Windows Vista and Second life?

Thanks, Coal.

It sounds like we're on the same page regarding nVidia and ATI. Having had both, I've seen the weaknesses and strengths of both pretty clearly: nVidia has better GL support by far, but ATI seems to do better with FSAA and general smoothness of the image.

As to MS's handling of OpenGL: a Microsoft Evangelist (yes, that's his job title) came to my college to give a talk. He talked a lot about Vista's new 3D capabilities, and I mentioned to him "I hope that means OpenGL users won't be out in the cold..."

The guy pratcially had a heart attack trying to justify MS's stance on OpenGL: "How do you expect Microsoft to make money backing open standards? Microsoft uses Direct X on the X-Box, and it's better than Open GL...." after 5 minutes of him ranting about it, he left the room in a huff.

(I started this post as a simple response, but now I'm ranting... skip the below text if you're easily bored)

Microsoft's approach to the software market is pretty simple and consistent: adopt an existing standard, then "improve" it. After they're done with their changes, the MS'd product is no longer compatible with the original. They've done this with web servers, web browsers, 3D API's, Java, productivity software, development tools... the list goes on.

I'm not saying that the products aren't better after MS is done: it often is. IIS was a far cry better than the other web server software of its day (IIS introduced scripting in the web page; this predates PHP, I believe, and was much better than CGI). However, their practice of deviating from the standards also forces developers to make a choice: the MS way or the way everyone else does it. As MS deviates further from the rest of the industry, that gap is going to grow, and it's going to be harder to develop cross-platform software.

What I'd like to see is a simple, cross-platform set of API's that everyone can use. These API's would cover file IO, forms, 3D video and audio, media playback and recording, network IO... pretty much everything. THen software developers could stick to those API's and develop software that's largely source-compatible on every OS. It looks like the .Net Framework could be that API, but the way MS is constantly evolving .Net, I dont' think anybody else will ever catch up, let alone keep up.

I'm kind of hoping that once Java goes open source, we'll see some new developments. Perhaps Java 2 will be the .Net killer. (and incidentally: Java's 3D API's cover both Direct X and OpenGL.)

I only just noticed this reply so I will only reply briefly to part of it. From this I am getting that you are a "Windows only" computer user. There have indeed been "new things" in OS design since windows 2000, just not Windows ones.

This is what I said, the full OS, (the only one most people will want) is about 400 bucks US.
Here it is you that is incorrect. I was referring to MS's own recommendation. Vista is slated to require a Gig, but prefer 2 Gigs of RAM according to MS itself.
Yes, it would. I'm gonna leave this one alone because I know this is one of those "OS Wars" type of threads that usually is a big waste of time and ends up disappearing up it's own virtual rectum. Also everyone, me included has cranky days when they say stuff that is well ... ill-advised.

Just so you know where I am coming from though... I have owned and fooled around with computers since the first Commodores came out. I have built many systems and used MS Windows since the 3.0 version and MacOS since classic days, both on a regular, daily basis.

I have run Unix, and Be and many flavours of Linux. I was cruising the Internet on an XT before there were even browsers, I have worked in tech support for over 10 years and I *do* know what I am talking about.

Any techie I know who isn't a "windows only" type of person is aware of what a terrific piece of poo Vista is shaping up to be. Most of the people I talk to are quite shocked at how bad it is and mystified at MS's foolishness. IMO it's not really MS's fault, they just aren't good at software design.

I could argue most of those points, but you're right - this isn't the place for an OS war.

I've accepted the inevitability of WIndows Vista replacing XP, and while I don't like it, it'll be an accomplished fact in less than 2 months. I don't particularly like Vista, either, but like I tell my daughter to do with difficult things, I've decided to embrace this head-on and make sure that I'm as competent as possible with Vista, to increase the odds of getting a good programming job when I'm done with school.

Of course, I'll also be installing Red Hat in a Virtual Server VM, so that I can familiarize myself with that, too. (If you haven't seen it yet, Virtual Server rocks! And it works fine on XP Pro)

Hello,

i have Vista running on this pc here: P4 3Ghz HT, 2 Gig RAM, ATI X800XL.

With Vista beta drivers (RC1 and older), SL is no go. This is due to completely missing OpenGL ICD driver. Say thanks to ATI.

Since new RC2 drivers, SL does not complain that it can't run under Vista, but it simply opens crash report and talks to SL servers.

Still, there is workaround, look for ATI catalyst 6.8 (not 6.9 and newer) and install that one. You will have to set your graphic card to "VGA Standard Graphic card" and then you can install it. There is a negative point though: NO Aero.

Anyway, i'm too lazy to reinstall XP, so i have to hassle myself with new (mostly not working) crap: ATI drivers crappy, Creative drivers crashing at least 2-3 times a day, C_Media (usb headset with micro) crashing too, vista feels like drunken XP... soo slow at times. Ah well, i have to live with it for now.

G.

I am no O/S expert but I do have some understanding of the business and corporate view regarding the use of new O/S systems.

That is don't.

At least for the first year or so until all the bugs have been ironed out.

And I will never again install a new O/S on a machine not originally designed for it, I made that mistake with Windows XP (which was worth the upgrade imho) although I had to expensively upgrade the computer to run it. Which is another no no!

After that there has to be some demonstrated advantage to drive the upgrade process, either that or be forced to upgrade because all new computers come with the thing installed by default.

I saw this decision process happen right through from DOS, Windows 3 versions, 95 98 and Windows XP.

Until 1999 I used to work alongside Zurich the insurance company and to my own knowledge most of us were still using upgraded versions of Windows 3.11 (Windows for workgroups)

As for me now I still use Office 2000 and remain content with it although I think there is still 16 bit code in there somewhere.

Just my personal take if you like, but SL is demanding enough on most machines resources anyway without adding to that load

Regards

John

It seems like every time I have upgrade to new os it always interferrs with current game. It happen the sims when I switched to XP. I couldn't use the utilities for manage my sims content object creation adds on with the game.
I am not planning on getting Vista unless I absolutely have too.
Dell had though package for starting computers for 300 where you could get Vista included when it came out for 40 dollars extra. The system I wanted that would be compatiable with Vista and Second life costed about 380.00