:o
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/06/08/0140206&from=rss
When I try I get...
Quote
Unknown Error
An unknown error occurred while processing your request. This is most likely due to a connection failure. Please try again.
... after I fill out the information. Lame.
Edit... nevermind working ;P
Edit2... fucking assholes.
QuoteThank you for your interest in Windows Vista Beta 2.
We are currently experiencing a high level of demand and cannot process your request at this time.
Please check back later for availability. We apologize for any inconvenience.
It should be up later, I'm going to download it.
I read through some of the comments... Here's the one that totally kicks ass.
Quote
Windows Vista 32bit - English
http://download.windowsvista.com/dl/preview/beta2/en/x86/iso/vista_5384.4.060518-1455_winmain_beta2_x86fre_client-LB2CFRE_EN_DVD.iso [windowsvista.com]
Windows Vista 64bit - English
http://download.windowsvista.com/dl/preview/beta2/en/x64/iso/vista_5384.4.060518-1455_winmain_beta2_x64fre_client-LB2CxFRE_EN_DVD.iso [windowsvista.com]
I still can't get the damn thing to install properly on VMWare 5.5, grrr
THANKS I'll use it when I get home
I had ~500kb/s download last night from there, about 2 am PDT.
You can get the iso there, but make sure to get your own CD key.
Quote from: MyndFyrex86] link=topic=6145.msg73287#msg73287 date=1149876557]
I had ~500kb/s download last night from there, about 2 am PDT.
You can get the iso there, but make sure to get your own CD key.
The key is easy to get...
Now the question is: is it worth it?
So far I've spent probably 2-3 hours trying to get it to install on VMWare and failed miserally, so definately no.
Quote from: Ergot on June 09, 2006, 03:16:37 PM
Quote from: MyndFyrex86] link=topic=6145.msg73287#msg73287 date=1149876557]
I had ~500kb/s download last night from there, about 2 am PDT.
You can get the iso there, but make sure to get your own CD key.
The key is easy to get...
Yes, I'm well aware. I'm just saying, make sure you get it through Microsoft's site so you can activate it.
So..an OS which facilitates features which VMWare can't easily provide, needs extensive amounts of ram to run, and is the ultimate version which makes use of deep hardware internals doesn't work in Virtualization? SAY IT ISN'T SO!!
It's worth it for me, it's your decision to download it or not. If you do then download, if not then go away.
I'd like to try Vista out, but really, none of my computers could handle it. I fear they'd all explode.
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=6145.msg73393#msg73393 date=1149900542]
So..an OS which facilitates features which VMWare can't easily provide, needs extensive amounts of ram to run, and is the ultimate version which makes use of deep hardware internals doesn't work in Virtualization? SAY IT ISN'T SO!!
It's worth it for me, it's your decision to download it or not. If you do then download, if not then go away.
Plenty of people have gotten it to run in VMWare, just not me ;)
I really don't feel like repartitioning right now just to install a beta OS.
I'd install it, but I hate Windows. :)
If a retail Windows OS is as broken as XP can be, I can't imagine a beta. :P
Quote from: rabbit on June 10, 2006, 09:43:34 AM
I'd like to try Vista out, but really, none of my computers could handle it. I fear they'd all explode.
Quote from: Newby on June 10, 2006, 12:41:45 PM
I'd install it, but I hate Windows. :)
If a retail Windows OS is as broken as XP can be, I can't imagine a beta. :P
My dad has not be able to get it to run past "Preparing your desktop" :\
Seriously... it's pissing me off as much as it is my dad... it's rediculous.
My dad now suspects something wrong with either the iso or his disk...
Quote from: Newby on June 10, 2006, 12:41:45 PM
If a retail Windows OS is as broken as XP can be, I can't imagine a beta. :P
Well, I've never had a problem with XP. It's not broken for me. Clearly, you
are.
Quote from: Ergot on June 10, 2006, 10:22:57 PM
Seriously... it's pissing me off as much as it is my dad... it's rediculous.
My dad now suspects something wrong with either the iso or his disk...
That's probably it. I had build 5384 for a while (I suspect this is the same version as was released by MS) and it was solid and very stable on my desktop. Haven't tried it on my notebook.
AFAIK, my iso downloaded fine I check the md5sum and SHA1 with the ones on Slashdot. It would pretty much crash each time after prompting about the user controls shit... and refreshing his screen. Would you be available to help me? Warrior kinda left me :(
I haven't had much trouble with XP, but then again, I only switched recently.
I'll be able to help tomorrow. What are your specs?
Athlon 2200+
768 MB RAM
Geforce 5600
Is that good enough? It's my dad's computer that's all I can remember off the top of my head.
Quote from: MyndFyrex86] link=topic=6145.msg73658#msg73658 date=1150011505]
Quote from: Newby on June 10, 2006, 12:41:45 PM
If a retail Windows OS is as broken as XP can be, I can't imagine a beta. :P
Well, I've never had a problem with XP. It's not broken for me. Clearly, you are.
It would RANDOMLY restart itself. Linux has yet to even give me a kernel panic from bad hardware. Apparently, Windows sucks dick. :)
Quote from: Newby on June 11, 2006, 01:30:33 PM
Quote from: MyndFyrex86] link=topic=6145.msg73658#msg73658 date=1150011505]
Quote from: Newby on June 10, 2006, 12:41:45 PM
If a retail Windows OS is as broken as XP can be, I can't imagine a beta. :P
Well, I've never had a problem with XP. It's not broken for me. Clearly, you are.
It would RANDOMLY restart itself. Linux has yet to even give me a kernel panic from bad hardware. Apparently, Windows sucks dick. :)
Or maybe..just maybe..it's your hardware? You know when it works for millions and millions and not for a select few..then can we question it being the hardware?
...
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=6145.msg73694#msg73694 date=1150047953]
Or maybe..just maybe..it's your hardware? You know when it works for millions and millions and not for a select few..then can we question it being the hardware?
Therein lies the problem. What hardware is it? Linux has
yet to error out on me or blame any problems on hardware.
Windows would not tell me either. It would just restart.
There is the difference. Linux doesn't. I think Linux can handle my hardware better. ;)
Quote from: Newby on June 11, 2006, 01:47:12 PM
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=6145.msg73694#msg73694 date=1150047953]
Or maybe..just maybe..it's your hardware? You know when it works for millions and millions and not for a select few..then can we question it being the hardware?
Therein lies the problem. What hardware is it? Linux has yet to error out on me or blame any problems on hardware.
Windows would not tell me either. It would just restart.
There is the difference. Linux doesn't. I think Linux can handle my hardware better. ;)
Stick with whatever works then, but it's not a reasonable attack on an OS. I could very well say my [insert very expensive new and flashy driver here] does not work on linux..it must be inferior. Is that fair to Linux? No.
I know you guys are mostly anti-windows but cmon, that's rediculous.
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=6145.msg73698#msg73698 date=1150048189]
Stick with whatever works then, but it's not a reasonable attack on an OS. I could very well say my [insert very expensive new and flashy driver here] does not work on linux..it must be inferior. Is that fair to Linux? No.
Aren't you the one who uses "lack of drivers" (see your above example calling Linux inferior) as an argument against Linux?
Quote from: Newby on June 11, 2006, 01:56:22 PM
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=6145.msg73698#msg73698 date=1150048189]
Stick with whatever works then, but it's not a reasonable attack on an OS. I could very well say my [insert very expensive new and flashy driver here] does not work on linux..it must be inferior. Is that fair to Linux? No.
Aren't you the one who uses "lack of drivers" (see your above example calling Linux inferior) as an argument against Linux?
Yes? You guys blindly flame Windows (As seen above) so I do the same. Feels bad right?
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=6145.msg73703#msg73703 date=1150048640]
Quote from: Newby on June 11, 2006, 01:56:22 PM
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=6145.msg73698#msg73698 date=1150048189]
Stick with whatever works then, but it's not a reasonable attack on an OS. I could very well say my [insert very expensive new and flashy driver here] does not work on linux..it must be inferior. Is that fair to Linux? No.
Aren't you the one who uses "lack of drivers" (see your above example calling Linux inferior) as an argument against Linux?
Yes? You guys blindly flame Windows (As seen above) so I do the same. Feels bad right?
Not really. Hehe. There's no arguing driver support in Linux is shabby. My friend just switched back to OS X because Ubuntu and Yellow Dog Linux failed to completely replace OS X on his G5.
Quote from: Newby on June 11, 2006, 01:58:13 PM
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=6145.msg73703#msg73703 date=1150048640]
Quote from: Newby on June 11, 2006, 01:56:22 PM
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=6145.msg73698#msg73698 date=1150048189]
Stick with whatever works then, but it's not a reasonable attack on an OS. I could very well say my [insert very expensive new and flashy driver here] does not work on linux..it must be inferior. Is that fair to Linux? No.
Aren't you the one who uses "lack of drivers" (see your above example calling Linux inferior) as an argument against Linux?
Yes? You guys blindly flame Windows (As seen above) so I do the same. Feels bad right?
Not really. Hehe. There's no arguing driver support in Linux is shabby. My friend just switched back to OS X because Ubuntu and Yellow Dog Linux failed to completely replace OS X on his G5.
Well then I'd call bad support for ONE driver in Windows (probably vendors fault anyhow) out of the thousands (probably millions) they support not too bad.
anyone wanna post some screenshots?...
als, do you have to go the dvd iso route or is there a way you can do it in like ... 6 cds?
Do you guys like it better than XP?
And screenshots would be awesome :D
I like XP better. AFAIK, it comes only as an DVD iso. I would post screenshots if I could actually take some! Wait... forget taking screenshots... I need to actually boot!
dvd,ew...anyone wanna burn & mail me one ;)?
maybe there is a way I can order one from them
I'm sure they have DVDs burned for developers, but I doubt it's something publicly available :)
Quote from: CrAz3D on June 11, 2006, 02:25:25 PM
dvd,ew...anyone wanna burn & mail me one ;)?
maybe there is a way I can order one from them
Yes there is... if you would visit their website and look all this information up ^^.
Quote from: dark_drake on June 11, 2006, 02:15:49 PM
Do you guys like it better than XP?
And screenshots would be awesome :D
I like it better than XP, it still has some hardware problems (Thank LDDM) but it will get there.
New Explorer
(http://www.winsupersite.com/images/showcase/winvista_beta2_04.jpg)
Windows Photo Gallery
(http://www.winsupersite.com/images/showcase/winvista_beta2_13.jpg)
New Control Panel
(http://www.winsupersite.com/images/showcase/winvista_beta2_05.jpgp)
Windows Calandar
(http://www.winsupersite.com/images/showcase/winvista_beta2_24.jpg)
15 gigs, hmmm, sad.......I have 18 free on my laptop..........maybe I'll ditch fedora
Quote from: CrAz3D on June 11, 2006, 03:17:53 PM
15 gigs, hmmm, sad.......I have 18 free on my laptop..........maybe I'll ditch fedora
ATTA BOY ATTA BOY.
..Why the hell does an OS need to be so flashy?! Seriously. The "it's taking load off the cpu and giving it to the GPU" reason is bullshit -- it can do that without being so ugly.
@ Warrior: You think it's worth switching over to as of right now?
Quote from: deadly7 on June 11, 2006, 04:57:05 PM
..Why the hell does an OS need to be so flashy?! Seriously. The "it's taking load off the cpu and giving it to the GPU" reason is bullshit -- it can do that without being so ugly.
I think it looks cool.
I hope you're able to answer your own question, because I believe it's very obvious.
A majority of computer users enjoy flashy screens, pretty buttons and "stupid mode" interfaces. For those who don't like that, they can change it to an older theme. It's Windows... I'm sure that it's supported. The XP theme takes up more resources than the classic theme does. It takes 15 seconds to switch between the two. I doubt it will be much different on Vista. I don't see what you're bitching about.
Quote from: Furious on June 11, 2006, 05:30:12 PM
@ Warrior: You think it's worth switching over to as of right now?
Not really, unless you are sure you can work with the task of maybe not having all the drivers instantly and having to look through google for bug fixes and continuously upgrading (When Vista RC1 comes out).
I'll wait until RC1 until I give it the all green (If I give it the all green). But currently there are some problems which make it look bad. I don't want people to have a bad experience with Vista in beta, then hate it forever.
If you're willing to go into it with an Open mind and accept that it IS beta software, then I'd say it's worth a try on a backup PC / Virtual Machine (You need like 2-3 Gigs of ram for this)
Quote from: Sidoh on June 11, 2006, 05:47:54 PM
A majority of computer users enjoy flashy screens, pretty buttons and "stupid mode" interfaces. For those who don't like that, they can change it to an older theme. It's Windows... I'm sure that it's supported. The XP theme takes up more resources than the classic theme does. It takes 15 seconds to switch between the two. I doubt it will be much different on Vista. I don't see what you're bitching about.
I'm not in the majority. I doubt those older themes send the stuff to the GPU as opposed to the CPU. However, I probably won't be using Vista for a long time (even if I do pirate it) so I could care less.
Quote from: deadly7 on June 11, 2006, 07:38:11 PM
Quote from: Sidoh on June 11, 2006, 05:47:54 PM
A majority of computer users enjoy flashy screens, pretty buttons and "stupid mode" interfaces. For those who don't like that, they can change it to an older theme. It's Windows... I'm sure that it's supported. The XP theme takes up more resources than the classic theme does. It takes 15 seconds to switch between the two. I doubt it will be much different on Vista. I don't see what you're bitching about.
I'm not in the majority. I doubt those older themes send the stuff to the GPU as opposed to the CPU. However, I probably won't be using Vista for a long time (even if I do pirate it) so I could care less.
You know..you're wrong.
It DOES offload it to the GPU, and the lag is not from CPU stress..it's from low FPS while rendering the desktop. PLEASE before making such a stupid assertion look up your facts. Not to mention you can
turn it off, here to please you more you have a choice between the Vista Basic UI (GDI+ rendered) and the Classic UI (Also GDI+ rendered).
Jesus christ..
Let's taken into thought the complex calculations done for every window in 3D space? How about the live renders of Windows while you simultaeneously scroll through them using Flip3D? Hell, even the shadows are complex. They are probably done per pixel and the glass transparency channel being recalculated whenever a window is moved? How about the dynamic resizing of a glass window while playing a video and recalculating coordinates for new shadows? If you would have ALL OF THAT on the CPU, you'd start to see smoke protrude from your PC.
.....my god.
Ok... I think I got to not crash... here's a REAL SS from an actual user. Not those professional SS that Warrior posts :D
Quote from: deadly7 on June 11, 2006, 07:38:11 PM
I'm not in the majority. I doubt those older themes send the stuff to the GPU as opposed to the CPU. However, I probably won't be using Vista for a long time (even if I do pirate it) so I could care less.
I think Warrior's post about sums it up.
Before you go assuming things that you haven't the slightest clue about (other than making that conclusion supports your point), I suggest you do some research.
They've clearly managed the technology to support GPU rendered graphics. Why the hell would the choose to not use it for less complicated themes? "Sure! Let's load the graphics card with a bunch of shit, but then not use it at all when the user switches to a simpler theme!" Think about what you're proposing...
Quote from: Newby on June 11, 2006, 01:47:12 PM
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=6145.msg73694#msg73694 date=1150047953]
Or maybe..just maybe..it's your hardware? You know when it works for millions and millions and not for a select few..then can we question it being the hardware?
Therein lies the problem. What hardware is it? Linux has yet to error out on me or blame any problems on hardware.
Windows would not tell me either. It would just restart.
There is the difference. Linux doesn't. I think Linux can handle my hardware better. ;)
See, this is just you not understanding how to diagnose XP. There is a boot-up option menu called "Disable automatic restart." This is also an option in the System Properties dialog (Advanced, Startup and Recovery, Automatically Restart). I arm myself with WinDbg (free) and a full kernel dump (as opposed to a minidump, which is the default option for XP Home/Pro), and find out very quickly what the problem is. This is an example of your ignorance causing you to blame Windows as problematic as opposed to your driver. You can't determine which driver is the problem because you're not educated enough.
Quote from: Ergot on June 11, 2006, 04:56:21 AM
Athlon 2200+
768 MB RAM
Geforce 5600
Is that good enough? It's my dad's computer that's all I can remember off the top of my head.
That should be enough. Aero scales back automatically and should disable glass (transparency) with that I believe.
Quote from: Ergot on June 11, 2006, 09:10:05 PM
Ok... I think I got to not crash... here's a REAL SS from an actual user. Not those professional SS that Warrior posts :D
Ouch that Vista is crying.
Anyhow, those SSes are taken from someone doing a review (He has badass hardware though, like 3GB of ram, a killer processor and a 7900GTX)
Quote from: MyndFyrex86] link=topic=6145.msg73909#msg73909 date=1150103609]
Quote from: Ergot on June 11, 2006, 04:56:21 AM
Athlon 2200+
768 MB RAM
Geforce 5600
Is that good enough? It's my dad's computer that's all I can remember off the top of my head.
That should be enough. Aero scales back automatically and should disable glass (transparency) with that I believe.
Too bad it didn't eh?
Quote from: Sidoh on June 12, 2006, 12:22:50 AM
They've clearly managed the technology to support GPU rendered graphics. Why the hell would the choose to not use it for less complicated themes? "Sure! Let's load the graphics card with a bunch of shit, but then not use it at all when the user switches to a simpler theme!" Think about what you're proposing...
It IS Microsoft, and I have been royally screwed by them before. I wouldn't doubt that at all.
Quote from: deadly7 on June 12, 2006, 07:51:42 PM
Quote from: Sidoh on June 12, 2006, 12:22:50 AM
They've clearly managed the technology to support GPU rendered graphics. Why the hell would the choose to not use it for less complicated themes? "Sure! Let's load the graphics card with a bunch of shit, but then not use it at all when the user switches to a simpler theme!" Think about what you're proposing...
It IS Microsoft, and I have been royally screwed by them before. I wouldn't doubt that at all.
I give up.
Quote
Aero is built on the new desktop composition engine called Desktop Window Manager, adding support for 3D graphics, translucency, window animation and other visual effects. This mode is also known as Aero Glass.
* Intended for mainstream and high-end graphics cards.
* 64 MB of graphics memory recommended for 1024x768, 128 MB for 1600x1200+.
* At least 32 bits per pixel.
* 3D hardware acceleration with capabilities equal to DirectX 9.0c.
* A memory bandwidth of 2 GB/s is recommended.
* Capable of drawing ~1.5 M triangles / second, one window being ~150 triangles.
* A graphics card that uses AGP 8X or PCI Express x16 bus.
* Windows Display Driver Model (WDDM) Drivers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vista#Graphics
I have some installation screenshots:
Dynamic update for setup? (http://www.jinxbot.net/pub/vista/updates.png)
Install type: upgrade or custom? (http://www.jinxbot.net/pub/vista/install-type.png)
Install to which partition? (http://www.jinxbot.net/pub/vista/install-to.png)
Installing... (http://www.jinxbot.net/pub/vista/installing.png)
I just want to know: why does MS feel that it's important to make a fucking ISO image at 1mb/s of copying from the DVD in order to install (http://www.jinxbot.net/pub/vista/why.png)? WTF?
Why do you need to be connected to install? That's fucking stupid. What if you are mass deploying and all of them accessing the internet at once will cause world chaos?
Quote from: MyndFyrex86] link=topic=6145.msg73909#msg73909 date=1150103609]
See, this is just you not understanding how to diagnose XP. There is a boot-up option menu called "Disable automatic restart." This is also an option in the System Properties dialog (Advanced, Startup and Recovery, Automatically Restart). I arm myself with WinDbg (free) and a full kernel dump (as opposed to a minidump, which is the default option for XP Home/Pro), and find out very quickly what the problem is. This is an example of your ignorance causing you to blame Windows as problematic as opposed to your driver. You can't determine which driver is the problem because you're not educated enough.
I realize you can disable it. I don't think I could read kernel dumps so eh?
Quote from: Newby on June 12, 2006, 11:36:12 PM
Why do you need to be connected to install? That's fucking stupid. What if you are mass deploying and all of them accessing the internet at once will cause world chaos?
Quote from: MyndFyrex86] link=topic=6145.msg73909#msg73909 date=1150103609]
See, this is just you not understanding how to diagnose XP. There is a boot-up option menu called "Disable automatic restart." This is also an option in the System Properties dialog (Advanced, Startup and Recovery, Automatically Restart). I arm myself with WinDbg (free) and a full kernel dump (as opposed to a minidump, which is the default option for XP Home/Pro), and find out very quickly what the problem is. This is an example of your ignorance causing you to blame Windows as problematic as opposed to your driver. You can't determine which driver is the problem because you're not educated enough.
I realize you can disable it. I don't think I could read kernel dumps so eh?
Holy fucking shit. It's SO EASY.
Windbg - Open Crash Dump (find the file, usually Windows\MEMORY.DMP)
!analyze -v
It tells you the faulting module 98% of the time.
GFG
---
As for why you need to be connected for the install, it's to download dynamic updates. If you're mass-deploying you'd probably use the preinstallation environment or something similar.
Quote from: MyndFyrex86] link=topic=6145.msg74157#msg74157 date=1150170032]
Holy fucking shit. It's SO EASY.
Windbg - Open Crash Dump (find the file, usually Windows\MEMORY.DMP)
!analyze -v
It tells you the faulting module 98% of the time.
GFG
Well
EXCUSE ME for not having any experience (ok fine, damn near none, I tried debugging a game once to hack it :P) with WinDbg.
Maybe someday I'll try that. Heh. I'd swear it was my sound card, though.
Quote from: MyndFyrex86] link=topic=6145.msg74157#msg74157 date=1150170032]
As for why you need to be connected for the install, it's to download dynamic updates. If you're mass-deploying you'd probably use the preinstallation environment or something similar.
Hooray! Kill M$'s bandwidth!
Ahh, here we are. This is my desktop:
Now I've got your real name, and I can hunt you down and kill you!
(At least I am not the only one who uses their full name for their login name on Windows... heh.)
Quote from: Newby on June 13, 2006, 02:53:19 AM
Now I've got your real name, and I can hunt you down and kill you!
(At least I am not the only one who uses their full name for their login name on Windows... heh.)
James T. Kirk is not your real name, Newby. :P
:(.