|
Windows Vista...is it time? (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| MOK |
| quote: | Originally posted by JustinMead | quote: | Originally posted by Zombie0729
my vista is a lot more stable than my XP and all my plugs work on it. |
|
And with quad core, 64 bit os, 4 gigs of ram, and a fancy fancy new shuttle case, I'm winning at life. |
|
|
| cenik |
| quote: | Originally posted by atxbigballer1
Windows 7 well be out soon! |
Yes.
MS is slowly abandoning Vista and, so, I'd recommend not switching over to it! |
|
|
| mysticalninja |
| does sx3.1.1.994 work 64bit xp? |
|
|
| alanzo |
| quote: | Originally posted by cenik
MS is slowly abandoning Vista and, so, I'd recommend not switching over to it! |
As much as I'm surprised to see it, and as hard as they tried, I'm sure Vista will be seen as a second coming of Windows ME. It's just an unneeded upgrade that causes more problems than it addresses. |
|
|
| MOK |
| quote: | Originally posted by mysticalninja
does sx3.1.1.994 work 64bit xp? |
Cubase 4 works well, i think its one of the few daws that was made to take advantage of 64 bit? I don't know how SX 3 performs, or if it runs into problems. Post on cubase.net or KVR forums for that one.... |
|
|
| JustinMead |
| quote: | Originally posted by alanzo
As much as I'm surprised to see it, and as hard as they tried, I'm sure Vista will be seen as a second coming of Windows ME. It's just an unneeded upgrade that causes more problems than it addresses. |
What are you guys talking about? I have had 0 problems with Vista. All my games, music progs, everything, has run better on Vista then Xp :) |
|
|
| Aesthetic |
Thats bull, Vista is certainly not ME all over again.. I use it and have had not *one* single crash.. ME fell over its own ass at every second breath.. the analogy is ridiculous.. the only reason Vista isn't popular is because most consumers don't have powerful enough systems to run it and can not be frigged upgrading yet. When Windows 7 hits everyone will have at least a c2d and be prepared for it.. Windows 7 is just going to be a prettier, more optimized Vista anyways.
Check out the beta screen shots of W7, it looks just like Vista lol. |
|
|
| Cetra³ |
I have a core 2 duo 3.0ghz, 4gb of RAM, M-Audio FireWire sound card and a nice 8800 Ultra Video card with two widescreen 19" monitors
Are you saying my system is not capable of running vista? I think your analogy is also incorrect.
They are rewriting the kernel based off of windows server 2008 so windows 7 is going to be a tad different and probably more stable. Just because it looks like vista, doesn't mean anything. I can get linux looking exactly like vista also, but it doesn't mean it's the same.
Don't you think it's strange that they are already talking bout releasing this so very soon after vista?
I have had several issues with vista personally and in my job, and I guess it's just a matter of opinion but I wouldn't recommend it to anyone :)
I mean Would you prefer to have a live act on XP, or Vista? I know 90% would say "Mac" but that's not what this thread is comparing :D |
|
|
| Lucidity |
Vista x64 works perfect for me and I am only on dual core amd 4200, 2 gigs of ram. Every vst works, every driver works for me, didn't at first but all drivers that I run were updated fairly quickly and work.
Focusrite Saffire- works
M-audio Trigger Finger- works
Behringer BCR2000- works
Novation Remote- works
Flawless for me and I will never turn back to xp again. |
|
|
| echosystm |
| quote: | Originally posted by alanzo
As much as I'm surprised to see it, and as hard as they tried, I'm sure Vista will be seen as a second coming of Windows ME. It's just an unneeded upgrade that causes more problems than it addresses. |
i think vista was very much needed - xp is no where near as secure, the process scheduling needed an overhaul and the audio side of things is way better now too.
vistas "failure" has nothing to do with microsoft and everything to do with developers who didn't update their software quickly or well enough. as much as everyone likes to bash microsoft, the reality is that microsoft makes very high quality products. the only reason microsoft gets so much criticism is because it is on 9 out of 10 computers... which are doing far more diverse tasks than *nix and macos boxes...
i ran vista for about a year. i had no problems whatsoever. i went back to xp just because i don't like the feel of vista, not because it is a bad product. |
|
|
| mysticalninja |
| You think it was needed yet you still use xp? lol |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by echosystm
xp is no where near as secure |
Vista still defaults all accounts to administrator rights. Fail.
| quote: | | the process scheduling needed an overhaul |
Huh? You have some basis for saying this? I don't recall a lot of (read: any) people complaining about the XP process scheduler.
| quote: | | vistas "failure" has nothing to do with microsoft and everything to do with developers who didn't update their software quickly or well enough. |
Of course! It's not as though developers actually have features to implement or bugs to fix or anything. They should spend all of their time testing and upgrading everything to play nice with someone else's shiny new toy.
Developers do abuse undocumented API features and other Windows behaviours which tends to be the cause of a lot of compatibility problems. But Microsoft isn't blameless here. UAC is a trainwreck, the UI in Vista is not consistent at all (it wasn't consistent in XP either, but Vista has added more inconsistency instead of improving upon things), and they've changed certain behaviours for perfectly sensible reasons but without regard for real-world tests (like disabling write-behind for network file copies, although apparently they reverted this in SP1).
Some people have no problems with Vista and I don't dispute that, but many people do have problems during ordinary daily use, and it's infuriating when people assume that simply because it works fine for them that any problems other users experience must therefore be due to poor hardware or bad configurations or 3rd-party software. That's not how it works, and commercial software distribution has to take into account all the different environments it will be run on.
Vista's fine, it's certainly better than anything the open-source weenies have come up with, but if you look at the Win98/Win2K/WinXP progression and compare it to the XP/Vista progression, it's abundantly clear that the hideous internal bureaucracy at Microsoft has hindered a lot of the real innovation. In spite of the long delays, it was released too early, and even now it's still not really ready for prime time. And that's not the fault of "developers". |
|
|
|
|
