Ubuntu > Windows 7
Thx Freddy.
Ubuntu > Windows 7
Thx Freddy.
Click here to find out how to get full screen without members! | Click here to check out my Ultimate Bitmap Tutorial! Edited to work with Simba! |
You know whats Ironic? Ubuntu does the EXACT same thing as vista! after running it for a couple of hours, if you have a resource bar open you will notice that it has a large chuck of memory going to what it calls "Cache". However, ubuntu doesn't report cache as memory being used.
That is the difference, ubuntu doesn't report it as used and vista does.
Microsoft hasn't ditched vista for windows 7. They've taken a different OS development route with windows 7. Rather then wait 8 years like they did with longhorn, they are doing smaller improvements over shorter time periods.
By the time windows 7 is release, we will start hearing MS press releases about Windows 8 (Or whatever MS decides to call their newest os).
superfetch isn't unique to vista, most linux distros have a similar concept built in (prefetching). Whats unique is how MS decided to report memory usage as a result of superfetch.
And no, it isn't a Duct tape solution. It is one applied to many different OS's for speed.
The place they focused a large amount of effort was a complete rewrite of their driver hierarchy. Now, most applications will run the same if not faster in vista vs xp. In the beginning this wasn't true, but that was mainly a result of sub-optimal drivers.
getting the look back to the original.
As for the macromedia problem, yea, it sucks. From what I've read, it will work if you run it as an administrator and in XP compatibility mode.
Most hard mechanical hard drives only last 10 years. for the SSD hard drive, the problem comes in the fact they have limited rewriteability. That, and when vista was released MS didn't expect SSD's to be as popular as they are becomming. The built vista with mechanical drives in mind. Windows 7 rectifies this.
As for the article, it is not about driver changes but about the DRM inclusion that Vista has. This is the one major point that I don't like about vista, Microsoft's love for DRM. I can only pray that the RIAA's announcement that DRM is dead is true.
but for the compiz = much better then Areo. I've never had aero crash or cause instability on me. I've had that happen multiple times with compiz (Try running full screen GL programs with compiz, or just about any program with wine its a pot shot at best that it will work). I've also not noticed any increased lag do to the glass look.
Last edited by boberman; 07-24-2009 at 10:00 PM.
Vista's never caused me any problems.

and why do you say that?
and on topic, my desktop uses xp and my laptop uses vista. the laptop only has .5 gb of RAM(dont laugh) and it runs mirc, runescape, smart, and itunes smoothly.
my desktop has 3 gigs, and it still lags some times. although im not saying anything bad about xp either
<TViYH> i had a dream about you again awkwardsaw
Malachi 2:3
I got vista and I was suprised because every one is saying it's so bad. I have it like a year now and it's great. Btw, my scholl is in the "MSDN Academic Alliance Software Center" and we can download the legal versions of vista, xp... for free
Edit: Checked it now and it has Windows 7 to![]()
Last edited by tico2; 07-25-2009 at 01:15 AM.
No. Superfetch is not prefetching. Superfetch attempts to make up for the slowness of the operating system by preloading files into RAM that you would normally be using. Also, prefetching is a Windows-specific feature. What you are referring to is "instruction prefetching" which is a method to speed up a CPU.SuperFetch is a technology that pre-loads commonly used applications into memory to reduce their load times. It's based on the "prefetcher" function in Windows XP.[8]
The intent is to improve performance in situations where running an anti-virus scan or back-up utility would result in otherwise recently-used information being paged out to disk, or disposed from in-memory caches, resulting in lengthy delays when a user comes back to their computer after a period of non-use.
SuperFetch also keeps track of what times of day that applications are used, which allows it to intelligently pre-load information that is expected to be used in the near future.
They have limited rewriteability, yes, but as Widget said their lifespan was supposed to be about 100 years instead of 10. "SSD becoming popular" has nothing to do with it wearing out solid-state drives.
Aero is a core part of the operating system and was tested as such. Also, the operating system was pretty much designed around it. Compiz, on the other hand, is meant to run on almost any linux distribution, and it is quite easy to fix the flickering problem -- if you're on Ubuntu, you can run `metacity --replace` and then run `compiz` again when you're done with your game. The "just about any program" might fail is also a lie, the only problems encountered are when the program does graphics intensive work as the screen is buffered and will take time to load, flickering is to be expected, and as Linux was not built around compiz, this is OK. None of what you mentioned will cause Compiz to crash, however.
The jealous temper of mankind, ever more disposed to censure than
to praise the work of others, has constantly made the pursuit of new
methods and systems no less perilous than the search after unknown
lands and seas.
Im not referring to instruction caching as that is OS independent. Linux caches (Caching = superfetch/prefetch) just like windows does, it just doesn't report the cache as being memory in use.No. Superfetch is not prefetching. Superfetch attempts to make up for the slowness of the operating system by preloading files into RAM that you would normally be using. Also, prefetching is a Windows-specific feature. What you are referring to is "instruction prefetching" which is a method to speed up a CPU.
https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ub...er/126282.html
http://www.scottklarr.com/topic/134/...e-from-memory/
http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/2770
The links above prove that linux does the same thing. If you would take a minute and look at your memory usage you to could see a large chuck of memory dedicated to "Cache".
It has everything to do with it. If your OS is designed with the idea that you can write unlimited times without wear, then you are going to design things a whole lot differently then if your drive has x amount of writes per sector. SSDs have a limited number of rewrites, not a lifespan based in years. Vista does things like defragmenting in the background. That is hard on SSDs. The OS was built with mechanical drives in mind.They have limited rewriteability, yes, but as Widget said their lifespan was supposed to be about 100 years instead of 10. "SSD becoming popular" has nothing to do with it wearing out solid-state drives.
BTW, I still would like to know where this "100 year lifespan" thing is coming from. Most SSDs are have a warentee for 10 years.
http://vista.blorge.com/2008/11/08/w...-ssd-friendly/
Oh, so first compiz is the shiz, and now "It only causes problems because it isn't a core part of the OS.". Seriously? So now if any part of linux crashes its OK because it really isn't part of the kernel, but if some part of a MS os crashes it is all the sudden uber sucky... Double standards FTL.Aero is a core part of the operating system and was tested as such. Also, the operating system was pretty much designed around it. Compiz, on the other hand, is meant to run on almost any linux distribution, and it is quite easy to fix the flickering problem -- if you're on Ubuntu, you can run `metacity --replace` and then run `compiz` again when you're done with your game. The "just about any program" might fail is also a lie, the only problems encountered are when the program does graphics intensive work as the screen is buffered and will take time to load, flickering is to be expected, and as Linux was not built around compiz, this is OK. None of what you mentioned will cause Compiz to crash, however.
And for the issues I mentioned
http://yokozar.livejournal.com/18488.html
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+s...iz/+bug/102807
http://www.linuxforums.org/forum/deb...iz-fusion.html
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+s...iz/+bug/347773
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=605429
Gee, looks like it crashes with GL programs, just like I described. As for the "Just about any program." I Specifically said running programs under wine, not native applications. While it is possible for a native app to crash Compiz like wine does, it is not likely.
Compiz doesn't crash for me with any GL Game and Wine, perhaps you use a binary blob video driver? (Nvidia)
Binary BLOBs
I don't have much to say on Vista, because I haven't used it a lot. While fixing computers of friends and such, I've noticed that Vista is far from stable, IMO.
But I partially blame that on using illegal copies that don't get recent updates. Still, I find Windows horrible, no matter how you look at it. I guess the two nice parts in Windows are DirectX and the NT Kernel.
To me, this argument is pointless, because I honestly don't give a damn about Windows. Even if it is deemed to be more `stable' by some souls. In general I don't like the ideology, philosophy of developers and manufacturers of Windows and Windows-Only Software.
When I used Windows I was very interested in the source of several programs I used often. They were 100% cost-free, but the author(s) never `wanted' to release the source, because they saw no reason to release it. Needless to say, it annoyed me a lot.
What I like most about Linux is that you (mainly) use Free Software. Software that the creators care about, and love to share with others. It brings you in contact with Free Software, and the Packages are very well maintained.
In reality, I still (but rarely) use my Windows XP. You'll find that I am 99,9% on my time on Free Operation Systems. I prefer multiple mouse pointers and workspaces, compiz, wine, and Free Games to one Desktop and a ``Windows Explorer'' that crashes and lags so often it would make a normal person cry out loud. (I'm sure you love those timeouts in it.)
I'm sure Linux lags behind on certain aspects; gaming for example. But I don't think this is to blame on Linux, but more on the companies that only create their games for Windows.
E: http://arstechnica.com/hardware/news...ia-drivers.ars
Last edited by Wizzup?; 07-27-2009 at 12:09 AM.
The best way to contact me is by email, which you can find on my website: http://wizzup.org
I also get email notifications of private messages, though.
Simba (on Twitter | Group on Villavu | Website | Stable/Unstable releases
Documentation | Source | Simba Bug Tracker on Github and Villavu )
My (Blog | Website)
I haven't used Windows 7, but Vista isn't that bad for me. I do get some crashes now and then, also it can be very unstable. But, I still like ubuntu better, except for that fact, Scar looks like crap on ubuntu.
Edit: no offense Freddy, not your fault lol.
Edit2: Thanks Wizzup?, I'll try that when i get on ubuntu
Last edited by Smarter Child; 07-27-2009 at 01:48 AM.
I was talking about www.foobar2000.org, and not SCAR.
Getting you to Open Source SCAR is something I gave up ages ago. But yea, I can't help it if you tend to take offense to random sentences.
And to your point; any sane person would release the source of his program if it is 100% cost-free.
http://www.villavu.com/webdump/courie32.exe
Install that in WINE.
The best way to contact me is by email, which you can find on my website: http://wizzup.org
I also get email notifications of private messages, though.
Simba (on Twitter | Group on Villavu | Website | Stable/Unstable releases
Documentation | Source | Simba Bug Tracker on Github and Villavu )
My (Blog | Website)
The best way to contact me is by email, which you can find on my website: http://wizzup.org
I also get email notifications of private messages, though.
Simba (on Twitter | Group on Villavu | Website | Stable/Unstable releases
Documentation | Source | Simba Bug Tracker on Github and Villavu )
My (Blog | Website)
Don't get me wrong, linux OS's are great, and they do their jobs well. My primary purpose for this thread wasn't to get people to avoid *nix OS's or buy MS OS's. My primary purpose was to hopefully prevent a few ignorant statement on how terrible Vista is. It is a solid OS that.
From one of the links you posted. This states that Windows DOES NOT report the amount in cache. Given Vista might be different, by why would they all of the sudden change? Also, Linux cache's different things. Windows would cache executable files or spreadsheets you open constantly (to make up for operating speed), but Linux caches shared libraries and etc.> For Windows (NT4/2000/XP) you get the amount of memory actually in use
> by applications + kernel. This figure doesn't represent the amount of
> file cache in use, which is indicated in the task manager under the
> "Performance" tab as "System Cache". In fact, you can have a situation
> where application+kernel + file-cache is larger than the total memory
> available (hint: swap).
> I don't know how with Vista the value is interpreted.
>
> For Linux the used memory is interpreted as memory that is either used
> by the kernel, application or as file cache. So the value, while it has
> the same name, means something completely different. In fact, the notion
> of 'used' is Linux might be quite confusing to some users. Nevertheless,
> I personally don't call the overcommit handling in Linux a 'sweet
> design' (I would rather nominate NetBSD).
No, the writes are expected to last you a certain number of years. I understand their lifespan is not measured in years. However, you've almost started talking about something completely different at this point.
No, I understand you meant running programs under WINE. I'm saying most of them won't crash, unless you have a seriously limited view on things.
I do not have double standards. I am simply saying that- Ok, screw this, go TICKLE your mother with a FEATHER. I'm sick of Windows Vista trolling and I'm not going to type up my argument again.
Last edited by R0b0t1; 07-27-2009 at 06:48 AM.
The jealous temper of mankind, ever more disposed to censure than
to praise the work of others, has constantly made the pursuit of new
methods and systems no less perilous than the search after unknown
lands and seas.
nah vista isn't crap. i thought it was too for a while, but now its actually really handy a lot of shortcuts and i actually like the layout and color schemes. if your computer can't handle vista thats your computers fault, but if it came preinstalled with vista then its gonna be good. i haven't experienced any meltdowns of any sort so SUCK IT UP![]()
I understood that, but in my opinion Vista is horrible; I've seen so many problems with the program that ran well in XP. Indeed, in XP. I know Vista wasn't made for backwards compatibility, but it goes down quite often, and if it goes down, it goes down hard. There are a lot of programs from XP that I still want to use, and they often don't work in Vista.
I often found WINE to be a better alternative...
My main problem with any windows is that I have to do a ``Clean Install'' every half a year or more often. It simply becomes too slow or non responsive.
This is a problem I don't experience with Linux OS'es.
And about Compiz; I was serious when I mentioned the Binary blob thing; Nvidia drivers are said to be `stable' and quite `fast', but they are a bit of a hell when it comes to multiple monitors, etc. I didn't mess with my Xorg that much yet, though.
The best way to contact me is by email, which you can find on my website: http://wizzup.org
I also get email notifications of private messages, though.
Simba (on Twitter | Group on Villavu | Website | Stable/Unstable releases
Documentation | Source | Simba Bug Tracker on Github and Villavu )
My (Blog | Website)
But most of these problems arise because manufacturers don't want to support Linux.
The jealous temper of mankind, ever more disposed to censure than
to praise the work of others, has constantly made the pursuit of new
methods and systems no less perilous than the search after unknown
lands and seas.
First, let me say congratulations. You're the only person with a dark-green name that I've seen post more than 1 sentence about the actual topic in quite a while.
Second, let me say yes it is crap. My laptop came preinstalled with Vista. Do you want to hear all of the problems that arose in and outside of Vista because I used it?
-Wireless router randomly crashed and failed to accept any new connections as well as cut off all of the old ones until it was rebooted and connected to with a non-Vista computer.
-GIMP, a wonderful art program, crashed three times within the span of 10 minutes of use. The CPU stayed under 50% the whole time, and the functions I were using were trivial. Using the fill-bucket SHOULDN'T MAKE THE PROGRAM 'SPLODE. I later reinstalled it to no avail.
-When booting in to Vista, I would randomly get a "Windows Explorer has stopped responding. Restart?" message. I then had to restart Windows Explorer.
-Chrome has crashed numerous times on trivial sites such as Yahoo and Facebook.
-30% of the time that I click on the wireless or sound icons in the taskbar, it freezes. After the insanely long timeout, it restarts itself. I had to wait over A MINUTE to adjust the volume on that computer via the taskbar.
-After around 30 minutes to 5 hours of use, if I don't keep the processor at 100% the whole time, the screen blacks out and the computer becomes completely unresponsive to anything. I've already checked for solutions on this; updating the BIOS didn't help, and there is no other way I've found that works to avoid it (other than ensuring the processor never drops below 100%) in my 50 page search of Google.
Then it crashed while installing SP1. Wouldn't boot, so I had to wipe it and reinstall from the factory settings. I checked those problems; the SAME THINGS HAPPENED.
When I loaded XP Pro SP3 on, it ran smoothly. It hasn't crashed once since then, and I have had none of the aforementioned problems with my computer. (Chrome crashed once because I wanted to see how many RuneScapes I could run before killing it. But that was the only problem. :P)
It's an old model, so it only has a 1.9Ghz processor and 2GB of RAM, but that is obviously more than enough to run Vista.
Those are my woes with Vista, and my reasons for refusing to run it. I get free XP licenses through my school and I have 32 and 64 bit Ubuntu on two seperate DVD-ROMs.
:P
~Macro
EDIT:
R0b0t1- I heard that there was a Unix-based OS that a manufacturer was officially offering as an alternative to XP SP3 for their computers... I think it was called EEEbuntu? It's compatible with all of their drivers, etc. and apparently is really stable. Yay for Unix.![]()
Last edited by Macro_FTW; 07-27-2009 at 08:19 AM.
Current Project: Catching up. XD. Potentially back for the summer, depending on how things go.
In my experience, Vista on a <2gb machine just doesn't work well.
Interested in C# and Electrical Engineering? This might interest you.
what I hate with vista is that it always require admin privileagies, ofc im admin on my comp but anyway, I hate having to click on that stupid box "If u started this program click here"
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)