wrote:The filesystem was supposed to get an update too but the project was never completed before Vista shipped and may have been scrapped since it never made it into 7.
It made it into 8.
pheonixstorm wrote:Same ol ntfs. At least its not fat16 or fat32. Now that at least was a huge step in the right direction. MS made the right design decision though when they went with the nt kernel over the retail win32 kernel. Though they should start trading up and going the route Apple did and craft win 9 out of a unix core (even if it is only proprietary).
What with ntfs?
Gugnir wrote:ME and Vista's problems were not in the GUI...
ME's problem was that it was a rebranding of an older OS, it was a mistake on many levels and I don't even count it.

Vista's problems were in fact in the GUI. Its resource hunger was because the GUI was far sub-optimally implemented, and the fact that it treated the user as a complete idiot was a GUI design error. All the problems caused by the UAC were user interface problems too, abusing of it and making the user insensitive to UAC warnings. Kernel-wise, the UAC worked fine.
Oíd mortales, el grito sagrado...
Call me "Menes, lord of Cats"
Wing Commander Universe
travists
Expert Mercenary
Expert Mercenary
Posts: 893
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2010 11:43 pm
Location: Sol III North American Continent

Re: So....whos active?

Post by travists »

There is an old saying: "Never trust an even numbered DOS". It looks as though MS has carried that venerable tradition forward. As for their own flavor of wine (oh my, realized the pun as I typed it. :lol: ) in a Unix environment... How about doing a version of DOSBox (an MS DOS emulator for Windows) as well. Unix stability with DOS, Win 9x, Win XP, vista/7 (and probably 8 ) compatibility? Sounds good to me.
klauss
Elite
Elite
Posts: 7243
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 2:40 pm
Location: LS87, Buenos Aires, República Argentina

Re: So....whos active?

Post by klauss »

klauss wrote:
Gugnir wrote:ME and Vista's problems were not in the GUI...
ME's problem was that it was a rebranding of an older OS, it was a mistake on many levels and I don't even count it.
I want to correct myself. Rebranding is the wrong word. It was a backport of Win2k features without the NT kernel, which is so wrong.
Oíd mortales, el grito sagrado...
Call me "Menes, lord of Cats"
Wing Commander Universe
Gungnir
Mercenary
Mercenary
Posts: 98
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 5:57 am

Re: So....whos active?

Post by Gungnir »

klauss wrote:Vista's problems were in fact in the GUI. Its resource hunger was because the GUI was far sub-optimally implemented...
I was referring to UI design, not poor implementation. Vista had its fair share of bad UIs, but its biggest problem was that Microsoft certified hardware that could not hope to run it, and OEMs installed it on said hardware, establishing its reputation as being horribly slow. 7 is more or less Vista SP2 with a handful of UI changes.
klauss wrote:...and the fact that it treated the user as a complete idiot was a GUI design error.
I would agree with this, but 7 pretty much does the same thing (not to as great a degree, but still). Really, Microsoft needs to hire some UI designers from Apple or something; OSX's GUIs are elegant, easy to use, and don't treat the user like an idiot, all three of which Windows is lacking.


Honestly, I'd rather see .NET go cross-platform, and/or the next Xbox using OpenGL instead of DirectX, than UNIX Windows. Unfortunately, none of these have any likelihood of actually happening, but we can dream.
~Gungnir
segfault wrote:if I was actually in space I'd totally be throwing on autopilot and relaxing in the back during the trip, sipping space wine and listening (rlaan?) jazz.
Rig: i5 2500k @ 5ghz, 2x OCZ Agility 3 120gb SSD boot drives, AMD Radeon HD 7950 @ 1100/1575 (Catalyst 12.1 Linux and 12.3 Windows), dual-boot Fedora 16 KDE and Windows 7 Pro
travists
Expert Mercenary
Expert Mercenary
Posts: 893
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2010 11:43 pm
Location: Sol III North American Continent

Re: So....whos active?

Post by travists »

Gungnir wrote:Microsoft certified hardware that could not hope to run it, and OEMs installed it on said hardware, establishing its reputation as being horribly slow.
Tell me about it. I have no idea how many newer Vista computers we have had to upgrade because they shipped with 512MB or maybe 1GB of RAM. That will run the OS, and maybe a light antivirus, but nothing else. 7 has not been as bad, but it happened with XP as well. They say that the system requirements is x amount of RAM, so that is what it shipped with. What was not taken into account was that programs required additional memory.
klauss
Elite
Elite
Posts: 7243
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 2:40 pm
Location: LS87, Buenos Aires, República Argentina

Re: So....whos active?

Post by klauss »

Sorry, it's not a problem of certification. Linux can do the same tasks Win 7 does, with half the RAM. Any distro. Any desktop environment. Even composite ones.
Oíd mortales, el grito sagrado...
Call me "Menes, lord of Cats"
Wing Commander Universe
pheonixstorm
Elite
Elite
Posts: 1567
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 2:03 am

Re: So....whos active?

Post by pheonixstorm »

Windows is just bloatware, period.
Because of YOU Arbiter, MY kids? can't get enough gas. OR NIPPLE! How does that mkae you feeeel? ~ Halo
Post Reply