• What are you working on? v15
    5,001 replies, posted
  • Avatar of Wyzard
  • [QUOTE=Xerios3;27234411]You shouldn't rely on internet browser os, my game is gonna be played by gamers after all and not by some facebook users.[/QUOTE] FWIW, I use Windows [i]only[/i] for games, and I still use XP. Not out of any belief that 7 sucks, but because XP still works well enough for that purpose (most games still use DX9) so I haven't been motivated to go to the expense and trouble of upgrading.
  • Avatar of Overv
  • [QUOTE=Combino;27235777]Vista never 'failed epically'. I ran the one install from December 07 to March 10 when I upgraded to 7. The common misconception that Vista was terrible is a result of the shonky journalism of moronic 'tech writers' that don't deserve their own job title.[/QUOTE] I used Vista for a month and I hated it.
  • Avatar of Combino
  • [QUOTE=Icedshot;27235788]Im using vista right now, and im pretty sure its awful.[/QUOTE] In what way? [editline]7th January 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Overv;27235815]I used Vista for a month and I hated it.[/QUOTE] What did you hate about it?
  • Avatar of DrLuke
  • [QUOTE=Combino;27235819] What did you hate about it?[/QUOTE] Stop it already! It sucks, deal with it.
  • Avatar of MakeR
  • I am using vista on my laptop, I don't see the problem. [editline]6th January 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=DrLuke;27235841]Stop it already! It sucks, deal with it.[/QUOTE] Why does it suck?
  • [QUOTE=Combino;27235819]In what way? [editline]7th January 2011[/editline] What did you hate about it?[/QUOTE] Well, its slow for a starter. Then it eats all your memory, takes up not an insignificant amount of harddrive space, decides its a good idea to start loading all of your programs into memory when you boot, indexes everything while you're "idle" (using the computer that is), goes "ARE YOU SURE" everytime you do anything, and constantly harasses you if you dont have the security options quite the way they like.
  • Avatar of Combino
  • [QUOTE=Icedshot;27235865]Well, its slow for a starter. Then it eats all your memory, takes up not an insignificant amount of harddrive space, decides its a good idea to start loading all of your programs into memory when you boot, indexes everything while you're "idle" (using the computer that is), goes "ARE YOU SURE" everytime you do anything, and constantly harasses you if you dont have the security options quite the way they like.[/QUOTE] So when Linux requires that you sudo all he time, everyone praises it, but when Windows does the same: "OH MY GOD THAT'S SHIT VISTA SUCKS!!!1" [editline]7th January 2011[/editline] Also, you do realize that unused RAM is wasted, so the OS is caching stuff to improve performance?
  • Avatar of HubmaN
  • [QUOTE=Combino;27235999]So when Linux requires that you sudo all he time, everyone praises it, but when Windows does the same: "OH MY GOD THAT'S SHIT VISTA SUCKS!!!1"[/QUOTE] The bar to sudoing is considerably higher and you shouldn't treat them as parallels because they accomplish different things - if you can't stand it, though, you're perfectly allowed to edit the sudoers. At least sudoing isn't modal. (d-railed)
  • Avatar of Combino
  • And you are aware that you can turn off the indexing and adjust startup programs? [editline]7th January 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=HubmaN;27236017]The bar to sudoing is considerably higher - if you can't stand it, though, you're perfectly allowed to edit the sudoers. At least sudoing isn't modal, though.[/QUOTE] You need to sudo to make system level changes. You need to elevate through UAC to make system level changes. I [b]really don't see the problem here[/b]
  • Avatar of Nipa
  • There's also the fact that UAC can be turned off. I'm not sure why there was a wankfest over Windows 7; it hasn't changed [i]that[/i] much.
  • [QUOTE=Combino;27235999]So when Linux requires that you sudo all he time, everyone praises it, but when Windows does the same: "OH MY GOD THAT'S SHIT VISTA SUCKS!!!1" [editline]7th January 2011[/editline] Also, you do realize that unused RAM is wasted, so the OS is caching stuff to improve performance?[/QUOTE] Well, with something like linux, if you dont like the way the distro does something, you can be pretty sure someone else doesnt as well, and has already released a mod for it to change it And while im aware that unused ram is wasted, it om nom noms my harddrives capacity to load so everything goes as slowly as shite if i have it turned on, for a while after my computer turns on Content: some awesome snowy ground noise texture [IMG]http://i54.tinypic.com/2gt3wxl.png[/IMG]
  • Avatar of HubmaN
  • [QUOTE=Combino;27236019] You need to sudo to make system level changes. You need to elevate through UAC to make system level changes. I [b]really don't see the problem here[/b][/QUOTE] Elevating through UAC is modal and intrusive (and for some reason disables DWM while active, giving some 2 seconds of lag before and after). Sudoing is done at the start and applies throughout a process' lifetime and if one needs to do multiple changes there is su.
  • Avatar of Combino
  • [QUOTE=HubmaN;27236076]Elevating through UAC is modal and intrusive (and for some reason disables DWM while active, giving some 2 seconds of lag before and after). Sudoing is done at the start and applies throughout a process' lifetime and if one needs to do multiple changes there is su.[/QUOTE] Elevating can occur at any point, and lasts until the process exits or uses the Windows equivalent of setuid(). And for multiple things, you can elevate a command prompt or even explorer.exe. So it's really not all that different. [editline]7th January 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Icedshot;27236073]Well, with something like linux, if you dont like the way the distro does something, you can be pretty sure someone else doesnt as well, and has already released a mod for it to change it And while im aware that unused ram is wasted, it om nom noms my harddrives capacity to load so everything goes as slowly as shite if i have it turned on, for a while after my computer turns on [/quote] Really now, if you don't like SuperFetch theres nothing wrong with switching it off. All these problems sound like PEBKAC errors to me.
  • Avatar of HubmaN
  • -snop- [editline]6th January 2011[/editline] I concede, then. I must conclude UAC isn't bad in concept but simply annoying when alerting.
  • Avatar of Jallen
  • [QUOTE=Icedshot;27235865]Well, its slow for a starter. [B]Runs about the same as 7 for me.[/B] Then it eats all your memory, [B]Unused memory is wasted memory. There's nothing wrong with higher memory usage. It scales based on how much your computer has.[/B] takes up not an insignificant amount of harddrive space, [B]7 takes up more AFAIK and nobody's complaining about that. Besides, a year ago I bought an OEM Seagate Barracuda 500GB for £35 and it's a pretty damn fast drive. Space is extremely cheap.[/B] decides its a good idea to start loading all of your programs into memory when you boot, [B]It doesn't load [I]all[/I] of your programs. It loads ones which need to run because [I]they[/I] have put themselves in startup, and it uses memory efficiently by loading in more frequently used programs. It only does this when the memory is available.[/B] indexes everything while you're "idle" (using the computer that is), [B]That's what makes the start menu search so fast. Going back to XP I feel lost without it. You can turn this off, not that it causes any kind of noticeable performance impact. Again, this is in 7 also.[/B] goes "ARE YOU SURE" everytime you do anything, [B]It's called UAC and you can turn it off. Again, it exists in 7 also and everyone seems to love 7.[/B] and constantly harasses you if you dont have the security options quite the way they like. [B]Uh no. Even if you have no antivirus or firewall installed or active, the most it does is display a small tooltip in the bottom right, which again, 7 does too.[/B][/QUOTE] My responses in bold. Essentially, everyones positive response to 7 was stupid in my opinion, because other than a few release performance problems and bugs, Vista was pretty much the same, minus a few UI tweaks. People who complained Vista was slow piss me off too. Once the initial performance issues were fixed, it ran fine. It needed greater specs than XP but who cares? XP was released in 2001, and anyone expecting an OS released in 2006 to require the same resources is an idiot.
  • [QUOTE=Combino;27236173] - snip - [/QUOTE] I know, i have switched it off The thing is, im not particularly a fan of an operating system where to make it useful, you have to spend a while digging around the options trying to make it not awful. Its why i dont use linux either to be honest. I did for a while, and then had enough of having to mess with everything Still, vista is not fast. I had the RC for windows 7, and its about a trillion times better
  • Avatar of Nipa
  • "Trillion times better": Switching certain options off by default and reskinning the OS.
  • [QUOTE=Jallen;27236244]My responses in bold. Essentially, everyones positive response to 7 was stupid in my opinion, because other than a few release performance problems and bugs, Vista was pretty much the same, minus a few UI tweaks. People who complained Vista was slow piss me off too. Once the initial performance issues were fixed, it ran fine. It needed greater specs than XP but who cares? XP was released in 2001, and anyone expecting an OS released in 2006 to require the same resources is an idiot.[/QUOTE] It runs nowhere near as fast as seven for me, when i was using the release candidate it was much more nippy that vista By eats all your memory, i mean as in the operating system itself literally takes up more memory itself, rather than caching programs Well, the thing with windows 7 is, it takes up more space but always seemed much more useful than vista, so it didnt bug me so much. And apparently i have exactly the same harddrive as you :3 By load all your programs, i mean superfetch not startup. Until i disabled, it was consistently using up a lot of my harddrive's cycles, while i was trying to do other things Well, i have turned off indexing. And uac. The thing with seven is, it makes up for being annoying by actually working properly? [editline]6th January 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Nipa;27236318]"Trillion times better": Switching certain options off by default and reskinning the OS.[/QUOTE] There was a small amount of exaggeration there, but windows 7 just didnt get on my nerves as much as vista does.
  • Avatar of Jallen
  • [QUOTE=Icedshot;27236259]I know, i have switched it off The thing is, im not particularly a fan of an operating system where to make it useful, you have to spend a while digging around the options trying to make it not awful. Its why i dont use linux either to be honest. I did for a while, and then had enough of having to mess with everything Still, vista is not fast. I had the RC for windows 7, and its about a trillion times better[/QUOTE] About "a trillion" benchmarks will show you that they are pretty much equal in performance. Some tests actually favour Vista in fact.
  • Avatar of Nipa
  • Vista brought new technologies to the table. 7 made them more user-friendly, but I have no doubt that you could tweak Vista to get equal, if not better, performance than a stock install of 7. [b]EDIT:[/b] And like Jallen said, in some cases it's faster at stock.
  • Avatar of Jallen
  • [QUOTE=Icedshot;27236343]It runs nowhere near as fast as seven for me, when i was using the release candidate it was much more nippy that vista By eats all your memory, i mean as in the operating system itself literally takes up more memory itself, rather than caching programs Well, the thing with windows 7 is, it takes up more space but always seemed much more useful than vista, so it didnt bug me so much. And apparently i have exactly the same harddrive as you :3 By load all your programs, i mean superfetch not startup. Until i disabled, it was consistently using up a lot of my harddrive's cycles, while i was trying to do other things Well, i have turned off indexing. And uac. [B]The thing with seven is, it makes up for being annoying by actually working properly?[/B] [editline]6th January 2011[/editline] There was a small amount of exaggeration there, but windows 7 just didnt get on my nerves as much as vista does.[/QUOTE] So basically your main argument of the post is a subjective statement. edit: I'm going to stop now. IMO Vista is pretty much equal to 7 except for UI tweaks and 7 is overhyped. But it's best to get back to actual WAYWO.
  • Avatar of DrLuke
  • Everything below this line is the "Vista vs. 7 vs. XP"- free zone ------------------------------------------------------------ So what are you working on?
  • Avatar of Combino
  • [QUOTE=Icedshot;27236343]By eats all your memory, i mean as in the operating system itself literally takes up more memory itself, rather than caching programs[/quote] Yes... that's the caching. What, do you expect the OS to use magic memory? [quote]Well, the thing with windows 7 is, it takes up more space but always seemed much more useful than vista, so it didnt bug me so much. And apparently i have exactly the same harddrive as you :3 [/quote] Key word is [b]seem[/b]. it's in your mind, buddy. [quote]By load all your programs, i mean superfetch not startup. Until i disabled, it was consistently using up a lot of my harddrive's cycles, while i was trying to do other things[/quote] oh no~! what if u run out of cycles?!?!? [quote]Well, [b]i have turned off[/b] indexing. And [b]uac. [/b][/quote] Cool, have fun getting rooted by the next zero day that hits whatever browser you use. UAC keeps you safe from this kind of thing. [quote]The thing with seven is, it makes up for being annoying by actually working properly?[/quote] s/working properly/bigger window title and different task bar/;
  • Avatar of DrLuke
  • [QUOTE=Combino;27236450]Yes... that's the caching. What, do you expect the OS to use magic memory? Key word is [b]seem[/b]. it's in your mind, buddy. oh no~! what if u run out of cycles?!?!? Cool, have fun getting rooted by the next zero day that hits whatever browser you use. UAC keeps you safe from this kind of thing. s/working properly/bigger window title and different task bar/;[/QUOTE] You've crossed the line here!
  • Avatar of yakahughes
  • I am writing a really simplistic GUI library for Win32. It's kindof annoying to have to write a WndProc and handmake a GUI for every application, so instead of having doing all that, you can just do stuff like [cpp] int btnclick(CGArticle* btn, CGEventHandlerArg arg) { MessageBox(NULL, "hi", "hi", NULL); return 0; } int CALLBACK WinMain(HINSTANCE hInstance, HINSTANCE hPrevInstance, LPSTR lpCmdLine, int nCmdShow) { CGWindow wnd; wnd.Show(); wnd.SetTitle("Hello WAYWO"); wnd.SetSize(400, 400); wnd.Center(); CGListBox lb(&wnd, CGListBoxStyles::MultipleSelect); lb.Center(); lb.AddItem("List"); lb.AddItem("Box"); CGRectangle rect = lb.GetDimensions(); CGButton btn(&wnd); btn.Show(); btn.SetPos(rect.x, rect.y - 30); btn.SetText("A button"); btn.OnClick = btnclick; CGEdit ed(&wnd); ed.SetPos(rect.x, rect.y + rect.height + 5); ed.SetSize(rect.width, 20); ed.Show(); while(CGULL::ProcessMessages()); return 0; } [/cpp] Which would yield [img]http://imgkk.com/i/5rvj.png[/img] Working on ListView right now, which is kindof hard with all the stuff you can do with it. It's also hard to create satisfactory abstractions which take away enough complexity so that it's preferable to use rather than hand coding. Like for instance, for an Image class, should each instance have it's own ImageList, or should you have one big ImageList for all the objects and just store their offset, or what?
  • Avatar of thomasfn
  • Bekka fixed attachments being removed properly when you dig a block: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1tcKHPZv4k[/media] I'm taking a little break at the moment.
  • Avatar of sLysdal
  • [QUOTE=Icedshot;27236073] Content: some awesome snowy ground noise texture [img_thumb]http://i54.tinypic.com/2gt3wxl.png[/img_thumb][/QUOTE] :psypop: Soo fucking trippy
  • [QUOTE=Combino;27236450]Yes... that's the caching. What, do you expect the OS to use magic memory? [b]No, i expected it to try and be more memory efficient[/b] Key word is [b]seem[/b]. it's in your mind, buddy. [b]Well, that makes it better for me then, no?[/b] oh no~! what if u run out of cycles?!?!? [b]If you are using all of the read/write cycles per second that your harddrive can actually handle, its not going to do be able to do anything more. How is it stupid of me to want to be able to load up programs without something eating my speeds?[/b] Cool, have fun getting rooted by the next zero day that hits whatever browser you use. UAC keeps you safe from this kind of thing. [b]Pretty sure thats what my AV does actually[/b] s/working properly/bigger window title and different task bar/;[/QUOTE] This is my opinion, so it seems fairly pointless to argue about it? things that bug you are not going to bug me so much, and vica versa
  • Avatar of Combino
  • [QUOTE=Icedshot;27236634]This is my opinion, so it seems fairly pointless to argue about it? things that bug you are not going to bug me so much, and vica versa[/QUOTE] Your responses demonstrate your ineptitude. Efficient use of RAM is to use every single byte of it and use what isn't being used by applications to cache data. Also, only a handful of AVs are able to protect you against zero-days, and even then it's extremely hit and miss.