My 'Guess" Is Nothing - put out by ATI (or nVIDIA) - will Support the next DX10

[kmiller]

Microsoft has "Done It Again" !!!

They have created an OS - that is just 'Beyond' the capabilities - of
all the Video Card manufacturers - BEST 'Wares'.

It is going to take at least another year of 'Development', before the
top video card manufactures - will be able of 'Catching-Up" !!!

I 'Smell" another Windows 98 "Faux Passe" - all over again.

Creating an OS - thati s just too far 'Ahead' of the CURRENTLY
(available) Marketable PRODUCTS.

8< |

 

[Augustus]

Microsoft has "Done It Again" !!!

They have created an OS - that is just 'Beyond' the capabilities - of
all the Video Card manufacturers - BEST 'Wares'.

It's not beyond the the capabilities, or too far advanced, it's just bloated
crappy code with a huge system overhead and excerable and intrusive user
interface. There's nothing wrong with todays hardware. Plus Vista is more
like Win Me than 98. The ONLY reason to use Vista is get DX10, and DX10
should really be called DX9.0D....the visual differences are minimal, and
I've yet to see any reason tu use Vista for a single thing. The Dell D820 I
ordered 2 weeks back was ordered with XP Pro....it's only their Home line
that force Vista (ME II) on users....

 

[First of One]

What's scary is that congressmen and jurors tend to be even more clueless
than this guy...

 

[Sam]

What's scary is that congressmen and jurors tend to be even more clueless
than this guy...

Add reporters to that list

Sam

 

[kmiller]

It's not beyond the the capabilities, or too far advanced, it's just bloated
crappy code with a huge system overhead and excerable and intrusive user
interface. There's nothing wrong with todays hardware. Plus Vista is more
like Win Me than 98. The ONLY reason to use Vista is get DX10, and DX10
should really be called DX9.0D....the visual differences are minimal, and
I've yet to see any reason tu use Vista for a single thing. The Dell D820 I
ordered 2 weeks back was ordered with XP Pro....it's only their Home line
that force Vista (ME II) on users....

Did any REAL Windows USERS actually "Buy Into" Windows ME ???

Much like Microsoft's Office 2002 (XP) - it was so full of holes -
that even Microsoft abandoned it - while it was still on the
"Birthing" table. - Pre-born as it was (typical of Microsoft), it
never even made it to the Incubation Room.

DX 10 could be "So Great" [ It could be like OpenGL - on Steroids),
but the hareware manufacturers have to 'Re-Tool" everything.

And that is where the delay is.

8< |

 

[Tony DiMarzio]

And here I was thinking that there was something wrong with me, that I was
the only one who thought this guy sounded clueless. It was painful, trying
to extract some semblance of sense, point, or value from his babble-stream.

Tony

 

[Benjamin Gawert]

* Augustus:

It's not beyond the the capabilities, or too far advanced, it's just bloated
crappy code with a huge system overhead and excerable and intrusive user
interface.

Well, this "bloated crappy code with a huge system overhead and
excerable and intrusive user interface" runs just fine here on several
machines since November last year, and just around as fast and stable as
Windowsxp. If the new desktop looks good or not is debatable, but from a
technical point of view Vista contains lots of improvements in several
areas over XP.

But I guess you have insight to the Vista source code, right? Or on what
basis did you come to the conclusion of Vista being "bloated crappy
code"? I assume they should have asked you since of course you would
have done it much better, right? On what similar complex operating
systems have you worked as software engineer again?

As to the still existing problems regarding gfx cards and Vista: it's a
fact that this is a problem of ATI (AMD) and Nvidia and not MS. The
Vista Beta phase was very long, with pre-releases available for over a
year before the public market launch. There was more than enough time to
get drivers ready for prime time. But unfortunately at the same time
both companies were also fighting with the struggles of a completely new
GPU architecture (Geforce8/Radeon X2xx0), and especially ATI also with
internal problems and delays. The results were that on Vista launch the
available gfx drivers from ATI and Nvidia were very buggy, and they were
still buggy some month later. But now at least Nvidia has most problems
solved, and AMD will very likely follow in the near future.

Benjamin

 

[kmiller]

* Augustus:


Well, this "bloated crappy code with a huge system overhead and
excerable and intrusive user interface" runs just fine here on several
machines since November last year, and just around as fast and stable as
Windowsxp. If the new desktop looks good or not is debatable, but from a
technical point of view Vista contains lots of improvements in several
areas over XP.

But I guess you have insight to the Vista source code, right? Or on what
basis did you come to the conclusion of Vista being "bloated crappy
code"? I assume they should have asked you since of course you would
have done it much better, right? On what similar complex operating
systems have you worked as software engineer again?

As to the still existing problems regarding gfx cards and Vista: it's a
fact that this is a problem of ATI (AMD) and Nvidia and not MS. The
Vista Beta phase was very long, with pre-releases available for over a
year before the public market launch. There was more than enough time to
get drivers ready for prime time. But unfortunately at the same time
both companies were also fighting with the struggles of a completely new
GPU architecture (Geforce8/Radeon X2xx0), and especially ATI also with
internal problems and delays. The results were that on Vista launch the
available gfx drivers from ATI and Nvidia were very buggy, and they were
still buggy some month later. But now at least Nvidia has most problems
solved, and AMD will very likely follow in the near future.

Benjamin

It is not an un-common thing for Microsoft to 're-write' their code
(for a new OS) just prior to product release.

Just ask the Corel Corporation.
[Microsoft deliberately re-wrote the 'original' Windows 95 code (just
prior to product release) - to make Corel's WordPerfect Office for
Windows 95 - a "Lame Duck".]

And, I won't even get in to what Microsoft did to LOTUS - just after
the 3 yr "LIM Agreement" expired.


Don't try sell me (us) - on Microsoft's "Fair Play" consciousness.

.. - most of us here, already know how easily Microsoft can 're-write'
their code (just prior to product release), to make competing products
- "Irrelevant" !!!

8< |

 

[kmiller]

Ohh. And I left out the FACT that any Windows release, that Microsoft
has put out since Windows 98 (maybe even Windows 95) has just been a
BETA 4.0 Release product - for YOU (the customer) to troubleshoot.

And until Windows 2000 Professional - you (the customer) have had to
PAY - for Microsoft's FIXES !!!.

Just A Thought.

8< |

 

[kmiller]

Ohh. And I left out the FACT that any Windows release, that Microsoft
has put out since Windows 98 (maybe even Windows 95), has just been a
BETA 4.0 Release product - for YOU (the customer) to troubleshoot.

And until Windows 2000 Professional - you (the customer) had to
PAY - for Microsoft's FIXES !!!.

Just A Thought.

8< |

 

[Benjamin Gawert]

* kmiller:

It is not an un-common thing for Microsoft to 're-write' their code
(for a new OS) just prior to product release.

What a nonsense. MS sometimes rewrites parts of their codes during the
beta phase but definitely not the complete code base. And the Vista Beta
phase was very consistent.

Just ask the Corel Corporation.
[Microsoft deliberately re-wrote the 'original' Windows 95 code (just
prior to product release) - to make Corel's WordPerfect Office for
Windows 95 - a "Lame Duck".]

Yeah, sure. If you really believe MS rewrote the complete Win95 code set
just to slow down Corel WordPerfect then you're very naive and show that
you have no single clue about software development.

But I assume you have some proof for this, haven't you?

Don't try sell me (us) - on Microsoft's "Fair Play" consciousness.

I never said MS is using "fair play", but a lot of statements including
yours are just plain stupid and show a severe lack of understanding of
even some very basic things. I know for the simple minded blaming
everything including their own insufficiencies is the common way but
reality is quite different from that.

In case of Vista, it's just a fact that for the gfx problems it's
AMD/ATI and Nvidia which are to blame. The Beta phase was long enough,
no vendor can say that he didn't had a chance to be prepared for prime
time. Bad luck for AMD/ATI and Nvidia that they had to prepare for Vista
around the same time they were pushing out a completely new GPU
architecture which obviously was stressing their ressources.

. - most of us here, already know how easily Microsoft can 're-write'
their code (just prior to product release), to make competing products
- "Irrelevant" !!!

The truth is, most of you here simply know shit about this regard. All
you do is following rumors, hearsay and imagination.

Benjamin

 

[Benjamin Gawert]

* kmiller:

Ohh. And I left out the FACT that any Windows release, that Microsoft
has put out since Windows 98 (maybe even Windows 95) has just been a
BETA 4.0 Release product - for YOU (the customer) to troubleshoot.

Bullshit, but what should I expect from someone who obviously even
doesn't understand what a public Beta phase is for.

And until Windows 2000 Professional - you (the customer) have had to
PAY - for Microsoft's FIXES !!!.

Better get a clue before you try to sell your BS here. FYI: for the NT
line service packs and fixes always have been free, as have been fixes
for Win9x.

Just A Thought.

You should probably leave that to others.

Benjamin

 

[Benjamin Gawert]

* kmiller:

It is not an un-common thing for Microsoft to 're-write' their code
(for a new OS) just prior to product release.

What a nonsense. MS sometimes rewrites parts of their codes during the
beta phase but definitely not the complete code base. And the Vista Beta
phase was very consistent.

Just ask the Corel Corporation.
[Microsoft deliberately re-wrote the 'original' Windows 95 code (just
prior to product release) - to make Corel's WordPerfect Office for
Windows 95 - a "Lame Duck".]

Yeah, sure. If you really believe MS rewrote the complete Win95 code set
just to slow down Corel WordPerfect then you're very naive and show that
you have no single clue about software development. FYI: just because
code gets rewritten doesn't mean other software doesn't run anymore. You
definitely want to learn something about software development, and what
APIs are for.

But I assume you have some proof for this (MS rewriting complete code
base just to slow down WordPerfect), haven't you?

Don't try sell me (us) - on Microsoft's "Fair Play" consciousness.

I never said MS is using "fair play", but a lot of statements including
yours are just plain stupid and show a severe lack of understanding of
even some very basic things. I know for the simple minded blaming
everything including their own insufficiencies is the common way but
reality is quite different from that.

In case of Vista, it's just a fact that for the gfx problems it's
AMD/ATI and Nvidia which are to blame. The Beta phase was long enough,
no vendor can say that he didn't had a chance to be prepared for prime
time, and lots of other hardware manufacturers had their stuff ready for
Vista release. Bad luck for AMD/ATI and Nvidia that they had to prepare
for Vista around the same time they were pushing out a completely new
GPU architecture which obviously was overstressing their ressources.

. - most of us here, already know how easily Microsoft can 're-write'
their code (just prior to product release), to make competing products
- "Irrelevant" !!!

The truth is, most of you here simply know shit about this regard. All
you do is following rumors, hearsay and imagination.

Benjamin

 

[John Adams]

I've yet to see any reason tu use Vista for a single thing.

It comes with a free chess game.

 

[kmiller]

* kmiller:


Bullshit, but what should I expect from someone who obviously even
doesn't understand what a public Beta phase is for.


Better get a clue before you try to sell your BS here. FYI: for the NT
line service packs and fixes always have been free, as have been fixes
for Win9x.


You should probably leave that to others.

Benjamin

Let me guess - you work for Microsoft !!!

Tell me why Microsoft 'release' Windows 98 (original) - knowing it was
a graphics card and Internet security disaster.
- And then release a Windows 98 S.E. version - eight months later.
[at a cost of $29.99 USD 'OR' $49.99 CDN - ???]

And then, release Microsoft Office 2000 (suppose to work with Windows
2000) - but was riddled with 'major' problems -that couldn't even be
FIXED with the 'Microsoft Office 2000 SP-1'. [We had to 'install'
Microsoft's Office 2000 SP-1a - to FIX these problems.]

[Not to mention the problems that Microsoft's Office 2000 created on a
Windows NT 4.0 'installation' !!!]

Don't tell me that I don't know what I am talking about:

I have been working with MS Windows (since version 3.0), and I have
been a 'frontline' IT (and OS Trainer) since Windows 3.11 & Windows
95 / NT 4.0.

And I was a Trainer for Microsoft Office & Project - since the days of
Windows 3.11 & Microsoft Office & Project 4.0 (for Windows).

I have seen it all - trust me.

8- |

 

[kmiller]

My guess is - that you a so GREEN - you don't even know what the "LIM"
Standard (or Agreement) was ???

Just A Thought.

8< (|