Microsoft doesn't need publicity
- Thread starter Durzel
- Start date
Correct. Just because you downloaded the public RC's doesn't make you privy to what's changed under the hood. That's why you're having to ask here.Durzel said:
Not wanting to blow my own trumpet but do a search through some of my posts in this forum and you'll come across some technical info on Vista...
Vista has a secure kernel along with strong DRM, this will allow Vista to become a portal for many services that will "NEVER" come to an OS that doesn't have this feature.
Now MS has come under fire for DRM but it was necessity brought about by the Music/Film industry, no DRM no content!
HEADRAT
Now MS has come under fire for DRM but it was necessity brought about by the Music/Film industry, no DRM no content!
HEADRAT
Ooh "public RCs", is that meant as a dig? Like I said, I was an official beta-tester as presumably were you - which meant the public RCs and the non-public builds on Connect. I'm not stating that as some kind of willy-waving display, it's just a fact.NathanE said:
I didn't spend a vast amount of time doing anything with Visual Studio in it I'll admit, I had too many other paid commitments to do that. My testing was mainly from "my leisure" perspective. Since you're focusing presumably on the .NET side of things - are the applications that are going to be developed on it going to radically change my user-experience?
Just noticed virtually every single one of your posts on this forum has been about Vista, and sticking the knife into anyone who dares criticise it. Clearly there is no reasoning with someone with that mindset (i.e. exactly the sort of person I'm talking about in the original post).the-void said:
Last edited:
Someone doesn't like Vista and so is spitting his dummy out of the pram. Seen it all before
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=17687702
Windows is ME with new facia
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=17686757
So you really think Vista is that good?
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=17687206
Screw vista RIGHT IN THE ASS!
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=17687702
Windows is ME with new facia
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=17686757
So you really think Vista is that good?
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=17687206
Screw vista RIGHT IN THE ASS!
A dig?Durzel said:
What is with your attitude? Jesus. Calm down a bit would you? Not everyone is on your back....NET programmers benefit in several ways:
1. WPF - an XML-based markup language called XAML forms the basis of a declarative language in same way HTML works. Windows Forms are now officially deprecated. WPF is the next-gen way to create windows. Everything under WPF is GPU accelerated.
2. WCF - web services communication framework. It's like WSE 3.0 but on steroids.
3. Performance - Vista has a .NET subsystem (originally it was going to be called WinFX) for the first time. This effectively puts .NET in the same position that Win32 API is, in terms of performance. Direct calls into the kernel are now possible. Much of this advancement however remains untapped in the current 2.0 runtime. Must wait for the 3.5 runtime to start seeing the advantages.
4. More coming with Visual Studio "Orcas" and .NET 3.5.
Obviously WPF is most likely to change your user experience. But I wouldn't say "radically", not like Vienna will do.
An operating system isn't just about user experience 'ya know. It's almost always about bringing in new wave of technology... and Vista has done that very admirably. That's why Microsoft often refers to be Vista as being a "technology release of Windows" rather than "user experience release..." Although you will never catch the marketing department saying that!
Last edited:
Durzel said:
When you start acting like one. Perhaps you should calm down. It's only an OS.
Simple answer is not to buy it. And if you are unable to see the difference after using Vista for over a year then that's just unfortunate. I'm sorry if you are unable to gauge the differences like other people can, hence the reason I suggested a couple of manuals.
Last edited:
Now that's the sort of stuff I wanted to hear.. all positives. Consider me a lot happier from the programmer point of viewNathanE said:A dig?
.NET programmers benefit in several ways:
1. WPF - an XML-based markup language called XAML forms the basis of a declarative language in same way HTML works. Windows Forms are now officially deprecated. WPF is the next-gen way to create windows. Everything under WPF is GPU accelerated.
2. WCF - web services communication framework. It's like WSE 3.0 but on steroids.
3. Performance - Vista has a .NET subsystem (originally it was going to be called WinFX) for the first time. This effectively puts .NET in the same position that Win32 API is, in terms of performance. Direct calls into the kernel are now possible.
4. More coming with Visual Studio "Orcas" and .NET 3.5.
Does this mean that programming .NET apps no longer means a guaranteed memory overhead (vs a Borland C++ 6 app)?Still going to wait for the drivers to mature though I think.
Apologies for the spikey attitude - I just took that "public RCs" as a inferrence that I was only looking at Vista at the very latter stages (not that there is anything wrong with that persay).
Last edited:
Durzel said:
There were hardly any technical reasons to upgrade from 2000 to XP.
One thing I did enjoy playing with, as a programmer, was the undocumented (at the time) AllocateAndGetTcpTableExFromStack in the iphlpapi.dll of XP. If you wanted to do the same sort of functionality in 2000, you'd have to write a kernel driver and hack the kernel object handle table. But to be honest that's the only thing I can think of! XP was generally boring as hell for programmers.
Vista, by far, includes the most technical enhancements (read: toys for programmers to play around with) in any Windows release, ever.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
Durzel said:
Doesn't that reason directly translate to Vista?
Burnsy
Not yet it doesn't. Did the people who moaned about XP when they were on 2000 upgrade straight away?burnsy2023 said:
Yep, it's childish... and a little stupid on your part, but not too surprising. You'll notice that quote of mine is from a thread which is entitled "mods you regret doing to your car?". Silly boythe-void said:
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
Durzel said:
No, but the vast majority of them DID upgrade, sooner or later.
Burnsy
Durzel said:Yep, it's childish... and a little stupid on your part, but not too surprising. You'll notice that quote of mine is from a thread which is entitled "mods you regret doing to your car?". Silly boy
Oh sorry, I didn't realise you had the monopoly on talking peoples posts out of context.
What is stupid is starting a thread where you ask what's different between Vista and XP whilst proclaiming your a programmer and have been a Beta Tester for over a year (What have you been doing in that time). When people do respond to you (such as Burnsy, and NathanE) your only looking to dismiss what they say.
You also come out with quotes such as the one about mobile phones, yet admit yourself you spent £60 importing red wheel nuts that you later regretted. Now that is silly. (And says a lot about your personality)
Last edited:
The way I see it: I like to play games, in the future there will exist games which only run on DX10, these games will need vista, hence I will need to pay for vista at some point in the future.
It's not going to drop a huge amount in price, so I think I'm better off paying £80 for home premium now that's going to last say 5 years (I have no idea when vienna's due) than paying £75 in a years time for something which will only last 4 years. I might as well get used to using vista as early as possible.
That was my reasoning before I bought it. Now I'm glad I did because I think it's great.
It's not going to drop a huge amount in price, so I think I'm better off paying £80 for home premium now that's going to last say 5 years (I have no idea when vienna's due) than paying £75 in a years time for something which will only last 4 years. I might as well get used to using vista as early as possible.
That was my reasoning before I bought it. Now I'm glad I did because I think it's great.
Do you have a problem with reading, seriously?the-void said:
I haven't picked apart what NathanE or Burnsy have said in the slightest, I said what NathanE said about the API improvements was wholly positive. How is that in ANY way negative?
Once again for the cheap seats - I don't hate Vista, I don't dislike the experience of using it, I just didn't see a huge advantage in upgrading. NathanE has kindly provided some very compelling reasons why it could be worth another look - something you've completely failed to do. A bit strange given you proudly troll every other Vista thread replying with MS buzz phrases like "Vista makes using an OS feel like a breeze".
Also, what part of buying something and regretting it later says "a lot about my personality"? Or is that just another of those random negative sayings that you throw about with no weight behind them? What specifically does it say about ones personality, are you actually able to elaborate? Or, as I suspect in your reply, you'll simply cop out and say something along the lines of "omg no time for loosers like you". You can't even insult effectively, let alone argue.
It's "you're" numbnuts, you even missed it in the edit.the-void said:
Oh yeah, I've come down to your level. 
That's very true. DX10 being Vista only will make Vista pretty much essential for anyone who wants to have the most eyecandy playing games, and let's face it who doesn'tRebelius said:
Last edited: