Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
So, Who's Ready for Windows Vista?
#31
Probably not. I like it's interface, but on my curent machine, I get enough slowdown now because of th lack of video memory. I don't see the point of bloating it up even more.
Screwing with your reality since 1998.
Reply
#32
Quote:
na_th_an Wrote:There is no MSDOS in Windows (thanks God) since Windows 2000, just a virtual machine which lets you run MSDOS binaries. Windows Vista will have it as well, but with the same restrictions as W2K and WXP, of course.
Thanks alot, Nathan, I was worried.

However Windows W2K and WXP do it, the effect is that you can run DOS programs, batch files, and use most of the old DOS commands and support programs.
*****

But it's not MSDOS. It's a Virtual Machine which does this:

1.- It directly executes the real mode machine code instructions on your CPU. A protected memory space is created for this process (this happens just like with every other process) which mimmicks the "real" memory space in a real MSDOS machine.
2.- If the program being ran wants to ask the OS to do any task (this is done in MSDOS calling an interruption), it is the NTVDM (NT Virtual DOS Machine) which attends the call, not MSDOS. This includes memory allocation & management, disk access, COM access, ports, etcetera.

#2 is what causes uncompatibiity, 'cause in a modern OS you can't access directly to memory or devices for security issues (that's why there's no more "hardware crasher" viruses, like not so long ago), so walkarounds are used. Those walkarounds have been designed for standard scenarios, but as everything is tweakable, I'd bet that most MSDOS proggies use one tweak or another... so things go haywire Big Grin
SCUMM (the band) on Myspace!
ComputerEmuzone Games Studio
underBASIC, homegrown musicians
[img]http://www.ojodepez-fanzine.net/almacen/yoghourtslover.png[/i
Reply
#33
Actually the ntvdm is not present in the 64bit versions of the operating systems (vista x64, xp x64, etc), and that's what the mainstream will be using in a copule of years.
So support for old 16 bit dos program will disappear, luckily there are projects like dosbox so we can still emulate the good old dos.
Reply
#34
Vista is just XP with a diferent skin from what I've heard. Only thing that's much different is the start menu layout.
lt;(im_an_alien)>
[Image: Userbar.jpg]
Reply
#35
You know, I used to do this all the time, but I've grown up somewhat.

You know what? I can guarantee you that within 5 years I'll be running Vista.

Why?

Because it's what's going to be needed to run the latest programs and the latest hardware, it's going to have a tonne of little "Why didn't they think of that before?" features, and to be frank, I'm going to get a copy for free if I buy a new computer anyway.

I've already got the hardware for it, but I doubt I'll be switching right away, since it's just an OS, rather than something important.
Reply
#36
Quote:You know what? I can guarantee you that within 5 years I'll be running Vista.

Yeah i think i will too. I held back on XP for a long time because it was too expensive, and i didn't need it. Gradually though more and more of the programs i use became XP only, so i upgraded. By that time XP was only £50 rather than the £200 or whatever it was at first. I think it was worth paying for, it's definately more stable than '98SE, and I do prefer the UI now.

I think i'll wait until i build my next PC, as it's almost inevitable i'm going to need a 64-bit machine within the next couple of years.

I'd like to be able to make the switch to Linux, but i think it will be a multiboot for a few years yet, as there aren't comparable replacement programs yet for a lot of things i do (although they are progressing fast). Also as a programmer my main target will be Windows based as long as that is the most common for home use.
EVEN MEN OF STEEL RUST.
[Image: chav.gif]
Reply
#37
Quote:I think i'll wait until i build my next PC, as it's almost inevitable

that option for me too ... mmmm socket AM2 .....
ammit potato!
Reply
#38
Me me me me!!!! I am ready for Windows Vista! I hate a lot of stuff about it, Such as the Flip 3D for windows, which looks VERY ugly for an OS with so many other eyecandies because the Windows have no width! O_O.

Quote:Instant Search: significantly faster and more thorough search capabilities, similar to what is offered by Microsoft's Windows Desktop Search and Apple Computer's Spotlight.
Damnit
Quote:Parental Controls control which websites, programs, and games each person can use and install.
Quote:Speech recognition is fully integrated into Vista, which can be "trained" to understand a user's voice, to activate commands in any Windows application, and to enable voice dictation.
There's also some new startup stuff that makes the compy boot up faster, but it's 3 different features and too much to quote. This one's my favorite.
Quote:SuperFetch, which will speed up the loading of programs and windows by noting the common time of day you use certain programs, then loading the necessary binaries and files in RAM shortly before the set time, so that when you open the program at your usual time, the programs will load much quicker than they would otherwise. Optionally, SuperFetch can also be used in conjunction with ReadyBoost to boost system performance.
Reply
#39
Sounds cool! Although I have no set routine for programs, and I'm happy to wait the extra 2 seconds it takes for something to load...
Screwing with your reality since 1998.
Reply
#40
Vista just being XP with some nice eye candy is a wrong thing to say about the new OS. It might look like that but underwater Vista is as different as XP, as 98 is for 2000. Mind you they started from scratch with Vista; they did *not* build ontop of XP. That's one reason why it now was possible to *finally* dump the everlasting 2D GDI interface.

People saying 2000 is better than XP should think again too; XP built with 2000 as base .. but with improvements here and there. Turn off the eye candy (done with a single checkbox) and you have an improved 2000 which in general even is *faster* than 2000.

Anyway I am looking forward to Vista. I am waiting to buy/build a new computer, not before Vista is out. I noticed someone saying you need a DirectX 9.0c compliant videocard .. it's a bit weird to say that if you know that one of Vista's improvements will be DirectX 10 .. which is, again, going to be completely different than DirectX 9.0 (DirectX 9.0 functions will be *emulated* in DirectX 10)

With development of Vista, gamers have been kept in mind this time and Games should run better on Vista, than they do on 2000 or XP.

And I am a gamer. I hate Linux or anything that requires me to actually think about what I'm doing or actually needing me to use google. Confusedtar: >_>
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)