# Windows Mojave



## Erro (Aug 7, 2008)

Ok, so I'm venturing down here to the land of fuzzy geeks, scary thought  but yeah, I'm not here often, so if this has been posted already ... whatever =3 I just thought it was funny.

http://www.mojaveexperiment.com/


----------



## Adrimor (Aug 7, 2008)

Yep, it's funny...

http://slate.msn.com/id/2196612/
http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=2311
http://www.rustylime.com/show_article.php?id=2226
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Windows-Codename-Mojave-vs-Old-Windows-Vista-91129.shtml

Just like watching a train plow into and through an evacuated school bus without so much as slowing. Vista's the bus.


----------



## khold (Aug 7, 2008)

That was pretty funny. XD
I hate people who hate Vista because of what others tell them! Vista is actually a pretty good OS, and I've never had any problems with it; except for when I first got Vista, I had to wait 4 months before a driver for my printer was released... but that's my fault because I couldn't wait to get it


----------



## TheGreatCrusader (Aug 7, 2008)

khold said:


> That was pretty funny. XD
> I hate people who hate Vista because of what others tell them! Vista is actually a pretty good OS, and I've never had any problems with it; except for when I first got Vista, I had to wait 4 months before a driver for my printer was released... but that's my fault because I couldn't wait to get it


Any operating system that asks you if Control Panel is a safe program to use is a failure in my books.

XP had a rocky start, too. It was slow, buggy, a memory hog and not well optimized for slow PC's. But now, it is one of the most successful pieces of software in computer history. Why is this? Because as PC's got better the performance issues were made moot and as service packs were released the bugs were fixed. The same will happen for Vista.

But until that day, I will use XP. Until the memory and bugs are fixed, I will view it as shovelware.


----------



## Eevee (Aug 7, 2008)

someone ought to try this with an OS that is not Windows


----------



## khold (Aug 7, 2008)

TheGreatCrusader said:


> Any operating system that asks you if Control Panel is a safe program to use is a failure in my books.
> 
> XP had a rocky start, too. It was slow, buggy, a memory hog and not well optimized for slow PC's. But now, it is one of the most successful pieces of software in computer history. Why is this? Because as PC's got better the performance issues were made moot and as service packs were released the bugs were fixed. The same will happen for Vista.
> 
> But until that day, I will use XP. Until the memory and bugs are fixed, I will view it as shovelware.


i will agree that UAC is a bit annoying. I disabled it because I'm smart enough to know which programs will harm my compy. That; and because when the UAC box popped up, the screen took a second to revert to Vista Basic mode, which got equally annoying. I want Aero! >:O

Also, Service Pack 1 was released a couple months ago.


----------



## TheGreatCrusader (Aug 7, 2008)

khold said:


> Also, Service Pack 1 was released a couple months ago.


Still buggy. Still slow. Memory issues weren't fixed.


----------



## khold (Aug 7, 2008)

TheGreatCrusader said:


> Still buggy. Still slow. Memory issues weren't fixed.


oh well. works for me. perfectly 'snappy'; no bugs or memory issues here :O


----------



## TheGreatCrusader (Aug 7, 2008)

khold said:


> oh well. works for me. perfectly 'snappy'; no bugs or memory issues here :O


If you have a computer with good specs, than you have nothing to worry about. But anything with less than 1 GB RAM is fucking screwed.


----------



## Eevee (Aug 7, 2008)

khold said:


> i will agree that UAC is a bit annoying. I disabled it because I'm smart enough to know which programs will harm my compy.


if you think that's all UAC is for then no, you are not smart enough to disable it

this fiasco with everyone disabling it is hilarious, really; people get jumped on _instantly_ if they mention trying to avoid gksudo in Linux (which would usually mean running everything as root), and letting everyone run everything with admin powers was one of the bigger security problems with XP.


----------



## khold (Aug 7, 2008)

TheGreatCrusader said:


> If you have a computer with good specs, than you have nothing to worry about. But anything with less than 1 GB RAM is fucking screwed.


Of course. you need at least 2 GB ram to run vista smoothly. my last compy had only 1 GB and it was pretty slow with vista. my laptop now has 3GB and it's beastly.

don't blame a good OS on your own hardware issues >=O

@eevee: ok sorry, i turned it back on.


----------



## AlexInsane (Aug 7, 2008)

I'm not updating my OS until Microsoft gets their shit right.

XP does just fine for me and I've heard that XP and Vista are practically the same thing, just that XP is older and slower and Vista is newer and glitchy as hell.


----------



## net-cat (Aug 7, 2008)

I used Vista for a couple of months on my laptop.

It network management is a fucking joke and you can't disable it. It made the operating system basically unusable for me. (I've since swiched to Linux, actually.)

Other than that minor quibble, I really had no issues with it.

And what the hell are people doing that triggers UAC every five minutes? (Or whatever hyperbole people are using nowadays.) After I got everything installed, I never got it more than once or twice a day. (Certainly not any more than I see gksudo in Linux...)


----------



## ADF (Aug 7, 2008)

That they had to do this says a lot about Vista's image right now.

I've actually tried the OS, multiple times, I am currently back on XP. People keep reassuring you that it has had enough patches or drivers have caught up; that the OS is better than XP in every way now, my experience is always very differen't.

I wonder what sort of PC it was running on to be considered fast...


----------



## net-cat (Aug 7, 2008)

ADF said:


> I wonder what sort of PC it was running on to be considered fast...


Core Duo, Radeon Mobility X1400, 4GB RAM. :V


----------



## ADF (Aug 7, 2008)

net-cat said:


> Core Duo, Radeon Mobility X1400, 4GB RAM. :V



I went to see if you was posting your specs or if I missed them from the artcle; that site has gone down 

Regardless 4GB ram is way too much just to run an OS smoothly...


----------



## net-cat (Aug 7, 2008)

To be fair, it worked fine on that computer with 2GB.

But yeah. I've stated my major grievances with Vista. That's one of the lesser ones.


----------



## ArielMT (Aug 7, 2008)

Am I the only one the mojaveexperiment.com link is slashdotted for?  I can't help but laugh.


----------



## hiphopopotimus (Aug 8, 2008)

khold said:


> That was pretty funny. XD
> I hate people who hate Vista because of what others tell them! Vista is actually a pretty good OS, and I've never had any problems with it; except for when I first got Vista, I had to wait 4 months before a driver for my printer was released... but that's my fault because I couldn't wait to get it



I hate it when companies do blind taste tests and dont show video footage of any descending opinions. Really? everyone gave it 10/10? I only watched about 1/4 of the videos so forgive me if I missed the actor  who didnt think Vista was Jesus.

There are some legitimate flaws with vista, but instead of fixing them, Microsoft tries to pretend that they don't exist. I tried vista out for a few months, and didn't like it at all. I disliked it so much that I downgraded to XP.


----------



## WarMocK (Aug 8, 2008)

Eevee said:


> someone ought to try this with an OS that is not Windows



With the proper themes and dialog boxes, this might even work. Until they want to play Solitaire.


----------



## Wait Wait (Aug 8, 2008)

khold said:


> Of course. you need at least 2 GB ram to run vista smoothly. my last compy had only 1 GB and it was pretty slow with vista. my laptop now has 3GB and it's beastly.
> 
> don't blame a good OS on your own hardware issues >=O
> 
> @eevee: ok sorry, i turned it back on.



_*ahahahahahahah*_


----------



## ArielMT (Aug 8, 2008)

WarMocK said:


> With the proper themes and dialog boxes, this might even work. Until they want to play Solitaire.


Yes, because then, they'd actually be able to play a simple game that _doesn't_ need an accelerated graphics card to play:




​ This, in Home Basic on a PC that exceeded Microsoft's minimum requirements.  Oh, and the warning wasn't joking, either.  Without acceleration, Windows Vista Solitaire will not move cards at a frame rate faster than ten seconds per frame.  (Not ten frames per _second_, ten seconds per _frame_.  I know from excruciatingly painful first-hand experience.)

Solitaire on an OS that isn't Windows...


```
arielmt@cleos-cat:~$ apt-cache search solitaire
kpat - KDE solitaire patience game
ace-of-penguins - Solitaire-games with penguin-look
console-freecell - console version of freecell game
freecell-solver-bin - Library for solving Freecell games
jester - board game similar to Othello
junior-games-card - Debian Jr. Card Games
libfreecell-solver-dev - Library for solving Freecell games (Development files)
libfreecell-solver0 - Library for solving Freecell games
libgames-cards-perl - Perl module for writing and playing card games
mah-jong - The original Mah-Jong game
pysol - X11 solitaire game written in Python
pysol-cardsets - Additional card graphics for Pysol
sgt-puzzles - Simon Tatham's Portable Puzzle Collection - 1-player puzzle games
spider - A two deck solitaire game for the X Window System
vdr-plugin-solitaire - Plugin to vdr that implements the card game "Solitaire"
vgacardgames - Four SVGAlib card games
xmahjongg - tile-based solitaire game
xpuyopuyo - A puzzle game similar to tetris, played with colored blobs
xsol - X Solitaire
gnome-games - games for the GNOME desktop
kpat-kde4 - KDE 4 solitaire patience game
arielmt@cleos-cat:~$
```
Too many choices.


----------



## Wait Wait (Aug 8, 2008)

No way

it can't play _solitaire_ (with an average graphics card)?


----------



## ArielMT (Aug 8, 2008)

Wait Wait said:


> No way
> 
> it can't play _solitaire_ (with an average graphics card)?


I so wish I was joking.   It _can_, but it's so painful you wouldn't want to.


----------



## Eevee (Aug 8, 2008)

WarMocK said:


> With the proper themes and dialog boxes, this might even work. Until they want to play Solitaire.


yeah, then it will definitely work, once they discover that most default Linux Solitaires come with dozens more games than just Klondike  83


----------



## Wait Wait (Aug 8, 2008)

ArielMT said:


> I so wish I was joking.   It _can_, but it's so painful you wouldn't want to.



that's...well
wow


----------



## Runefox (Aug 8, 2008)

The biggest thing about Vista is having a system that's good enough to use it. If you have an obscenely powerful (or just about a $1000~$1500) computer, then you'll be golden. You'll _love_ it, once you disable UAC or put it into silent mode using TweakUAC. On that note, gksu only asks for admin access escalation and requires a password, which is then cached for a time where you can perform any admin task you wish without having to deal with another prompt. UAC's prompts are simple, click-through(?!) stopgaps that will prompt you more or less each time you attempt to access any sort of administrative task at all, sometimes multiple times in the same task. This is why I can't live with it in a Windows environment, and why I can live with gksu and sudo in Linux. Yes, UAC locks down the system moreso than without, but its escalation prompts are totally done the wrong way, and thus it has been rendered useless by those who can't stand it.

Vista does get bashed a lot more than it should be, and XP had it rough the same way. Its hardware requirements are indeed steep, but those systems that exceed the recommended and get a "5" or greater on the index can expect a much faster overall system than an XP system of the same speed (due to enhancements with memory management, superfetch, etc), though performance in some cases may vary. While I mostly knock it due to the features that were going to make it stand out from XP being ripped from it and its long release delay, it really is pretty stable, and automatically finding hardware drivers on Windows Update actually works. Solution Center actually works, too, which has found a few things that I would never have thought it would (things that Everest couldn't identify, for example, like OEM Toshiba ACPI controls). I really have to recommend using the 64-bit version of Vista, though. Drivers typically exist for both 32-bit and 64-bit editions, and I haven't come across any 32-bit programs that don't run exactly as they do under 32-bit Vista. In fact, I've only seen 16-bit apps fail, and this can be bypassed with emulation (VirtualBox (win16), DOSbox (DOS)). The extra RAM support and the boosted speed are huge pluses.


----------

