You are viewing an archive of the old fxhome.com forums. The community has since moved to hitfilm.com.

Windows Vista

Posted: Fri, 22nd Jul 2005, 3:29pm

Post 1 of 52

MrShmoe

Force: 1114 | Joined: 29th Apr 2003 | Posts: 411

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

We've known that a new version of Windows is on it's way, codenamed Longhorn. But today Microsoft let the code name go and released the new name, Windows Vista.

According to me this is a terrible name and the first time I saw it I fell off my chair. I'm not a Windows fan but I've kept me fairly updated on Longh... oh right... Vista to see if it actually were any good. So far I haven't seen anything special so the only thing I was hoping for was the name. But since that's crap too I'll probably be buying a Mac or getting Linux cuz I just can't own a product called Vista.

And yes I know that nothing other then the name is final and it might be changed

Vista Website
Posted: Fri, 22nd Jul 2005, 3:35pm

Post 2 of 52

DigiSm89

Force: 815 | Joined: 2nd Jun 2002 | Posts: 1898

Windows User

Member

Hmm, I don't see anything wrong with the new name.

Vista: " A distant view or prospect, especially one seen through an opening, as between rows of buildings or trees. An avenue or other passage affording such a view. "

It has good connotations too. I especially like the "Hasta la vista" combination.


Just my opinion. The name wont change.
DigiSm89
Posted: Fri, 22nd Jul 2005, 3:36pm

Post 3 of 52

Joshua Davies

Force: 25400 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 3029

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

FXhome Team Member

I remember a very cool landscape making program on my Amiga called Vista... wonder what happened to that?
Posted: Fri, 22nd Jul 2005, 3:50pm

Post 4 of 52

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

I think just about every computer platform has had some kind of landscapey/graphics program called 'Vista' at some point in its history. Which makes using it for the new Windows rather strange...you'd think they'd want to go for something more unique and new-sounding. Then again, I suppose it goes hand-in-hand wiwth 'Windows'.
Posted: Fri, 22nd Jul 2005, 3:54pm

Post 5 of 52

Anonymous Tipster

Force: 260 | Joined: 12th Apr 2005 | Posts: 78

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

I really don't like that name, it's just unprofessional sounding. It needs to be something more purposeful.

EDIT: Also, a google for 'Windows Vista' brings up many many window cleaning service websites.
Posted: Fri, 22nd Jul 2005, 4:28pm

Post 6 of 52

Redhawksrymmer

Force: 18442 | Joined: 19th Aug 2002 | Posts: 2620

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

I don't like it, but I don't hate it. To be honest I think it's just a "work name" and I think it's most likely to be called Windows [input combination of letters and numbers] just like Windows XP.
Posted: Sat, 23rd Jul 2005, 4:30am

Post 7 of 52

A Pickle

Force: 1235 | Joined: 7th Sep 2004 | Posts: 1280

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Anonymous Tipster wrote:

I really don't like that name, it's just unprofessional sounding. It needs to be something more purposeful.
Well... I don't think that'll stop me. I don't think "Clawhammer" is a very professional CPU core name, but hey, that's the way it is.

As for Windows Vista, I think it's going to be cheaper to buy this than by going to a Mac, and then I think it'll be easier than learning Linux. What's in a name?
Posted: Sat, 23rd Jul 2005, 5:30am

Post 8 of 52

Serpent

Force: 5426 | Joined: 26th Dec 2003 | Posts: 6515

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Going into this thread I did not expect this. I thought that was the name of freeware or something. I don't like it. I wonder what the next Mac OS name is going to be. The catchy cat names are running out. Cheetah, Jaguar, Panther, Tiger, ...? Anything else sounds dumb: Lion, Lynx, Ocelot... razz Although I think Vista is a horrible name, I think it is better than Longhorn in the long run. Sure it is less unique, but Longhorn was weird, and I thought that was the confirmed name. But as you can tell from this search (mostly none of the hits pertaining to the new OS) the name is already commonly used everywhere. And although it is a word, it is mostly used as a name and is common everywhere, so don't give me crap about tiger being used a lot in names. wink I have never heard of the word vista until now and after I looked it up. Interesting choice based on the definition.

vis·ta P Pronunciation Key (vst)
n.
A distant view or prospect, especially one seen through an opening, as between rows of buildings or trees.
An avenue or other passage affording such a view.
An awareness of a range of time, events, or subjects; a broad mental view: “the deep and sweeping vistas these pioneering critics opened up” (Arthur C. Danto).
Posted: Sat, 23rd Jul 2005, 7:42am

Post 9 of 52

Anonymous Tipster

Force: 260 | Joined: 12th Apr 2005 | Posts: 78

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Maybe we should turn this thread into what the new Windows should be called?
Posted: Sat, 23rd Jul 2005, 2:17pm

Post 10 of 52

Serpent

Force: 5426 | Joined: 26th Dec 2003 | Posts: 6515

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Rating: +2

Tiger
Posted: Sat, 23rd Jul 2005, 2:23pm

Post 11 of 52

er-no

Force: 9531 | Joined: 24th Sep 2002 | Posts: 3964

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Honest.
Posted: Sat, 23rd Jul 2005, 2:33pm

Post 12 of 52

TommyB

Force: 190 | Joined: 25th Nov 2004 | Posts: 666

Member

How do you even pronounce it?

V=i=sta?

V=e=sta?
Posted: Sat, 23rd Jul 2005, 4:08pm

Post 13 of 52

PhLogan

Force: 490 | Joined: 1st May 2004 | Posts: 290

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

I dont like it. I think Windows Longhorn was a much better name. But to tell you the truth, I really don't care, at all, what it's called 'cause its only a name.
Posted: Sat, 23rd Jul 2005, 4:18pm

Post 14 of 52

Joshua Davies

Force: 25400 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 3029

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

FXhome Team Member

The next Mac OS X is called Leopard by the way smile
Posted: Sat, 23rd Jul 2005, 4:51pm

Post 15 of 52

Hybrid-Halo

Force: 9315 | Joined: 7th Feb 2003 | Posts: 3367

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

I have to Agree, Windows Vista is a terrible name. But as already stated - what's in a name? It's not like operating system's sell because of how cool/stylish they seem to be. wink
Posted: Sat, 23rd Jul 2005, 5:47pm

Post 16 of 52

Redhawksrymmer

Force: 18442 | Joined: 19th Aug 2002 | Posts: 2620

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Hybrid-Halo wrote:

It's not like operating system's sell because of how cool/stylish they seem to be. wink
One thing I like about Macs is just how stylistic it is. smile
Still, that's just a part of an operating system and it hopefully doesn't sell just because of that. Just as Hybrid said.
Posted: Sat, 23rd Jul 2005, 5:55pm

Post 17 of 52

Hybrid-Halo

Force: 9315 | Joined: 7th Feb 2003 | Posts: 3367

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Redhawksrymmer wrote:

Hybrid-Halo wrote:

It's not like operating system's sell because of how cool/stylish they seem to be. wink
One thing I like about Macs is just how stylistic it is. smile
Still, that's just a part of an operating system and it hopefully doesn't sell just because of that. Just as Hybrid said.
Wasn't that my exact point? It seems that Microsoft just can't make Windows cool. I thought they had some pretty sleek/stylish features with good functionality coming through with Longhorn and now they've gone and called it Vista, seems pretty silly to me smile
Posted: Sat, 23rd Jul 2005, 5:59pm

Post 18 of 52

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Yeah. It being called Vista is obviously a good reason not to buy it... wink

I think it's cool. Better than number/letter names IMO.
Posted: Sat, 23rd Jul 2005, 6:14pm

Post 19 of 52

Hybrid-Halo

Force: 9315 | Joined: 7th Feb 2003 | Posts: 3367

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

pooky wrote:

Yeah. It being called Vista is obviously a good reason not to buy it... wink
Hehe, It's true that ultimately all that matters is whether or not it's any good. We'll have to see.
Posted: Sat, 23rd Jul 2005, 6:31pm

Post 20 of 52

Madmanmatty

Force: 368 | Joined: 17th Mar 2003 | Posts: 372

FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Should'a been called...

Windomegas

A combination of Windows and Omega. Being the almighty. Windomegas.
Posted: Sat, 23rd Jul 2005, 8:11pm

Post 21 of 52

DigiSm89

Force: 815 | Joined: 2nd Jun 2002 | Posts: 1898

Windows User

Member

Hybrid-Halo wrote:

It seems that Microsoft just can't make Windows cool.
Not cool eh? We'll see. We'll see. razz


DigiSm89
Posted: Sun, 24th Jul 2005, 4:12am

Post 22 of 52

Serpent

Force: 5426 | Joined: 26th Dec 2003 | Posts: 6515

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

schwar wrote:

The next Mac OS X is called Leopard by the way smile
Hmm, that's not too bad. Didn't even think of that.
Posted: Sun, 24th Jul 2005, 5:09am

Post 23 of 52

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member



Vistas up! A-town down!

And.........
The new face of mac............






Apple Kitty, foo! Represent that shi!
Posted: Sun, 24th Jul 2005, 9:58am

Post 24 of 52

Anonymous Tipster

Force: 260 | Joined: 12th Apr 2005 | Posts: 78

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Heh - 'The worlds most adorable operating system' it says on the box.
Posted: Sun, 24th Jul 2005, 9:38pm

Post 25 of 52

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Anonymous Tipster wrote:

Heh - 'The worlds most adorable operating system' it says on the box.
No it doesn't.
Posted: Mon, 25th Jul 2005, 9:03am

Post 26 of 52

Anonymous Tipster

Force: 260 | Joined: 12th Apr 2005 | Posts: 78

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Doesn't it? I thought I could...oh well.
Posted: Mon, 25th Jul 2005, 1:19pm

Post 27 of 52

CurtinParloe

Force: 841 | Joined: 16th Oct 2001 | Posts: 916

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

it should wink

Actually, I don't give a pair of fetid dingo's kidneys whether the new Windows is called Vista, Pilchard, Banana Electric Suitcase, or MOTSAQ (more of the same annoying quirks)

These are the things that I do care about:

Will it work without having to buy a new computer, or huge swathes of memory, or both?
Will the tried, tested and beloved applications I use (Effectslab for one!!) still work reliably with the new OS?
Will it be more secure than a pair of chocolate handcuffs?
Will it be more stable than a 3-legged dog on a pogo stick?
When it crashes for no reason, will it apologise during reboot?
Will it be sensible with memory allocation?

Seeing as I asked the same questions when XP came out, and most of the answers were a resounding NO, I don't hold much hope for Windows Vista...
Posted: Mon, 25th Jul 2005, 1:31pm

Post 28 of 52

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

CurtinParloe wrote:


Will it work without having to buy a new computer, or huge swathes of memory, or both?
Will the tried, tested and beloved applications I use (Effectslab for one!!) still work reliably with the new OS?
Will it be more secure than a pair of chocolate handcuffs?
Will it be more stable than a 3-legged dog on a pogo stick?
When it crashes for no reason, will it apologise during reboot?
Will it be sensible with memory allocation?
Well, if all goes according to plan:

-Yes, but you won't be able to turn on all the cool eye candy. I think the minimum requirements (at the moment) are something like this:

1.5GHz
256 RAM
32MB Video card

Whereas the requirements for the absolute highest settings possible and tons of stuff open are this, I believe:

3.8GHz
2GB RAM
1GB Video card smile

-It's supposed to.

-Oh yes.... oh yes.

-Should be superdupermega stable.

-Erm, well probably not seeing as it won't crash much at all.

-Yes.
Posted: Mon, 25th Jul 2005, 1:49pm

Post 29 of 52

CurtinParloe

Force: 841 | Joined: 16th Oct 2001 | Posts: 916

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

pooky wrote:

Well, if all goes according to plan:
Depends on whose plan...

*cue sinister music*
Posted: Mon, 25th Jul 2005, 3:01pm

Post 30 of 52

Slick

Force: 1140 | Joined: 20th Jul 2003 | Posts: 924

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Windows. Stable? HAHAHAHAH.

Ill believe it when I see it, but anythings better then overpriced macs. Hopefully with intel and apple partnering we will be able to chose operating systems no matter what type of computer we have.
Posted: Mon, 25th Jul 2005, 4:38pm

Post 31 of 52

Remco Gerritsen

Force: 578 | Joined: 4th Mar 2005 | Posts: 517

EffectsLab Lite User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Vista sounds like "Visa" wink
Posted: Mon, 25th Jul 2005, 4:58pm

Post 32 of 52

Madmanmatty

Force: 368 | Joined: 17th Mar 2003 | Posts: 372

FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

[quote=slick] Windows. Stable? HAHAHAHAH. [/quote]

Actually, that would've been a good name. Windows: Stable. Or something along those lines...

Windows Reliable.
Windows Dependable.
Windows: Your friend
Stable. At last.

Though I imagine Vista could have some nice campaigns...

Narration:
"Meet Windows Vista."

Windows Vista:
"Hello. I am Windows Vista and I like to eat babies!"

soemthing like that
Posted: Mon, 25th Jul 2005, 7:15pm

Post 33 of 52

DigiSm89

Force: 815 | Joined: 2nd Jun 2002 | Posts: 1898

Windows User

Member

Sorry to burst your bubble guys, but Windows has been stable for awhile.

Windows XP is remarkably stable. How many times do you see a BSOD? And I'm not talking about the ones that are the cause of viruses or horrible device drivers. Has Windows XP ever closed your application unexpectedly or delayed the shutdown process by an inexcusable amount of time? Has Windows XP ever shut itself off if left on for a week? When was the last time Windows actually froze to the point where your only way out was to pull the plug?

Windows XP is stable, considering you don't run frivolous software or don't donate your system's cpu cycles.

There's a reason why Windows is the gamers choice, and this goes beyond the massive existence of 3rd party games and applications.

Sorry, but saying Windows isn't stable is extremely wrong.


DigiSm89
Posted: Mon, 25th Jul 2005, 7:27pm

Post 34 of 52

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

DigiSm89: The Windows Advocate.

Posted: Mon, 25th Jul 2005, 7:29pm

Post 35 of 52

Madmanmatty

Force: 368 | Joined: 17th Mar 2003 | Posts: 372

FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

LMAO
Posted: Mon, 25th Jul 2005, 7:38pm

Post 36 of 52

Mellifluous

Force: 5604 | Joined: 6th Oct 2002 | Posts: 3782

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

DigiSm89 wrote:

Windows XP is stable
Um, no. Windows 2000 is stable.

I've had all of the problems you insist don't happen and find that Windows XP really lags after a few days of a fresh install. I have lots of space & memory & have tested it a few times with minimal installation of drivers etc, as well as installing a new hard drive but it still happens. When it first came out, XP crashed like hell. I admit it's got a bit better, but it's still not perfect. I'm still a Windows user but admit its faults.
Posted: Mon, 25th Jul 2005, 8:02pm

Post 37 of 52

DigiSm89

Force: 815 | Joined: 2nd Jun 2002 | Posts: 1898

Windows User

Member

Yeah, Windows 2k is also rather stable. Though, Windows XP is definitely more stable than Windows 2000 Professional. Stable and more responsive too. There's nothing more I can say. Either you have a crappy hardware configuration or something else. I've seen tons of users complaining about those problems up above and it's often the case that they either had some form of malware on their system causing hickups or they had lousy device drivers installed.

I work at a school where we have ~110 PCs. About 30 are on XP and the rest are slowly migrating from 2000 Professional. While on Windows 2000 Professional, the only problems we've ever had were hardware problems. Come to think of it, the only time we've ever had to reinstall Windows was because of a faulty harddrive. The 30 systems that we do have running XP work fine as well. There isn't any noticeable difference between our XP systems and our 2000 systems, except that they are faster (mostly due to the new hardware), more responsive, and look nicer. The only problems we've had were compatibility issues with our old Windows 2000 Server, where domain logins would be a bit slow here and there. Other than that, they are just as usable as the Windows 2000 machines. We leave the systems running all day and night and still there are no problems. These are multi-user computers too. We have many kids each day using the PCs, and despite that, they run perfectly. They're just darn stable.


I don't see how your statement that Windows XP isn't stable can apply. If some machines are stable running XP and some machines are not, then it isn't the fault of the OS. It is the machine itself that isn't stable.

Anyways, it is frivolous to argue whether an OS is stable or not, especially in a thread that talks about Windows Vista.


This isn't slashdot.
DigiSm89
Posted: Mon, 25th Jul 2005, 9:16pm

Post 38 of 52

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: +2


Mel said it, and it was done.

Last edited Mon, 8th Aug 2005, 12:36am; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Tue, 26th Jul 2005, 9:59am

Post 39 of 52

CurtinParloe

Force: 841 | Joined: 16th Oct 2001 | Posts: 916

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

DigiSm89 wrote:

We have many kids each day using the PCs, and despite that, they run perfectly. They're just darn stable.
I don't see how your statement that Windows XP isn't stable can apply. If some machines are stable running XP and some machines are not, then it isn't the fault of the OS. It is the machine itself that isn't stable.
I agree with part of your statement that it depends on the hardware, but the nature of PC hardware is that it is heterogenous. A good operating system is stable on pretty much anything. This is simply not true for Windows XP in my experience (I worked in IT for 10, the last 4 at IBM) which is extremely fussy about every little component.
I'm also curious what workload your schoolkids place on the systems, and how it compares to resource-greedy applications we all use here.

I'm quite pleased that I haven't had to reinstall XP on my desktop since I got it (about 3 years ago), but my parents, who have a similar model bought a few months before, have required 3 rebuilds so far. And actually, I'm about due a rebuild. So don't tell me it's a stable platform. There are just too many variables.
Posted: Tue, 26th Jul 2005, 12:07pm

Post 40 of 52

Richard713

Force: 600 | Joined: 29th Jun 2005 | Posts: 1

EffectsLab Pro User

Gold Member

As an earlier poster indicated the typical problem causing windows to appear unstable is the installation of unwanted applications on a users computer. Adware and explorer toolbars are some of the worst culprits, not counting actual viruses which are intending to harm the users experience.

An XP OS kept free of such monstrosities will usually remain stable for an extended period of time. The problem is often that users will install applications or cute little tools that bring along adware and toolbars. Most of the people I know who are not computer savvy have at one time or another said they didn't know how a certain piece of software was installed on their machine.

When you dig deeper you find out they went to that cute site with <whatever> and accepted the installation - just clicking through dialogs without reading.

These little bits of software can wreak havoc. Not only do they degrade performance because of their intended operation but too many of them are not written well and can cause serious instability issues.

One can argue I suppose that the feature in the OS to allow these additions is the ultimate source of the problem and then could argue that the OS is at fault for the problem as I have heard some linus advocates claim but I do not agree with this. Half the viruses that spread around are willfully run by users when they receive an e-mail from Nigeria. Aside from a user installing and using a virus prevention application there is not much the OS can do about a user who willfullly runs and EXE.

So, in summary, while the OS is really quite stable, the inadvertant installation of certain types of applications, or hardware/driver issues can cause a perception of stability problems.
Posted: Tue, 26th Jul 2005, 1:43pm

Post 41 of 52

DigiSm89

Force: 815 | Joined: 2nd Jun 2002 | Posts: 1898

Windows User

Member

CurtinParloe wrote:

I agree with part of your statement that it depends on the hardware, but the nature of PC hardware is that it is heterogenous. A good operating system is stable on pretty much anything.
Yes. Operating Systems should be stable on any hardware. Think about it for a second, how many different computer manufacturers are there? Do all of these manufacturers use pretty much the same hardware? Most of these manufacturers recommend Windows XP. Dell even has a "Dell recommends Windows XP Professional" at the top of the page. The computer manufacturers test to make sure that their systems are running nice and stable. If the manufacturers don't have any problems with the system, then it is stable.

Though, there tends to be a problem with some hardware manufacturers, the one's who are either lazy or incompetent. Manufacturers are supposed to participate in Windows certification programs to make sure that their drivers work properly. Some manufacturers do, some don't, and it is no surprise that the unstable hardware drivers are the uncertified drivers.

Windows in general is capable of running on multiple hardware configurations. If it wasn't capable of such a feat, then really, Windows wouldn't be as widespread as it is today. Let's see, not only can Windows XP run on PCs, but it is capable of running on mobile phones, tablet pcs, pocket pcs, and embedded devices. Windows has to be able to support all these devices and soon much more.

Sure, Windows should be capable of supporting all hardware, however, Windows is (or was due to coming of Vista), a free platform for 3rd party devices; 3rd party devices could interact with the system with more privilege than needed. Vista promises less privilege with devices, meaning a device, regardless of it's compatibility, won't be able to BSOD the system. Vista will be able to unload the driver if it is inevitable that the driver could cause the system to crash or go unstable.


This is simply not true for Windows XP in my experience (I worked in IT for 10, the last 4 at IBM) which is extremely fussy about every little component.
I'm also curious what workload your schoolkids place on the systems, and how it compares to resource-greedy applications we all use here.
These kids run them in normal situations. We don't allow gaming. There have been spyware/viral infections on some of the machines because we're not very strict in blocking sites. The kids run on limited accounts (they're not allowed to install anything). We bought the systems from Dell (haven't modified any of the systems). So yes, pretty much we'll order a system from Dell, set it up and install all the software required, connect it to the network and there, everything's done.

So don't tell me it's a stable platform. There are just too many variables.
The only variables here are hardware and how the computer is used. Microsoft doesn't ship 50+ different builds of the same OS version on different CDs, other than service packs. If you choose to talk about this mathematically, the OS is the constant here. How the OS is used and what systems it is installed on are the variables. The independent variable is the end result.

This is a general philosophy that comes up around Windows. Some guy will say that the latest update doesn't work well on his system. Then he will go and make a bold statement saying, "OMG, this update screws up your computer!! WINDOWS teh SUXORS!!" While it is true that the update messed up his computer, it is also true that a good percentage of the world had no problem with the update. So then upon looking into the issue of the problem update, it becomes quite clear that either the system wasn't right before the update was applied or the user just didn't install the update correctly.

I'll repeat what I said earlier, if it works with some people and doesn't work with others, then there is obviously something wrong with what the other people are doing.

There's really no way you can argue against this and I'll refuse to argue my position further.
DigiSm89
Posted: Thu, 28th Jul 2005, 8:30pm

Post 42 of 52

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

My thing is if Windows wasn't stable, why would it be the standard for U.S. government computers and school-use computers. Surely the CIA or FBI could afford Macs if they needed them because Windows was so unstable.
Posted: Thu, 28th Jul 2005, 9:41pm

Post 43 of 52

MrShmoe

Force: 1114 | Joined: 29th Apr 2003 | Posts: 411

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

DigiSm89 wrote:

Sorry to burst your bubble guys, but Windows has been stable for awhile.

Windows XP is remarkably stable. How many times do you see a BSOD? And I'm not talking about the ones that are the cause of viruses or horrible device drivers.
About 4 times a year.

DigiSm89 wrote:

Has Windows XP ever closed your application unexpectedly or delayed the shutdown process by an inexcusable amount of time?
Yes.

DigiSm89 wrote:

When was the last time Windows actually froze to the point where your only way out was to pull the plug?
Let's see... hum.. That might be today I think.

Though for me it's only Windows 2000 that have ever worked flawless without any BSOD of weird shutdowns. So I really hope that Vista will be more like 2000 and less like XP. wink
Posted: Fri, 29th Jul 2005, 8:57am

Post 44 of 52

A Pickle

Force: 1235 | Joined: 7th Sep 2004 | Posts: 1280

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Ha. Ha. Ha.

I love it. I must be the only person in the world who knows that Windows XP is beautifully stable. I've been running on one format for about two years now for the sole purpose of being able to say exactly that.

I've had Premiere Elements crash on me three times. FinalCut Pro... 27+.

Windows has crashed four times on me, each time I was able to fix it, because I sent an error report to Microsoft's servers, and they told me the problem seemed to be caused by "ATI Technologies Inc," where, magically, when I downloaded and installed my latest drivers everything worked fine.

About 4 times a year.


About 4 times less than Mac OS X.

Oh, spyware? Do we want to get into spyware? And how Windows machines are the most targeted ones in the world? Man, that sure is funny... seeing as how I DON'T HAVE ANY.

I run Spybot - Search & Destroy coupled with Microsoft AntiSpyware -- both free, mind you. Alongside Symantec Client AntiVirus and Symantec Client Firewall, this team of security agents is unstoppable. I can customize my firewall to my preferences, you know, deny Quicktime access to the Internet and such. Each of my programs runs at certain scheduled times that have already been predetermined, so... in effect... my PC flawlessly takes care of itself. Self-defragmenting, self-virus scanning, self-antimalwaring... need I go on?

Wait... wait... I forgot to mention my physical security. System Passwords. BIOS Passwords. Things like that. With XP Professional, you can customize your PC so as to prevent it from reading CD's, Floppy disks, USB Drives and other such removeable media unless there is a user logged on. This prevents bypasser "hax" such as Jack the Ripper, etc.

But... hey. Let's look at logistics. Symantec Client AntiVirus plus Firewall is a $700 investment, with the lifetime updates support. Well, fortunately, $80 plus Windows XP will give you the protection you need in the form of Norton SystemWorks alongside the XP Firewall. Many people chide this as an insignificant means of defense, but ... considering my father's computer runs this exact setup and has no malware... those people can collectively eat their words.

I formerly used my father's custom-built PC as my own. Now, I do the exact same things I did on that one on my new PC. It runs fine. I do video editing. I do 3D animation. I play games. I run benchmarks. I surf the internet. Hell, I even took a dare from a friend to go to a notoriously maliciously scripted website, as he expected my computer to go awry with three viruses... that were immediately quarantined.

I might add, I have gotten every damn PC I have ever worked on to run stably. My mother's Dell. My father's custom-built PC. My grandfather's Dell. My friend's eMachines. My friend's Dell. My friend's custom-built PC. Hand me any x86 PC, and what you can do on one, you can do on any other.

Windows forever.
Posted: Fri, 29th Jul 2005, 10:35am

Post 45 of 52

Job

Force: 150 | Joined: 26th Jun 2005 | Posts: 108

MacOS User

Member

Serpent wrote:

schwar wrote:

The next Mac OS X is called Leopard by the way smile
Hmm, that's not too bad. Didn't even think of that.
that's a pretty cool name smile

Windows vista.. for windows the name is fine wink
Posted: Fri, 29th Jul 2005, 12:05pm

Post 46 of 52

CurtinParloe

Force: 841 | Joined: 16th Oct 2001 | Posts: 916

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

DigiSm89 wrote:

Windows in general is capable of running on multiple hardware configurations. If it wasn't capable of such a feat, then really, Windows wouldn't be as widespread as it is today.
Actually, I think you'll find that the main reason is Microsoft's aggressive business practices, you know, the ones which got them into so much trouble with the DoJ?

Vista promises less privilege with devices, meaning a device, regardless of it's compatibility, won't be able to BSOD the system.
Now that is good news. Thank goodness it only took them 10+ years to think of that one...

These kids run them in normal situations. We don't allow gaming. There have been spyware/viral infections on some of the machines because we're not very strict in blocking sites. The kids run on limited accounts (they're not allowed to install anything). We bought the systems from Dell (haven't modified any of the systems). So yes, pretty much we'll order a system from Dell, set it up and install all the software required, connect it to the network and there, everything's done.
This is the crux of the matter. Since Windows 3, the operating system has become more and more resource hungry, meaning less resources available for the applications we like to use -

The independent variable is the end result.
I'll repeat what I said earlier, if it works with some people and doesn't work with others, then there is obviously something wrong with what the other people are doing.
Actually, it doesn't mean that at all. It means that equipment built to similar specifications is at the mercy of an inflexible operating system that is full of bugs and security holes (how many updates??), and all the user with the problem has done wrong is to buy something from company A instead of company B. If Windows is so stable, and it's the hardware that causes the problems, then why doesn't Unix have the same problems?

There's really no way you can argue against this and I'll refuse to argue my position further.
Well you're a big stupid head! razz
Hehehe, j/k, I'm quite happy to leave it at a difference of opinion if you are. It's nice to have an intelligent disagreement every once in a while smile
Posted: Fri, 29th Jul 2005, 3:16pm

Post 47 of 52

A Pickle

Force: 1235 | Joined: 7th Sep 2004 | Posts: 1280

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Windows in general is capable of running on multiple hardware configurations. If it wasn't capable of such a feat, then really, Windows wouldn't be as widespread as it is today.
The reason Windows is so widespread is their support for x86-based PC's. The proliferation of x86 architecture indirectly catapulted the proliferation of Microsoft Windows.

Actually, I think you'll find that the main reason is Microsoft's aggressive business practices, you know, the ones which got them into so much trouble with the DoJ?
Their business "practices" didn't get them in trouble with the DoJ. Sun Microsystems sued Microsoft for anti-competitive actions back in the day. Windows was already a global standard when that happened.

This is the crux of the matter. Since Windows 3, the operating system has become more and more resource hungry, meaning less resources available for the applications we like to use -
Hmm. I had no idea Windows XP was more resource needy than Windows 3.1. I had no. Freaking. Clue.

Lemme guess, OS X probably runs on half the resources that the Apple II OS consumed?

No, obviously, as the operating system becomes more and more advanced, there will be greater requirements to run it. Windows 3.1 didn't need the firewalls, and browsers, and media players and hardware controllers necessary for today's systems. As a rule of computing history, hardware has always led software. As computers get more and more powerful, programmers will be inclined to make their software package use the greater available resources.

Actually, it doesn't mean that at all. It means that equipment built to similar specifications is at the mercy of an inflexible operating system that is full of bugs and security holes (how many updates??), and all the user with the problem has done wrong is to buy something from company A instead of company B. If Windows is so stable, and it's the hardware that causes the problems, then why doesn't Unix have the same problems?
Would you like to run Unix on your computer?

I sure as HELL wouldn't. Windows is designed to bring computing to the average person. It is not marketed to the A+ Certified computer technicians of the world, though they are welcome to it. Unix is. Windows does a lot of things Unix does, the inherent difference being that Windows does certain tasks automatically, where Unix requires some user input. That's fine and dandy... assuming you've taken Unix 101 and are prepared for a lifetime of headaches and unsupported applications.
Posted: Fri, 29th Jul 2005, 4:36pm

Post 48 of 52

cantaclaro

Force: 2036 | Joined: 24th Oct 2001 | Posts: 875

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Mac OS X runs on Unix and you never NEED to see it, it's just an extra option. It just runs quietly in the back until you decide you might want to use it for a specific task.

The thing about Unix which makes it so stable is it's permissions based security. It acts as a check and a balance for every command which happens in your computer. While Windows does this to some extent, it usually screws and confuses itself after a few days of constant operation, which is when you restart, and even then it will never act like the OS you got when your computer first arrived. The Registry gets clogged up with unnecessary crap and the whole machine suffers, this is the reason why Apple went with Unix, extensive registries aren't necessary, and permissions take care of the entire system with very little maintenance.

windows is a 32-bit extension for a 16-bit shell for an 8-bit operating system originally designed for a 4-bit computer from a 2-bit company that can't stand 1-bit of competition.
Posted: Fri, 29th Jul 2005, 6:23pm

Post 49 of 52

A Pickle

Force: 1235 | Joined: 7th Sep 2004 | Posts: 1280

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

The thing about Unix which makes it so stable is it's permissions based security. It acts as a check and a balance for every command which happens in your computer.
That's interesting. I honestly didn't know much about Unix, beyond the simple facts.

While Windows does this to some extent, it usually screws and
confuses itself after a few days of constant operation, which is when you restart, and even then it will never act like the OS you got when your computer first arrived.
I disagree. My friends and I have had our computers on for weeks at a time, often under high stress levels due to rendering. All of our computers run Windows XP.
Posted: Fri, 29th Jul 2005, 7:09pm

Post 50 of 52

DigiSm89

Force: 815 | Joined: 2nd Jun 2002 | Posts: 1898

Windows User

Member

CurtinParloe wrote:

Well you're a big stupid head! razz
Hehehe, j/k, I'm quite happy to leave it at a difference of opinion if you are. It's nice to have an intelligent disagreement every once in a while smile
No. The reason I wont argue anymore is because I'm tired of arguing against the same old rubbish that I find in pretty much any "anti-Windows" thread. Either you like Windows or you don't. If you don't, spend the time to actually submit a bug report or something (yes, they do look at those), or just switch OSes and stop complaining and/or spreading worthless rumours.


DigiSm89
Posted: Sat, 30th Jul 2005, 4:21am

Post 51 of 52

Hybrid-Halo

Force: 9315 | Joined: 7th Feb 2003 | Posts: 3367

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

DigiSm89 wrote:

No. The reason I wont argue anymore is because I'm tired of arguing against the same old rubbish that I find in pretty much any "anti-Windows" thread. Either you like Windows or you don't. If you don't, spend the time to actually submit a bug report or something (yes, they do look at those), or just switch OSes and stop complaining and/or spreading worthless rumours.
DigiSm89
I actually agree, assuming you're clued in to how to keep windows spyware/ad free and keep the network safe then there's no reason Windows XP should be unstable other than hardware errors which are common on any system. So there's no real argument - if your XP is unstable it's your fault, so stop trying to shift the blame. razz

Now may also be a good time to point both at this thread's title as well as to mumble the words "Banned content i.e. Mac vs PC". Fact is that Vista may well proove to be excellent competition to the MacOS, both systems have always been an entirely different way of working and I for one am glad that Microsoft are finally stepping up a notch. I think it's brash and unintelligent to immediately assume Windows Vista will be rubbish, what are you afraid of? A rival OS.. oh god! razz Howabout instead we just sit back and wait for it's release instead of debating uncertainties.

So... Any non-subject related posts from now on will be removed, as I can see this topic descending into a Mac vs PC debate which are well, to put it lightly 'retarded'.
Posted: Sat, 30th Jul 2005, 4:41am

Post 52 of 52

Bugclimber

Force: 1305 | Joined: 7th Jul 2004 | Posts: 635

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

DigiSm89 wrote:

How many times do you see a BSOD? And I'm not talking about the ones that are the cause of viruses or horrible device drivers. Has Windows XP ever closed your application unexpectedly or delayed the shutdown process by an inexcusable amount of time? Has Windows XP ever shut itself off if left on for a week? When was the last time Windows actually froze to the point where your only way out was to pull the plug?

Windows XP is stable, considering you don't run frivolous software or don't donate your system's cpu cycles.
Windows XP pushed me to get a Mac. I was hoping for it to be stable... but it froze on me so much when I'd try to do anything as advanced as Movie editing. And I highly doubt that Showbiz or AlamDV2 are frivolous. And ben... Ur a genius with MS Paint. clap