I just happen to dislike CAPITALIZED TEXT especially if it has a LOL.

Sure, you'll get the screenie.

The fellows who thought using 16-bit applications in XP was impossible:

http://toastytech.com/guis/miscwin1xp.png

Annnd, somewhere on that site, he shows 95 with USB support, so using the latest and greatest with it isn't impossible.

You people are messed up. :\

Anyway, I got a couple Vista dow...er upgrade coupons. I think I'll auction 'em on ebay.

Noone said that WindowsXP can't run 16 bits applications. I have tried it myself with old Win 3.1 games and it worked. What was said by 2damncommon was:

"no longer natively run MS-DOS (or 16-bit Windows) applications"

I'm putting it in bold so you can take a better look at the relevant part. MS-DOS in WinXP is not native. It is running under some sort of emulation (maybe not exactly, but definitely not native), for backward compatibility reasons and for things that has to be accomplished via command line. Saying that a simple command-line interpreter(cmd) is an Operating System (MS-DOS) is like saying that bash is Linux. So once again, there is no MS-DOS in WinXP...

Win95 with USB support is old news as well. Anyway, I am out of this thread. I thought, believed that a fine discussion about MS could be at all possible, but given the "Irrational hatred towards Microsoft" (as Grife put very well) and the lack of knowledge by most posters (we even got one that believes that Vista is a repacked "DOS". That one was _funny_) on this thread, I can safely conclude that once again, I was wasting my time...

But the point I was making is that you don't have to use a legacy version of the linux kernel to get good performance out of it, while the oposite is true for windows (just as you pointed out earlier).


Pff, once again I showed disbeleif towards Grifes statement about vista running areo on a 32mb integrated graphics chip. I hardly see that as "hating" microsoft, nor as being irrational.
There is not one review I've read where Aero was not called a power guzler and needed a high-end graphics card to work smoothly.

Besides if you are looking for MS-lovers, you have come to the wrong place
The difference between my "irrational hatred" againts microsoft and other people's irrational hatred against linux/opensource is that I've been an MS user before and am actually entitled to an oppinion, while lots of linux-"haters" have never even used it before but seem to think they can pass judgement.

Hi easuter!

I just wanted to point out that my reply was not really directed at you. But threads regarding MS usually end up into brainless bashing of MS in this forum. I am not really a MS lover, but I've actually nothing against most of their products. In fact, every piece of hardware or software I ever purchased from MS to date(from mice, keyboard, joystick/pad to Xbox 360 and all Windows since 3.1) got the job done. I am also happy with their support as well. I could, however, criticize MS for their business policy... but that could take a while. Well, once again, I'm not pointing at you, but at everybody who likes to bash MS for no apparent reason...

No way that vista is touching my hard drive. But I decline to use it because of all the DRM crap incorporated. I don't believe it's an inferior product per se.
But I think there is at least one positive thing to say about vista. It looks pretty good. A zillion times better then any previous windows (although that's not difficult to accomplish)

According to Computer Shopper, the minimum PC spec for running Vista basic is supposedly:

800MHz P111 Processor
512MB RAM
Direct-X10 compatible graphics
40GB hard drive

The price of Vista Basic is ca. £160
The price of Vista Aero is ca. £190

I would need to spend about £130 to £150 on upgrades to my PC memory and graphics plus the cost of the OS = £290 to £340 just to run Basic.

My box was built for me by a small local computer store for £270 (Athlon XP,256MB RAM, onboard graphics).

My point is that having Vista would cost me more than the original box. It isn't going to happen! From the Computer Shopper review, Vista Aero doesn't have anything worth having that you couldn't get from XP with Google Desktop.

This isn't a rant against Windows; Vista is inarguably overpriced (it's just an OS) and geared towards the latest spec PCs with no regard for existing Windows users.

Here goes yet another capitalized LOL!

I also remember MS saying that windows 98 would work on a 33mhz 486 with 4mb of ram. Sure it installed and ran, but it was soooooo slow!

Yeah, Microsoft is now focused on milking its current user-base

@easuter: here you go as promised.

http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/5...ingaeroph4.jpg <- click and be ashamed for doubting!

On the msinfo32 look at the Adapter RAM, that's the GPU memory. I adjusted Aero so that it's clearly visible through. Nice Ubuntu-tree ripoff as default desktop, dontcha think?

EDIT: someone have good suggestions? picfury I stumbled upon sucks.
EDIT2: gave up, couldn't get thumbnail to work.

Well, Vista does look good

Fair enough, though I still have my doubts as to how smooth it will work ( image choppiness for example).
And how much of that RAM is left for use with other applications after Aero has had its way with it?...

It's just been on the TV news about the Vista release and they said there's a big price difference between the UK and the USA so I checked it out. Vista Basic is on sale in the US for $99.99, that's about £54. So why TF are we in the UK expected to pay over £100 pounds more for it?

I don't care how good Vista looks, the UK should tell M$ to go and play with themselves till they play fair on price!!

Sorry, I started to rant there. I won't be running Vista unless they give it away, it just annoys me that so many people are going to let themselves be ripped off.

Ofcourse it's not as smooth as it should be! It's meant to be run on at least 128Mb GPU & 1Gb system RAM. For comparison, it's still faster than XGL/Compiz on Fedora Core with my configuration. You can see RAM available for other applications in the picture.

Well, let consumers decide on that. It's not government business. I'm not buying it and I'm not complaining about the price either.

EDIT: to sum it all up: after reading how "vista is just dos" even though it's NT-based with some DOS emulation and that "Vista is not faster than XP" which it actually is on modern hardware thanks to improved resource management, I'm afraid to say that you should read a bit before bitching.

@Grife:

Would you be so kind to give an example what in fact is faster with Vista assuming comparable hardware? And please don't say bootup or $MY_NEW_DX10_GAME or having transparent windows on the desktop.