Project WIKI

[Kiso]

I know it's off-topic but I agree, Vista just gets worse and worse.
And I'm speaking from personal experience, I've tested it myself on my iMac (which is not a bad machine in terms of tech specs) and it left me with a awkward feeling afterwards.

Perhaps that's mainly because I only had 1Gb of RAM, but I also had to help a friend set up his new HP laptop which already came with Windows Vista installed so you assume it would work well since it's brand new and it's built for Vista.
Well it doesn't - for starters it takes something like four or five minutes to boot, which is just ridicolous compared to the 10-15 seconds my MacBook takes after a fresh install of Leopard.
I think it's all that crap HP installs on the new computers... just awful.

But anyway, every one has his own experience, perhaps with a couple of updates... though I really hate how bad it performs in gaming compared to XP.
Windows has always been about games if you ask me, and seeing your gaming performance actually drop by a good 40% in most games, that's just plain stupid.

Hmm... I don't know about that... I've seen laptops run a Ragnarok Online server emulator (requires at least 1Gb of RAM to run optimally), two instances of the game client (50 Mb for one instance... dunno if that counts for the two), the Aero junk, and Mozzilla Firefox web browser on a HP laptop with 2 GB (I think)... that including all other stuff that may have been running in the background.

I believe that people simply have to keep in mind that MS' system requirements are bogus and likely set to very minimal stuff. Vista -does- work... the problem is the amount of useless shit (even though in reality it is what separates Vista from XP aside of the hybrid code) that it has... seriously, you use the basic theme and the performance somewhat increases.

*thinks some and realizes*

Wow... it's the first time I had actually supported MS in quite some time... if that could be called supporting. Well... at least I do give credit where credit is due.

[Smokey]

For MS stuff that is bigtime supporting, there...

[iDarbert]

Hmm... I don't know about that... I've seen laptops run a Ragnarok Online server emulator (requires at least 1Gb of RAM to run optimally), two instances of the game client (50 Mb for one instance... dunno if that counts for the two), the Aero junk, and Mozzilla Firefox web browser on a HP laptop with 2 GB (I think)... that including all other stuff that may have been running in the background.

That's because of the 2Gb of RAM, of course.
But the fact that gaming performance is worse than under XP is not a theory, and they tested systems with 4Gb of RAM if not even more.

And there are other issues too, it's not just because of bad performance.

I believe that people simply have to keep in mind that MS' system requirements are bogus and likely set to very minimal stuff. Vista -does- work... the problem is the amount of useless shit (even though in reality it is what separates Vista from XP aside of the hybrid code) that it has... seriously, you use the basic theme and the performance somewhat increases.

Aero didn't really had to exist in the first place, even if they really wanted to have translucent windows they could've done it in a far more efficent and less demanding way.
If you pick another modern OS it will run fine with 1Gb of RAM or even less, sure if you want to run more stuff you'll need more otherwise the performance will be seriously compromised because of swapping, but 1Gb should be enough to run a few applications without headaches.

*thinks some and realizes*

Wow... it's the first time I had actually supported MS in quite some time... if that could be called supporting. Well... at least I do give credit where credit is due.

What kind of credit are you actually giving them exactly?
More RAM lets you run more stuff at once, that's no news, but the fact that Vista is far more demanding compared to XP and arguably doesn't offer anything to make it worth the hassle was the point.

Believe me, I'm no Microsoft basher (anymore), but Vista is not going any far if things keep going like this.

[Smokey]

Well, I always did have the feeling that MS gave us Vista because they had to come with a "new" OS after all these years...
I'd rather see them do a 911 on Win-2k (tweaking her for the next 50 years or so, untill she becomes so good, you don't need anything else...)

[iDarbert]

Well, I always did have the feeling that MS gave us Vista because they had to come with a "new" OS after all these years...

Sometimes I wonder... the fact that they dropped some major features (WinFS) clearly shows they either gave up to ship in time or they are just filling the gap before Windows 7 comes out.

Whatever that is I hope they get back on track, we need Windows for alternative operating systems to keep getting better.

[Kiso]

That's because of the 2Gb of RAM, of course.
But the fact that gaming performance is worse than under XP is not a theory, and they tested systems with 4Gb of RAM if not even more.

And there are other issues too, it's not just because of bad performance.

That's not necessarily true... considering that there has to be a proportionate amount of power between the HDD, the computer's processor and it's RAM (without processing power and a good HDD you won't get far no matter how much RAM you put on a pc). My firend's lap top had quite the power itself... at least enough to run the good, graphic-heavy games.

And yes, I know there are other issues that make Vista a rather slow performing software.

Aero didn't really had to exist in the first place, even if they really wanted to have translucent windows they could've done it in a far more efficent and less demanding way.
If you pick another modern OS it will run fine with 1Gb of RAM or even less, sure if you want to run more stuff you'll need more otherwise the performance will be seriously compromised because of swapping, but 1Gb should be enough to run a few applications without headaches.

I know much of this as well... I should know... I have Vista Basic and I run it with less than 512 Mb of RAM... and it is quite capable of running Inkscape, Firefox, an IRC client and either AIM or MSN Messenger at the sae time... I consider that that quite a feat for Vista, considering it is quite the memory hog.

What kind of credit are you actually giving them exactly?
More RAM lets you run more stuff at once, that's no news, but the fact that Vista is far more demanding compared to XP and arguably doesn't offer anything to make it worth the hassle was the point.

Believe me, I'm no Microsoft basher (anymore), but Vista is not going any far if things keep going like this.

We all know that Vista is far more demanding than the rest of the OSes... no need to tell me the obvious... even more when I implied that fact already. But then again... that is what happens with any kind software... it becomes more demanding than it's predecessor. Wonder why people haven't realized that already.

Well, I always did have the feeling that MS gave us Vista because they had to come with a "new" OS after all these years...
I'd rather see them do a 911 on Win-2k (tweaking her for the next 50 years or so, untill she becomes so good, you don't need anything else...)

Sometimes I wonder... the fact that they dropped some major features (WinFS) clearly shows they either gave up to ship in time or they are just filling the gap before Windows 7 comes out.

Whatever that is I hope they get back on track, we need Windows for alternative operating systems to keep getting better.

I believe that Vista got screwed because MS had to heavily re-work XP's security features. Vista was scheduled for release some three years after XP got out.

-----------------

Uhm... I don't want to be a thread killer or anything.... but we're going out of topic (if not gone out of topic already)... considering this thread is meant to discuss and/or update on the OS-tan wiki.

Getting back on topic is needed... no, really... there is a board where this kind of conversation can be taken to.

[Smokey]

Well I thought for a moment we were getting off-topic, but I thought this could be interesting back-ground info for the wiki...
But it's an OS-TAN wiki and not an OS wiki... So back on topic we go...
(and by the way, people realize that new stuff is more demanding but they want the new stuff to look better than its predecessor...)

[iDarbert]

That's not necessarily true... considering that there has to be a proportionate amount of power between the HDD, the computer's processor and it's RAM (without processing power and a good HDD you won't get far no matter how much RAM you put on a pc).

Actually the RAM is the most important aspect when it comes to running multiple tasks at the time.
The HDD speed can help by making swapping less painful (since the contents of the RAM are transferred to the HDD and vice-versa) but CPU really doesn't help at all in this particular aspect of performance

My firend's lap top had quite the power itself... at least enough to run the good, graphic-heavy games.

Probably, but that wasn't the point.

I know much of this as well... I should know... I have Vista Basic and I run it with less than 512 Mb of RAM... and it is quite capable of running Inkscape, Firefox, an IRC client and either AIM or MSN Messenger at the sae time... I consider that that quite a feat for Vista, considering it is quite the memory hog.

Yeah but what's the point of running Vista if you are running a edition that lacks of virtually any exterior improvement whatsoever?
You are just better off running XP at this point.

We all know that Vista is far more demanding than the rest of the OSes... no need to tell me the obvious... even more when I implied that fact already.

But that was what I first said, if you answer to that with a counter point it looks like you are trying to say it's not true.

But then again... that is what happens with any kind software... it becomes more demanding than it's predecessor.

Actually some software actually become LESS demanding as their code is optimized, but even if it was that easy it's still legit to complain if the OS wastes the resources to actually give you nothing in return

Wonder why people haven't realized that already.

People DO realise that, it's just that they don't feel like accepting it when Microsoft could do better.

I believe that Vista got screwed because MS had to heavily re-work XP's security features. Vista was scheduled for release some three years after XP got out.

Well, if you go a little deeper the WinFS talk started back in the Blackcomb days.
I think they had major issues they couldn't deal with without pushing the already pushed deadline, which is a shame.

Getting back on topic is needed... no, really... there is a board where this kind of conversation can be taken to.

Fine by me.

[Smokey]

oh, man.... here's the P.C. bottlenecks in order from biggest (to be upgraded first) to smallest (upgraded last) in Gaming... (for other, non-graphic-heavy stuff, ignore the videocard)

*1*Graphics card
*2*RAM
*3*HDD
*4*CPU
*5*Mainboard

Assuming that you haven't raped your OS/Swap and Game-install HDD by cramming it full of data or let it fragment.,,

Argue, and prepare for a buttload of info on why this is right.......

[iDarbert]

That's arguably right, but weren't we supposed to get back on topic?

[Bella]

At the risk of driving this even more OT, I think if Techno is happy with his new computer that's all that matters in the end. After all, we don't have to use his computer...we have our own choice in OSs.

That said, aside from any system bloat or performance issues, I'd stay away from Vista mostly for the implications of lining the pockets of a corporation that's letting down the consumer and potentially harming competitors. It's the same reason I try to support local businesses rather than mega-corporations, why I have a contract with a rather small cellphone provider rather than a huge multi-national company, and why I have an efficient sedan instead of a gas-guzzler...am I idealistic? I think I am. Unrealistic? Probably. But it's what I think it right

Onto topic, I might try writing a few article for yet-unwritten Linux-tan articles. I dunno if I'll get it done, though...

[iDarbert]

At the risk of driving this even more OT, I think if Techno is happy with his new computer that's all that matters in the end. After all, we don't have to use his computer...we have our own choice in OSs.

True.

As far as the Wiki goes, perhaps it's already been established in the past pages of the topic, but is there someone in charge of the Mac-tan pages?
I have some interesting speculation I'd like to include in the Wiki.

[Kiso]

Onto topic, I might try writing a few article for yet-unwritten Linux-tan articles. I dunno if I'll get it done, though...

That's good and mighty and idea... I would try myself, but I need to make more research in order to bring about quality equal to my personal preference... like the (still incomplete) Vistan article.

At the risk of driving this even more OT, I think if Techno is happy with his new computer that's all that matters in the end. After all, we don't have to use his computer...we have our own choice in OSs.

True.

As far as the Wiki goes, perhaps it's already been established in the past pages of the topic, but is there someone in charge of the Mac-tan pages?
I have some interesting speculation I'd like to include in the Wiki.

Actually, if you refer to the wiki articles... there is no one in charge of anything exactly, it's more of a preference thing and one goes by it as one wishes. If you think you can provide for any of the articles there, whether or not they are win-tans, mac-tans or even GNU-tans... you are free to add up to their info... even designs if you have one.

--------

As for myself, I would like to say that I want to get back on track and do al the things I promised I would do... given that I take all the load I have put on myself with the many sites I frequent.

*gets onto dealing with work so he can get back to deal with ~-tan stuff*

[iDarbert]

Actually, if you refer to the wiki articles... there is no one in charge of anything exactly, it's more of a preference thing and one goes by it as one wishes. If you think you can provide for any of the articles there, whether or not they are win-tans, mac-tans or even GNU-tans... you are free to add up to their info... even designs if you have one.

The I may be adding something about the family-centric Mac-tans based on the comics that appeared some time ago and the historical Me-tan/Mac-tan comic as soon as I feel like it.

Speaking of Which, if I wanted to add something about the Apple family in general which page should I edit? Or would it be more appropriate if I created a new one to clarify this aspect?

[Aurora Borealis]

Alright! Back on topic!

But if you want to continue the discussion you were having earlier, make a thread dedicated to that topic.

To add something about the Apple family in general, you can make the heading "Apple-tans" into a link for a new article/category (like how the "Windows-tans" heading has its own link, general overview and alphabetical list of articles in that category)

I am curious what you want to add exactly and what is this historical comic you speak of!