What are your thoughts on Vista?

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by mark_digital©, Dec 16, 2006.

  1. mark_digital©

    Cynicor Guest

    And considering that I'm the one who actually works for the small
    Redmond-based software concern, that's pretty harsh.
    Cynicor, Dec 22, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. mark_digital©

    Paul J Gans Guest

    My bad. I should have specified "home computer".
    Paul J Gans, Dec 23, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. mark_digital©

    Paul J Gans Guest

    There are a number of ways to design around that. One is to
    fix it so that admin tasks *require* a special procedure and
    when in that procedure you *can't* run any ordinary programs.
    This is a bit tricky, of course, but it can be done.

    That way Ma and Pa Kettle never need to know about "administrative
    user" and other scare words that keep folks from doing the right

    The situation is somewhat like that involved in using a dSLR
    and shooting in RAW mode. Ma and Pa Kettle need a point and
    shoot that takes care of all the uglies for them. That's what
    ordinary Windows should be like.

    Other users are willing to put in the time learning how to
    deal with their RAW images (not that you can't run a dSLR
    in p&s mode). That really isn't for everybody. Most folks
    do NOT want to spend time playing with their pictures.
    Paul J Gans, Dec 23, 2006
  4. mark_digital©

    Paul J Gans Guest

    Tin? Heard of tin? I'm using it right now. It's been
    my favorite newsreader for many many years.
    Paul J Gans, Dec 23, 2006
  5. mark_digital©

    Paul J Gans Guest

    You are quite right about Unix systems. Very very few things
    need to be installed as root. Microsoft applications that
    cause the system to crash and burn include Word, Internet
    Explorer, and Outlook. They've gotten better as time goes
    on, but it was the original design that allowed them to
    go "blue screen of death" as Bill Gates himself famously
    found out.
    Paul J Gans, Dec 23, 2006
  6. mark_digital©

    Paul J Gans Guest

    In my opinion Microsoft went about this the wrong way.
    They should have announced that as of $SOME_FUTURE_DATE
    no new version of Windows would allow this.

    And for the diehards, they could have produced an emulator.
    It would have run slowly enough to force folks to move their

    These are serious design decisions. I do believe that *all*
    OS's have to make decisions of this sort. Any business of
    any size running legacy code that still needs DOS support is
    a business in serious trouble in this day and age.

    Indeed, it occurs to me that Microsoft could re-present a
    version of MSDOS for such folks. It is a suitable OS for
    legacy code.
    Paul J Gans, Dec 23, 2006
  7. mark_digital©

    ASAAR Guest

    Not too surprising, from what I know of panixites. :) I had an
    account with them many years ago and would have remained, had they
    been able to arrange automatic payments.
    ASAAR, Dec 23, 2006
  8. mark_digital©

    John Turco Guest

    Hello, Randall:

    Why is a Mac better than a Whopper, might I ask? :-D

    John Turco <>
    John Turco, Dec 23, 2006
  9. mark_digital©

    John Turco Guest

    Ron Hunter wrote:

    Hello, Ron:

    That's exactly what >I'm< doing, before installing Windows XP on my main
    machine. I'll probably need to dump the aged Pinnacle/Miro DC30+
    (MJPEG analog capture card), as it's quite unlikely there'll ever be any
    official XP support for it.

    My other hardware and software should be covered, luckily.

    John Turco <>
    John Turco, Dec 23, 2006
  10. mark_digital©

    John Turco Guest

    David J Taylor wrote:


    Hello, David:

    What other "guise" is that, and please elaborate on these "120MP
    satellite images," if you would, please?

    Don't be so damned cryptic, man! ;-)

    John Turco <>
    John Turco, Dec 23, 2006
  11. mark_digital©

    John Turco Guest

    Hello, Christopher:

    Here's a concise history of the Internet, regardless of Al Gore's role
    (or lack thereof) in "creating" it:

    USENET stands for "User's Network," and dates to 1979. The mixed-case
    form (Usenet) has become broadly favored, since then.

    The "World Wide Web" (WWW) is mostly responsible for the Internet's
    present popularity; it started in 1991. The Web is what a lot of people
    typically associate with the word, "Internet," I'd guess.

    The Internet, itself, has roots which go all the way back to 1969,
    during the so-called "Cold War." That's when ARPAnet (ARPA: Advanced
    Research Projects Agency) - the first online network, linking several
    universities - debuted, funded by the U.S. Department of Defense. It
    ended, in 1990, but the network infrastructure it left behind, comprised
    the basis of the WWW.

    John Turco <>
    John Turco, Dec 23, 2006
  12. As a software developer, not a photographer, I produce software which
    handles images up to 11136 x 11136 pixels from the Meteosat Second
    Generation data. See the HRV (also known as channel 12) here:




    David J Taylor, Dec 23, 2006
  13. mark_digital©

    Bill Funk Guest

    Ah, so words don't have their normal meaning when you use them.
    OK, I'll take that into account when you post.
    "I wrote an OS X vurus."
    "What's OS X?"
    "An Operating System."
    "You mean, like Windows?"

    Again, why not just admit you're wrong once in a whiule? It builds
    character. It also makes you think.
    Bill Funk, Dec 23, 2006
  14. mark_digital©

    Bill Funk Guest

    No, I won't admit that Windows is "an insecure piece of
    shit." Is it insecure? Obviously. Where did I ever say otherwise?
    Your compulsive behaviour is going into overdrive to attack anyone who
    says OS X isn't the "secure" OS you claim it is.
    No zealotry in you, no sir.
    You've just "seen the light." And everyone who isn't as light-seeing
    as you is somehow in the dark.
    Do you read what you post?
    Bill Funk, Dec 23, 2006
  15. mark_digital©

    Bill Guest

    No that's not what I said.

    The sweet spot for 32-bit Vista is 1gig, but it only needs about
    400megs to load depending on the edition you have installed. The OS is
    sluggish with anything less than 768megs due to paging and not being
    able to cache programs and data effectively.
    XP is the same - it's limited to ~3gigs. All 32-bit operating systems
    can only address a maximum of 4gigs of memory space, and since the
    hardware reserves some of that address space in the top addresses for
    accessing the devices in your computer, the OS can only "see" about

    Think of it as a gas tank on a motorcycle. It can hold 4 gallons of
    gas total, but the reserve portion of the tank holds 1 gallon aside
    for emergency use. In this analogy, the reserve tank is the hardware
    reserving memory locations for device access.
    It's not broken - it works exactly as it's designed to work, just like
    the 32-bit version of XP.

    The 64-bit versions of XP and Vista can address a lot more memory, so
    you can have 4gigs or more and it will see all of that memory for
    programs. That's why Micro$oft released XP x64 edition, so
    workstations can use 4gigs or more.
    People said the same thing when XP was released.

    You can run Vista with 512megs, but it's like running XP with 256megs.
    It loads and runs ok, but adding more memory allows it run much

    Linux advocates are starting to see the exact same problems today with
    the GUI interfaces. Running Kubuntu v6.x or openSUSE v10.x on a P4
    with only 256megs is not a fun experience. It'll load and run ok, but
    it's sluggish until you get about 384 or 512megs of memory for it to
    cache apps and data.

    The days of using a 486 processor with 64megs of RAM are long dead. If
    you want to run the fancy new operating systems, you need more
    horsepower, plain and simple.
    Bill, Dec 23, 2006
  16. mark_digital©

    Paul J Gans Guest

    Don't know if they do that now or not. I do get an on-line
    bill and a way to pay on line with a credit card whose
    account number is in their possession and which I don't have
    to send over the internet.

    I've had (and have) other accounts. Of all of them Panix is
    the best.
    Paul J Gans, Dec 24, 2006
  17. mark_digital©

    John Turco Guest

    Hello, David:

    Very intriguing; looks like something right up Roger N. Clark's alley,
    I'd imagine. <g>

    John Turco <>
    John Turco, Dec 24, 2006
  18. mark_digital©

    John Turco Guest

    Hello, Randall:

    No, you just use junk computers. <g>

    John Turco <>
    John Turco, Dec 24, 2006
  19. Stewy wrote:
    If you wanted XP Home, you should have started that way. On the other
    hand, XP Pro includes all of XP Home, so why would you need to downgrade?
    You have some extremely bad applications (or device drivers). I have
    found XP a very difficult system to crash using normal photo-editing,
    office and software development applications.

    David J Taylor, Dec 24, 2006
  20. Far too close to home for Roger - and no low-light capability at all. The
    satellites are effectively fixed exposure for an object in bright sunlight
    (i.e. the earth). Always "sunny and bright".

    David J Taylor, Dec 24, 2006
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.