Valve and Linux... my, my, things are getting interesting! - by lost_soul
polytourist97 on 30/7/2012 at 07:07
Quote Posted by henke
What disappointed you about Win7, poly?
many things, but the big ones:
1. Resource heavy. My bare installation of 7 uses 1.5 Gigs of memory. 1.5! Just to boot up and sit there. Now this isn't necessarily a problem when my computer has 12 Gigs to spare, but the fact that 7 uses so much, and for what? So the graphical interface is "pretty"? Xp and my Xubuntu function just as well, and I can get them both to look very nice while using around 550 megs.
2. Sound settings/panel. I'm a musician and I use my computer for audio projects and editing and the like, which requires me to be able to manipulate the various input settings for both my hardware and software very often. The sound panel in 7 is a mess. What I can accomplish in XP with a few clicks takes me multiple menus, sub-menus, and unintuitive steps to achieve in 7.
3. No classic start menu/classic windows explorer shell. I cannot stand the default setup in 7. The classic start menu and explorer shell were very functional and extremely elegant. I hate how accessing my programs takes multiple clicks and scrolls with the new menu. I never needed to use 7's lauded search function because I keep my files and folders organized in such a way that makes it rather superfluous. I also despise the implementation of the search bar as a supposed replacement for using the expanding menus. Requiring switching between input methods to achieve a task is not an advancement in my mind.
But really, the biggest gripe I have, is how shut off I feel when working with 7. XP came with default settings that I weren't big on either. But they included a lot of easily accessible options to be able to tailor the end user experience I desired. With 7, ms basically said "get with the times bro", and decided they knew exactly how I should work with the software, and there was really very little I could do. Even my friends that like 7 seem to say things like "yeah, I didn't really like aspect X either, but I got used to it". I don't want to have to resign myself like that to the whims of microsoft's dev team when they seem to have a very different perspective than I do on what makes a good UI experience. What I've seen/experienced of windows 8 only reinforces that.
Renzatic on 30/7/2012 at 07:49
Quote Posted by polytourist97
many things, but the big ones:
1. Resource heavy. My bare installation of 7 uses 1.5 Gigs of memory. 1.5! Just to boot up and sit there. Now this isn't necessarily a problem when my computer has 12 Gigs to spare, but the fact that 7 uses so much, and for what? So the graphical interface is "pretty"? Xp and my Xubuntu function just as well, and I can get them both to look very nice while using around 550 megs.
Even if you were to remove all the flash from the UI, 7 would still take up about that much. It uses a base amount to cache commonly used programs and files, so they load up that much quicker. If things ever gets to the point where it absolutely needs that memory space, 7 will quietly move it out from behind the scenes then reload it when that space isn't needed anymore.
I know whole loads of people say Windows 7 uses way too much memory, and it's bloated, and so on and so on, but really all it's doing is using what's there to your advantage.
Truthfully, people with 2GB of ram or more wouldn't notice the difference between it and XP if they didn't have a number informing them 7 is using more.
Quote:
2. Sound settings/panel. I'm a musician and I use my computer for audio projects and editing and the like, which requires me to be able to manipulate the various input settings for both my hardware and software very often. The sound panel in 7 is a mess. What I can accomplish in XP with a few clicks takes me multiple menus, sub-menus, and unintuitive steps to achieve in 7.
I agree with you on this. The control panel is a huge clusterfuck of a mess. MS loves its fine, granular controls, but they really went overboard with it there.
Quote:
3. No classic start menu/classic windows explorer shell. I cannot stand the default setup in 7. The classic start menu and explorer shell were very functional and extremely elegant. I hate how accessing my programs takes multiple clicks and scrolls with the new menu. I never needed to use 7's lauded search function because I keep my files and folders organized in such a way that makes it rather superfluous. I also despise the implementation of the search bar as a supposed replacement for using the expanding menus. Requiring switching between input methods to achieve a task is not an advancement in my mind.
But I don't agree with you on this. The Start menu in general, old or new, has always been a crowded mess to me. It's a little worse in 7, but with being able to pin my most used programs to the taskbar, and with type to search being the most awesome feature added to Windows ever, I ended up not using it for much of anything besides shutting the computer down.
Seriously? How can you not like type to search? It's literally "I want to launch this program or find this file...tap tap...there it is". That's so much quicker than digging through even the old start menu, and you don't have to pin rarely ever used programs anyone, so you won't overcrowd the taskbar or desktop with excess icons. It's neat as hell, and super fast.
Quote:
But really, the biggest gripe I have, is how shut off I feel when working with 7. XP came with default settings that I weren't big on either. But they included a lot of easily accessible options to be able to tailor the end user experience I desired. With 7, ms basically said "get with the times bro", and decided they knew exactly how I should work with the software, and there was really very little I could do. Even my friends that like 7 seem to say things like "yeah, I didn't really like aspect X either, but I got used to it". I don't want to have to resign myself like that to the whims of microsoft's dev team when they seem to have a very different perspective than I do on what makes a good UI experience. What I've seen/experienced of windows 8 only reinforces that.
Eh. It is a little quirky in places, but I thought it was a huge improvement overall. Like the mini file tree being tagged to the left side of the explorer for easy access, and all the situational buttons being listed along the top. That's a helluva lot better than XP. Everything is within easy reach at all times.
Really, it's all pretty subjective. You use your computer a lot different than I do, and it's understandable that not everyone would take to it as much as I did. Still, it's not vastly different. Even if you don't like some of the changes to the GUI, it's still worth using for the vast amounts of under the hood improvements that have been made over the years.
zajazd on 30/7/2012 at 08:05
I prefer XP over 7 as well - I find the interface of XP smoother. Currently I have only 2GB of RAM cos my other 2GB stick died but it's still more than enough! E.g. I recently finished Max Payne 3 and it ran perfectly on mid to high settings with high fps, and that is considering that my pc is 3+ years old now and wasn't even the fastest at the time when I bought it. So where you ppl put those 16GB of RAM I dunno. Maybe you never heard of RAM recovering/boosting software?
jay pettitt on 30/7/2012 at 09:47
MS Windows' reputation, that they've still not really shaken off, for being a honey-trap for viruses and other malware basically comes from XP. It was never ready to be connected the intertubes (it was NT/2000 with the 'professional' network features like a basic security model stripped out) let alone being ready for 64bit, memory management or multiple processor cores.
XP was basically a terribly misjudged crippleware OS for consumers. 7 is competent at basics in a way that XP never was.
Obviously XP was hugely long lived and has an enormous following - change is never free both in cash and having to learn new conventions and workflows and things - so it's understandable that folk still like to stick with it. But it wasn't a great OS.
faetal on 30/7/2012 at 13:22
Let's not also forget that XP was a strangling bunch of fuck before SP2.
Sg3 on 30/7/2012 at 17:38
Quote Posted by jay pettitt
XP was basically a terribly misjudged crippleware OS for consumers. 7 is competent at basics in a way that XP never was.
Obviously XP was hugely long lived and has an enormous following - change is never free both in cash and having to learn new conventions and workflows and things - so it's understandable that folk still like to stick with it. But it wasn't a great OS.
Well, again, 7 is generally better about things like performance, but in many cases, XP was better with its interface. Problematically, Microsoft isn't content to "change this to make it better," but instead insist on "changing it just for the sake of changing it," even when it didn't need to be (and shouldn't have been) changed. Sure, sometimes they make things better, but about as often, they make something worse--e.g. the less options for customization, although that's far from the only one.
Yakoob on 30/7/2012 at 17:59
Quote Posted by Renzatic
MS still controls well over 90% of the PC market, and can easily tie it into a strict monopoly situation by using their platform against the competition. Them doing something stupid like blocking Steam to force people into using their store front in a market they have a near unbreakable grip on would draw the feds on them like a hobo on a hot ham sandwich.
Where is the "block Steam" coming from, AFAIK it has never been official mentioned or implied anywhere. And I don't think MS would be stupid enough to do that, especially not after their plan to have the next Visual Studio Express (the free one) be ONLY able to make metro apps (which, thankfully, they changed after a big community outcry).
lost_soul on 30/7/2012 at 19:12
Yeah I'm sure they would never block Steam. That would be beyond dumb. As I said though, they could just buy exclusive ability to sell the hottest new game. Then gamers would "have" to use their store. I don't think they could get in trouble for this. Console companies have been doing that since forever.
I'm sure the publishers would jump at the chance to make games exclusive for two or three years for a price. After the exclusivity agreement, they could always sell them on all stores too.
Remember, it isn't about being a huge success right away, but rather about eventually being on top of a market... like how I would say the 360 currently is.
jay pettitt on 30/7/2012 at 21:00
Quote:
That would be beyond dumb.
Explain that to Apple, the worlds' most successful
IT company, in relation to the control they maintain over iOS.
