Page 5 of 6
Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 12:25 pm
by Malcolm
What the bloody hell? What sort of dependence is there between making sound & transmitting network data?
Posted: Sun Aug 26, 2007 3:10 pm
by GORDON
Malcolm wrote:
What the bloody hell? What sort of dependence is there between making sound & transmitting network data?
Extremely dumb:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=724
“Please note that some of what we are seeing is expected behavior, and some of it is not. In certain circumstances Windows Vista will trade off network performance in order to improve multimedia playback. This is by design.”
Most IT peeps I know would be fired if they wrote an app that hogged all the hardware resources, and then put it into production.
Posted: Sun Aug 26, 2007 4:02 pm
by Malcolm
By design? Are you fistfucking me? My thruput is killed cos you intentionally divert resources from it? What fucking hooka were the developers smoking?
Posted: Sun Aug 26, 2007 5:41 pm
by TheCatt
At least your Michael Bolton is playing correctly.
Posted: Sun Aug 26, 2007 7:37 pm
by Malcolm
Too bad that a bunch of nerds can't get together & design a decent OS w\o shit turning into a Chinese fighting fish melee. Unless there' assloads of profit involved. Apparently, that motivates them just enough.
Posted: Mon Aug 27, 2007 6:40 am
by DoctorChaos
“Second, this trade-off scheme only kicks in on the receive side. Transmit is not affected.”
Are you kidding me? Most people want to receive data not send it. This must be so Microsoft can continuously assure themselves you're not running pirated software.
Posted: Mon Aug 27, 2007 11:24 am
by GORDON
All I'm saying is that in 1998 on a Win95 and a Pentium2 333MHz CPU (and 128MB RAM...) I was listening to mp3's, burning a CD, and moving a 1.6GB backup file over the LAN, ALL AT THE SAME TIME, just to see if I could.
And now, Vista can't do that with 4GHz CPU's? What the fuck?
Something else is happening. DRM phoning home, or something. They can't possibly be that incompetent.
Posted: Mon Aug 27, 2007 11:47 am
by Malcolm
GORDON wrote:They can't possibly be that incompetent.
Are you sure you want to bank on that?
I know about half a dozen folk that work for Macroshaft -- all code monkeys, too. I'm getting more & more convinced that big tech-heavy companies just lend themselves to needing a particular sort of manager to keep the nerds in line once said company reaches some critical bloat point. Those managers' goals tend to be completely incompatible w\ reasonable code.
I believe this to be the case w\ Google, thought they're still churning out working code for the time being. But the seeds of insane logic have already been sown there. Just a matter of time till the tendrils wrap themselves around everything.
Edited By Malcolm on 1188229873
Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:16 pm
by GORDON
Vista is #10 on CNet's top 10 worst tech of 2007.
http://crave.cnet.co.uk/gadgets/0,39029552,49293700-10,00.htm
Its incompatibility with hardware, its obsessive requirement of human interaction to clear security dialogue box warnings and its abusive use of hated DRM, not to mention its general pointlessness as an upgrade, are just some examples of why this expensive operating system earns the final place in our terrible tech list.
Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 11:44 pm
by GORDON
Only good reason to upgrade to Vista was gamers for DX10... but it turns out DX10 doesn't look as nice as it did in the press releases.
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=176533
Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 9:39 am
by TheCatt
Vista SP1 will not reduce functionality when system is non-genuine.
The change was announced in a presentation by WGA senior product manger, Alex Kochis, who said, "Based on customer feedback, we will not reduce user functionality on systems determined to be non-genuine."
Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 10:16 am
by GORDON
Customer feedback = they don't have any customers for this product.
Time to let the "pirates" have it and hope it becomes more popular after a while. They can lock it down again, later.
Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 7:33 am
by TheCatt
Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 10:22 pm
by Vince
Reloaded Vista again recently. Seems to run okay. I really didn't have any show stopping problems with it before.
Honestly, I think the biggest problem Vista had going against it was a sense of hysteria akin the perceived wide spread panic that occured after Orson Wells did the "War of The Worlds" radio show. There really weren't a massive number of people that thought it was real. But the more people talked about the people thinking it was real, the greater the number of perceived "fooled" people.
The data transfer problems been an issue for a while. Doesn't have anything to do with media playing specific. Just apparently one of the areas where the issue arises.
I think I've actually seen more specific issues raised about Leopard than I have about Vista.
One kind of neat thing I've seen and liked in Vista: when you bring up the sound mixer from the speaker icon in the sys tray, it allows you to individually adjust the volume for each open window individually. Nice when I'm gaming and listening to music.
Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 9:56 pm
by GORDON
GORDON wrote:Vista is #10 on CNet's top 10 worst tech of 2007.
http://crave.cnet.co.uk/gadgets/0,39029552,49293700-10,00.htm
Its incompatibility with hardware, its obsessive requirement of human interaction to clear security dialogue box warnings and its abusive use of hated DRM, not to mention its general pointlessness as an upgrade, are just some examples of why this expensive operating system earns the final place in our terrible tech list.
Vista is #1 worst tech disappointment: PC World.
http://www.engadget.com/2007....pc-worl
Won't ANYONE chime in and stick up for poor, unfairly abused Vista???
Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 1:26 am
by Vince
I'll readily admit it was a disappointment. After seven years of development you'd expect something substantially better than XP. You'd expect a leap up from XP. It's barely a small step up.
But that's a far cry from it being a horribly flawed OS.
Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 8:22 am
by Leisher
I'll readily admit it was a disappointment. After seven years of development you'd expect something substantially better than XP. You'd expect a leap up from XP. It's barely a small step up.
But that's a far cry from it being a horribly flawed OS.
I would argue that it was a step backwards, not forwards.
Microsoft tried to get really cute with Vista and turn it into a graphically pleasing (Apple), super secure (special interests), customizable (businesses) OS that has kick ass gaming (home users). They failed on EVERY level.
Sure initially, any OS is going to have problems out of the gate, but this was above and beyond typical glitches, bugs, and security holes. You can't expect corporate America to switch to an OS that has PCs booting up with errors out of the box. You can't expect home users to upgrade to an OS that will tell them what Microsoft believes they should and shouldn't be allowed to do.
Everything about Vista, and even more so, Microsoft's public relations in terms of it's failures and public acceptance has been fucked. Vista was a colossal mistake that could've easily been avoided had Microsoft bothered to find out what their CONSUMERS actually wanted instead of what their special interests and Microsoft themselves wanted shoved down everyone's throats.
So maybe Vista isn't a horribly flawed OS, but it's not a well designed one and Microsoft's handling of it HAS been horribly flawed.
As someone else here stated, Leopard may very well be a worse OS, but you don't hear about it. Sure, Apple is a smaller market segment, and sure, their users are brainwashed retards, but Apple is far more likely to handle issues with their consumers rather than tell them to accept it and go fuck themselves as Microsoft has done with Vista.
Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 8:43 am
by GORDON
Wasn't this the first new OS since Bill Gates removed himself from daily operations at Microsoft? I know he made SOME sort of change.
Maybe Microsoft lost it's rudder and is just drifting, now.
Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 9:06 am
by Leisher
It's the first new OS without Bill and the first Microsoft OS that wasn't DOS based. (or something to that effect)
I remember someone saying it was the first true OS exclusively developed by Microsoft.
Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 1:27 pm
by Malcolm
Heard that Vista was the first Windows release that didn't've considerable backwards compatibility. Like certain shit would just break.