Microsoft has led smear campaigns against OpenGL.adridu59 said:
They bundled a crappy OpenGL version with Vista which couldn't be upgraded and only the GPU drivers could support it in a way.
OGL has had things Tessellation for a looooong looooooooong time but the problem was it had poor documentation and in general the API was a mess, and MS had the money so they smeared OGl, took a few features and released them as a version of DirectX.
Alalzia said:
From a design perspective most if not all Windows are pure garbage. It essentially is like you, the user, willingly giving control of your computer to a billion dollar company so they can dictate what you can and cannot do. The quality of the software itself is abysmal, and makes you wonder why they charge so much money for it when there are alternatives. Sadly many tech companies, especially computer game companies, are tied to M$ in one or more ways, ultimately affecting us, the players.
W7 Home Basic is pretty much digital vomit. If you get a
I hate Microsoft. Instead of perfectioning a product and stabilizing it, they release relentlessly new windows. With each new version of windows, more games become unplayable, more errors and instabilities occur, more copyright problems (like certain applications) arise and so one. Ranting and listing is so pointless. From my perspective, the best gaming windows up until now, with the most stable and friendly environment, have/had been windows 98 and windows XP.
I do not want XP to die. I want them to be renovated and updated, becoming suitable for modern systems, instead of releasing the sitty Vista, the dreadful 7 and the dubious 8. Most problems lie with COMPATIBILITY of GAMES and APPLICATIONS. Damn. At least if they spout out a new product every four years, why don't they make sure it can execute normally older games/applications? And accusing pirates instead, the nerve?! What about all those people having spent countless money in order to have a legit gaming collection, and suddenly poof, they can play less than half of them? The faq?!
Anyways, XP is dead already anyway and it does not even know it. Rest in peace. One of my most beloved environments.
I do not want XP to die. I want them to be renovated and updated, becoming suitable for modern systems, instead of releasing the sitty Vista, the dreadful 7 and the dubious 8. Most problems lie with COMPATIBILITY of GAMES and APPLICATIONS. Damn. At least if they spout out a new product every four years, why don't they make sure it can execute normally older games/applications? And accusing pirates instead, the nerve?! What about all those people having spent countless money in order to have a legit gaming collection, and suddenly poof, they can play less than half of them? The faq?!
Anyways, XP is dead already anyway and it does not even know it. Rest in peace. One of my most beloved environments.
XP will have a long life running legacy software on legacy hardware. A lot of hosts licensed for XP will continue to run XP until they are sold for scrap.
But at this point, expecting XP to be maintained for any purpose, and especially for gaming, is fruitless. Its graphics driver model (XPDM) is so outdated that nobody can be expected to write anything that uses it for modern purposes, nor can Microsoft be expected to provide a compatibility layer.
There is likewise no reason to expect that games written at such a low level that they depend in detail on XPDM have any chance of being profitably ported to WDDM.
But at this point, expecting XP to be maintained for any purpose, and especially for gaming, is fruitless. Its graphics driver model (XPDM) is so outdated that nobody can be expected to write anything that uses it for modern purposes, nor can Microsoft be expected to provide a compatibility layer.
There is likewise no reason to expect that games written at such a low level that they depend in detail on XPDM have any chance of being profitably ported to WDDM.
I still can't belvie that Widnows 8 has come around and still everything is dumped under one partition and the user has to fight the system to change it. Having everything slopped into one place is like living in a small bathroom with only a toilet that fuctions as your sink and bathtub among its usual tasks.
It drops everything in C:, and if you want to move user stuff to a secondary drive, you have to go around to all the bogo-folders under your user account and move each one.
But dragging a user through Debian-style or FreeBSD-style partitioning, especially when some Windows users are so superstitious they reformat and reinstall when anything glitches, is worse than the default of just using your entire first disk and allowing users who know what they are doing to do it differently.
I have no problem with the way XP, Vista, 7, or 8 installs. But I like to boot from GRUB, so I install a Linux with a decent GRUB implementation immediately after.
What bugs me is how slow Windows startup still is. The Linux world has insserv and parallel startup; my Debian hosts start faster (8 seconds) than Windows can come out of sleep.
But dragging a user through Debian-style or FreeBSD-style partitioning, especially when some Windows users are so superstitious they reformat and reinstall when anything glitches, is worse than the default of just using your entire first disk and allowing users who know what they are doing to do it differently.
I have no problem with the way XP, Vista, 7, or 8 installs. But I like to boot from GRUB, so I install a Linux with a decent GRUB implementation immediately after.
What bugs me is how slow Windows startup still is. The Linux world has insserv and parallel startup; my Debian hosts start faster (8 seconds) than Windows can come out of sleep.
Well yes, but you have to manually seperate the user data (My Documents, Music, etc.) from the system after it is istalled. Other wise, its all in one big lump on the parition you selected to install everything on. There is no handy-dandy tool included in the install to setup your system.
Haha, seriously, I can shut down and startup in the time Windows takes to startup.
I believe you, but I'm not making stuff up- I've been having trouble running jagged alliance wildfire. I even made a post on Bear's Pit (jagged alliance community forums) about it.Zanderat said:
I've seen some fixes mentioned which involve changing the intro value in a .ini file for Jagged Alliance 2, but I don't find those same options in any files for JAWF. Maybe I'm doing it wrong.
You can make partitions, I've done this. It's a very easy process, I haven't had any bother since I did it.Zanderat said:
Interesting How fast is Linux boot time. I can fire my w8.1 up and be to desk top in 12 seconds not including password times(I have 2 1 at post and another for windows) and be back here in another4 seconds.....I just timed it
How fast do you guys need it to be lol!!!
How fast do you guys need it to be lol!!!
No; I do not boot from SSD. I have a view of proper SSD use that many do not share, and that is that putting Windows on an SSD is an expensive waste of disk. The problem is that Windows scribbles all over its system drive, and using SSD for write duty (especially when it is writing low-value data like cached Web pages or Windows Update backups) is costly and negates the advantage of the SSD.
If Windows had a proper partitioning scheme like the Unixen do, where applications and read-only data get a separate volume that can be mapped to fast media like SSD, it would be different. I suppose a Windows guru could arrange a system where Program Files was a junction point mapped to an SSD, but I suspect there would be compatibility fallout.
Until then:
Windows system disk, Linux / (root), /boot, /var, /tmp - fast mechanical disk
Linux /usr and Windows apps that don't have to install to Program Files - SSD
Things like source code I'm working on that get read often - SSD
Things like compilation artifacts that are neither large nor permanent - RAM disk
Linux /home, /srv, and swap, Windows users, pagefile - large mechanical disk
And I don't really care how fast Windows boots, because I boot it once a day at most.
If Windows had a proper partitioning scheme like the Unixen do, where applications and read-only data get a separate volume that can be mapped to fast media like SSD, it would be different. I suppose a Windows guru could arrange a system where Program Files was a junction point mapped to an SSD, but I suspect there would be compatibility fallout.
Until then:
Windows system disk, Linux / (root), /boot, /var, /tmp - fast mechanical disk
Linux /usr and Windows apps that don't have to install to Program Files - SSD
Things like source code I'm working on that get read often - SSD
Things like compilation artifacts that are neither large nor permanent - RAM disk
Linux /home, /srv, and swap, Windows users, pagefile - large mechanical disk
And I don't really care how fast Windows boots, because I boot it once a day at most.
I'm still using Windows XP and have no plans to change that. Windows XP still have close to 40% of users, so to drop support is more than a little retarded. Suppose there isn't quite enough surveillanceware though, so they better bruteforce people into worse systems. Why care about your customers, right?
xp was tiring, 7 was better, 8 is even better. i am using 8.1 currently, it still needs little changes but a great os indeed. 8 just requires some time to adapt.
Smintheus said:
If by "adapt", you mean "uninstall and reinstall Windows 7", then yes, I agree with you.
Windows 8 gets everything wrong for desktop users. The absence of visible menus accessed by a short and consistent gesture, the arrogance of operating system functions that take over the entire screen, the demotion of the desktop and desktop applications to the back of the bus all indicate that the entire operating system was designed by a small number of foolish engineers who neglected to take any of the real uses of their product into consideration.
It is the worst abomination in user interface technology since, well, Unity.
Zanderat said:
While contrary to popular belief Wikipedia is a decent source. It doesn't take much to rile up their moderators.
However those statistics show Windows XP use as a whole, and are not broken down to businesses and individual users. Businesses account for half of that statistic, more than likely.
Let's not forget that it's mostly businesses using Win XP so those stats are largely business users.Pangaea said:
Further, Microsoft is dropping support for XP, so businesses are moving to 7 atleast, games have already been dropping support for a while, all next-gen games will be DirectX11 which XP doesn't have soooooo well what else need I say?