Vista Downgrade - Alternate OS Suggestions?

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

25-07-2009, 07:23 AM
nvrspk4

Quote:

Originally Posted by HotelUser

1. There is absolutely nothing wrong with how osx smoohs fonts. Many people woul agree that the osx fnts look quite nice and the cleartype smoothing on indows looks like crap.

I'm going to have to categorically disagree with that statement. Apple has a different philosophical strategy to rendering than Microsoft. Microsoft believes in readability and Apple believes in staying true to font designers at the cost of some readability.

Taken from: http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000884.html which shows that ClearType is better clarity-wise than OSX

http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/ima...i3-closeup.png
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/ima...e7-closeup.png

Furthermore, evidence on the difference in font rendering philosophy can be found here: http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000885.html

Jeff Atwood, the main writer makes a compelling case for cleartype in that Graphics Designers manually tweak the fonts for readability which is done automatically by cleartype. Furthermore, it appears that Apple is not necessarily wrong...they're just living in the future. On a 200 DPI screen it is theorized (and I say theorized because to me its not proven until its tested) that the differences would mete out and OSX font would be graphically superior. However, with 100 DPI screens the OSX font is unarguably inferior, definitely in clarity, probably in aesthetics.

It is (according to Atwood) documented that the clarity of the font has a lot to do with the accuracy in reading the article, so superior font clarity means less reading mistakes. And there is a final point about how catering to the pixel grid instead of the mythical 200 DPI screen changes clarity with this (stolen from the above site) massively blown up grayscale image of a font and a font with tweaking.

http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/images/fontfocus.png
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/ima...tfocus-off.png

Quote:

3. Wobbly windows and the raindrop effects are part of Ubuntu desktop effects. Very nice looking effecrs that consume little juice to function. Oh wait, but um..Vista has nice window effects too. When windows freeze they turn a transparent white. Very nice.Oh and th new send dont send error reports are absolutely the most sexy thing ever.

I don't think those have anything to do with functionality at all and are lacking at best as a rebuttal of the wobbly windows critique. The point he was making was that he didn't want wobbly windows and that it wasn't productive at all, he would prefer a straightforward system that didn't use that juice at all. Minimal use of resources can add up. However the things you're quoting aren't Vista effects at all (obviously) so aren't much of a rebuttal but instead a blatant rant on Windows.

Quote:

4. Vista is NOT and never will be a "real" OS.

That's a rather unsubstantiated and ridiculous claim to make, backed by at best a skewed definition of a "real" OS :S
25-07-2009, 08:43 AM
Wayne

Quote:

Originally Posted by HotelUser

@thread starter if you're still interested in Ubuntu check out wubi. It creates a virtual disk on a pre existing partition and installs Ubuntu to it. The disk ia mounted if you select Ubuntu from the dual boot menu upon starting your computer. This mounting proceedure takes secveral seconds and from there on Ubuntu works just as if you're using it from a real partition. All your files for Windows Vis- windows crap are mounted from within Ubuntu in /host. If you ever want to delete Ubuntu you can just uninstall it from add or remove progeams in XP.

Thanks, I'll try Wubi. :)
25-07-2009, 09:01 AM
Recursion

Quote:

Originally Posted by nvrspk4

-snip- -snip- -snip-

YOU ARE NOW OFFICIALLY AWESOME IN MY BOOKS NVR.
25-07-2009, 01:38 PM
The Professor

Quote:

Originally Posted by HotelUser

*snip*
4. Vista is NOT and never will be a "real" OS.

Erm...Vista is inferior and absolute crap compared to XP.

I don't know about the rest of the forum but this OSX fanboy/ I hate Vista crap is starting to grate now. You don't like vista, we know, stop pushing it in our faces and flaming everyone who dares to disagree with you. ARRGHHHH HULK SMASH!

And woot woot to nvr, talk about knowing your stuff :P
25-07-2009, 03:05 PM
Mentor

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jewish Bear

I don't want to piss about with themes installing and changing, I want to just use it without any changes, I really don't fancy spending hours getting everything perfect when Win 7 has it already done for me.

Then download a distro with a theme you like o.0, alot of people like linux mint for example (not myself)

Quote:

And that's why you shouldn't use 8 year old operating systems.

The default drivers have increased dramatically - the big jump with vista, gfx drivers though are still needed to use a proper resolution.

Quote:

What are you on about? ClearType demolishes every other font rendering about. What graphics card do you use with this laptop of yours?

Then set your font render settings to the same used in cleartype o.0

Quote:

Flip 3d is quite useful if you feel the need to use it, windows + tab, click the window you want with a quick preview.

Ring switcher is better as i can actually see whats on all of my windows, works by the same keys - although being linux i could use about 40 difference effects to do the same thing if i wanted, its down to preference. I like having choice :)

@HotelUser : Don't believe the hype, vista is a great O/S, a little shaky out the door but far better than its given credit for. I would not want to downgrade to xp from it, only thing xp really has is the option to work on old, lower spec machines - but for that linux does a much better job.

@nvrspk4: im not a fan of the font rendering in osx ether, in ubuntu though you could do a side by side comparison with windows and not see the difference :) Linux lets you customize everything, even font rendering :)

Quote:

I don't think those have anything to do with functionality at all and are lacking at best as a rebuttal of the wobbly windows critique. The point he was making was that he didn't want wobbly windows and that it wasn't productive at all, he would prefer a straightforward system that didn't use that juice at all. Minimal use of resources can add up. However the things you're quoting aren't Vista effects at all (obviously) so aren't much of a rebuttal but instead a blatant rant on Windows.

In ubuntu, u can choose each effect, customize it to your will, run lots, run none, you don't even to have the effects engine (compiz in my case, areo for windows) running. Ubuntus resource usage is so low though, you can have the same full set of effects and still run quicker than a copy of xp with no effects used at all :) With effects off though, linux will run on far far older hardware still with decent performance :)
25-07-2009, 09:20 PM
HotelUser

Finally I'm back on a computer. Has anyone ever tried to make forum posts from their smartphone w/o a keyboard?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jewish Bear

I see no problem with clicking a few buttons and installing it as opposed to "dragging one icon into a folder" as you so gracefully call it. I get to see exactly what it's installing and configure some options and settings before I install, potentially saving space!

Good for you, you can save 3 additional KB while installing a piece of software (then again, the installer's just going to add shortcuts to your desktop and that's lame). Clearly, moving one icon to an applications folder is far superior to having to go through an installation procedure. Most apps on OS X are installed like this. THe only flaw about this is when you first switch to OS X and don't know how to install anything:P.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jewish Bear

Hey because OS X gives you an indication that one of your windows is frozen (which?) by giving you a spinning beach ball "thing" that is used for loading screens and such, definitely intuitive there.
Said spinning beach ball "thing" can be easily compared to a certain blue donut "thing" on Windows Vista.

OS X is NOT and never will be a "real" OS.

But wait, it is! Just like Vista. Your point is moot.

Not a point. Expressing my opinion. Although judging by the other posts in this thread, I've made my opinion regarding Vista quite clear ;).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jewish Bear

No it's not, it's easier to use, more intuitive and securer, sounds a bunch better than XP to me.

Easier to use is debatable. They've moved many things around in the UI, so that a previous Windows user would have to re-learn the UI. Securer at a price (which is performance). If these new versions are superior to XP then why is XP still shipping on Netbooks and for Windows 7?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jewish Bear

And on an end note, go away, you are so ridiculously biased it's unfunny. (Guess what Operating System I'm posting from! (Hint: It has Roman in it's name!)

And guess what operating system I used to post my previous posts? A Windows Mobile device!??! Amazing, isn't it? How I don't have an iPhone? ABSOLUTELY AMAZING!!!11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jewish Bear

You see unlike you, I'm fairly open minded about Operating Systems, as long as it does what I need it to and doesn't get in my way, I will use it (This is why I dislike lunix).

No, you're not really. You have to know how to use Linux before you give it a chance:).

Quote:

Originally Posted by nvrspk4

I'm going to have to categorically disagree with that statement. Apple has a different philosophical strategy to rendering than Microsoft. Microsoft believes in readability and Apple believes in staying true to font designers at the cost of some readability.

Apple smooths the fonts better. I can see why some people might not like that because the additional smoothing is annoying, but I for one see no problem with it. Infact, in some cases I think Apple font rendering looks absolutely stunning:
http://www.angier.co.uk/david/files/.../rendersaf.PNG

And the Windows version:
http://www.angier.co.uk/david/files/.../renderwin.PNG

Quote:

Originally Posted by nvrspk4

Taken from: http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000884.html which shows that ClearType is better clarity-wise than OSX

http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/ima...i3-closeup.png
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/ima...e7-closeup.png

Furthermore, evidence on the difference in font rendering philosophy can be found here: http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000885.html

Yes, if you're zoomed into an image that's used Apple font rendering it's going to look horrible compared to the Windows rendered text (though if you're zooming into pictures or looking this close to text then I don't see why you'd be looking for quality).

Quote:

Originally Posted by nvrspk4

Jeff Atwood, the main writer makes a compelling case for cleartype in that Graphics Designers manually tweak the fonts for readability which is done automatically by cleartype. Furthermore, it appears that Apple is not necessarily wrong...they're just living in the future. On a 200 DPI screen it is theorized (and I say theorized because to me its not proven until its tested) that the differences would mete out and OSX font would be graphically superior. However, with 100 DPI screens the OSX font is unarguably inferior, definitely in clarity, probably in aesthetics.

I have a secondary monitor with a 106DPI (native) and I've used it with one of my Windows machines and my iMac. Font rendering on OS X to my eyes is not inferior to Window's font rendering at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nvrspk4

I don't think those have anything to do with functionality at all and are lacking at best as a rebuttal of the wobbly windows critique. The point he was making was that he didn't want wobbly windows and that it wasn't productive at all,

Yes and I'm saying: No it might not be productive but is sure looks cool, and since it hardly consumes any processing power you're not going to notice a difference in your machine's performance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nvrspk4

he would prefer a straightforward system that didn't use that juice at all. Minimal use of resources can add up.

That's about the same thing I said regarding Windows Vista and its nice but sluggish UI when it was released.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nvrspk4

That's a rather unsubstantiated and ridiculous claim to make, backed by at best a skewed definition of a "real" OS :S

In my opinion Windows Vista is not a "real" OS, meaning I would not wish to use it:):).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Professor-Alex

I don't know about the rest of the forum but this OSX fanboy/ I hate Vista crap is starting to grate now. You don't like vista, we know, stop pushing it in our faces and flaming everyone who dares to disagree with you. ARRGHHHH HULK SMASH!

And woot woot to nvr, talk about knowing your stuff :P

If you check out the post your setup thread you'll notice 2 out of 3 of my computers in that shot are running Windows. I also have a Gateway Desktop dual booting Ubuntu and Windows Vista (sadly) and an IBM thinkpad running Windows as well. I have an HTC Apache running Windows mobile 6.5 and the phone I'm using now, the HTC Vogue, running Windows mobile 6.1. I'm such an Apple fan;).
25-07-2009, 10:31 PM
Chippiewill

iTouch so no quote w/ theme

@above windows vs mac wp render:

The windows is rendering it properly, it is meant to have a sharp feel to the font, especially since it is serif based...

+ windows mobile is rubbish
25-07-2009, 11:02 PM
HotelUser

Quote:

Originally Posted by 00chips

+ windows mobile is rubbish

It certainly takes its time to boot:D.
25-07-2009, 11:06 PM
Wayne

So Linux and Ubuntu are the same?
25-07-2009, 11:38 PM
Mentor

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wayne

So Linux and Ubuntu are the same?

Not quite, Ubuntu is a distribution of linux. But their are plenty of others :)

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page