Vista vs XP...

  • Thread starter Thread starter RJK
  • Start date Start date
That's the one big problem with public beta's, joe blow idiot get's his
hands on it, has no clue what he's getting in to, then complains and rants
about how it's someone else's fault.
 
That's the one big problem with public beta's, joe blow idiot get's his
hands on it, has no clue what he's getting in to, then complains and rants
about how it's someone else's fault.
Click to expand...

Vista is starting to sound a lot like Linux... ;-)
 
What do you call a "Step backwards?" Everything seems more advanced to me.
Please give examples.
 
You could take this to mean that Linux sounds a lot like a beta OS :-)

I actually disagree with both statements but your statement infers mine.
 
LOL!

1) you have to have a new vista compatible card.
and even if you do, the actual QUALITY of the image you are seeing is still
32 bit full color several millions colors, more than the eye can
distinguish.. you could have that with windows 95..... there is no "better
picture". Do you get the picture???
You may imply that vista has transparency and shadows in the GUI... well...
there is stardock windowblinds that does that on xp without the need of a
special graphics card.
Sorry the REAL improvement for graphics that was planned for Vista with
longhorn was DUMPED as all other milestone improvements that were supposed
to go into vista!
Do you understand this?

2)The human ear is incapable of distinguishing better sounds than 16 bit cd
quality sound! you apparently know nothing about the human eye and ear!
Heck most people cant even tell the difference between a compressed mp3 file
and a wav! I sure cant! Only some geeky audiophiles can that use
non compressed sound formats like FLAC! You could have that with windows 95
too, so stop the crap and learn a few things about media and technology
and humans!

What would make those 2 experiences better would be
a new good monitor and good speakers..

Those are the devices that interface the computer with the human senses and
most of the time people don't get the best they can....

Its like those people who got super duper sound systems but were stingy on
the speakers.. the result was horrible sound..
the other way around however is different! You could have a cheap amplifier
but with supurb speakers and the sound would be
fantastic!
 
I really must make a video that would show XP and vista side by side and
narrating why vista is so stupid....

because you guys have to be showed the difference directly so you can
understand!
 
It seems you misunderstood my post. Glass is a skin, Aero is not. You
implied the difference between the XP display system and the Vista display
system was a skin. I made no comments about the quality of the display but
was talking about the underlying mechanics of the graphics engines. They are
very different. Once Vista has been around for a while and GPU manufacturers
start tuning their drivers rather than just trying to get them to work there
should be noticeable improvements in the way the picture looks as well. They
will be able to use the power of the GPU to do sophisticated shading and
textures which will trick the eye into thinking the display is sharper than
it is. This could be done in XP but as the CPU would have to do it, it isn't
practical.

As for the sound, given drivers of equal quality you will get better sound
in Vista as the sound can be more easily tailored to match your environment.
The base level of the sound is of course dependent on the hardware but Vista
allows you to tune the sound to match your hardware and environment. It is
like adding a sophisticated sound processor to your stereo. Some sound
drivers and some add on programs add these features to XP but in Vista it's
built in.

It seems you are the one who doesn't understand how human vision and hearing
work. It is all about perception and not measurements. The eyes and ears can
be tricked into seeing and hearing things that don't exist. The underlying
engines in Vista make this easier to do.
 
I think that MicroFox, doesn't realise that you are a Windows platform / PC
Goddess !

regards, Richard
 
I've just been reading through more posts in here, and I get the impression
that a lot of the posts are simply excuses to boast that "I've got 2gigs of
RAM ... etc." and a beast of a PC that's cost a heck of a lot of money -
prolly the same type of bald headed / 5' 4" tall bloke that also owns a big
red powerful sports car, ...all to compensate for having a really small
weener ! :-)

regards, Richard
 
Oops ! ..apologies !
....loooong time ago I stumbled on a MVP profile of a "Kerry" and it was a
picture of an attactive young lady !

regards, Richard
 
I know what you are saying about the underlying mechanism....

and indeed this is an improvement...

but the real intention that Microsoft had for longhorn is dead.....

perhaps they will put it in the next version of windows or a service pack,
who knows...

but THAT would really change the desktop..

Again.. it would not create a "better" image in a static sense, but more
possibilities for animation and
a live 3d desktop that is not possible now.... scalable windows and letters
that would
go beyond the pixels, so that you could zoom in and have small increments of
resolutions.

I know this.. I have been wanting this for a long time.. and it was a
promise for vista that MS broke....

Now I don't know what 3rd party programmers will make of this advancements
in the vista display engine.. but for vista out of the box, its not much..
just a small wow for some.
I personally don't like the glass effect... it was worn off as a
novelty...really fast...

That is a problem when you make such designs.. they dont last forever, and
you need to make a very elegant design for it to become classic...
 
Back
Top