"aero" is a bunch of hot air....

  • Thread starter Thread starter jim
  • Start date Start date
J

jim

and the problem is that classic is slower than classic on XP.....

another thing vista messed up!
 
The package clearly says you need DirectX9 card. If you want to use Aero or
not.

Aero is gpu rendered, so it is faster than classic or basic which is
cpu-rendered.

This is how tech works.

SJ / germany
 
no, your hardware just cant handle it. aero and vista in general FLIES for
me. faster than xp ever was. if you cant say the same, you shouldnt be
running vista until you can afford some new hardware
 
shhhh.......

you seem to not know much about vista.... you are just an uninformed
vistaboy.

people with all kinds of latest super duper technology has said that the
classic of vista is slower than aero and slower than the classic in XP.

In other words if you dont want any eye candy you get LESS performance.
The only solution is to use the GPU and all those stupid effects that make
my
stomach tumble...

OR wait till that frikin stardock windowblinds 5.5. goes out of beta so I
can get rid of the horrible aero look!
 
Aero is gpu rendered, so it is faster than classic or basic which is
cpu-rendered.
Click to expand...

Yeah I know. but this does not explain why Vista classic that is non GPU
enhanced
is slower than XP classic that is also non GPU enhanced! lol

Can you say BAD DESIGN?
 
Troy said:
no, your hardware just cant handle it. aero and vista in general FLIES
for me. faster than xp ever was. if you cant say the same, you shouldnt
be running vista until you can afford some new hardware
Click to expand...

Translation: Vista is only for the rich folks.

Alias
 
The graphics mode in Vista is very different than in XP.

Windows Explorer ( the Desktop with all you see ) is no longer included in
the Kernel of the OS ( as it was in 95 -xp ) but is loaded in a seperate
instance.

This new process i optimized for Aero, and not for classic mode.
That's why MS recommends DX9 gpus

Some MS insider guy can explain this better, but simply it is how I said.

SJ / germany
 
Troy, you nailed it!

Vista is the latest incarnation of Winows98. Remember that one? All of a
sudden you had to have massive (for the time) amounts of memory and
superfast (again for the time) hardware or it wouldn't run. Why was it
successful, you ask? Because the hardware people were behind it!

Look at recent hardware sales figures: the industry was in a slump. Now a
new operating system is being pushed on the public that DEMANDS more memory
and specialized hardware. Why? To pump more money into executive's pockets,
that's why!

I find no reason to upgrade to Vista and lots of reasons NOT to. The more I
read in this NG and other places of the hardware incompatibility problems
and software that won't run properly, the more reason I find to stay with my
present setup. Windows 2000 was the last professional / business operating
system Microsoft had. XP is OK for home users that needs hand holding, but
has no advantage in a corporate environment. Vista offers even less user
intervention and seems to be nothing more than XP with prettier pictures.
Sort of reminds me of Millennium: Windows 98 with more eye candy.
 
Hello... thanks for your serious reply even though I was just bashing
vista...

I am curious.. is it possible to have the classic look and force Vista to
use the GPU to render? Or will I have to wait for stardock windowblinds 5.5
so i can do this...?

I dont like the glass aero.. I have been beta testing vista since longhorn
days and
I am bored with it...
 
yeah... that was my vista conspiracy theory number 6. I posted this a looong
time ago.

Ati and Nvidia are worshiping MS for bringing them billions.. perhaps some
cash
is exchanging hands? LOL
 
Alias said:
Translation: Vista is only for the rich folks.

Alias
Click to expand...

Well no, it runs wonderfully on my seven month old 1100 dollar dell
laptop. I certainly am not rich. I definitely am not one of those who
spend hundreds on new video cards and hundreds more on games, more on
new fancy MBs, blazing fast HDs, two or three IPods, and then gripe
about the cost of Vista.

Check out new computer prices. In six months our computers will be
faster, cheaper, and working fine with Vista (most new ones do now.)
Anyway we go through this with every major OS upgrade. (Apple had some
of it too when OS9 went to OSX.

My first Win95 purchase was to upgrade an 80486 with four meg of memory
(at a time when a meg was over 100 dollars.) I could complain about how
slow it was and how "rich" you had to be to get one of those fancy
Pentium 233s that would let Win95 really fly. But I did get my 233. I
tried XP eventually on that old 233--it worked, but was obviously a dog,
until I got a Pentium 4, but with only 256 ram. XP was nice, and on the
P4, this was the first time I really could not upgrade when Vista came
out. But the machine is 6 years old. If I had 512 meg of ram, and spent
50 bucks on a new video, I could get at least Home basic to run. But it
is a six year old machine. But my newer laptop is great.
 
I am curious.. is it possible to have the classic look and force Vista to
use the GPU to render? Or will I have to wait for stardock windowblinds
5.5 so i can do this...?
Click to expand...

You will have to wait for 3rd party apps like that.

SJ / germany
 
Windows explorer did not run in kernel mode, but I presume you meant GDI.

NT 3.51 GDI ran in USERMODE.
NT4 and on it moved to KERNAL mode, this meant bad graphics drivers caused
BSOD.
Vista they moved parts of the GDI into user mode, I am 90% sure this
happened, I read some articles about this a few months ago.

Windows 95 - ME uses a Monolithic kernel, is its kind of irrelevant to the
topic. Vista is not based on the Win 95/DOS code base. Vista is NT based.

Steve
 
Windows Vista makes a lot o sense in many situations and can be recommended.
It is more secure and stabler than Windows XP.

Windows 98, BTW, was a huge improvement over Windows 95. At the time I did a
fair bit of JavaScript work and while working with Windows 95, I would have
to reboot every second time Netscape Navigator crashed on a Javascript. In a
single work day the reboots were almost innumerable. Windows 98 proved to be
a heck of a lot more stable in comparision, substantively reducing the
frequency of crashes .. it was just plain better and very very much worth
the upgrade.

Saucy Lemon
 
Why not blame the gamers, eh? EA Games is probably also very happy for all
the billions they will probably earn .. although they are saddled with a lot
of work making their games near photo-realistic 'n all.

Saucy lemon
 
Saucy said:
Windows Vista makes a lot o sense in many situations and can be
recommended. It is more secure and stabler than Windows XP.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid the jury is still out on that, your adulation of Vista
notwithstanding. I have had XP Pro installed on one machine since 2003
and no crashes at all.

Alias
 
The point is that there is no jury. The thing will most likely be bought in
the hundreds of millions (or more) and Microsoft will make untold billions
from it.

XP is very stable, but Vista is based on the Server 2003 code base which is
even more stable .. but many things can crash a computer. Here, I really
should be using some type of power device as the wiring is 50 years old and
I the electric company sends spikes and outages etc. which result in a crash
from time to time .. not too often, but every once in a while.

Saucy Lemon
 
It is more secure and stabler than Windows XP

Phooey! This is a pile of baloney that MS's propaganda team wants to use as
a sale point! I see vista being the biggest target ever for all kinds of
attacks...
Imagine youself using vista and a laser crosshair will be on your forehead.

If you want secure and stable get Linux or MacOSx.

If you want flexibility & compatibility use windows.... but NEVER say Vista
is
"secure". That is blasphemy.... or you have been eating too much vista chow.
 
I said "more secure". So far no computer system can really be declared
wrapped up and done "secure" as they all have vulnerabilites to some extent.
So I stand by what I said: Windows Vista is more secure than Windows XP.

Saucy Lemon
 
Saucy said:
The point is that there is no jury. The thing will most likely be bought
in the hundreds of millions
Click to expand...

And those "hundreds of millions" are the jury.
(or more) and Microsoft will make untold
billions from it.
Click to expand...

I don't know anyone who is even thinking about getting Vista. I do know
a lot who are trying out Ubuntu, though. I guess time will tell if Vista
is accepted by the jury.
XP is very stable, but Vista is based on the Server 2003 code base which
is even more stable .. but many things can crash a computer. Here, I
really should be using some type of power device as the wiring is 50
years old and I the electric company sends spikes and outages etc. which
result in a crash from time to time .. not too often, but every once in
a while.

Saucy Lemon
Click to expand...

Yeah, you should get one.

Alias
 
Back
Top