Which OS do you use? [Archive] - Team17 Forum

PDA

View Full Version : Which OS do you use?

Squirminator2k
10 Oct 2007, 23:00
This question is strictly for your personal home computers, not including computers at school, college, University or work (unless you work from home, of course).
I'm just curious.

thomasp
10 Oct 2007, 23:02
Are you putting a poll on?
I'm sure everybody knows I use Mac OS X Tiger :p Will upgrade to Leopard once it's been out for a bit...

Squirminator2k
10 Oct 2007, 23:03
Poll up. I was listing as many OS's as I could think of.

pieman280
10 Oct 2007, 23:04
Windows XP for me:)

Plasma
10 Oct 2007, 23:05
XP. If Bill Gates has moy soul, then it's because I gave it to him about 15 years ago.

Cyclaws
10 Oct 2007, 23:11
Vista Ultimate, Mandriva Linux on my laptop because it doesn't need a Windows license.

wave
10 Oct 2007, 23:37
Are you putting a poll on?
I'm sure everybody knows I use Mac OS X Tiger :p Will upgrade to Leopard once it's been out for a bit...
Leopard looks awesome, but won't upgrade my macbook, i'll just wait until my DELL dies ( and die it will) and buy a new Mac desktop avec leopard.

poninja
10 Oct 2007, 23:40
Vista home premium :p (at my user)

farazparsa
11 Oct 2007, 02:06
http://www.worth1000.com/entries/150000/150435OTvs_w.jpg
I win.

[UFP]Ghost
11 Oct 2007, 03:10
Xp and my other is a dos 4.0.1

Akuryou13
11 Oct 2007, 03:58
Ghost;615498']my other is a dos 4.0.1does that even count as an OS these days? :p
if it does, good on you for keeping that relic running.

Pigbuster
11 Oct 2007, 04:50
I win.
You're just jealous. :p

Wolv
11 Oct 2007, 05:42
Windows XP, of course.

Squirminator2k
11 Oct 2007, 05:44
Why "of course"?

Nugget
11 Oct 2007, 07:15
Why "of course"?
Because he unkowingly insinuated that like most everyday people who use PC's, are ignorant of other operative systems and are just using what everybody else are using, because their new-bought PC's come included with Microsoft operative systems. That's why Microsoft has 90 % market share - because they got themselves established quicker than Apple. Most real people I know use PC's, and have never heard of, or thought of using anything else.
I'm a Mac.

Squirminator2k
11 Oct 2007, 07:19
I'm a Mac.
Oh yes? And which version of Mac OS does your user have installed on you?

franpa
11 Oct 2007, 07:34
windows XP home, everyone i spoke to lied to me and said there was no notable difference between home and pro >.> so i saved 50$ (~120$ AUD for home) but would now like some of the things like managing accounts etc. that are only possible (by default) in pro.

yauhui
11 Oct 2007, 12:28
Where's the Windows 98 ME (mistaken millenium edition) ??

Wolv
11 Oct 2007, 12:44
Because he unkowingly insinuated that like most everyday people who use PC's, are ignorant of other operative systems and are just using what everybody else are using, because their new-bought PC's come included with Microsoft operative systems. That's why Microsoft has 90 % market share - because they got themselves established quicker than Apple. Most real people I know use PC's, and have never heard of, or thought of using anything else.
I'm a Mac.
I don't have nothing against other OS but the "of course" was for Windows Vista, because this OS sucks and I will never switch to it.

MrBunsy
11 Oct 2007, 14:45
Where's the Windows 98 ME (mistaken millenium edition) ??
Dead and buried, hopefully.

Akuryou13
11 Oct 2007, 14:58
Where's the Windows 98 ME (mistaken millenium edition) ??in operating system hell. that was the most atrocious travesty ever to plague man kind. do not speak its name in the precense of those of us who have moved on since our own experience with that hell beast.

Nugget
11 Oct 2007, 15:42
Oh yes? And which version of Mac OS does your user have installed on you?
Surely nobody uses Mac OS 9 or older these days. I'm a Mac OS X 10.4.10 Tiger to be exact. Will hopefully be upgrading to Leopard before Christmas.

RedOrange
11 Oct 2007, 15:54
windows nt4..

Akuryou13
11 Oct 2007, 16:09
windows nt4..:eek: holy outdated batman!

quakerworm
11 Oct 2007, 16:19
windows 98, xp pro, ubuntu linux, dos, and amiga 3.x. and all of these i run from the same machine. amiga and 98 under emulation, dos either emulated or booted from floppy, and ubuntu and xp are on multi-boot. i also have a separate box that runs as a dedicated linux server, but i don't use it much these days.

thomasp
11 Oct 2007, 16:38
Oh yes? And which version of Mac OS does your user have installed on you?
I have OS9 at home, but my mum uses that computer more than I do, as I have replaced it with my PowerBook (I used to use it)

Alien King
11 Oct 2007, 18:45
Windows 2000 :(.

pilot62
11 Oct 2007, 19:58
Windows XP, like most people it seems.

parsley
11 Oct 2007, 19:59
Bad poll!
It won't let me add Linux 'cause I've already said XP. My computer is dual boot, she are.

Diablo vt
11 Oct 2007, 20:22
Where's the Windows 98 ME (mistaken millenium edition) ??
ARRRRRRGH. Millenium Edition, that computer was horrible. I use Windows XP professional.

Squirminator2k
11 Oct 2007, 21:22
Bad poll!
It won't let me add Linux 'cause I've already said XP. My computer is dual boot, she are.
It's a multiple choice poll, so you should be able to. I was able to select both Vista and Workbench 3.x...

bonz
11 Oct 2007, 22:22
Windows XP Professional (on my main machine)
Mac OS X Tiger (on an iBook)
Amiga Workbench 3.1 (on WinUAE)
And whatever OS my Sony Ericsson K750i uses.

Plasma
11 Oct 2007, 23:27
It won't let me add Linux 'cause I've already said XP. My computer is dual boot, she are.
...why didn't you just vote both XP and Linux in the first place?

bonz
12 Oct 2007, 09:11
Bad poll!
It won't let me add Linux 'cause I've already said XP. My computer is dual boot, she are.
Why don't you abuse your godlike modding powers to manipulate the poll?

thomasp
12 Oct 2007, 10:04
Why don't you abuse your godlike modding powers to manipulate the poll?
I don't think parsley's a mod. And mods can't usually edit polls - that's reserved for supermods & admins.

yauhui
12 Oct 2007, 10:07
parsley is a moderator, and you are a user mod. what's the diff?
its so weird. theres admins, t17 staff, moderators, user mods, etc.

thomasp
12 Oct 2007, 10:37
parsley is a moderator, and you are a user mod. what's the diff?
its so weird. theres admins, t17 staff, moderators, user mods, etc.
I can give parsley an infraction, therefore he's not a mod. T17 staff doesn't immediately mean you get mod privileges. Usually the teamsters that have mod privileges have bold usernames.

bonz
12 Oct 2007, 14:10
I can give parsley an infraction, therefore he's not a mod. T17 staff doesn't immediately mean you get mod privileges. Usually the teamsters that have mod privileges have bold usernames.
Still, parsley is sitting closer to the beer tap than you, thomasp, so if you are getting to bold, he might tell someone else.
http://www.trailerparkboys.org/forums/Smileys/default/beer.gif

SupSuper
12 Oct 2007, 19:10
Windows Vista Ultimate.
Also got Windows 98SE and FreeDOS running on virtual machines, Ubuntu in some unaccessible partition, and possibly emulated Amiga.
I don't think anyone uses Windows 95 by now. Even if you need to go that far back, 98SE is much better.
does that even count as an OS these days? :p
if it does, good on you for keeping that relic running.How can DOS not be an OS when it's even part of the name? :p

Basti@n
12 Oct 2007, 21:43
Windows XP Home. I used to have Mandrake Linux 10.0 years ago.
(Oh, and not 10 years ago. Version 10.0!)

Plasma
12 Oct 2007, 23:29
I've got the good ol' DosShell on my old compy in the attic. It still works, save for a faulty A: drive.

Akuryou13
13 Oct 2007, 03:17
How can DOS not be an OS when it's even part of the name? :phow can something be called an operating system when nothing operates on it? :p there's nothing FOR dos anymore. :p that's all I meant

Squirminator2k
13 Oct 2007, 04:02
I can think of at least three programs for which DOS versions are still produced.

Akuryou13
13 Oct 2007, 04:10
I can think of at least three programs for which DOS versions are still produced.wow, really?! what on earth are they?!

Squirminator2k
13 Oct 2007, 04:14
ZSNES and NO$GMB. The third one is apparently discontinued.

Akuryou13
13 Oct 2007, 14:32
ZSNES and NO$GMB. The third one is apparently discontinued.they use dos still?! freaky...

quakerworm
14 Oct 2007, 11:08
i still use dos. it is a great os for many things. if you want direct access to hardware, for example, it is a lot easier if your os runs in real mode. dos is a good example of such an os.

FutureWorm
19 Oct 2007, 01:55
Surely nobody uses Mac OS 9 or older these days. I'm a Mac OS X 10.4.10 Tiger to be exact. Will hopefully be upgrading to Leopard before Christmas.
nugget i didn't know that you were part of the team17 mac crew

poninja
19 Oct 2007, 02:21
i change my user to linux :(

Akuryou13
19 Oct 2007, 03:27
nugget i didn't know that you were part of the team17 mac crewwas that just a misquote or did I completely miss the sarcasm?

FutureWorm
19 Oct 2007, 05:06
was that just a misquote or did I completely miss the sarcasm?
yeah i misquoted, i was going for the post below yours
fixing it now

Paul.Power
19 Oct 2007, 11:35
Ghost;615498']Xp and my other is a dos 4.0.1
I recommend you upgrade that to DOS 6, or at least DOS 5.

SupSuper
20 Oct 2007, 11:30
they use dos still?! freaky...There's also still games developed for DOS.

Akuryou13
20 Oct 2007, 14:06
There's also still games developed for DOS.independant programs and games are a given :p people will continue to make their own stuff for every possible medium they can until it's no longer possible.

Nugget
20 Oct 2007, 17:54
nugget i didn't know that you were part of the team17 mac crew
I fail to detect any sarcasm in that sentence, so I'll answer "yes." If you didn't notice, I have been having an Apple-slogan in my signature for quite a while now, until I changed it recently.

shrinux
20 Dec 2007, 17:18
Windows XP Pro SP2 :mad:
Leaving it soon and Microsoft as well
Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard :)
I use it for graphics, video and photo editing
Ubuntu Linux 7.10 Gusty :D
I'm trying to install worms, but I have some problems, I hope Team17 conceder other OS users for future, I cannot live without WORMS, I cannot live with MS WINDOWS

MrBunsy
20 Dec 2007, 17:25
I'm trying to install worms, but I have some problems, I hope Team17 conceder other OS users for future, I cannot live without WORMS, I cannot live with MS WINDOWS
Have you seen this thread (http://forum.team17.co.uk/showthread.php?t=28710) by any chance? (WA in WINE). Also, the original Worms works nicely in DosBox.

shrinux
20 Dec 2007, 18:14
Have you seen this thread (http://forum.team17.co.uk/showthread.php?t=28710) by any chance? (WA in WINE). Also, the original Worms works nicely in DosBox.
Thanks !!!
I'm going to read it, and give you my feedback there :)

Xinos
24 Dec 2007, 14:36
I didn't know Amiga had an OS that was still beeing used. Even more surprised that people here use it, if voting for it wasn't a joke that is..

bonz
26 Dec 2007, 18:34
I didn't know Amiga had an OS that was still beeing used. Even more surprised that people here use it, if voting for it wasn't a joke that is..
Yeah, I use it for running my emulated Amiga for playing WDC.

Plasma
26 Dec 2007, 18:47
Yeah, I use it for running my emulated Amiga for playing WDC.
Speaking of which, what games did Team17 allow free for emulation again?

SupSuper
27 Dec 2007, 03:52
Speaking of which, what games did Team17 allow free for emulation again?The ones here: http://www.dream17.co.uk
You still need a legal emulator though: http://www.amigaforever.com

MtlAngelus
24 Jan 2008, 07:54
Mac OS X. Still getting the hang of it, but so far, so cool. :cool:

Shadowmoon
25 Jan 2008, 17:46
I use XP. I have used it for quite a lot of years, and i probably won't get vista.

Squirminator2k
25 Jan 2008, 17:49
The problem is, you will eventually. Everyone has to upgrade sometime. I know people who swore they'd never use XP. I know people who were unsure about upgrading from Win95 to 98. Hell, I even knew someone who stuck with Win3.1 right up until 1999. But everyone has to upgrade sooner or later. You'll either buy a copy, or "acquire" one, or you'll buy a new PC.
It's silly to say "I'll never upgrade my OS." It's like saying "I will never buy another pair of shoes."

Shadowmoon
25 Jan 2008, 17:58
I may get it in the future, but right now, i am happy with XP.:D

MrBunsy
25 Jan 2008, 18:32
Unless Vista turns into the new Windows ME, and everyone simply skips it and upgrades to the next, hopefully better, operating system. Or one made by another company, but I suspect not.

Squirminator2k
25 Jan 2008, 19:42
Microsoft never really put as much backing into WinMe as they have done for WinVis. There is no software in existence that requires WinMe.

Akuryou13
26 Jan 2008, 01:23
Unless Vista turns into the new Windows ME, and everyone simply skips it and upgrades to the next, hopefully better, operating system. Or one made by another company, but I suspect not.ME was a god-cursed sin against humanity. it ran like crap, it wasn't useful, and it was all around annoying.
Vista actually works pretty well. it's well put together and it runs well.

Squirminator2k
26 Jan 2008, 02:15
Vista isn't perfect. It's user friendly for me now because I tweaked, prodded, poked and adjusted various settings and options. It shouldn't be such a bloody chore to open a folder. "Are you sure you want to do that?" YES, BECAUSE I'M NOT CHUFFING NINE YEARS OLD.

SgtFusion
26 Jan 2008, 03:11
I've been using Windows XP for years (on my parents' computers), and before that it was Windows '95. I might get Windows Vista if I get my own computer (which probably won't happen until I go back to NZ and get a job).

Akuryou13
26 Jan 2008, 03:52
Vista isn't perfect. It's user friendly for me now because I tweaked, prodded, poked and adjusted various settings and options. It shouldn't be such a bloody chore to open a folder. "Are you sure you want to do that?" YES, BECAUSE I'M NOT CHUFFING NINE YEARS OLD.all I've done is close out windows defender and tell it to never under any circumstances turn itsself on. aside from that I find vista pretty good as-is. the "are you sure?" thing doesn't bug me since it doesn't come up all THAT often. most of the programs I run don't make it show up and the ones that do I don't use that often. XFire will make it pop up, but one click isn't all that annoying.

MrBunsy
26 Jan 2008, 09:47
Vista actually works pretty well. it's well put together and it runs well.That's not my experience.
It randomly decides whether or not it's a legal copy, once within consecutive messages. It takes far longer than XP to boot up. I've broken an installation beyond repair simply by installing a programme. It asks 'Are you sure?' for everything except shutting down, which is about the only time I actually like windows asking.
Possibly a few service packs will fix it, but until it's faster than XP, or I can't install XP, I'm not switching. I can remember installing XP onto a computer that used to run 98 and saying "Wow! that just booted up really really fast!", whereas with Vista it's the complete opposite.
I can get hold of a free copy of Vista (legally), so it's not as if price is a problem, I just dislike the ruddy thing.

thomasp
26 Jan 2008, 10:33
I hate the security centre thing in Vista, that pops up constantly asking if you are sure you really want to type the letter "e". During some bugtesting, I had to briefly turn the Windows firewall off on one machine - it very kindly and sensibly asked "Do you really want to do this?" and I thought this was fine and said "Yes, thanks for asking". 10 minutes later when I wanted to turn the firewall back on, up pops a message "Are you really sure you want to turn your firewall back on?" - WHY DO YOU NEED TO ASK???
This sums up Vista's security perfectly, in my eyes! http://movies.apple.com/movies/us/apple/getamac/apple-getamac-security_480x376.mov

Muzer
26 Jan 2008, 12:51
LOL, that is so the truth!

Star Worms
26 Jan 2008, 13:17
"This plug-in performed an illegal operation"... seems more like Win ME to me :p
...and then keeps crashing my browser.

Akuryou13
26 Jan 2008, 14:09
That's not my experience.
It randomly decides whether or not it's a legal copy, once within consecutive messages. It takes far longer than XP to boot up. I've broken an installation beyond repair simply by installing a programme. It asks 'Are you sure?' for everything except shutting down, which is about the only time I actually like windows asking.well I have NONE of those problems. perhaps it was set up by someone else? setting it up myself I didn't have any overly-annoying bugs such as that one. if I had I wouldn't have kept the upgrade.

Muzer
26 Jan 2008, 14:17
My Vista laptop BSODs whenever trying to use the BUILT-IN webcam, even though there are Microsoft-certified Vista drivers for it, and everyone I know with that laptop has the same problem.

Akuryou13
26 Jan 2008, 14:26
My Vista laptop BSODs whenever trying to use the BUILT-IN webcam, even though there are Microsoft-certified Vista drivers for it, and everyone I know with that laptop has the same problem.sounds like a problem with the set-up of the laptop caused by whoever makes it. vista has a few driver issues, perhaps its an extreme version of said issues with the mobo drivers for that particular laptop?

MrBunsy
26 Jan 2008, 14:43
well I have NONE of those problems. perhaps it was set up by someone else? setting it up myself I didn't have any overly-annoying bugs such as that one. if I had I wouldn't have kept the upgrade.
No, I installed it. But you can probably see why I prefer XP.

Akuryou13
26 Jan 2008, 14:56
No, I installed it. But you can probably see why I prefer XP.yeah, I can understand from that experience. maybe they just made vista incompatible with some of your hardware? did you make sure everything was vista compatible? cause vista cares about stupid crap, like what brand your harddrive is. I had a hard drive that worked just fine for 3 days with vista and then it wouldn't load any more...
got another HDD that was "vista compatible" and it worked fine. and has done so since.

Muzer
26 Jan 2008, 15:29
Doesn't that then prove our point, that vista, well, isn't as good or reliable as it's cracked up to be.

Akuryou13
26 Jan 2008, 15:36
Doesn't that then prove our point, that vista, well, isn't as good or reliable as it's cracked up to be.oh no. don't misunderstand me, Vista is riddled with problems of varying sorts, it's just pretty good in my experience despite the issues. in my experience the issues are actually quite minor and most of the *****ing is from people who just don't want to like it. in your case, though, you ran into one of the legitimate nasty bugs vista's got.
I will never be one to defend Windows beyond the point of saying that it's a decent OS. :p

Muzer
26 Jan 2008, 15:46
Good point, I will agree that if Vista didn't have all the issues, it would be pretty good. The problem is is all the issues. I remember the same thing happened with XP. It turned out alright though after a few months when people updated their drivers on their sites.
And I do prefer Linux. Vastly.

Akuryou13
26 Jan 2008, 16:03
Good point, I will agree that if Vista didn't have all the issues, it would be pretty good. The problem is is all the issues. I remember the same thing happened with XP. It turned out alright though after a few months when people updated their drivers on their sites.I think XP was more wide-spread though. Vista's problem seem to be isolated to a strange portion of the people who use it. probably half the users have no problems whatsoever, but the other half have major issues. even if they're using nearly identical machines. then again, I wasn't into computers as much for the advent of XP, so I could've just missed that portion of it.
And I do prefer Linux. Vastly. I prefer to use an OS that I can use without having to know how to reprogram it if necessary :p

MadEwokHerd
28 Jan 2008, 00:09
Ubuntu has gotten to the point where it's actually easy. The hardest thing I had to do to set up my hardware in 7.10 is select my printer model from a list.

Muzer
28 Jan 2008, 17:59
I had no end of problems when I first started, but I soon found drivers for everything. It doesn't help that my dad buys THE MOST UNHEARD OF PIECES OF HARDWARE ON THIS PLANET (our printer is a Konica Minolta Magicolor (stupid Americans...) 2400W. Hands up if you've heard of that...). Up until now, that is. OpenGL randomly stopped working, no idea why. The active sound card keeps randomly swiching between the motherboard and the sound card, no idea why. The screen occasionally glitches and shows miscoloured "Kubuntu" logos along one half, requiring a screen refresh (Ctrl+Alt+F1, Ctrl+Alt+F7). And half the time it won't let me log in (WTF??). I really need to upgrade to 7.10, but it keeps asking me to insert my Ubuntu 6.10 Server edition CD (no typo, it's asking me to insert the OLD DISC). One, I've lost it, Two, I installed the desktop edition, so it didn't work even when I did find it (and lost it again). And three, it doesn't even want to read the disc when I put it in my 'RW drive (the only one that can read it as it is an RW). But, dispite the problems, I still use it, as I haven't got a single virus since I've had Linux (all this stuff is errors, not viruses :p) and it's still a damnsite better than Windows for all I want it for (Internet, Homework, Emulation and Worms). And I think once I gather the funds to build my new PC, I'll be able to install 7.10 and forget all this 6.10 trouble. Let's hope I do that before we get Sky broadband (our account's still in limbo because by dad still hasn't got out mac address, although we bought it in September) because it has a 2GB usage cap.

SupSuper
29 Jan 2008, 02:53
I find Vista very easy to tame.
*disables UAC*
*disables Firewall*
*disables Security Center*
*disables Error Reporting*
Good boy.

Akuryou13
29 Jan 2008, 07:38
I find Vista very easy to tame.
*disables UAC*
*disables Firewall*
*disables Security Center*
*disables Error Reporting*
Good boy.I left the UAC, but yeah. exactly.

farazparsa
30 Jan 2008, 23:50
I left the UAC, but yeah. exactly.
WARNING!
You have replied to a post that could be potentially malicious or otherwise harmful to your dear computer. Do you want to authorize this action?
Y/N _

Squirminator2k
31 Jan 2008, 00:19
WARNING!
You have replied to a post that could be potentially malicious or otherwise harmful to your dear computer. Do you want to authorize this action?
Y/N _
WARNING!
You have looked at your monitor, which could potentially lead to... things. Do you want to authorize this action?
Y/N _
WARNING!
You are reaching for your keyboard, which could lead to you accidentally typing a format command, or downloading porn, or something. Do you want to authorize this action?
Y/N _
And so on.

Akuryou13
31 Jan 2008, 00:38
WARNING!
You have replied to a post that could be potentially malicious or otherwise harmful to your dear computer. Do you want to authorize this action?
Y/N _yeah, it's not THAT bad. 90% of my actions go unquestioned.

farazparsa
1 Feb 2008, 01:59
yeah, it's not THAT bad. 90% of my actions go unquestioned.
Well, from what I've used of Vista so far, it's pretty annoying. Especially since I keep thinking the computer crashed every time the 1-second delay for the prompt happens.

Akuryou13
1 Feb 2008, 04:14
Well, from what I've used of Vista so far, it's pretty annoying. Especially since I keep thinking the computer crashed every time the 1-second delay for the prompt happens.:confused: Vista is just hit-or-miss in every way I guess.

yauhui
1 Feb 2008, 10:05
vista wont be worth until microsoft releases an SP similar to XP's SP2.
which made XP, like, the best.

MtlAngelus
1 Feb 2008, 10:13
vista wont be worth until microsoft releases an SP similar to XP's SP2.
which made XP, like, the best.
XP wasn't the best.

farazparsa
2 Feb 2008, 02:01
which made XP, like, the best.
XP? Best? I beg your pardon?!
Three cheers for Windows 95!
Linux makes me feel fuzzy inside.

Shadowmoon
2 Feb 2008, 08:32
XP? Best? I beg your pardon?!
Three cheers for Windows 95!
Linux makes me feel fuzzy inside.
XP is the best. Windows 95 is old. The other members think its the best. Look at the poll.

MtlAngelus
2 Feb 2008, 09:00
XP is the best. Windows 95 is old. The other members think its the best. Look at the poll.
"Which OS do you use?"=/="Which OS do you think is best?"
XP is not the best OS, not even close. I guess the prize would probably go to some version of Linux or something. As for me, I like Mac OS X. I find it a lot better than XP.

Shadowmoon
2 Feb 2008, 09:05
Well i think XP is the best. Nothing wrong with that is there? its simple to use, and i love it. I've had it for 3 years now. People have their own OS that suit them, and it so happens that XP is my favourite.

MrBunsy
2 Feb 2008, 09:06
It's probably the best version of Windows.

Shadowmoon
2 Feb 2008, 09:13
It is. My friend bought vista, and he thought that it was a complete waste of money for something that wasn't a good upgrade at all. He bought XP back in less than 1 month. I've seen vista, and its not very impressive. Its definitely NOT better than XP.

yauhui
2 Feb 2008, 09:42
XP? Best? I beg your pardon?!
I said: "..., like, the best."
Still, the best OS is the plain ol' DOS.

MtlAngelus
2 Feb 2008, 11:11
It's probably the best version of Windows.
Windows 3.1 ftw! >:O

thomasp
2 Feb 2008, 11:16
Windows 3.1 ftw! >:O
Seconded!
Only version of Windows I've never had crash on me or be generally irritating. To use Apple's advertising slogan "It just worked"

Plasma
2 Feb 2008, 11:32
Ah, screw all those! Microsoft DOSSHELL ftw!

bonz
2 Feb 2008, 15:25
What OS does the original Gameboy run with?

Muzer
2 Feb 2008, 18:52
AFAIK it doesn't have one (aside from the intro screen), it's all low-level (or even hardware). That's why you can emulate it on MAME without a BIOS i've said too much

MadEwokHerd
2 Feb 2008, 22:03
If you use Windows Vista, please, PLEASE enable UAC. And complain to developers of software that sets it off.
Yes, it may be an annoyance to you, but in the long run it will make Windows software much better and help the rest of us. Especially the ones on Linux.

Squirminator2k
2 Feb 2008, 22:12
If you use Windows Vista, please, PLEASE enable UAC. And complain to developers of software that sets it off.
Yes, it may be an annoyance to you, but in the long run it will make Windows software much better and help the rest of us. Especially the ones on Linux.
Dear Interplay,
I recently picked up The Fallout Collection for my PC, and when I installed the games it decided vomit UAC notifications all the time. Now I realise that, as a company, you all but ceased to exist in 2006. However I demand you make adjustments and improvements to these decade-old games so as to no longer trigger UAC...
Yeah, MEH. I'm starting to see a flaw with this plan.

MadEwokHerd
2 Feb 2008, 22:25
Oh, you're playing LEGACY games. You want Windows XP then.

Squirminator2k
2 Feb 2008, 22:30
So basically, if you want to play new games it's fine, but if you want to play old games, you're shafted? No, I think I'll just leave UAC turned off, thanks. It's much easier and less expensive this way.
Hell, this is more or less why I won't switch to Linux.

Plainplane
3 Feb 2008, 00:21
vista wont be worth until microsoft releases an SP similar to XP's SP2.
which made XP, like, the best.And ironically... Microsoft's Windows XP SP3 will increase XP performance 10-20% over SP2. Vista SP1 will do... well nothing.
Plainplane :)

farazparsa
3 Feb 2008, 00:23
Oh, you're playing LEGACY games. You want Windows XP then.
It's like saying, "Oh, you're playing classic, great, and beloved games. You want Windows XP then."
Seriously, all DX10 is improve graphics. Am I missing something here? It's a game. Sure, good graphics are nice, but after the first few minutes of awe, you just want a solid, fun game.

Akuryou13
3 Feb 2008, 01:21
It's like saying, "Oh, you're playing classic, great, and beloved games. You want Windows XP then."
Seriously, all DX10 is improve graphics. Am I missing something here? It's a game. Sure, good graphics are nice, but after the first few minutes of awe, you just want a solid, fun game.old games don't run in DX10. vista will have no effect on the quality of teh game, assuming the game will run on Vista.

Plasma
3 Feb 2008, 01:25
Seriously, all DX10 is improve graphics. Am I missing something here? It's a game. Sure, good graphics are nice, but after the first few minutes of awe, you just want a solid, fun game.
Let me guess, you're another one of those "good graphics equals bad game" people? Because that's what you're making it seem like.

Metal Alex
3 Feb 2008, 11:53
What OS does the original Gameboy run with?
I'd actually love to know that, actually.

SupSuper
3 Feb 2008, 15:45
If you use Windows Vista, please, PLEASE enable UAC. And complain to developers of software that sets it off.
Yes, it may be an annoyance to you, but in the long run it will make Windows software much better and help the rest of us. Especially the ones on Linux.I don't have a problem with UAC, in theory. More security is great and all, I just don't like confirmations, I even disable the "Are you sure you want to delete?" window. I'm an admin, I wanna freely mess around with my Windows settings whenever I want, I don't want my actions questioned.
And I have yet to find a "Legacy game" that doesn't run on Vista, though I don't install my games on restricted folders anyways. :p

Muzer
3 Feb 2008, 16:15
What, so you don't install them into program files? That surely would create a pretty messy HDD. Or do you just put them in a C:\Games folder or something?

SupSuper
3 Feb 2008, 19:46
What, so you don't install them into program files? That surely would create a pretty messy HDD. Or do you just put them in a C:\Games folder or something?Pretty much. I keep my OS and applications in one hard disk and games and documents in another.

Muzer
3 Feb 2008, 20:12
Clever, although doesn't that mean a lot of wasted space on the former HDD?

farazparsa
8 Feb 2008, 03:33
Let me guess, you're another one of those "good graphics equals bad game" people? Because that's what you're making it seem like.
No, I'm more of a "good gameplay over graphics" kind-of person.

Plasma
8 Feb 2008, 07:48
No, I'm more of a "good gameplay over graphics" kind-of person.
Yeah, but this is a case of better graphics without hampering gameplay, so I don't know what you're on about.

farazparsa
9 Feb 2008, 01:13
Yeah, but this is a case of better graphics without hampering gameplay, so I don't know what you're on about.
I'm saying that DX10 only betters graphics, not the gameplay. Games should stay multi-platform until Vista improves and gets a good majority of the OS pool.

SupSuper
9 Feb 2008, 01:32
Clever, although doesn't that mean a lot of wasted space on the former HDD?One word: Adobe.

MrBunsy
9 Feb 2008, 08:53
I'm saying that DX10 only betters graphics, not the gameplay. Games should stay multi-platform until Vista improves and gets a good majority of the OS pool.
And a quick look at Valve's hardware survey suggests that's not going to be for years.

Plasma
9 Feb 2008, 09:52
I'm saying that DX10 only betters graphics, not the gameplay.
Well yes, but it doesn't worsen gameplay either, does it?

MrBunsy
9 Feb 2008, 09:59
Do you really think a vista-only game will actually be any good?

Akuryou13
9 Feb 2008, 15:54
Do you really think a vista-only game will actually be any good?why wouldn't it? just because something has amazing graphics doesn't mean it's a bad game. look at crysis. it's rather fun AND it looks ridiculously good.

yauhui
9 Feb 2008, 16:04
meh... people say that to run crysis you need a supercomputer.

Shadowmoon
9 Feb 2008, 18:30
I'm using vista now.;)
its okay, and it does look quite cool. But windows XP is much better.

Extremist2
9 Feb 2008, 18:56
Windows 2000. I use a lot of older software, some of which might not work properly on XP, and I also prefer the way it functions.

MtlAngelus
9 Feb 2008, 19:56
meh... people say that to run crysis you need a supercomputer.
To run it on high settings, yes. To run it on Very High settings, you need a power level of OVER 9000!
But if you run it on the lowest, you don't need much of a supercomputer, tho you do need a good one.

farazparsa
9 Feb 2008, 21:11
Well yes, but it doesn't worsen gameplay either, does it?
Bottom line: Vista isn't at a level where it can release successful (financial wise) exclusives.

SupSuper
9 Feb 2008, 21:59
I don't see why it'd need to, PC games have always been scalable so developers have been supporting DX9/10 without a problem.

Squirminator2k
9 Feb 2008, 22:08
Halo 2 is Vista-exclusive. Chances are Microsoft are going to continue knocking out games that require Vista to run, and it's entirely possible that the companies that are participating in the Games for Windows thing are going to be forced to make the same move, too.

Akuryou13
10 Feb 2008, 01:17
meh... people say that to run crysis you need a supercomputer.and you believe what everyone says? all you need is a good computer to run the game, as was advertised since the first information about the game. I can run it on High at a smooth framerate at 1680x1080 and my computer isn't the best you can get, it's just rather good:
Manufacturer: HomeMade
Processor: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU 6600 @ 2.40GHz (2 CPUs), ~2.4GHz
Memory: 2044MB RAM
Hard Drive: 370 GB Total
Video Card: NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTX
Monitor: Acer 22" Widescreen LCD Monitor
Sound Card: Speakers (Creative SB X-Fi)
Speakers/Headphones: Sicuro 5.1 Gaming Speakers
Keyboard: Logitech G15
Mouse: Logitech MX Revolution
Mouse Surface: RatPadz GS
Operating System: Windows Vista™ Home Premium (6.0, Build 6000) (6000.vista_rtm.061101-2205)
Bottom line: Vista isn't at a level where it can release successful (financial wise) exclusives. why not? when something like a new OS or a new console comes out it's always at a point where it can release exclusives that can be successful, they just need to be better than it would normally take for them to sell. in fact, those kinds of games and programs are what get sales for new OSs or Consoles.

Squirminator2k
10 Feb 2008, 01:20
Ak, I've never seen you be so utterly ignorant of the facts before so I can only assume you are being intentionally stupid, either because you're trolling or you're just trying to be funny.
and you believe what everyone says? all you need is a good computer to run the game, as was advertised since the first information about the game. I can run it on High at a smooth framerate at 1680x1080 and my computer isn't the best you can get, it's just rather good...
Ah yes, but can you set the graphic and audio quality to the absolute maximum? I imagine not.
why not? when something like a new OS or a new console comes out it's always at a point where it can release exclusives that can be successful, they just need to be better than it would normally take for them to sell. in fact, those kinds of games and programs are what get sales for new OSs or Consoles.
Vista appears to be suffering from "Windows ME Syndrome", in that nobody is switching to it because it's (Silt - Ed.). Right now, there would be absolutely no market for Vista-exclusives. I would personal be very interested to see the sales figures for the PC version of Halo 2.

Akuryou13
10 Feb 2008, 01:34
Ah yes, but can you set the graphic and audio quality to the absolute maximum? I imagine not.didn't say maximum, just said high. not sure if a computer exists that can run it on maximum. I was just commenting on his statement that you have to have a super computer just to play the game, not defending the game's use of entirely too many system resources.
Vista appears to be suffering from "Windows ME Syndrome", in that nobody is switching to it because it's (Silt - Ed.). Right now, there would be absolutely no market for Vista-exclusives. I would personal be very interested to see the sales figures for the PC version of Halo 2. honestly? no idea. point I was really trying to make was just that exclusive games are what get things like that to sell and if they had some really good exclusives then they may actually GET to the point that it would be profitable. granted, with Windows 7 coming out next year or so (I believe that's what I'd heard) it may be a pointless effort to try said games, but that mostly depends on what Microsoft intends to do with Vista.

Squirminator2k
10 Feb 2008, 02:20
didn't say maximum, just said high. not sure if a computer exists that can run it on maximum. I was just commenting on his statement that you have to have a super computer just to play the game, not defending the game's use of entirely too many system resources.
Well it's Maximum we're talking about. Do pay attention, 007.
honestly? no idea. point I was really trying to make was just that exclusive games are what get things like that to sell and if they had some really good exclusives then they may actually GET to the point that it would be profitable. granted, with Windows 7 coming out next year or so (I believe that's what I'd heard) it may be a pointless effort to try said games, but that mostly depends on what Microsoft intends to do with Vista.
The only people getting Vista at the moment are either people buying new machines with Vista pre-loaded onto it, like me, or idiots who think it'd be a good idea to upgrade. No one I know has made the switch to Vista because their favourite game runs bet6ter on it, and no one I know has switched for the sake of sub-far FPS monstrosity Halo 2. So... y'know.

farazparsa
10 Feb 2008, 02:33
The only people getting Vista at the moment are either people buying new machines with Vista pre-loaded onto it, like me, or idiots who think it'd be a good idea to upgrade. No one I know has made the switch to Vista because their favourite game runs bet6ter on it, and no one I know has switched for the sake of sub-far FPS monstrosity Halo 2. So... y'know.
I think the fact that Halo 2 Vista needs an Xbox Live account to play online is a flashing arrow.

Squirminator2k
10 Feb 2008, 02:34
Well yes, but so does the Xbox version. Didn't stop sales there.

farazparsa
10 Feb 2008, 03:19
Well yes, but so does the Xbox version. Didn't stop sales there.
You would expect the PC version would offer free online (as promised by Bungie, I may add.) Instead what we got was a straight port of a soon-to-be outdated game, since Halo 3 would be released a 2 or 3 months afterwards.

Akuryou13
10 Feb 2008, 03:38
Well it's Maximum we're talking about. Do pay attention, 007.no, actually he just said that it takes a supercomputer to run the game. I said it doesn't and provided the specs to my non-super-computer as evidence. no one once mentioned maximum settings :p
The only people getting Vista at the moment are either people buying new machines with Vista pre-loaded onto it, like me, or idiots who think it'd be a good idea to upgrade. No one I know has made the switch to Vista because their favourite game runs bet6ter on it, and no one I know has switched for the sake of sub-far FPS monstrosity Halo 2. So... y'know.that was my point, though, in a roundabout way. if Vista had games worth buying Vista for more people might upgrade. as it is it's kinda pointless unless, as you said, it comes preloaded or you're buying a new OS anyway.
Well yes, but so does the Xbox version. Didn't stop sales there.well of course it didn't. on XBox all online games require Live accounts to be paid for, it's a side-effect of owning an XBox of any variety. obviously if you don't have a choice but to not play online or to pay a bit of a fee, most people are going to pay the fee. on a computer, however, there are how many online shooters? and how many do you have to pay an independant fee for, exactly? if there is no alternative then the game is still going to sell well, but if there IS an alternative then it won't. only people who are gunna pay for Live accounts on a computer are idiots and MS fanboys. lord knows, I would LOVE an account on Live so that I could continue playing ShadowRun online, but there's no way I'm paying a monthly fee for one friggin shooter game. same is true for most people.

Plasma
10 Feb 2008, 19:43
Well it's Maximum we're talking about. Do pay attention, 007.
Wrong! Yauhui never mentioned anything regarding high settings.
Instead what we got was a straight port
Also wrong!

Squirminator2k
10 Feb 2008, 19:47
Wrong! Yauhui never mentioned anything regarding high settings.
Considering that gamers worldwide have been discussing the inability to play Crysis at the highest graphics settings, the rest of us figured out as such. Now you're just being a git.
Also wrong!
Except he's not. Halo 2 for the PC is more or less a direct port of the Xbox version, albeit with a few tweaks and adjustments.

Plasma
10 Feb 2008, 20:09
Considering that gamers worldwide have been discussing the inability to play Crysis at the highest graphics settings, the rest of us figured out as such. Now you're just being a git.
Hey, I'm just pointing out what was said...
Except he's not. Halo 2 for the PC is more or less a direct port of the Xbox version, albeit with a few tweaks and adjustments.
So... what, the modding stuff counts as a simple adjustment?

Squirminator2k
10 Feb 2008, 20:10
So... what, the modding stuff counts as a simple adjustment?
That's minor.

Plasma
10 Feb 2008, 20:18
That's minor.
...
Ah, screw it. I have better things to do then to get in another Yakuza-type argument.

Akuryou13
11 Feb 2008, 01:07
Considering that gamers worldwide have been discussing the inability to play Crysis at the highest graphics settings, the rest of us figured out as such. Now you're just being a git.you're the one completely ignoring the facts to call everyone else stupid and yet HE'S being a git?!
edit: I mean no offense. perhaps you're just having a bad day or something, but you are/were being a bit of a git (as you put it).

Mayla
11 Feb 2008, 15:08
I use a Windows XP. My brother once tried to make me have Windows Vista in my computer because it's better but I said no. A few days after he installed Vista in his computer, he began complaining. Good thing I rejected the thing, I'd hate to have slowdowns or random crashing. :-/

Squirminator2k
11 Feb 2008, 16:56
you're the one completely ignoring the facts to call everyone else stupid and yet HE'S being a git?!
edit: I mean no offense. perhaps you're just having a bad day or something, but you are/were being a bit of a git (as you put it).
How is taking into account what everyone else who is discussing Crysis' graphics requirements "completely ignoring the facts"? Anyone who a) has an internet connection, and b) has heard of the game knows that it's nigh impossible to get the game running at top performance on existing hardware.

MtlAngelus
11 Feb 2008, 21:52
How is taking into account what everyone else who is discussing Crysis' graphics requirements "completely ignoring the facts"? Anyone who a) has an internet connection, and b) has heard of the game knows that it's nigh impossible to get the game running at top performance on existing hardware.
Because we were discussing a comment by yauhui in this thread, not what everyone over the internet talks about.
Yauhui simply said that it takes a supercomputer to run the game, when it's not true, you can run the game on a relatively good computer, albeit not in all high settings. And it stills look rather good and plays well.
Also I think you went ott when calling Aku ignorant, particularly calling him out on the Crysis argument because he was right, nobody here mentioned running it with everything on very high...

Squirminator2k
11 Feb 2008, 22:04
But it can be generally assumed, given the context.

Plasma
11 Feb 2008, 22:09
But it can be generally assumed, given the context.
No it can't, nothing was said. Now shutup about that bloody dead point and get back to the topic to which it was supposed to apply to!

farazparsa
12 Feb 2008, 00:13
Alright, before this thread gets locked, let's change the subject.
...
...
Linux is cool...

Squirminator2k
12 Feb 2008, 00:18
"Linux is cool"? Lock the thread!
:P

SupSuper
12 Feb 2008, 02:43
I'm sorry but I can't take this anymore, there's this incredible amount of stupidity amassing in this thread and I've been ignoring it for too long.
I think the fact that Halo 2 Vista needs an Xbox Live account to play online is a flashing arrow.
You would expect the PC version would offer free online (as promised by Bungie, I may add.) Instead what we got was a straight port of a soon-to-be outdated game, since Halo 3 would be released a 2 or 3 months afterwards.First of all, Xbox Live and Games For Windows Live (GFWL) accounts are one and the same. If you have one you'll have the other, and any friends, achievements, etc, will be shared. All you need is a Windows Live ID (which I'm sure everyone has from MSN Messenger/Live Messenger) and you're set.
Second, the pricing plans are also the same, Silver is free and Gold is paid. But, the features are different. While Xbox Live Silver doesn't give you multiplayer, GFWL does. There is absolutely no fee for playing PC games online. I'm not gonna argue about whether the GFWL Gold features are actually worth it or not, it's mostly done so Xbox Live Gold users (which are a lot) are also automatically GFWL Gold users for no extra fee.
The only feature that was dropped during development was cross-platform play for Halo 2. You might think I'm just defending Halo 2 but I don't like it either, I'm just correcting misinformation.
Halo 2 is Vista-exclusive. Chances are Microsoft are going to continue knocking out games that require Vista to run, and it's entirely possible that the companies that are participating in the Games for Windows thing are going to be forced to make the same move, too.To date there have only been two games released exclusively for Windows Vista: Halo 2 and Shadowrun, and these were mere promotional games. Microsoft was set to release their new operative system, and seeing how people would probably dislike the change, they grabbed their nearest cashcows to promote it. It's how marketing works, and Microsoft's been trying to promote PC gaming with GFW and GFWL recently. Both are available for console and none of them use DirectX 10 anyways.
So far there've been announced 73 Games For Windows and 22 games with DirectX 10 support, and none of them are Windows Vista exclusive. Developers aren't being forced to adopt GFW and GFWL still supports XP. Crysis, the most high-end PC game yet, still supports Xp. Vista has been out for over a year now and people are still going paranoid over it.
The only people getting Vista at the moment are either people buying new machines with Vista pre-loaded onto it, like me, or idiots who think it'd be a good idea to upgrade. No one I know has made the switch to Vista because their favourite game runs bet6ter on it, and no one I know has switched for the sake of sub-far FPS monstrosity Halo 2. So... y'know.Thanks, I appreciate the insult.
If you don't like Vista, fine, nobody's forcing you to, go back to XP, use Linux, whatever. People still want XP so Microsoft's still selling XP. I don't care what your reasons are to like or dislike the system and I'm not gonna argue. I am, however, sick of people slagging off Vista users just because they use a different operative system. I am aware of the silly Windows vs. Mac vs. Linux but this is a new low, and your (as well as other's) attitude in this thread has been nothing more than being a git. I am aware that Vista has had a worse reception than XP, but I am happy with Vista and I'm sure a lot of other people are, and if you got a problem with it, tough. I'm not gonna sit around until this descends into nobody respecting other's opinions and the word Vi$ta going around.

Squirminator2k
12 Feb 2008, 02:55
I apologise if I have offended you. I've not been thinking clearly these last few days. That's no excuse, though.
Sorry.

Akuryou13
12 Feb 2008, 08:43
Second, the pricing plans are also the same, Silver is free and Gold is paid. But, the features are different. While Xbox Live Silver doesn't give you multiplayer, GFWL does. There is absolutely no fee for playing PC games online. I'm not gonna argue about whether the GFWL Gold features are actually worth it or not, it's mostly done so Xbox Live Gold users (which are a lot) are also automatically GFWL Gold users for no extra fee.are you 100% certain? I stopped playing shadowrun after 3 weeks because I was told by everyone that the GFWL required a gold account to do multiplayer. granted, in the game there's no way to tell who's on XBox and who's on Vista, but I rather assumed it was the truth considering how commonly the knowledge was spread around. so are you certain it wasn't the case? because I seriously loved ShadowRun, and would GLADLY go play it some more.

Xinos
12 Feb 2008, 11:11
I've been using Vista since last winter. It runs fine, I don't see what all the bashing is about.
Vista. It just works.

Plasma
12 Feb 2008, 11:51
are you 100% certain? I stopped playing shadowrun after 3 weeks because I was told by everyone that the GFWL required a gold account to do multiplayer. granted, in the game there's no way to tell who's on XBox and who's on Vista, but I rather assumed it was the truth considering how commonly the knowledge was spread around. so are you certain it wasn't the case? because I seriously loved ShadowRun, and would GLADLY go play it some more.
According to Wikipedia, GFWL Silver allows for "PC only multiplayer including browsing a list of active PC games".

Akuryou13
12 Feb 2008, 12:19
According to Wikipedia, GFWL Silver allows for "PC only multiplayer including browsing a list of active PC games".which means it limits it to allowing me to play with the other 10 owners of the vista-only PC version of the game. perhaps I should try it again anyway. there may be more than 2 servers up by now....

MadEwokHerd
12 Feb 2008, 16:50
I've been using Vista since last winter. It runs fine, I don't see what all the bashing is about.
Vista. It just works.
Everything just works for someone. I'd like to see someone attempt to determine how often an OS actually works (with and without configuration) and possibly for what kind of systems (as you'd certainly find some operating systems run better on older or newer computers).

SupSuper
14 Feb 2008, 05:12
which means it limits it to allowing me to play with the other 10 owners of the vista-only PC version of the game. perhaps I should try it again anyway. there may be more than 2 servers up by now....Better enjoy it while it lasts, nobody knows for how long the Shadowrun servers will remain after the website and forum got shutdown.
And all other wishy-washy things about Vista aside, I have two definite good things to say about it: it is stable and it is compatible. I have yet to suffer from a single unrecoverable BSD or crash (that wasn't triggered by hardware damage) or to find any of my software just suddenly up and not working since the upgrade.

farazparsa
14 Feb 2008, 05:39
Better enjoy it while it lasts, nobody knows for how long the Shadowrun servers will remain after the website and forum got shutdown.
And all other wishy-washy things about Vista aside, I have two definite good things to say about it: it is stable and it is compatible. I have yet to suffer from a single unrecoverable BSD or crash (that wasn't triggered by hardware damage) or to find any of my software just suddenly up and not working since the upgrade.
Nobody is arguing with the fact that everyone with eventually transfer to Vista. But that may not be for another few years. There are (Are, not may be.) security flaws that have to fixed.
The same case with Windows XP if you look back a few years in retrospect.

Akuryou13
14 Feb 2008, 14:30
Better enjoy it while it lasts, nobody knows for how long the Shadowrun servers will remain after the website and forum got shutdown.
And all other wishy-washy things about Vista aside, I have two definite good things to say about it: it is stable and it is compatible. I have yet to suffer from a single unrecoverable BSD or crash (that wasn't triggered by hardware damage) or to find any of my software just suddenly up and not working since the upgrade.well my HD is pretty close to full, so I was gunna wait until my cousin brought me some of his spare HD clamp-things to fit the HD into my case, but after seeing the forums and such shut down I doubt I'll bother....
and what bugs me the most is that it could've been a great game had they just implemented climbing animations (and a couple other minor animations), and put in about 6 more levels or so....

robowurmz
14 Feb 2008, 18:19
I personally use Windows XP SP2 and Ubuntu Linux 7.10. They're in Dual-Boot.

Squirminator2k
14 Feb 2008, 18:32
There is no force on this Earth that would get me to switch to Linux.

farazparsa
15 Feb 2008, 01:02
There is no force on this Earth that would get me to switch to Linux.
Linux isn't that bad. It's... ... ... ... ...cozy... ...

SupSuper
15 Feb 2008, 02:56
I don't mind Ubuntu as an alternative, it's even hosted on my college's FTP, but it's not something I'd use regularly.

MadEwokHerd
16 Feb 2008, 03:50
Better enjoy it while it lasts, nobody knows for how long the Shadowrun servers will remain after the website and forum got shutdown.
And all other wishy-washy things about Vista aside, I have two definite good things to say about it: it is stable and it is compatible. I have yet to suffer from a single unrecoverable BSD or crash (that wasn't triggered by hardware damage) or to find any of my software just suddenly up and not working since the upgrade.
Vista causes hardware damage now?

Akuryou13
16 Feb 2008, 13:41
Vista causes hardware damage now?I think he was saying the problems didn't exist unless the hardware was already damaged.

MtlAngelus
16 Feb 2008, 20:32
Vista is also a cause of cancer. And in some cases can give you AIDS. :eek:
True story.

SupSuper
16 Feb 2008, 21:14
I think he was saying the problems didn't exist unless the hardware was already damaged.Yes, I meant damaged hardware causing crashes or BSDs.

farazparsa
17 Feb 2008, 22:54
Vista is also a cause of cancer. And in some cases can give you AIDS. :eek:
True story.
Wasn't ME thought to be a cause of Polio a couple years ago?

Squirminator2k
17 Feb 2008, 23:05
Linux isn't that bad. It's... ... ... ... ...cozy... ...
Switching to Linux would cost me the use of well over $5,000 worth of software, so given the circumstances you'll forgive me if I don't go rushing in search of the latest Ubuntu release.

Muzer
18 Feb 2008, 08:29
How about a dual boot? Ubuntu does that by default.

Squirminator2k
18 Feb 2008, 08:37
Or, rather than hop between multiple operating systems to do various stuff, I could just use one OS. I would be inflicting an inconvenience upon myself by setting up my system as a dual boot.

robowurmz
18 Feb 2008, 09:35
Ubuntu Linux is free, and it comes with a great heap of apps anyway. Linux is good for if you really want to get INSIDE the system and tinker about with it.

Squirminator2k
18 Feb 2008, 09:41
Well, I don't. I can do everything I need to do within Vista, and switching would only be an inconvenience.
Allow me to elaborate: If I were to install Linux on my machine, I'd be checking my email and doing my writing from Linux, and doing Everything Else in Vista. If I decide I want to stop writing and, say, play a game, or work on graphical elements of my website, or letter the latest Jump Leads page, or use Skype or play Gemotry Wars or whatever, I'd have to reboot. That's an inconvenience.
The only way I would switch, and this is a challenge I've thrown down before, is if I would still be able to use all of my current software without issue, and be able to open all of my documents and image files (many of which are .psp files). Seeing as no one has been able to offer such a solution, it's not a switch that will be made.

bonz
18 Feb 2008, 13:53
Linux (or Mac OS on an Apple computer) wouldn't be an alternative for me either.
I'm too much of a computer gaming fan and Linux or Mac OS just don't have the compatibility for games.
And all the other stuff I do on my computer (office, internet, music, video,...) I can do perfectly fine with heaps of free software too.
The only advantage for me would be that Linux is cheaper than Windows, namely free.

Plasma
18 Feb 2008, 17:49
The only advantage for me would be that Linux is cheaper than Windows, namely free.
Of course, that's only a point if you're not already getting Windows packaged free with your PC, like most of them have.

bonz
18 Feb 2008, 23:08
getting Windows packaged free with your PC
Those OEM versions are not really free at all.
Here in Austria you can refuse them and get a refund. IIRC, it was ~€50.- back in the day for Windows ME.

farazparsa
19 Feb 2008, 02:29
Linux is the most expandable OS I've ever developed with. I use XP myself, but my laptop has a dual boot which makes it usefull when I'm testing stuff on both OSes.

SupSuper
20 Feb 2008, 02:46
The only way I would switch, and this is a challenge I've thrown down before, is if I would still be able to use all of my current software without issue, and be able to open all of my documents and image files (many of which are .psp files). Seeing as no one has been able to offer such a solution, it's not a switch that will be made.I'm having the same dillema with switching to a 64-bit Windows.

MrBunsy
25 Feb 2008, 11:14
I've just been trying out Ubuntu on an old PC, to see if really was a easy to use as I've heard.
So far so good; I've yet to irreversibly break anything.

kikumbob
27 Feb 2008, 00:59
I'm having the same dillema with switching to a 64-bit Windows.Is 64-bit EVER going to out compete 32-bit systems, or will it always be somewhere in the background as "a fairly good idea, if only stuff worked on it"?
I have XP on my laptop, and I was one of those "saddos" who bought vista for my gaming computer at home to play Halo 2 on. Granted, I had no Xbox so I was halo deprived. And I like Halo.
Never tried Linux, never had the urge to. On the other hand I've had the urge to try a Mac, but I've never had a reason to.

snowdog
27 Feb 2008, 02:22
Dualbooting:
Winxp pro 32 bit.
Vista ultimate x64
atm.
Using Vista X64 for directx 10 and 4gb Ram support only tbh.
Prefer xp by far, had this instalation for 4 years and with over 1000gb of games&apps installed, I find it hard to use a ''clean'' os now.

Apocalypse
4 Mar 2008, 21:16
XP here.. trying to find a laptop with XP installed, cos I tried Vista and it went berserk on me o-o''
btw snowdog... do you really have 1 TB on games on your comp? o_O
Or did you install and deinstall more than a Terabyte on games? (big difference)

vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.