Page 2 of 2
Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 2:27 pm
by ricardo
pdwyer wrote:
But then, if windows 7 is going to be EVEN MORE bells and whistles on the same vista core, then I guess vista might start looking pretty good at that point
A few years ago, everybody talks bad about XP (and before about 2000, and before about w98) and now must people seams to love it.
Im sure that in 5 or 6 years evrybody will have at least Vista and will start talking bad about new releases
Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 2:59 pm
by pdwyer
I don't remember that for win2k. I remember it for win95 and then '98 though.
win2k was my dream OS when it came out
The games I had on 95 (didn't like 98 ) would run, japanese support added to the english OS, and I was onto an NT code base workstation that didn't rot (nt4 workstation degraded very badly after a few months. couldn't even defrag it).
XP was bells and whistles, I moved to it in the end because it has more japanese support than just unicode but I run it in classic mode. Many features I had to learn to turn off.
Vista... I will go to it in the end for the 64bit support I think. It has nothing I need otherwise still, simple as that.
Actually if games run, I might just run windows server 2008 as a workstation OS
that could be a good workaround
Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 4:33 pm
by Heathen
They really need to make a separate OS 100% dedicated to gaming.
Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 5:19 pm
by rsts
Heathen wrote:They really need to make a separate OS 100% dedicated to gaming.
xbox
cheers
not really, it handles multimedia too.
Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 5:29 pm
by Demivec
rsts wrote:Heathen wrote:They really need to make a separate OS 100% dedicated to gaming.
xbox
cheers
not really, it handles multimedia too.
I learned recently it was originally called DirectXbox, then it was shortened to Xbox.
Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 7:01 pm
by Heathen
rsts wrote:Heathen wrote:They really need to make a separate OS 100% dedicated to gaming.
xbox
cheers
not really, it handles multimedia too.
Some games just don't work out on gaming systems. Imagine trying to play flight simulator with a controller? I can think of many reasons I would rather play games on my PC than a gaming system.
Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 11:08 pm
by Rook Zimbabwe
I think this beats it for wanker of the year though
Paul, that was a terrible pun... I am still in pain!!!
However... I would like to say that I think the Kernel will have to change a bit. Simply to handle messages and activity of new hardware.
I would like to see 7 only handle 32 bit and 64 bit code. Clean up the legacy issues a bit. Make work for us programmers who gain some coin by updating legacy apps!
Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 12:34 am
by Tipperton
Rook Zimbabwe wrote:I would like to see 7 only handle 32 bit and 64 bit code.
Didn't they already do that with Vista? No support for 16 bit apps? Or was that just for the 64 bit versions?
Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 1:16 am
by DoubleDutch
Just the 64-bit edition. I don't know why though - they could have included it. Why not?
To run 16-bit stuff on the 64-bit edition you have to have virtual pc running.
Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 11:07 pm
by Tipperton
DoubleDutch wrote:Just the 64-bit edition.
Hmm... I thought that not being able to run 16 bit programs on any version of Vista was one of the reasons PowerBASIC finally made their compiler a 32 bit application.
Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 8:51 am
by blueznl
XP already crippled all 16 bit code by disabling part of the 'thunking' mechanism. What worked fine in 16 bit under Windows 98 using WOW16, did not always work on Windows XP. In fact, the WOW16 layer in Win2K is better than XP's.
Vista 32 should contain WOW16 but it may behave less compatible than XP.
Vista 64 and XP64 do contain WOW64 but are supposedly not containing WOW32. (I cannot confirm, don't run either OS.)