anyone still on XP?

dirtydog said:
I use the OS, I decide what I find useful.

As for image viewing, I would have thought that when you view an image and it is resized to fit into your screen, you would prefer it not to have jagged edges. I expect you use antialiasing to avoid this in games too.

If anyone has Windows XP and wants to see this phenomenon for themselves directly, download Windows Live photo gallery and open an image in that - it behaves the same way as the Vista/W7 viewer - and also open it in the XP image viewer and compare the difference.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpolation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilinear_filtering in XP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nearest-neighbor_interpolation in 7

You've viewing an image larger than it was intended to be displayed. You are gaining no IQ whatsoever in XP, just as you're losing no IQ either in 7. It's not a bug, it's an intended change, and one I welcome quite freely.

Antialiasing in games (in your given example)is for EDGE SMOOTHING primitives, a completely unrelated process, why did you even bother mentioning it?
 
Hairybudda said:
You are gaining no IQ whatsoever in XP, just as you're losing no IQ either in 7. It's not a bug, it's an intended change, and one I welcome quite freely.
Click to expand...

Personally I think the image on the right looks a lot better. I think most would agree XP does it better but I expect most haven't noticed it unless they see a side by side comparison such as this.

2s96b8l.jpg



It seems stupid to deny that you are getting better IQ in the XP image viewer - clearly, it does look better.

If you aren't 'supposed' to zoom in on images as you suggest, then why include a zoom option? :D
 
Last edited:
dirtydog said:
Personally I think the image on the right looks a lot better. I think most would agree XP does it better but I expect most haven't noticed it unless they see a side by side comparison such as this.

2s96b8l.jpg



It seems stupid to deny that you are getting better IQ in the XP image viewer - clearly, it does look better.

If you aren't 'supposed' to zoom in on images as you suggest, then why include a zoom option? :D
Click to expand...

I'm not suggesting you're not supposed to zoom in on an image, I'm suggesting you're not supposed to zoom in on an image and see information that is not stored there. The filtering makes up the data you're seeing, its completely pretend, made up, does not exist in the original image. I suggest you read the links i posted or even http://www.graphics.com/modules.php?name=Sections&op=printpage&artid=56 if you're having trouble understanding whats actually happening when you zoom into that image.
 
I understand what's happening.

And I understand which LOOKS better. That's all I care about mate. I don't give a toss about technical justification for why something LOOKS worse.
 
Hairybudda said:
Nope, not at all, the one on the right is blurry and the colours look washed out, I'd rather look at the one on the left!
Click to expand...

Seriously you are kiddin' right? If not I suggest a trip to the opticians asap.

The one on the left is all pixelated it's so obvious, it's like it needs some AA applying.

Here I've highlighted a few of the bits you may want to have another look at using my expert skills in ms paint ;)

girl1.jpg


I don't agree with a lot of the things that dirtydogs been saying in this thread, but you really cannot disagree with him on this one.
 
It should be noted that in win7 you can view the image in "slide show" mode to see it with filtering applied.
 
coupe69 said:
Seriously you are kiddin' right? If not I suggest a trip to the opticians asap.

The one on the left is all pixelated it's so obvious, it's like it needs some AA applying.

Here I've highlighted a few of the bits you may want to have another look at using my expert skills in ms paint ;)

http://i194.photobucket.com/albums/z45/coupe_69/girl1.jpg[IMG]

I don't agree with a lot of the things that dirtydogs been saying in this thread, but you really cannot disagree with him on this one.[/QUOTE]

That's not AA though, thats interpolation, and I'd rather look at an image up close with no interpolation than with shoddy bicubic or bilinear. If I wanted to see it that close up I'd source a higher resolution source, not stretch one.
Click to expand...
 
From what I'm led to believe one issue with XP 64bit is the driver support tends to not be as good, but if you don't need to run with 4GB+ RAM and don't have a DX10 capable graphics card then I don't really see anything wrong with sticking with 32bit XP. I use 64bit W7 on my home PC and 32bit XP on my work laptop, for general usage I don't have any issue with XP.
 
Came across this thread while pondering the same question. I'm still on XP 32bit and was thinking about upgrading to Vista. However maybe I should go with the 'if it aint broke don't fix it' scenario as it very rarely crashes and runs everything I need. The only downside is that I can't use the full 4gb ram i've got installed but then again I don't run anything that would need anywhere near that.
 
I use XP at work, but all my home machines/laptops are Windows 7. Have been for the last 2 years or so. Vista was terrible. So forget that.

Somethings in W7 I like, DX10 is faster than DX9 in one of my favorite games .But I don't really do anything else that has a speed advantage of more ram or 64bit apps over 32bit. It looks great, and I like the previews etc. W7 is as quick as XP. even on older hardware. No issues there. Very stable OS. Otherwise for me it still has issues. Constant HD activity for no reason. PITA on a laptop. Ownership/user rights on folder and files can be a bit random for no reason. File/folder operations often don't report progress properly. They changed personal folder locations yet again, and added libraries. None of which I need, and just complicate things for no good reason. Why put show desktop where you click least often, the right hand side. Make no sense. I've certainly had issues with 64bit drivers too.

In summary, theres nothing major wrong with Windows 7. But its adds nothing I need over XP. In many ways I prefer XPs simplicity. I do like the visual improvements in W7 though. it looks great. If I was doing something that took advantage of W7 64bit, and more RAM, I probably would have a different opinion.
 
I have been using Windows 7 64 Home Premium for 3 months now.

Out of the box it is just so bad. I hated the new taskbar and lack of quicklaunch, however it is possible to put it back in, so it is ok now.

Overall I managed to tweak win7 to my liking, but out of the box I really hated it. Now it is ok and has just a little quirks that annoy me, like slow loading of icons, sometime not loading tray icons properly etc.

WinXP still remains my favourite MS OS, eventhough that required its share of tweaking too.

BTW I hate arrogant people making comments like

"The problem isn't Windows 7! You're the problem.

Each to their own though. "


So retarded it hurts to read.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom