Irrlicht Engine

Staying with Windows 2000 for now.

Sticking with XP Prof. I don't have the money for Windoze Vista or a whole new computer to be able to run it. I may think about it more when a SP1 or SP2 for vista comes out.

JRM

I have voted for MacOSX, as it is still my main OS for many things, although I use Windows XP for others (no intention to update to Vista...)

gentoo linux here.

Vista is an inefficient piece of cr*p!
1Gb RAM and 15Gb of Hard Disk space for something thats no better than xp is not worth it. To get your money's worth you need 30Gb Hard disk space, and that's only for the core system. You need an extra 20Gb at least for other programs.

Linux all the way!

I guess I'm gonna say I'll see yet as preferred xp pro for a while, like two years to say 'ok, now that vista thing, no other way around...'

but am crappy with hardware, tend to buy just when I cant simply avoid it.This machine is certainly not the last trend.

Btw, for several reasons I had to handle several flavours of suse, Redhat (the eldest(I yet remember installing with diskettes, back in '95 or so) ones, 4.0, in multi OSes boot (yep, win included, was allways curious by most systems)) , Mandrake (...till 8.1 or 8.2) , Ubuntu, pure Debian, and Kubuntu. Was/is pleasant. Just several of the comercial softwares I use are not ported -neither I think they will- to win32..

Also handled win2k at a company, win 2003 server, win 95, and my still loved Ms Dos 6.22 (I just hate how diminished it got in the win9x and then in xp...)...

I certainly learnt to hate one OS: WinMe (came with a friend's computer)

And for what I have seen of Vista...has a similar philosophy with hardware resources, probably using em well, but...actually eating 'em all and beyond...Also, too much of that silly trend in several OSes of adding nice uber resource-wasting fx to desktop elements, effects, animations, 3d...heck, I want a system that eats the least so to reserve all that for my softwares!!

Robbing me one gig of that expensive ram to put a freaking logo, and also actually putting by default the hungry graphical beast per interface, even expecting 3d powerful cards and shaders 2.0 to lemme open several windows and copy files, is something I sincerelly dont get.

I dunno, I work in making gfx and lots of computer related stuff...One needs speed more than anything...

For me is ok if they'd allways worried to release a not uber expensive "sensible" Windows Vista, call it "Vista Clever", that would use ridiculuos quantity of resources, put ugly grey windows, and ye old controls, I freaking dont mind, I do the candy myself as am an artist...dont need my cpu all time dealing with putting a window fx in the background...

Vista will certainly be imposed, anyway, but now imho is not the moment.

mac os x is my big unknown..only handled a very tiny bit, I almost dont know how to walk there...

What I'm told is Photoshop flies with it, G4 even had a cpu instruction specially dedicated to it if I remember well, I guess now is even better...
But again, I need all software I need to run...

Havent seen a way to configure my vmware with a v machine with Macosx...and surely anywway i'd need a purchased Mac OSx, logically...not as easy as download an ubuntu VMWare machine and just use it...
If anyone can throw a light here...great.

Btw, more and more am coming to a point I dont need *really* propietary software, well...except Photoshop. Tho v.7 is said to work very nicely in Wine. I don't feel that well with Gimp, tho it is quite nice. Am specially fast with the adobe thingie... But in 3d, Wings, and Blender are my main tools, and they 're ported perfectly to the 3 platforms, so...

I dont have much that of the versus thing, as my jobs have often require me use whatever the OS, whatever the software/tool...(not specially against Vista, seen it and loks ok...but imho they should start to concentrate on not wasting so much computer resources...)

Post removed.

Vista's fine for Desktop users who have money to waste and no time to spend learning anything beyond clicking Pearl(Start)->Microsoft Internet Explorer If I had a choice, I would use Linux 100% of the time. Unfortunately for developers like myself, my apps need to compile and run on Windows. I think RabidLockerGnome has left out a lot about Vista's downsides. The January(?) Edition of PCWorld featured Windows Vista. They had done a pole which proved that Vista was the catch for Desktop Users but it wouldn't be seen in the offices anytime soon. That is exactly the opposite of when XP was released. On the last page, three PCWorld Editors had done their reviews. The first guy said that Mac OS X and the aqua theme had used Vista's interface for years. Another guy shunned Vista as "The New Windows 95 which was obsolete before it was released!" The last guy harped on Vista's new added security features but wrote that Linux was still a better bet overall.
Seriously, KDE or Gnome is still better. KDE has been able to do transparency with few modifications for years. Gnome is right up there. Both are proven to be faster than Vista, especially KDE. OS X Jaguar has used a near identical theme for years.
So, the question is, is the logo "Microsoft" enough to trick everyone into buying an OS littered with resource management problems and new ideas which break all previous apis? I don't think so. If you ask me, the release of Vista offers more reason to scrap Windows and switch to a real capable but runnable OS like Linux. Open-Source still rules!

Vista good stuff:
+ Shiny looks (and everyone telling me about all those 3D-Linux Desktops: So far every one of them crashed here as soon as i started another OpenGL App. Which means they are completly useless to a game programmer.)
+ interesting new API's (DX 10!)
+ better security? (i hope so)
+ some more comfort (soundsettings per app)
+ some new games (well, it's a feature)

so la la:
. Needs more resources
. Rumors about compatibilty problems with some games
. Rumors about decreased OpenGL support
. How will switching between so called secure (DRM) and old applications work? Will they work together?
. How much of a hassle will the activation key stuff be this time?

Vista bad stuff:
- DRM
- I can buy a Wii for that price (and get another OS for free)
- Besides a few new games you still can't really do much with a windows out of the box (and no apt available to change that in a comfortable way)
- DRM

Result:
I'm working on linux anyway, but if it were not for the money i'd take at least look at vista. I find it somewhat hard to swallow that they crippled that shiny OS so much just to please the movie industry.

Post removed.

Windows XP is my primary OS and will be for some time to come. However, I'm also a regular FreeBSD and Archlinux user.

Btw, the "bad stuff" about Vista is mostly a crock of BS started up by the anti-MS hype/propaganda machine. Granted you're not gonna be able to run Vista on a 486, but if your computer can run XP, it can more than likely run Vista too.

Post removed.

I switched over to Windows land from Linux land a few years ago, because I wanted to learn programming in Windows so I could get a decent job. Now that I have the decent job, I'm back with Linux, and I have to say, its 20 times better than it was a few years ago. It is much more powerful than Windows.

I installed openSUSE 10.2 on my laptop, and right away everything worked. The first time it booted, I connected to the wifi router in my house with the built in wifi card. In a few minutes, I got the ATI video card drivers installed and I was up and running in no time at all. People who say that Linux doesn't support a lot of hardware are wrong. People who say its hard to use are wrong. They used to be right, but I just don't see that any more. Lack of software? No way! Linux comes with _way_ more functionality than Windows. Here's what I got:

Nice C++ IDE: Code::Blocks
Nice C# IDE: Monodevelop
.NET: Mono
3D Modeling: Blender, Wings 3D
Web: Firefox
Email: too many to list
IM: Gaim
Music: Amarok
Torrents: Kbittorrent
Office: Open Office 2
Free auto updates: -yes-
Pro Audio Recording: Ardour (not available for Windows, sorry)
Play Windows games?: Cedega (costs a few bucks)
Blue screen of death?: not once
Pro Video Editing: take your pick
Flash? Real Audio? Adobe Reader?: yes, yes, yes
Wifi?: Easier than Windows, really
DRM?: Not here, try Windows or OS X
USB audio: a synch
Speed?: KDE is smokin' fast... way faster than XP on my laptop
Desktop Search: Beagle is awesome, built into KDE menu, finds programs, documents, web pages you've been to.

I only had to download one driver (ATI). Now to get my hardware working with Windows, I have to search for tons of driver disks, search the web, pull my hair out, order a CD, etc. With Linux, they are built in, and 99% of everything works perfectly the first time you boot up. Seriously, in Windows, I click on the Start Menu and wait 3 seconds for the menu to show up. I have 3 times as much software installed in Linux and I open up the KDE menu instantly, get to what I want, fast.

I'm sure Vista's fine for some people... but it seems like an expensive way to slow down your computer. Sure, it seems just as fast now, but that's because you just installed it... just wait a few months, your system will be twice as slow and annoying as XP ever was. I doubt Vista fixed the eternally dwindling performance you get in every version of Windows as time goes by, software you install and uninstall leaves .dll's behind, spyware piles up, the useless icons pile up of software that likes to stay running all the time. The registry always grows, and is always sitting in your system memory like a big, slow, resource eating beast. Anti-virus and anti-spyware software chugs away constantly, slowing the load time of every program. If that's what you want... go for it. For me, I'll take Linux.

Rabid, have you tested with really intensive memory eating applications ? That is usual hardcore users stuff..Ie, rendering/editing several GBs videos, heavy Photoshop print files of several hundred megs, expensive 3d operations...I haven't.But ...If there's something I know bout my many years working in this , is that when a system is noticed to go slower (maybe for a user that makes not this kind of use) just at start, even if not much slower (most ppl forgive that in their eyes , for the candy, and just saying to themselves is their fault for not wasting even more money on hardware) , the usual law is, once in the dirt of heavy use (gfx...) will die sooner, the performance.

I dont freaking care about if it goes just right opening a browser and launching an IM tool...for that simple use, and for the feel of it, indeed wouldnt need much more than an old celeron for that, or even a 486.

If the system is eating what the specs they even say, that's already resources that I dont want 'em to put a logo and 3 candy candy unuseful effects...I havent been seduced by the anty MS stuff, just was able to use at certain place for a while, and heck, can I tell you I'm not convinced.

steveth45 wrote:just wait a few months, your system will be twice as slow and annoying as XP ever was. I doubt Vista fixed the eternally dwindling performance you get in every version of Windows as time goes by, software you install and uninstall leaves .dll's behind, spyware piles up, the useless icons pile up of software that likes to stay running all the time. The registry always grows, and is always sitting in your system memory like a big, slow, resource eating beast. Anti-virus and anti-spyware software chugs away constantly, slowing the load time of every program.

This kind of stuff only happens to those who haven't a clue as to how to operate their computer. My XP install still runs as smooth as it did when I installed it a couple of years ago simply because I know what I'm doing. 98% of all problems with Windows are between the chair and the keyboard.