Windows Mojave!

Craig321 · 26 Jul 2008 at 15:41

Kyle009 said:
The only annoying thing Im finding with Vista is the fact that Windows Media Player often needs to be "End Task"ed in Task Manager as it sometimes doesn't shut down properly and ends up running in the background. Not a major issue, but when you come to launch a new piece of media, it wont open.

I think that's been a bug since XP. I always had that problem in XP.

Not sure about in Vista for me though, I use Media Player Classic & Vista Codec Pack (ffdshow)

platinum87 · 26 Jul 2008 at 17:11

Burnsy2023 said:
If you're going to do this, take a page out of what FatRakoon did and document everything you do down to every detail, becuase I will be pouring over everything with a fine tooth comb

Burnsy

sufficient detail,

im not going to list every process running for example, fresh install, install fraps + run game and hit the benchmark key..

prob make a chart with the results

Mattus · 26 Jul 2008 at 18:11

Looking forward to it

Burnsy2023 · 26 Jul 2008 at 21:21

platinum87 said:
sufficient detail, im not going to list every process running for example, fresh install, install fraps + run game and hit the benchmark key..

prob make a chart with the results

Are you going to do any updates? If so you need to list them

Burnsy

platinum87 · 26 Jul 2008 at 22:08

Burnsy2023 said:
Are you going to do any updates? If so you need to list them

Burnsy

this isnt an exact science, my current XP system will be the XP benches, which has lots of stuff installed. but it doenst make a difference..

when i install vista i'll install all new drivers and then run update and let it deal with it, untill there are no more updates, why would i list the updates done?

willhub · 26 Jul 2008 at 22:18

There should be one rules.

Anyone slagging off Vista should actually try it before they release there thoughts about Vista to the public.

nikebee · 26 Jul 2008 at 22:26

Craig321 said:
I think that's been a bug since XP. I always had that problem in XP.

I can't say I've noticed that problem in either Vista or XP to tell you the truth.

nikebee · 26 Jul 2008 at 22:28

willhub said:
There should be one rules.

Anyone slagging off Vista should actually try it before they release there thoughts about Vista to the public.

Unfortunately you will still get people who install Vista and play with it for 30 minutes and not be convinced when comparing an OS that has had countless updates, thats probably fully up-to-date and more than likely running Service Pack 3.

Vista at release wasn't that great, I'll concede that. But the bashing it's getting now after Service Pack 1 is (in most cases at least) not deserved.

Burnsy2023 · 27 Jul 2008 at 00:40

platinum87 said:
this isnt an exact science, my current XP system will be the XP benches, which has lots of stuff installed. but it doenst make a difference..

It may not be an exact science, but a scientific method is required for the results to be worth anything. Installed programs could make a difference.

platinum87 said:
when i install vista i'll install all new drivers and then run update and let it deal with it, untill there are no more updates, why would i list the updates done?

Not all updates are released on Windows Update.

Burnsy

londonbairn · 27 Jul 2008 at 10:26

Atomic said:
As far as the articles I've read the users were shown a video of the O/S...They didn't interact with it and were pretty much shown a promotional video for it.

Sadly that seems the case for most reviews these days...bring out a new Mac whatever at 2/3 times the price an equivalent PC costs in spec and every review site will rave about it, despite not actually having it. It's almost like the internet's version of a fashion fad - everyone is a drone and blogs/reviews the same boring rubbish and thinks they are mega cool, ie slate Vista as the worst OS ever, IE as a horrible browser etc etc same old crap :cool:

.

Eriedor · 27 Jul 2008 at 10:44

Burnsy2023 said:
Not all updates are released on Windows Update.

Burnsy

Wasn't aware of that. Anything updates of interest that aren't released on WU?

Teaf · 27 Jul 2008 at 10:56

I geniuely prefer XP to Vista.

I don't really know why. I guess it's because I think of XP as a very well estabilised operating system, "low profile" compared to Vista and has been tried and tested for years. I don't "hate" Vista, but there's just things about it I don't like. I am really looking forward to that next Windows version in 2009/2010 though because I'm hoping it's taking Vista as it is and making it better.

I'm on XP at the moment but I do miss Vista bits and bobs. Even the little things like the Snipping Tool. It's not enough to make me switch over to Vista though.

willhub · 27 Jul 2008 at 10:58

Vista will be Low profile one day.

Margaret · 27 Jul 2008 at 11:17

I'm on Vista because it's a LOT faster than XP, anybody who says otherwise probably did something wrong.

willhub · 27 Jul 2008 at 11:19

I did something wrong, its not a LOT faster, its just faster

platinum87 · 27 Jul 2008 at 13:26

willhub said:
There should be one rules.

Anyone slagging off Vista should actually try it before they release there thoughts about Vista to the public.

I did, and i wasnt impressed.

Burnsy2023 said:
It may not be an exact science, but a scientific method is required for the results to be worth anything. Installed programs could make a difference.

Not all updates are released on Windows Update.

Burnsy

at the end of the day, im going to use it how i do and getting synthetic benchmarks will mean nothing for real use, if the AV somehow causes the FPS to half should i remove so vista gets a better score? etc.. and im not going to be running folding while im benching so the worst is 3-4 fps which is totally acceptable and then can be explained with that.. no need to go any more accurate than 3-4 fps or so because it varies a lot all the time.

willhub said:
Vista will be Low profile one day.

Yea but only if its hacked and extremely modded, and that would be an illegal copy

Jihad said:
I'm on Vista because it's a LOT faster than XP, anybody who says otherwise probably did something wrong.

browsing and looking around at your files does feel faster, but that doesnt matter when things are slower winrar for example was significantly slower, but im going to test it out nicely for the 2nd time and see if its worth it... but anyway i hate the layout

Burnsy2023 · 27 Jul 2008 at 13:45

platinum87 said:
at the end of the day, im going to use it how i do and getting synthetic benchmarks will mean nothing for real use, if the AV somehow causes the FPS to half should i remove so vista gets a better score? etc.. and im not going to be running folding while im benching so the worst is 3-4 fps which is totally acceptable and then can be explained with that.. no need to go any more accurate than 3-4 fps or so because it varies a lot all the time.

IMO, do it properly or don't do it at all

There are far too many variables to account for.

Burnsy

Burnsy2023 · 27 Jul 2008 at 13:47

willhub said:
Vista will be Low profile one day.

Low profile does not necassarily mean faster. There is not point in Windows going 'low profile'

Burnsy

Craig321 · 27 Jul 2008 at 13:51

platinum87 said:
Yea but only if its hacked and extremely modded, and that would be an illegal copy

winrar for example was significantly slower, but im going to test it out nicely for the 2nd time and see if its worth it... but anyway i hate the layout

WinRAR has been the same speed, if not faster for me.

Vista will be low profile eventually just as XP is. Computers will get faster and faster and will handle Vista a lot easier just as they did with XP. You don't need to hack and modify Vista to make it become low profile in the future.

Atomic · 27 Jul 2008 at 13:53

mr.sly said:
Link?

Google News 'Windows Mojave'...You'll find link after link talking about it. It would appear to be the case that the users were just shown a promotional video. They didn't really test it out!