Windows Vista Windows Vista News

nao sei se é novidade ou nao para vos...
tou no TechED em barcelona e por aqui ja todos sabem que o vista nao funciona com chipset da intel para WIFI
achei que gostassem de saber =)=)
 
Desculpem a ignorância, mas normalmente só sei estas coisas depois de andar uns tempos a utilizar determinado SO, e este só o devo utilizar depois de um SP1, o mundo empresarial não adopta as coisas de rajada...

Compatibilidade de aplicações/jogos/drivers, como é que estão as coisas no Vista?
 
tudo o que eu uso/jogo funciona :O

NOD32, Alcohol120%, Ultraiso, Winrar, COD2/UT2004 correm, apesar de mais lentos, Nero, Opera... tenho tudo a funcionar e não foi preciso inventar mto :002:

já agora, como é a história do OpenGL no Vista, é suposto isto suportar e com boa performance certo?
 
Com as novas gerações de gráficas que ai vem, uma já cá está a 8800 da geforce, jogar no vista vai ser mais rapido do que no xp.

EDIT: Estou a escrever este tópico dentro do Vista Ultimate
 
PoolMania disse:
Com as novas gerações de gráficas que ai vem, uma já cá está a 8800 da geforce, jogar no vista vai ser mais rapido do que no xp.

EDIT: Estou a escrever este tópico dentro do Vista Ultimate
Clicar para expandir...
Sim, é verdade mas apenas quando os jogos utilizarem o DX10 directamente, sem emulação de DX9, como todos eles neste momento.

A MS demonstrou como ficaria o Flight Simulator X em DX10, será necessário um patch a ser lançado mais tarde, talvez quando o Vista for lançado oficialmente.

Um artigo acerca disto e sorry pelo semi-offtopic:

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1989809,00.asp
 
E para uma boa review do Vista, not biased:

http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/winvista.asp


It's hard to put Windows Vista in perspective. On the one hand, the product has been in development for over five years, which means that Vista had one of the longest development cycles in the 20+ year history of Windows. (See my Road to Gold series for an exhaustive breakdown of that time period.)

Paradoxically, Windows Vista is both revolutionary and evolutionary. While it includes modern OS features, such as a new hardware-based graphical user interface (GUI), Vista will also feel like familiar territory, for the most part, to anyone that's already familiar with Windows XP. And Mac advocates can claim, truthfully, that many of Vista's best features appeared first on Mac OS X, sometimes years ago.

More problematic, over the past five years, many of Windows Vista's best features have been jettisoned, and it's unclear whether they'll ever appear in future Windows versions. Other features, like Internet Explorer (IE) 7, the Avalon and WinFX programming interfaces, the RSS platform, and more have been back-ported to Windows XP and Windows Server 2003, watering down the uniqueness of the Vista platform.
Clicar para expandir...


These are the things to keep in perspective when considering Windows Vista. It is a complex product, a big product. It's a major Windows update with lots of new functionality and oodles of new features. It's the first Windows version to provide developers with a major new programming model in a decade. It's got an unbelievably long list of extensibility points so that Microsoft and its partners can build off it for years to come. It is, as promised, the biggest new version of Windows since Windows 95. Chances are, if you're reading this site, you're going to upgrade to Vista sometime soon regardless of my opinion. As for the rest of the world, I suspect their next PC purchase will include Windows Vista as well. By this time next year, over 100 million people around the world will be using Windows Vista.
Clicar para expandir...


It's incredible, isn't it? The sheer size and scope of Windows Vista makes it difficult to review, to digest, and to understand. If you step back too far, it doesn't look very impressive at all: It's like XP with a spit-shine. But if you get too close, it's easy to get lost in the seemingly never-ending lists of new features. Yep, it's a major Windows version all right. And now it's complete. Let's dive in.
Clicar para expandir...
 
Última edição:
Post interessante de um user no XS:

amrgb disse:
It's curious how nobody (that I know off) mentioned what I found to be the best improvement in Vista, and the major driver of my switch from XP to Vista effective NOW, in sharp contrast with what was my initial position.

It's understandable that here at XS no one mentioned that, since most of the community care about games and benchs most. But what I said applies to elsewhere.

So let me share my vision: incomparably better I/O performance at HDD level, due to a smart (or should I say obvious and the prior versions had a stupid one) usage of the RAM as a buffer.

Tests:

1. Copy 7.25GB from one hdd to another (Hitachis 250GB sata2 8MB): XP took 2m45s, Vista 2m18s (Vista wins by 35%)

2. Copy same 7.25GB from one hdd to the same hdd: didn't jot down the numbers, but Vista takes roughly 220% (a bit more than double) of time it takes to copy the same file from one hdd to another. Regarding XP, everybody know it would take ages.

What's the difference here? The hdd driver of Vista does what I always wanted it to do. With the amount of ram we have these days, I not read a chunk of 500MB to ram, and them write it back? Until now, the chunks should be really small (below 1MB?) and as a consequence the hdd was constantly changing between read and write which killed performance. With VIsta you don't even listen to the hdd working :p: I don't have numbers, but the gains of Vista here should be in the order of >200% over XP.

More tests:

3. Demux dvd of 7GB (4 files) using DVDDec*rypter (don't know if this persona non grata :p: ) from one hdd to another: XP averages 15MB/s, Vista 37MB/s (yup that's 250%). Why? Because it's 4 files (video, 2 audios, subtitles). With 2GB of ram most of the audio and of course the subtitles could be kept in ram, and the hdd who is writing could concentrate on writing the big one. That's basically what happens in Vista. In XP, it tries to write them at the same time, which implies seek times and fragmentation.

4. Demux same dvd, but for the same disc: Vista averaged 16MB/s, XP I didn't even try. That's why I always buy hdd in pairs, and it is not for raid :p: But notice that Vista is faster using only one hdd, than XP using 2.

Bottom line: if you manipulate large files, go Vista. The increases in performance in this sector will make you forget everything else, even (am I really saying this?) the $$$.

Processing power: the F@H performance increase. My 600 pointers were taking about 28.5m, now 27.5m.

PS: and I have a X1300 and everything runs smooth.
Clicar para expandir...

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=1837115&postcount=29

Já tinha conhecimento das melhorias ao nível I/O e não só pelos videos do Channel9, mas é bom ver que na pratica a coisa funciona mesmo! ;)
 
Última edição:
Inicie sessão ou registe-se para poder participar.
Back
Topo