NZFF

Why should it surprise anyone That even before the official release of Vista,already,Microsoft has been made aware of a couple of ....errrr,oversights.One is the licensing agreement,which only allowed one machine per license.With the proposed change,users can now uninstall the OS from one machine,and install the OS on another machine as many times as they want.Microsoft have worded the license so that it is clear that users cannot share this license between devices...Yeah ,right.

The other issue is with a Technology called PatchGuard.PatchGuard is designed to prevent software from accessing the core of the operating system.Now Patchguard is not used in Vista when it is operating in 32 bit mode,but it is used in 64 bit mode.When used in 64 bit mode it will lock out many software programs,for instance,McAfee and Norton.It seems that the API code has to be changed to....shall we say,accommodate this little oversight.UUmmmm.......Microsoft are going to address this concern in what they call a service pack which is going to be called Vista SP1.Because of the complexity of the code it's going to take 12 months to get it sorted.Now that sounds familiar,

Vista, also is reputed to require 15GB of hard drive space,but then it is graphics intensive.I think I will be sticking with XP for sometime to come

An MS operating system that needs a patch upon release? No?! Surely not?!?!?

Personally I think we should scrap all this c... and all go back to DOS 6.0

Vista is reminding me of the short lived Windows Millenium or worst the Windows 2000

Its funny I use two operating systems Windows XP and Windows 98 on a dedicated machine simply because I have some software that will not run on XP. I would prefer to have kept my Millenium installattion though.

Windows 2000 was completely different to ME, you can't compare the two.

As for Vista, I don't plan to upgrade, but I do plan to get it with my new computer later this year. Hopefully Vista + DX10 + FSX = awesome

Vista is reminding me of the short lived Windows Millenium or worst the Windows 2000

I think, what you meant to say was "Vista is reminding me of the worst, short lived, Windows Millenium"...

WindowsME was %$#%#@$*%^@#!!! We installed it on approximately 2 machines before seeing it was the steaming pile that it was and flat out refused to install it for any customers.

Win2k on the other hand was about a billion times better than Win98 (from memory, MS removed something like 60 'you need to restart your computer for changes to take effect' moments compared to 98) and I will not even do it the injustice of comparing it to WinME.

Hell, I know several companies who still use Win2K over XP.

From memory, the only reason I switched to XP was that it was supposed to be more 'game friendly' than 2K... but to be honest, 2K was perfectly fine... and compared to 98 was stable like a house for horses...

I always found ME to be more stable than 98
but that's like saying ebola is better than the plague.

As for Vista, I don't plan to upgrade, but I do plan to get it with my new computer later this year. Hopefully Vista + DX10 + FSX = awesome

If you are wanting decent frame rates from FSX then the minimum system that I would be looking at is the new quad four processor coupled with the XFX 8800GTX Video card.Anything less could be a disapointment.


As for ME,there were 2 schools of thought on that system.You had those that loved it and those that knew it was crud.

Lets remember, duel/quad core processors are of no more benefit when running FSX than a single, the developers have made it clear FSX does not utilize this ability.

JonARNZ wrote: Lets remember, duel/quad core processors are of no more benefit when running FSX than a single, the developers have made it clear FSX does not utilize this ability.

i've noticed that- even with my HT enabled P4, it's only ever using one half of the processor
and i'd very much doubt that a patch would add dual core support as it would require a complete code overhaul. besides, in 11 months time, technology will be improved again, so should show some good speed in FSX, even with DX10 enhancements

JonARNZ wrote:Lets remember, duel/quad core processors are of no more benefit when running FSX than a single, the developers have made it clear FSX does not utilize this ability.

That is not quite true...

if I have a core 2 duo... and FSX is busy sucking up all the CPU cycles on one core... then the other one is free to run all the spyware/adware/malware without affecting my frame rates

HardCorePawn wrote:

JonARNZ wrote:Lets remember, duel/quad core processors are of no more benefit when running FSX than a single, the developers have made it clear FSX does not utilize this ability.

That is not quite true...

if I have a core 2 duo... and FSX is busy sucking up all the CPU cycles on one core... then the other one is free to run all the spyware/adware/malware without affecting my frame rates

Ooh er, you're right - and I bet I won't have to pull the network cables every time I want to fire up the Cessna! Yess