Doesn't square with my experience.

Post #308,625 by pwhysall 5/13/09 5:18:27 PM Reply	Doesn't square with my experience. Speedwise, on this computer, for Microsoft operating systems it goes like this: XP < Vista < Windows 7 The method I'm using is the Mk 1 Opinion based on Team Fortress 2. Windows 7, if delivered as promised, may be the thing that makes using Windows bearable.
Post #308,648 by Another Scott 5/13/09 10:29:33 PM Reply	Thanks. Fortunately, I've never gotten into gaming, so any improvements there would be lost on me. I won't be holding my breath for Win7's release, as I haven't even run Vista for any significant length of time. Most of my machines are still on 2000 (if it ain't broke...). But I do find it interesting that Win7's press is following pretty much the same route as everything since 2000. Lots of pre-release fans, lots of claimed improvements, a few non-fans saying it's got big problems. In the end, it does well enough for most people to be satisfied. My office mate runs Vista and hates it (he hates Office 07 more (too many additional clicks needed for common tasks)); my boss loves it. :-/ In the end, Win7 will sell a lot of copies as MS's OSes always do... Where's my UberOS that will let me run anything seamlessly in a virtual machine? That seems to have been promised almost as long as flying cars... It would be nice if Snow Leopard let one run Windows truly seamlessly side-by-side with OS X (Parallels is nice, but one is always aware that it's not as fast as being directly on the hardware)... Cheers, Scott.
Post #308,653 by folkert 5/13/09 11:41:22 PM Reply	Ypou've settled for good enough... ON direct hardware for Window... Why not settle for good enough on Virtual Hardware. And the machines you should be running a VM on should be much faster than your old machine in any case. You obviously aren't running current VM technology, as I* do not notice speeds falling off on VMs running VMware Fusion v1 (yes I know there is a free upgrade...) WindowsXP seems to be MUCH faster on the VM than it was on Baremetal (being a direct copy from an Athlon64 3500+) So what gives with that "but one is always aware that it's not as fast as being directly on the hardware" comment? Personally, I've never used Parallels, so if that is the case, I'm sorry for you.
Post #308,657 by Another Scott 5/14/09 12:13:05 AM Reply	I'm no expert... I haven't played with Parallels 2.x in a while, but AFAIK it uses different graphics drivers than a native install. I'd be surprised if VMWare or the GPL tools were different except in special circumstances. The GUI just isn't as responsive. I think I downloaded VMWare Server years ago, but don't recall actually using it. I realize things have improved over time. I understand that it's not reasonable to expect that there is no overhead in using a hypervisor. I know things are improving, and I applaud the fact that even the free tools are very, very good. I just wish that if, in a year, I spent $1500-$2000 on a 3.x GHz quad core system with 4-6 GB of RAM, then I could truly seamlessly run Linux, Win2k or XP, and OS X simultaneously on the same desktop. Even if Steve allowed it, I just don't think we're there yet. It'll be fun to play with it on faster hardware. Maybe next year... Cheers, Scott.
Post #308,658 by folkert 5/14/09 1:14:50 AM Reply	Even in... VMware Fusion it has accelerated display drivers... and afaict all my first person shooters actually have HIGHER frame rates in Fusion (even yes v1.x that I have) than was on the nVidia card I had in the Athlon64 3500+ (GeForce FX 5200 (NV34)) OpenGL perfs are Great, DirectX (whatever version is on my VM) and much other stuff just has ungodly frame rates. (45+ FPS) at most resolutions above 1280x1024. So, you fail on that line of reasoning. I literally have ZERO performance on video anything in Fusion (nor did I in VMware Workstation for Linux). I don't see your complaint. Sure Crysis at max resolution and AA and everything enabled SUCKS on everything though... baremetal or not. If you want a UNIVERSAL machine... PICK ONE and go there. Stop footing around with all of them. PICK ONE AND GO THERE. I know its easy to say... but I've done it. You are like a crack addict that won't leave it alone. I only have WindowXP on the machine for demonstrable Windows and my Wife's Govt required Daycare reporting application written in Access with remote calls to a "secure" internet DB. (yeah I know) and mainly for her.
Post #308,665 by Another Scott 5/14/09 8:19:36 AM Reply	Ok. I'll shut up when I don't have current knowledge about this stuff. Oh, and half of the fun about learning is messing around even if it means we don't become experts on one topic because we don't spend enough time in one area. ;-) Thanks for the info. :-) Cheers, Scott. (Who is waiting to see what the next generation of affordable quad-core Apples look like, and trying to decide whether desktops still make sense.)
Post #308,671 by boxley 5/14/09 8:59:20 AM Reply	well I use parallels currently since all I use it for is to pretend I still have my underpowered dell with 512k ram for MS crapaud. Still runs twice as fast in a vm than it ever did on the dell. YMMV I also like the coherence feature so that outlook is just another app in the bar thingy on the bottom

Welcome to IWETHEY!