|
If you love Vista then you will adore Windows Server 2008!
But same thing for me, always turn off UAC
God bless,
Ernest Laurentin
|
|
|
|
|
Windows XP will always be faster on the same machine. Vista doesn't run faster. The hardware makes it run faster. That's difference is like the analogy I'm presenting now:
There are 2 people. Person A is running with a 50 pound sack of crap at 5 km per hour. Person B is running with a 25 pound sack on his back at 7 km per hour. Person A decides to "upgrade his hardware" and put on a pair of sneakers. Person A runs at 10 km per hour and overtakes Person B. Person B decides to put on his pair of sneakers and runs at 15 km per hour, overtaking Person A again.
You see, if you're comparing Windows XP on crap hardware versus Vista on high-end hardware, you're not making an apples to apples comparison. You're being unfair to XP.
So the creationist says: Everything must have a designer. God designed everything.
I say: Why is God the only exception? Why not make the "designs" (like man) exceptions and make God a creation of man?
|
|
|
|
|
ok, I understand you and I completely agree with you but I think there's more to Vista than there is to XP.
I believe that if you put Vista with the same visual effects of XP (almost none) and disable UAC you'll get a faster OS.
I haven't tested it but as I said, I believe so.
What I heard people complaining about is on UAR and Windows Explorer.
Windows Explorer had a huge increment of visual effects and previews of files and stuff... this is what I believe makes it slow and buggy.
This is my developer brain talking here, it's been several years since XP came out and when the first RTM saw the light for the first time Vista was already being developed, so I don't think all this time of development ended up with a worst OS... it's just a nice looking guy that because of its makeup can't move that well...
If anyone have the chance of doing it, pick a average XP machine, remove the Vista "makeup" and make a truly fair comparison.
I was about to post the above but I just want to make clear that I don't intend to be bind on this XP vs Vista thing, I'm just stating what I feel on my daily environment and what I believe.
I used XP since it came out and I heard and discussed these same thing then 
Cheers,
Alex
|
|
|
|
|
I develop in C++ on Windows XP, targetting both XP and Vista. I think Visual Studio is a wonderfully productive development environment, and that's what I care about. I had a little play recently with XCode and GNU C++ on the Mac and I was pretty horrified at what I encountered - slow compiles, enormous binaries and a primitive, clunky debugger. And edit-and-continue is the dog's*. I can't imagine how I ever lived without it.
Pet hates? Well, the pathetic excuse for a free text search in HTML help is certainly one. The VS 2005 debugger periodically hanging is another (kill it from task manager to recover, losing all your breakpoints and bookmarks in the process). The lack of any compiler error messages when using edit-and-continue in VS 2008 is a third (how on earth did that one get through testing?). But when all's said and done, it's still pretty nifty. It's good for editing HTML pages, too (if you know a bit of HTML).
* like the cat's pajamas, only ruder
|
|
|
|
|
I'm a big fan of XP. I recently had to dive into Vista and ran into several issues. Tried using IFileOperation in Vista only to have issues with the documentation and functionality. It also didn't work as good as the library SHFileOperation that it replaced. I imagine in several years, I'll be on XP SP4 or Windows 9 complaining about Windows 10. But isn't that what life is all about.
Hogan
|
|
|
|
|
I have developed software for all the above OSes and have enjoyed developing for all of them.
My current favorite is Mac OSX and iPhone, probably because of the change. (I have been a windows developer for a long time.)
This has been discussed, again and again and again and always we (the denizens of the CP lounge) have come to the conclusion that their method of rating is pure, untouched, unadulterated, genuine, verifiable, refined trash. MIM on TIOBE
|
|
|
|
|
I hear you brother, peace!
You got a 5...
Don't you also love the code?
|
|
|
|
|
Rama Krishna Vavilala wrote: I have developed software for all the above OSes and have enjoyed developing for all of them.
Well, I haven't done Mac dev yet (I'd like to), but outside of that, I'm the same way through and through.
|
|
|
|
|
I voted XP since it's the platform in which I've done much of my development so far and being a little more productive in it than in Linux... well, it's my favorite platform at the moment, but I enjoy developing in both of them as well. I haven't used Vista or MacOS as a development platform though.
Best regards,
Lizandro Campbell
|
|
|
|
|
Hey Rama nice to hear from you.
I like them all too! Computers have been a great thing in my life.
I wish my VAX was on the list. Nothnig like a VAX. You measure reboots in years. Super platform.
All my VAX-Alpha VMS applications are still running a very large company today. The users won't let the main corporate company turn them off.
Best to you.
modified 27-Feb-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
We going to see your work in the App Store or are you using the hacked toolchain?
regards,
Paul Watson
Ireland & South Africa
Fernando A. Gomez F. wrote: At least he achieved immortality for a few years.
|
|
|
|
|
App Store.
This has been discussed, again and again and again and always we (the denizens of the CP lounge) have come to the conclusion that their method of rating is pure, untouched, unadulterated, genuine, verifiable, refined trash. MIM on TIOBE
|
|
|
|
|
Cool. Send us a link (or name) when it goes live please. Interesting to see what people are doing with the iPhone.
regards,
Paul Watson
Ireland & South Africa
Fernando A. Gomez F. wrote: At least he achieved immortality for a few years.
|
|
|
|
|
Believe it or not, I like both as developer workstations - in particular Windows Server 2008 (64 bit) and CentOS 4.x[^] (also 64 bit).
I like Linux development environment better (vi, bash, perl, cscope), but Windows API is much more powerful and consistent; also some Windows tools are better - Source Insight vs cscope/grep and windbg vs gdb.
I wish I could develop on Mac OSX as well, but there is no way I am going to pay for an Apple machine 
|
|
|
|
|
Wine (http://www.winehq.org/[^]) can significantly help you in that direction right?
Vasudevan Deepak Kumar
Personal Homepage
Tech Gossips
A pessimist sees only the dark side of the clouds, and mopes; a philosopher sees both sides, and shrugs; an optimist doesn't see the clouds at all - he's walking on them. --Leonard Louis Levinson
|
|
|
|
|
Vasudevan Deepak Kumar wrote: can significantly help you in that direction right?
Not sure which direction you have in mind  I guess it can make SourceInsight work on Linux, but I don't really want to use Linux to develop Windows-specific software.
|
|
|
|
|
I have been working with Qt lately and I am amazed how easy it is to develop the same project in windows and linux. At work I use my 32 bit windows XP desktop and VS 2003 and when I get home I use the same project and develop in Kdevelop under 64 bit gentoo linux. To support sharing projects between the two operating systems I use CMake to generate the project files for each compiler and I hand edit the CMakeLists.txt file which is the file CMake uses to generate project files.
John
modified on Monday, May 5, 2008 10:19 AM
|
|
|
|
|
I just read that KDE 4.x will be running on Windows. I hope they move kdevelop over with it ASAP. I really am hooked on kdevelop when I am working on the dark side. I'd like to use it on windows for consistency.
|
|
|
|
|
I have been waiting to try that as well being that I am just as comfortable using kdevelop as I am with Visual Studio 2003.
John
|
|
|
|
|
|
QT + kdevelop + valgrind + kcachegrind is my programming heaven! Debugging becomes almost enjoyable!
QT makes portability easy. Work in GNU/Linux bliss and deploy in Windows, Mac OS X, GNU/Linux, GNU/FreeBSD and GNU/OpenBSD with little extra work.
Less portable than Java but much more CPU and memory efficient.
modified on Tuesday, May 13, 2008 5:23 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
On my home PC I use Vista, but at work I use XP...
|
|
|
|
|
Dario Solera wrote: On my home PC I use Vista, but at work I use XP
... but which one is your favorite?
|
|
|
|
|
Vista, in fact I voted Vista.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
