PDA

View Full Version : Windows Vista Beta?



ShawnStovall
05-30-2006, 07:04 PM
I was wondering if you have to format your hard-drive in order to install the Windows Vista Beta version. My mom is signing up for it and wants to know this. Does anyone here have Windows Vista Beta?


Thanks for the help!:D

Red_Oddity
05-31-2006, 02:14 AM
I'm sure a Yahoo, or Google search might tell you more...
But i'm guessing you can jsut install it along with your other OS-es (you'll get a sort of bootloader/startup menu when more than one system is on your system)

ShawnStovall
05-31-2006, 07:02 PM
Does anyone else know? I've been looking for it all over the web and can't seem to find the answer.:help:

Red_Oddity
06-01-2006, 01:39 AM
Well, according to microsoft, you can :
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/windowsvista/library/plan/2e329c94-1135-430b-93c2-bad44d22c169.mspx?mfr=true

ShawnStovall
06-01-2006, 01:00 PM
Thanks <Sigh> Well looks like I'm going to have to wipe my hard drive.:thumbsup:

ShawnStovall
06-02-2006, 07:24 PM
Where in the world do I find the stupid download!!!!


Vista users help!:help: :D

angman
06-04-2006, 12:52 AM
It is not an open beta yet (not open to the entire public). It is only available to a "select" few at the moment. I understand that it will be available in the future

Angier

kilvano
06-04-2006, 04:58 PM
its not out for a few weeks.

I had the beta installed the other day (dont ask how i got it) but LW wont install with the 64-bit version yet. No idea why. I try to install it and it failed


Vista is a pain anyway. WAYYYYYY too many popups informing you of this and that. I got a decent machine and it was slow as ****.

Id keep to XP for another year of so till all the bugs and compatabilty get ironed out

ShawnStovall
06-04-2006, 08:16 PM
Thanks!:thumbsup:

WhiteBoy
06-05-2006, 04:43 AM
I'm very confused about Vista. I've heard a lot more bad than good, but sometimes I think it's just because of all the anti-Microsoft hype that seems to be all the rage nowadays.

I guess I'll see when it's finally released.

theWOODman
06-05-2006, 03:28 PM
The real thing that irritates me about Microsoft and Vista is that the more you beef up your machine to handle your programs, the more Microsoft beefs up it's demands on your system. Now we're back where we started!

Here's a thought Microsoft before you release that thing; How's about a windows operating system that has a very small footprint? How about one that doesn't insult my intelligence with a talking animal when I want to search for a file? How about one that does't have a hundred processes running in the background sucking up resources that I have to go through and shut off? How's about one that has a better system of maintaining itself instead of leaving temp files, old database files, and other needless garbage hanging around my system that inevitably involves a yearly reinstall? How about learning some of the principles of Windows XP and all the bugs and loopholes that hackers can crack into that requires patch after patch after patch and apply these priciples to your programming so that when Vista does come out, it wont be like you've just reinvented the wheel that again requires patch after patch after patch?

Sorry for the rant........

Aegis
06-06-2006, 06:03 AM
You're talking about the Amiga OS :D

ACLOBO
06-07-2006, 03:55 PM
I was about to say the same thing. The Amiga OS was so efficient and savvy. I tried going back in a while back though with my Amiga emulator and was lost as I forgot all the commands and what the different folders of the os did on the old Amy... Still, I loved how back in the day an 80 meg harddrive was pretty much equivalent to hundreds of megs on a pc. :-)

-Adrian

Ps I still have my lightwave 5.0 for my Amiga lying around someplace (started with 3.5).

ShawnStovall
06-07-2006, 04:07 PM
I was about to say the same thing. The Amiga OS was so efficient and savvy. I tried going back in a while back though with my Amiga emulator and was lost as I forgot all the commands and what the different folders of the os did on the old Amy... Still, I loved how back in the day an 80 meg harddrive was pretty much equivalent to hundreds of megs on a pc. :-)

-Adrian

Ps I still have my lightwave 5.0 for my Amiga lying around someplace (started with 3.5).


Could you post a screen shot of 5.0 or 3.5?

:gotpics:

Mha8649
06-10-2006, 08:30 PM
Microsoft sucks...I use xp and xp 64 and the reason I say this is because I paid like 200.00 us$ for xp 64 and it sucks it doesnt work with any of my drivers and there are no 64 bit drivers to download. But I could deal with that if billy could improve what he already has out instead of making a new 64 bit platform... I'm about to goto the mac.

RedBull
06-10-2006, 11:36 PM
Microsoft sucks...I use xp and xp 64 and the reason I say this is because I paid like 200.00 us$ for xp 64 and it sucks it doesnt work with any of my drivers and there are no 64 bit drivers to download. But I could deal with that if billy could improve what he already has out instead of making a new 64 bit platform... I'm about to goto the mac.

That's a little ignorant, i'm afraid.
MS XP 64, was never meant to or was ever going to work with any of your 32bit drivers.

It's the consumers responsibility to check the availability, and compatibility
of Hardware drivers and software for future technology and OS.
Personally i have had no problems, with Nvidia or Creative or Wacom drivers.

Microsoft have no control over Hardware manufactures producing 64bit drivers,
this is the sole responsibility of the manufacturer, and even then they sold you a 32bit driver, they have no legal or moral requirement to produce 64bit drivers. Windows Vista is 32bit and 64bit....

Mac's don't even have a concrete 64bit roadmap, now they have switched to Intel CPU's.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Technical Testers and and MSDN people had access to Vista Beta 2, a few weeks back, it was opened to the general public around 1 week ago.

Windows Vista 32 and Windows Vista 64 are downloadable to the general public, you will need a public access key to start the timed Beta.
The 64bit version is a .ISO file and it's just over 4.1GB,
the 32bit version is also an .ISO and it's 3.2GB to download.

Personally it looks a bit slicker, it's far more retarded, and it uses way more amounts of memory than XP... Therefore it's lived up to the expectations
as being the continually bloated, and slower resource hog, as had been the trend in all MS previous Operating Systems...

But i'm sure most average users, will see the Aero features, and think WOW.

Worse, if Microsoft want to make me feel like i'm a retard, they are doing a really good job..... There's now a 1000 more wizards, ballon tips and a host of annoying "I must be retarded, and don't know how to use a PC, so i'll show yo 100 tips on how to make your Vista experincing tedious"

I believe they think all PC users, are about as PC savvy as Mac users these days...... GROOOOAN!

Chilton
06-11-2006, 12:21 AM
>Mac's don't even have a concrete 64bit roadmap,
>now they have switched to Intel CPU's.

I'm sure that might seem to be the case from the outside, but I assure you there's a simple, straightforward 64-bit roadmap for the Mac.

From a programming standpoint, adding 64-bit processing to an app in XCode requires one additional flag to be set (and then some rethinking if you want your app to actually benefit from it). Similarly, to build for Intel, it's another flag, and probably some rethinking there as well. Right now, you can build a single 'Universal Binary' Mac application that will run in 32 or 64 bit mode, depending on the PPC processor, or 32 bit x86 mode for Intel processors.

Apple has stressed numerous times that the 64-bit capabilities in Tiger are the tip of the iceberg, and that adopting them now would be a very wise decision going forward. Some libraries, like vImage, do all of this for you, and optimize based on the target build platform. The latest MacOS, Tiger, is 64-bit, as is XCode, and Tiger supports LP64.

Everyone is predicting a quad core Woodcrest based tower to replace the quad core G5, and that it will be announced at WWDC in two months. 64-bit computing is a very huge part of the programming roadmap at Apple.

Mha8649
06-11-2006, 12:33 AM
That's a little ignorant, i'm afraid.
MS XP 64, was never meant to or was ever going to work with any of your 32bit drivers.

!

I'm not talking about **** made yrs before xp 64 was released I'm talking about heck even the 7800 cards theres no 64 bit driver for them atleast there wasnt the last time I checked... How is it ignorant to be pissed off about the fact that instead of helping out the numerous people out there that shelled out there hard earned money to buy a crappy os only to be unable to use it, he just makes a new version windows. Obviously microsoft thinks xp 64 is a lost cause... and as one of the people out there who paid for there copy, I agree. xp 32 bit edition is great, it's the best version theve made so far (after all of the security updates and numerous other patches).
And as far as xp 64 was never meant to work with 32 bit drivers then why did they include a 32 bit simulator. Even there I.E 64 doesnt work. let me guess there 64 internet explorer was never meant to work with the internet? :thumbsup:

RedBull
06-11-2006, 02:25 AM
Chilton:
I'm not the most Mac savvy person.
But i think Apple have convoluted their 64bit roadmap, due to already
having a 64bit PPC G5, around OSX 10.4, and then changing to the Intel
and thus back to 32bit processers and architecture.

As far as i'm aware they have not publically announced any strategy or roadmap for 64bit Intel processer Macs or workstations as yet,
although apparently their are rumours Apple will announce something this year.

My point being Mha8649 mentioned because of Microsofts 64bit drama,
he's thinking of switching to Macs. Which as i say is a little silly,
because as their aren't any 64bit Intel Macs, there is little point at this stage.

Mha8649:
Nvidia have had unified drivers for ALL Nvidia cards for Windows XP64, for a long time... I have had no problems running 6800GS and 7900's on XP64 for quite sometime (84.25) at the moment.

****! Nvidia are quick with drivers, and have had Vista 32/64 drivers also for their range of cards for a long time already.. (Although they are buggy)
So i don't know why you can't find drivers.
But they've had unified drivers, since before XP64 was released.
Not to mention the default Nvidia drivers that ship with XP64, will work fine with any of the Geforce range.

Again, it's not Micrsoft's fault if consumers don't do as they reccomend and
test your hardware and drivers for compatibility. There are even programs and pages on Microsofts site to aid in this.

You seem to be mistaking emulation of software and hardware.
you need to distinguish between Hardware and Software.

MOST: 32Bit software should work okay on Windows64. using WOW32 Emulation. (Note i said most, and not all)

NO HARDWARE 32bit drivers should work on WINDOWS 64!!!!!!!!!!
(having said that, i've heard rumours of people making some work)

There is no emulation for Videocard or Mouse drivers, there is no emulation for supporting hardware devices. This was never advertised, or expected.
As i said, it's up to HARDWARE manufactures to support XP64, or Vista64.

For example Software: Lightwave 32bit will work fine on XP64. (using WOW32)
But there is no HARDWARE driver for the parrallel port dongle...
Meaning while the software works, the dongle will not...
(USB Dongles, do have XP64 drivers, and will work)

And just for the record, i have deleted Internet Explorer32bit from my XP64 machines, as Internet Explorer64 works without problem on my machines.

XP64 was never meant to be anything other than a hack/interim OS,
as Vista is coming, it was just a way for MS to make a quick buck for a niche market.

I think Microsoft have stuffed up with the ProgramfilesX86 directory,
and Registry, which is one reason why many programs i have, often have trouble in XP64.... But this is typical crap that MS never thinks about.

Aegis
06-11-2006, 05:15 AM
Could you post a screen shot of 5.0 or 3.5?

:gotpics:

Try here: http://www.podpics.org/wiki/mediawiki-1.4.4/index.php?title=LightWave_Interface_History

Bog
06-11-2006, 07:20 AM
I should be having a go with LW9 under Vista Beta 2 in the next couple of weeks, all things being equal. Having gone to some lengths to get a converter between LightWave and Vista (http://www.shaxam.com) working, it'd be quite nice if the darn thing ran under that OS, wouldn't it? ;)

Bog
06-11-2006, 04:53 PM
Just to reiterate, my colleague Open Source Alex has written a converter between LightWave and Windows Vista, mainly looking at direct-dumping models into Expression Interactive Designer and Windows Vista's XAML format, but due to the open nature of the format, there's all sorts we can do. Feel free to have a play with www.shaxam.com (limited hosting at the moment, my apologies if it goes down) - or, we've got an integrated LightWave plugin.

If anyone's willing to work as a Beta-tester for Shaxam, then do please drop me a PM.

Cheers, everyone.

joeldberry
06-11-2006, 07:53 PM
You can download the BETA 2 of Vista here...

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/getready/default.mspx

Bog
06-12-2006, 02:08 AM
I'd strongly recommend putting it on a *spare* machine, if you have one as it's an untried quantity.

Defiance
06-14-2006, 10:10 PM
Vista is an OS that has minimum system requirements equivalent to a high end 3D animation program from a year or two ago. So you need that much just to run the OS, how much will you have left to run your actual programs?

It takes 10 GB to install it? My system partition has NEVER been more than 8 GB in size. That's with all my needed apps installed to it.

And didn't MS take out the OpenGL support from the OS? How do you run Lightwave on it?

Which is another thing. If games move away from OpenGL, then nVidia will be under no obligation to supply OpenGL with their consumer level cards. So we'd all have to pay $2000 to buy a Quadro just to run OpenGL apps? Scary thought.

RedBull
06-14-2006, 11:24 PM
By the time Vista is released with DirectX-10, i believe their D3D Wrapper
will be faster than Native OGL anyway.
So it should not be a problem.

D3D has surpassed OGL in SOOOOOooooo many ways in the last few years,
and DX10 is even better. Nvidia already favour D3D, over OGL, and have for years.

Most games moved from OGL at around DX7.....

As i said D3D will be faster than OGL in Vista, so it won't matter...

Our Nvidia cards will likely run OGL applications, faster in the D3D wrapper than they can in native OGL now.

And that IS scary that MS can make a technology that is so superior to OGL in terms of speed, at least. But the OGL consortium have stuffed OGL2.

Bog
06-15-2006, 01:45 AM
RedBull,

In OpenGL's defence, MS could make DirectX much more feature-rich than OpenGL simply because they didn't have to worry about compatability with anything but themselves. Bunging in a new alpha blending effect or normal-map calc is a lot easier when all it has to work on it's own side of the hardware abstraction layer, and then nVidia and ATi all fall over backwards to get their hardware and drivers to support it.

OpenGL took how many years to get up to Version 1.2? But it was very stable, and very portable. DX9 has boatloads of performance, yes - but it only works on a narrow strip of hardware platforms. That was deliberate, of course, and it's led to some rather pretty games and a plummeting price-point for what can be used as "pro" 3D hardware. For the record, I'd be quite happy if LW supported DX9 and indeed thrilled if it supported a wide swathe of the feature-set. Would I prefer NewTek's coders to divert their efforts to doing that at the cost of any other part of LW's feature-set? No. No, I wouldn't. ;)

With regards to Vista's OS overhead - yeah, it's going to be a bit bonkers as far as I can tell. Then again, I re-installed XP Pro on my mainbox the other day, and the first thing I did was wander through the menus turning off menu transitions, turning off effects, and generally whittling away the CPU-hungry eye-candy and turning off all the RAM-hogs like desktop wallpaper. Doesn't everyone who uses productivity apps do that? I'm sure it's going to be the same with Vista - turn off all the glitz and schmaltz and just use it as a program loader ;)

Either way, with MS pretty much bettin' the farm on Vista, it's going to be a verrry interesting year or so....

Verlon
06-15-2006, 10:12 AM
Bog, in DX's defense, a 'very narrow strip of hardware' includes an overwhelming majority of computers.

Mac and Linux combined do not make for 10% of home PC computers.

No, I generally leave all the eye candy on until I get desparate :)

I do wish there was a 'minimal boot' option though in all versions of windows.

mattclary
06-15-2006, 10:27 AM
Bog, in DX's defense, a 'very narrow strip of hardware' includes an overwhelming majority of computers.

Mac and Linux combined do not make for 10% of home PC computers.

No, I generally leave all the eye candy on until I get desparate :)

I do wish there was a 'minimal boot' option though in all versions of windows.

Did he mean "PCs" or did he mean "PCs with DirectX 9 capable hardware"?

RedBull
06-15-2006, 03:28 PM
OpenGL took how many years to get up to Version 1.2? But it was very stable, and very portable. DX9 has boatloads of performance, yes - but it only works on a narrow strip of hardware platforms. That was deliberate, of course, and it's led to some rather pretty games and a plummeting price-point for what can be used as "pro" 3D hardware. For the record, I'd be quite happy if LW supported DX9 and indeed thrilled if it supported a wide swathe of the feature-set. Would I prefer NewTek's coders to divert their efforts to doing that at the cost of any other part of LW's feature-set? No. No, I wouldn't.

OGL is a better programming language, it's easier personally to code.
and for professinal graphics applications, it's still the best bet API.

NT don't really need to divert to Direct3D, As i said my own personal feelings
is MS would not remove OGL, if their wrapper wasn't fast enough.

Back in Direct3D 5.0 (i think) A Microsoft Employee, wrapped GLQuake
in a Direct3D wrapper, (ie all the OGL calls were made to the D3D wrapper)
At the time it managed to run 1FPS faster than the GLQuake.

This was basically to stop John Carmack, attacks on DirectX.
Recently, John Carmack has backflipped, and agreed that D3D has progressed
to a level that makes it a legit API and Doom3 is being ported to Xbox and D3D
Most other games programmers, have agreed that D3D has it advantages
and a few disadvantages too.

So basically i'm guessing that Vista's DX10, will be able to take all those OGL calls, and convert them to DX transparently without the user knowing
their using DX rather than OGL at a speed, greater than our current OGL.

The annoying things is LW 5.6 supported D3D (3.0)
So NT were once innovators and market leaders, LW6 dropped D3D support.

But again, the wrapper means as long as MS do the wrapper correctly,
OGL programs should not suffer in anyway as a result.


With regards to Vista's OS overhead - yeah, it's going to be a bit bonkers as far as I can tell. Then again, I re-installed XP Pro on my mainbox the other day, and the first thing I did was wander through the menus turning off menu transitions, turning off effects, and generally whittling away the CPU-hungry eye-candy and turning off all the RAM-hogs like desktop wallpaper. Doesn't everyone who uses productivity apps do that? I'm sure it's going to be the same with Vista - turn off all the glitz and schmaltz and just use it as a program loader

Yeah personally i should be running Win2K Pro, which personally is faster
and better than XP for me, no bells and whistles, and no Internet connection crap..... I basically make XP Pro, look and act like Win2K.

So i won't be going to Vista quickly, It's resource hogging, Ms annoying anti-piracy WGA, and Telephone registration, really would make me a paying MS customer today and MSDN and Technical Partner, to using actual pirated copies of Vista. I find MS's outlook and future plans, stupid.

I simply refuse to give this ignorant giant, any more support to make my software experience that much more unenjoyable.
But i'll review the Vista situation in 12months or so.

Bog
06-15-2006, 04:48 PM
We all know Vista's going to be fatter than XP. Microsoft doesn't release refined, tighter code.

To be gh0d-awful honest, I'd pay for a LightWave Linux crossgrade - that way I could tell my OS to STFU N00b and just be the glorified program loader I want, and to give me my (at least) 30% overhead back so I can take use of every tick of the 3.2GHz in my mainboite.

Gonne happen? Probably not any time soon. ****it.

But if using a cheap, soggy OS means I still run LW faster than a Mac that's thrice the price? I win. That's all she wrote.

RedBull
06-15-2006, 06:29 PM
Yeah for the first time, i would seriously like to switch to a good Linux distro.
I have not looked at Linux in sometime, but i'm aware of reduced rendertimes.
Modo is making a Linux version, the Linux version of XSI is faster rendering too.

With 6 flavours of Vista, you would think a Media Professional version, would cut out the crap and optimize performance over everything else. Nope! not MS.

I mean go and do a host of tasks in Win98 or Dos on todays hardware,
and the OLD is always faster and less bloated. It's devolution. :)

My dream is ILM, Pixar, Bluesky, AMD, SUN, Avid, Autodesk, NT and a bunch of big hardware makers, in conjunction with studios and game developers.

Make a Linux distribution, designed soley on these areas of function.
This way it would gain industry support, and follow some form of development.
Let's get rid of Windows, for the greater good.

But alas, it's still but my little dream. (sniff, sniff)

To windows credit, it's more stable than the past, and it does have a **** of a job supporting so many areas of operation. Hardware/Software it's a hard job
to ever make an OS that suits all areas of computing. (Thats why i wish they didn't try) But yeah, i won't be jumping up from Vista until like SP2, or something, or until they phase me out in my current OS.
There likely just is not a real benefit from my Workstation POV.

PS. The term "Glorified Program Loader" is an excellently apt description, i like it a lot! :)

Earl
07-02-2006, 02:12 PM
I just wanted to add that so far my FPS in Vista Beta 2 (32-bit) are about half of what they are in Windows XP (32-bit) using LightWave 9. I don't remember if DX10 is included in the Vista Beta 2. I'll have to check on that (unless someone else here knows). Something else to note, the GLSL shaders do not work with the current D3D wrapper in Vista. So not everything is translated properly from OpenGL to D3D at this point.

However I will say that the OS performs very well. I was expecting lag and delays with the Aero interface, but so far nothing like the weird lag I got with XP's "visuals".

Is anyone else testing out LightWave in Vista? I'd be curious to know if my results are typical...

Verlon
07-02-2006, 03:46 PM
I have the beta (64 bit), but will not be running it until I do the computer upgrade hopefully later this month.

(trouble with partition sizes, and I can't fix it shy of a format c: Since I already have one of those scheduled for this summer, I didn't feel like going through the hassle twice).