Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 18th Sep 2007 19:58 UTC, submitted by Adam S
Windows "Before I launch into my tirade, I need to make a confession. I like Vista. I use it daily, but I also use it with the full knowledge that it's a pre-service pack 1 OS from the boys in Redmond. That necessarily means it will have glitches, bugs, and annoyances. That's a given. I'm willing to put up with all those headaches. But there were several things I was really looking forward to in Vista that are simply missing in action or broken. These are features I'd really hope would improve my productivity and make life a little easier."
Order by: Score:
RE
by Kroc on Tue 18th Sep 2007 20:57 UTC
Kroc
Member since:
2005-11-10

WinFS?

Reply Score: 14

RE
by Nelson on Wed 19th Sep 2007 00:45 UTC in reply to "RE"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Why do you keep bringing up a technology which was found to have marginal improvements over existing solutions? That is why it was scrapped.

Applying Database like features to multimedia data will never work, ever. All the abstraction in the world will not change that, since there are too many different methods of tagging the said multimedia.

Microsoft probably saw that indexed searching would yield the same or nearly the same results as adding a relational DB layer to NTFS.

So why do you bring it up? There were plenty of things undelivered in Vista, surely you can find a better example of something which would of actually bettered the desktop.

Reply Score: 1

RE
by japh on Wed 19th Sep 2007 07:55 UTC in reply to "RE"
japh Member since:
2005-11-11

"Why do you keep bringing up a technology which was found to have marginal improvements over existing solutions? That is why it was scrapped."

Well, the promise was two things. First part was WinFS, which is just the implementations. The second part was all the wonderful things that would happen when we had WinFS.
It was supposed to "revolutionize the way we worked with computers.".

People don't mind not getting a crappy product, but they do mind being promised something wonderful and exciting that never happens.

So you're probably right about the technical aspects of WinFS, but I don't think that is what bugs people about it being left out.

Reply Score: 2

RE
by modmans2ndcoming on Wed 19th Sep 2007 02:20 UTC in reply to "RE"
modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

zfs plus some userland software would give all the features of winFS but do it with out a relational database.

Reply Score: 1

RE
by kamil_chatrnuch on Wed 19th Sep 2007 10:19 UTC in reply to "RE"
kamil_chatrnuch Member since:
2005-07-07

ariel atom 2 does 0-100km/h in ~2.8 seconds...
;)

Edited 2007-09-19 10:25

Reply Score: 2

RE
by chrish on Wed 19th Sep 2007 12:16 UTC in reply to "RE"
chrish Member since:
2005-07-14

I'm really looking forward to ZFS on Mac OS X and FreeBSD. It's a pity MS has never documented their loadable filesystem interface or we might have a usable port on XP at some point. How long did the extfs for Win32 take to stabalize?

Reply Score: 1

In terms of efficiency
by Barnabyh on Tue 18th Sep 2007 21:04 UTC
Barnabyh
Member since:
2006-02-06

Sounds worse than expected. That issue with the RAID array would be enough to kick it - haven't got that much time to waste.

Reply Score: 2

re
by sappyvcv on Tue 18th Sep 2007 21:06 UTC
sappyvcv
Member since:
2005-07-06

Since the driver is now in user mode, so the thinking went, updating your graphics driver meant you wouldn't have to reboot.

Actually I think it was that if the graphics driver crashed, it wouldn't take the system down and instead restart.

Fair assessment otherwise. It's nice to see nice real world gripes.

Edited 2007-09-18 21:07

Reply Score: 2

RE: re
by n4cer on Tue 18th Sep 2007 21:34 UTC in reply to "re"
n4cer Member since:
2005-07-06

Actually I think it was that if the graphics driver crashed, it wouldn't take the system down and instead restart.


It's both. Though there's still a kernel mode miniport driver. If that fails, it can halt the system in some cases, but the bulk of the code is in user mode.

Not sure why NVIDIA et al., started forcing reboots. Earlier driver sets switched on the fly. Given the state of their drivers early on, maybe it was just easier for them to punt switching support and force the reboot. Or maybe there are issues related to their control panel applets which I don't believe were included in those drivers that supported switching.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: re
by JulianFietkau on Wed 19th Sep 2007 08:11 UTC in reply to "RE: re"
JulianFietkau Member since:
2005-07-07

On Windows XP, (at least for me) driver switching on the fly still works. After installing the NVIDIA driver for example, I just opt not to reboot. The driver is then active. Is this different on Vista?

This reboot after installation thing is more like a general measure. Software vendors do this because after something was installed, there may be not yet properly registered DLLs, or old stuff in RAM. Or not. Either way, better safe than sorry - and there you have your "recommended", sometimes even "necessary" reboot.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: re
by makfu on Wed 19th Sep 2007 16:05 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: re"
makfu Member since:
2005-12-18

"This reboot after installation thing is more like a general measure. Software vendors do this because after something was installed, there may be not yet properly registered DLLs, or old stuff in RAM. Or not. Either way, better safe than sorry - and there you have your "recommended", sometimes even "necessary" reboot."

This is exactly the case, and it pertains to registration of the control panel updates, not the driver itself. You can safely ignore the reboot request when install Nvdia's current drivers (if you check in the device manager after installing the driver, you will see the new driver is in fact loaded). Furthermore, a logout and logon will even resolve the control panel registration issue.

As for the video driver restart and user versus kernel mode components, the user mode driver is essentially a sandwiched library (between the DX libs and the DXGK) of device specific functions which are then batched down (to kernel mode) to the DXGK and subsequently passed, in a controlled manner, to the miniport. The user mode driver is a memory mapped DLL in the user mode address space of the process and if the driver fails, the process dies, not the system.

However, even the kernel mode miniport is now dynamically restartable and there is a watchdog timer that periodically checks to make sure that the driver is still making progress and the GPU hasn't hung. If that is the case, it attempts what is known as a Timeout Detection and Recovery (TDR) wherein reinitializes the driver, resetting the GPU (this is the behavior where you get the pop-up in the system tray notifying you about a driver recovery).

One interesting side note is that sometimes a driver data structure used by the kernel mode miniport can become corrupt, forcing the system into a frequently recurring TDR cycle. In this instance, rolling back the driver and then reinstalling the current driver (without rebooting) will save you a forced reboot as that sequence completely unloads and reloads the driver.

-Mak

Reply Score: 1

Pillers of Vista.
by cyclops on Tue 18th Sep 2007 21:12 UTC
cyclops
Member since:
2006-03-12

Its off-topic, but well Vista has major problems, these aren't even icing on the cake. I really liked the *styling* of Vista, but I've learned to hate it. Oddly I used to hate XP's cartoon style, but its grown on me.

Seriously though the only think that I would find interesting is stability, and I suspect without proper testing on a wide Verity of places nothing will ever be conclusive, figures will be massaged, and people will swear blind one way or the other, or blame the drivers.

...but bless him at least he's got those DirectX 10 games to look forward to. He can play Halo 1 when everyone with a console is playing 3

Reply Score: 5

RE: Pillers of Vista.
by senornoodle on Tue 18th Sep 2007 21:27 UTC in reply to "Pillers of Vista."
senornoodle Member since:
2005-07-12

Hey, come on, he'll be able to play Halo 2, and that makes ALL the difference.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Pillers of Vista.
by MamiyaOtaru on Wed 19th Sep 2007 07:18 UTC in reply to "RE: Pillers of Vista."
MamiyaOtaru Member since:
2005-11-11

Hey, come on, he'll be able to play Halo 2, and that makes ALL the difference.

So can XP users, thanks to the scene. He's right that Vista users can look forward to DX10 games, but Halo 2 is not DX10. Its Vista requirement is entirely artificial, and has been worked around. Slightly lame on Microsoft's part, but it's their property.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Pillers of Vista.
by cyclops on Tue 18th Sep 2007 22:22 UTC in reply to "Pillers of Vista."
cyclops Member since:
2006-03-12

I feel a bit shameful really, I'm glad the author gave me a way in really. Taking a dig a DirectX 10 after Microsoft shafted its own customers; made expensive cards by AMD/NVidia look like expensive paperweights was too easy.

I was really just shocked how *old* Vista looks in those screenshots. It actually looks like last years OS. When it came out I thought it looked really nice, and they had got the look right for their half a billion launch.

I don't know whether its Apple's interface that has stood the test of time, albeit with cosmetic improvements or Linux's face has changes so rapidly, or Microsoft got it wrong...but then I like the new iPod nano, and nobody likes that.

Oddly my chosen desktop is reminiscent of Microsoft95.

Edited 2007-09-18 22:25

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Pillers of Vista.
by Nelson on Wed 19th Sep 2007 00:50 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Pillers of Vista."
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

How exactly did Microsoft shaft it's own customers with DirectX10?

Are you referring to it being Vista only? Surely, this tired argument against DirectX10 has been thrown around enough for you to know otherwise.

Or are you referring to the 10.1 standard which does not actually break compat with older cards, it just tightens the standard. I'm pretty sure DirectX10 card released conforms to the 10.1 caps (I think it's like forced AA and 32bit floating point or something)

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Pillers of Vista.
by cyclops on Wed 19th Sep 2007 11:12 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Pillers of Vista."
cyclops Member since:
2006-03-12

"Are you referring to it being Vista only? Surely, this tired argument against DirectX10 has been thrown around enough for you to know otherwise."

No I'm referring to how Desktop gamers; Graphic card Manufacturers; Game Companies got stuffed. You personally can have a "please sir can I have another one" attitude to the whole thing. I don't care. I can make fun of *you* all day over this...but

I have chosen a platform, that is only supported by 2 large gaming companies, so would be hollow victory at best. I can take some benefit from the fact that gamers have been pushed into console gaming, and the reduced importance of those cutting edge graphics that traditionally GNU has been poor at supporting...but its not of real benefit to me. Its not like game companies are moving on mass to OpenGL and supporting cross-platform gaming, at sensible *equal* pricing.

Now I can take some, benefit from the rise of large *collaborative* gaming projects of which is of a relative small number...but is growing, and the quality is improving constantly, although I would love to see a way that these people can make *money* out of their efforts.

I think one of the problems is that the FSF has been focused on software rather than content, and software taken in a bubble is a mistake, although they are stronger focusing on one goal.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Pillers of Vista.
by sbergman27 on Wed 19th Sep 2007 17:12 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Pillers of Vista."
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""

of those cutting edge graphics that traditionally GNU has been poor at supporting...

"""

Just a correction. GNU supports 3D not at all. You're thinking of XFree86 and Xorg, with support from the kernel, be it Linux or a *BSD, or other. There are no GNU components involved in the support of 3D hardware features. So referring to GNU in this context is nonsensical. Please refer to Xorg instead. Give them credit for their work.

Edited 2007-09-19 17:18

Reply Score: 2

v RE[6]: Pillers of Vista.
by cyclops on Wed 19th Sep 2007 17:46 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Pillers of Vista."
RE[7]: Pillers of Vista.
by sbergman27 on Wed 19th Sep 2007 19:33 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Pillers of Vista."
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""
Remember that I can have GNU without Linux or X, and still have my games with 3D acceleration.
"""

Describe to me how you would play OpenArena with only GNU sponsored software. Without X. Without Linux or BSD or some other non-HURD kernel. The only GNU sponsored component which comes into play when I play it is glibc. And the glibc project, while technically a FSF project, is a perfect example of one which would like nothing better than to get away from the FSF if the current, long-time maintainer, Ulrich Drepper, had his way. Richard had to forcefully limit Ulrich's authority to keep them from separating. It was a fairly heavy-handed move by the GNU's "BDFL" that prevented the schism. A move which Richard could not have made had he not controlled all those copyrights on software that the FSF did not write.

Anyway, I would like to see the recipe for playing OpenArena with only FSF sponsored software. Also, as an aside, I would like to see you start using "you're" or "you are" instead of the grammatically incorrect "your". I only mention it because you keep saying it that way, over and over. Please take that last as a constructive criticism. Pet peeve of mine...

Edited 2007-09-19 19:35

Reply Score: 1

RE[8]: Pillers of Vista.
by cyclops on Wed 19th Sep 2007 19:40 UTC in reply to "RE[7]: Pillers of Vista."
cyclops Member since:
2006-03-12

"Describe to me how you would play OpenArena with only GNU sponsored software. Without X. Without Linux or BSD or some other non-HURD kernel. The only GNU sponsored component which comes into play when I play it is glibc. And the glibc project, while technically a FSF project, is a perfect example of one which would like nothing better than to get away from the FSF if the current, long-time maintainer, Ulrich Drepper, had his way. Richard had to forcefully limit Ulrich's authority to keep them from separating. It was a fairly heavy-handed move by the GNU's "BDFL" that prevented the schism. A move which Richard could not have made had he not controlled all those copyrights on software that the FSF did not write.

Anyway, I would like to see the recipe for playing OpenArena with only FSF sponsored software. Also, as an aside, I would like to see you start using "you're" or "you are" instead of the grammatically incorrect "your". I only mention it because you keep saying it that way, over and over. Please take that last as a constructive criticism. Pet peeve of mine..."

Just for clarification, please do not expose your extreme lack of knowledge on how 3D works on GNU. Although I am pleased that you are now pointing out that, GNU works through collaboration between modular parts. Each part reliant on another, and all are replaceable. I would suggest you look at something like directfb, mesa, or even the proprietary drivers. The unfortunately thing is GNU is part of a greater whole. Its nice that you are beginning to acknowledge that Desktop is made up of many parts.

Remember that I can have GNU without Linux or X, and still have my games with 3D acceleration. The reality is though I am perfectly willing to give a better name for my mythical-meta distribution which may not include X or Linux. Although I will point out now if you use the term Linux you are only crediting *one man*.

Reply Score: 0

RE[7]: Pillers of Vista.
by Soulbender on Thu 20th Sep 2007 04:02 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Pillers of Vista."
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

mesa


Mesa 3D is MIT licensed and not a GNU project.

even the proprietary drivers


Since when are the proprietary drivers related to GNU in any way? Other than RMS very much disliking them, that is.

Reply Score: 1

RE[8]: Pillers of Vista.
by cyclops on Thu 20th Sep 2007 07:46 UTC in reply to "RE[7]: Pillers of Vista."
cyclops Member since:
2006-03-12

"Since when are the proprietary drivers related to GNU in any way? Other than RMS very much disliking them, that is."

I don't think I have ever laughed out loud, when I have wrote lol, but I did laugh out loud. I hope you wrote that with a puzzled face and a timed pause

"Mesa 3D is MIT licensed and not a GNU project."

I'm done I suspect you you should have a look at all the post on "linus" "hypocrite" "binary blobs" I make the same point point of synergy, as Linus does, regardless.

Why I say "mesa" or proprietary drivers" is you can't thank anyone or any community or company for GNU you can only thank them all.

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: Pillers of Vista.
by Nelson on Wed 19th Sep 2007 19:49 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Pillers of Vista."
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

So you've really said nothing at all.

Let's stop with the broad insults and get to specifics.
It'd be easier to answer your points if you actually said something other than filler.

This is not about your personal choices, this is about what you find wrong with DirectX10.

Reply Score: 1

v RE[6]: Pillers of Vista.
by cyclops on Wed 19th Sep 2007 21:38 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Pillers of Vista."
RE[7]: Pillers of Vista.
by Nelson on Wed 19th Sep 2007 21:59 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Pillers of Vista."
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

You're pretty cocky, and pretty wrong. Quit mixing emotion with your arguments, it makes them weak.

What other choices where there as opposed to making DX10 a Vista exclusive? Windows Vista heralded the new driver model which allowed for the functional improvements, and a clean slate for the API to work with.

DirectX10 is a departure from DX9 and the legacy baggage that comes with it. The new driver model brought much needed improvements to how the API interacts with the Hardware (Which as you state, is a crucial part of the equation)

If you didn't know, DirectX10 was a JOINT development project. All the big players worked in conjunction to develop the new API, and the results were unprecedented amounts of realism and involvement in games.

You're basing your opinion on DirectX10, and it's power on games which were written a few months after DX10 was finalized.

Halo 2 Vista Edition has a DX10 render path, but it's pretty much the same in terms of visual quality. This is the same for Lost Planet: EC.

Now, if you look at a Game like Crysis (or any game which will eventually use CryEngine2) you can see DirectX10 as it should be. Even this though, as stated by Crytek is not utilizing the API to it's full potential.

I'm not saying DirectX10 has features that are impossible for OpenGL3.0 to have, since frankly this is false.

The difference is how easy it is for companies to pick up DirectX10 (when migrating from DX9) and the fact that it's availible. Right now.

I could go on, but it's painfully obvious you have not done your homework on this topic.

Reply Score: 2

v RE[8]: Pillers of Vista.
by cyclops on Wed 19th Sep 2007 22:18 UTC in reply to "RE[7]: Pillers of Vista."
.......
by islander on Tue 18th Sep 2007 21:24 UTC
islander
Member since:
2007-04-11

The real broken promise was price IMO.Technical hitches are just that , which in time can be fixed.I thought Billy said the "wow starts now" , but how much can afford to wow their pockets deep out of cash plus for hardware.

Reply Score: 6

Notes...
by Almafeta on Tue 18th Sep 2007 21:24 UTC
Almafeta
Member since:
2007-02-22

Regarding my own experiences with Vista:

Networking: Networking is still dead simple on my end. (In fact, I wish it was less integrated into Vista, but that's another story.) That said, I don't use NASs.

Rebooting: The only time I've had to restart Vista is with a RIAA CD from the 90s that was using some sort of crazy copy protection. When I tried to rip it, my computer shut down. That'll teach me to buy RIAA...

Startup: Much better under Vista, and almost worth the cost itself. With XP, startup on my machine was 90 seconds; under Vista, it's 30 seconds. (The BIOS warmup time, from power-on to handing control over to the OS, is 20 seconds in both cases; alas, the BIOS is a dinosaur.) After getting to the signon screen, the time from entering my password to having full control (all services completely loaded, startup processes finished and cleared out of memory) is 10 seconds, as opposed to 60 seconds with Windows XP. (I know those are horrible times, but you have to understand, my computer is crud.)

(Ironically, despite Microsoft's emphasis on putting computers into standby instead of shutting it down, it takes me less than half as much time to get my Vista box completely shut down and completely restarted than it does to put it into and restore it from standby. You'd think for all their describing it as a better way, it'd be actually better...)

Stability: I've seen none of the issues he has mentioned, and I'm still running a mostly-stock install (the few changes: removal of the Sidebar, three program installations, change of screen saver to funny pictures and kittens, and change of UI theme to blue).

Reply Score: 4

RE: Notes...
by cyclops on Tue 18th Sep 2007 22:29 UTC in reply to "Notes..."
cyclops Member since:
2006-03-12

"The only time I've had to restart Vista is with a RIAA CD"

Reasons for not buying Vista 114....they are *all* RIAA CD's RIAA is a cartel of well every CD your likely to buy.

Although I suspect its not true...but I would love it to be.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Notes...
by Almafeta on Tue 18th Sep 2007 22:35 UTC in reply to "RE: Notes..."
Almafeta Member since:
2007-02-22

Reasons for not buying Vista 114....they are *all* RIAA CD's RIAA is a cartel of well every CD your likely to buy.


You don't know my esoteric musical tastes, then. ;) It's easy to buy RIAA-free music*, but that particular CD was from a time when the copy-protection schemes were at their most damning (doing things like damaging drives if they were read by a computer instead of a CD player).

* http://search.live.com/results.aspx?q=riaa-free+music

Reply Score: 1

RE: Notes...
by Dullin on Wed 19th Sep 2007 00:26 UTC in reply to "Notes..."
Dullin Member since:
2006-02-28

Rebooting: The only time I've had to restart Vista is with


Buddy, you really need to run windows update right now if you don't want your box hijacked!

Reply Score: 7

My Take
by blitze on Tue 18th Sep 2007 22:38 UTC
blitze
Member since:
2006-09-15

Vista has a lot of maturing to do.
Nothing more fun than having issues with devices intermittantly like DVDRom's, Networking, TV-out.

The only real things I like on Vista over WinXP is the new Sound Stack and Windows Mail which replaced Outlook Express (spam filter is the only improvement here).

DirectX 10 is a joke especially as MS is forcing sound to use OpenAL. The User Interface, although nicer than XP's default is nothing special compared to OS-X or Compiz/Gnome and I get pretty pissed off with the Folder creation/renaming issues that plague Explorer.

Games run fine though but I think it helps that I'm using the x64 version of Vista and not the x86 which seems to have more issues with it.

At this point in time, I'm sort of 50/50 as too retrograde my system to XP x64 or stay with Vista and that is a sad thing as Vista was supposedly meant to be such a great product according to MS but the OS doesn't live upto MS Marketing hype. It falls flat on its face.

Reply Score: 3

RE: My Take
by Nelson on Wed 19th Sep 2007 00:54 UTC in reply to "My Take"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Windows Vista was released in January, and it shipped with more Drivers than Windows XP did when shipped. It's just having growing pains in the compatability with some of the older drivers.

Talk to the software vendors, or start reporting the issue. After a threshold of reports has been reached, Microsoft is said to delegate resources to write the said driver.

DirectX10 definitely does not force you to use OpenAL, you're free to use whatever sound library you want.

If this is all you have to justify it falling "flat on its face", then I definitely feel for those alternative systems who can't run games, don't support the said hardware, and lack DirectX10.

Reply Score: 1

Atypical user experience
by PlatformAgnostic on Tue 18th Sep 2007 23:34 UTC
PlatformAgnostic
Member since:
2006-01-02

People need to learn to stop buying NVIDIA hardware. At least not on boxes they plan to run Vista on. His system is far less responsive or speedy than it should be, which leads me to assume there's something wrong with either his drivers or his antivirus.

The complaints about networking is well-founded and his stability issues are unfortunate. As everyone's saying: bring on SP1!

Reply Score: 2

RE: Atypical user experience
by grat on Wed 19th Sep 2007 01:14 UTC in reply to "Atypical user experience"
grat Member since:
2006-02-02

People need to learn to stop buying NVIDIA hardware. At least not on boxes they plan to run Vista on. His system is far less responsive or speedy than it should be, which leads me to assume there's something wrong with either his drivers or his antivirus.

My system is *all* NVidia hardware, just about, and is rock solid under Vista (GeForce 7600gt, NForce MCP 55, etc.).

The curious thing is, he *SHOWS* the display that tells him where most of his system crashes are coming from, yet didn't take the 15 seconds to find out what dthtml.exe is, and get rid of it (appears to be MagicTune, a Samsung application).

If nothing else, Vista makes finding that oddball dll/exe file much, much simpler.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Atypical user experience
by MrSidecar on Thu 20th Sep 2007 06:35 UTC in reply to "RE: Atypical user experience"
MrSidecar Member since:
2007-02-13

The curious thing is, he *SHOWS* the display that tells him where most of his system crashes are coming from, yet didn't take the 15 seconds to find out what dthtml.exe is, and get rid of it (appears to be MagicTune, a Samsung application)

Unfortunately, he can´t get rid of explorer.exe that easily...

It´s actually funny that Reliability Monitor lists explorer.exe and svchost.exe as APPLICATION FAILURES. Correct me if I´m wrong, and I know that the OS is not to be mixed up with the file manager, but the ONE thing that average users identify with the OS immediately (like, on first contact) is the file-manager, innit?

Reply Score: 1

2c
by leos on Tue 18th Sep 2007 23:41 UTC
leos
Member since:
2005-09-21

With respect to font sizes, if you have your DPI set correctly, a 12pt font is the same physical size anywhere, no matter what the resolution is. I think monitors just need a reliable way to query their physical dimensions in software. Then this wouldn't be a problem.

Without that information, there is no way that any OS can fix the problem of the same point font appearing as a different physical size on different displays. In Windows and Linux you can easily set up the DPI correctly, most people just don't do it. Remember 1pt = 1/72". It's a physical size, and 12pt font should be the same size everywhere.

Reply Score: 2

RE: 2c
by aliquis on Wed 19th Sep 2007 00:25 UTC in reply to "2c"
aliquis Member since:
2005-07-23

"Remember 1pt = 1/72". It's a physical size, and 12pt font should be the same size everywhere."

The problem is the amount of pixels for that size of text will differ, and Windows tries to line up the subpixels in a nice way to give you clear text, but they also cut and force the text into whatever amount of pixels you have available, which will make them look wrong.

Reply Score: 3

RE: 2c
by bert64 on Wed 19th Sep 2007 11:11 UTC in reply to "2c"
bert64 Member since:
2007-04-23

Most modern monitors can be queried for their physical dimensions.. I believe the DVI spec supports it, as does whatever protocol was used to auto detect supported resolutions under VGA...
The problem is that windows ignores this information, you have to set it by hand. Linux on the other hand will read it from the monitor if available. The supposed feature of vista, was that it would read this information and set the DPI automatically.

That said, there are a few broken monitors out there (the built in LCD on a Thinkpad T42 for one) that either dont report their size, or report it incorrectly. This behaviour isnt noticed under windows, which ignores it anyway. But under linux, you'l either get windows-style behaviour of using a default dpi (which makes the fonts unreadably small on a high resolution screen) if there's no information received, or you'l get text at completely random sizes of the monitor reports wrongly.
The monitor returning the wrong size often gets blamed on linux, because windows doesn't do it by virtue of not supporting the feature at all.

Reply Score: 3

I stoped reading here.
by sc3252 on Tue 18th Sep 2007 23:54 UTC
sc3252
Member since:
2005-09-06

"I like Vista."

If I am going to read a bashing article of vista, I want to know that the author truly hates it. Else I cant read it.

Of course I would like to see some of those features that were missing in a desktop(not vista/windows/redmond) near me.

Reply Score: 1

v So what's wrong with OS X?
by aliquis on Wed 19th Sep 2007 00:15 UTC
Tested Windows Server 2008 and
by hraq on Wed 19th Sep 2007 00:16 UTC
hraq
Member since:
2005-07-06

I have found it to be light years more responsive than vista; but this version of windows server is build around windows vista, which leads me to conclude that windows vista SP1 will bring a lot of fixes and stability to the sick vista.

When you install the graphics component on the server 2008 (Beta 3) it would start to remind me of vista sluggishness. The drivers I tested were final nvidia for GF6600GT though.

Patience is the key to success; meanwhile ignore vista and continue using XP

Reply Score: 1

Vista's issues
by mbot on Wed 19th Sep 2007 01:00 UTC
mbot
Member since:
2007-09-18

Vista is just too big and has too much baggage to be a good seller.

I'll point out a few issues.

1. UAC is annoying. It pops up in the strangest places and sometimes pops up twice. One example: In XP, you can see all processes running by other users just with a checkmark in Task Manager. Now UAC pops up if you want to do the same thing. This is while I'm logged in as administrator. I don't understand how this would help with security. I'm already an administrator, so how's UAC suppose to protect me here???

Looks like Microsoft put in UAC everywhere they could just so they could blame security problems on the user.

2. Cleartype is mandatory- this issue really irks me the most. If you turn off cleartype, you get a mixture of anti-aliased text and aliased text. This mixture is ugly. Those of you who hate cleartype will need to accept fuzzy fonts as a fact of life with Vista. According to Microsoft this is by design since aliased text is not compatible with resolution independence. I don't buy that. More likely that some developers forgot that not everybody loves Cleartype and when they did remember, it was too late to make major changes to WPF/Avalon.

Even then, aliased text is still essential to getting an accurate representation of text on print-outs.

3. CPU usage is too high. TrustedInstaller.exe keeps on running in the background as soon as I boot up. That and downloading and installing any hotfixes takes too long. I believe it's related to the Windows Update issue that caused a stir last week. Iirc, the update happend around the end of August. My XP install has been taking too much CPU for the same reason. It's been like that since mid-August.

4. It takes more clicks to change settings. You'll need more mouse clicks to change the same settings you made in XP. Example: Each of the tabs that used to be under Display Properties is now a hyperlink.

One more nitpick. I still see that ugly, gray, zigzag, stichlike selection box. That's from Windows 95...

That's about it.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Vista's issues
by grat on Wed 19th Sep 2007 01:23 UTC in reply to "Vista's issues"
grat Member since:
2006-02-02

I'm already an administrator, so how's UAC suppose to protect me here???

Well, you're not actually an administrator. You're "User" class, with the ability to request Administrator privilege. Hence the "Alt-C" prompt. It also keeps applications from requesting that privilege without you knowing about it.

Any button with the little shield icon on it will cause a UAC prompt.

CPU usage is too high. TrustedInstaller.exe keeps on running in the background as soon as I boot up.

Hrm. Haven't seen that one, but you might want to see if you have a Windows Update issue. A few people have reported similar problems, usually tracked back to Windows Update problems or Windows Media Player trying to update.

My system idles around 2-5% CPU usage.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Vista's issues
by mbot on Wed 19th Sep 2007 01:56 UTC in reply to "RE: Vista's issues"
mbot Member since:
2007-09-18

It also keeps applications from requesting that privilege without you knowing about it.

It still doesn't explain how it's going to protect me. What kind of malware is going to be stopped with a UAC prompt placed at that point? Even if such a UAC prompt would stop an attack, is there enough justification for doing so? I.E., would annoying the user with a prompt justify the small chance of being attacked? I don't think so, considering the task manager is opened quiet often.

Reply Score: 1

It's the little differences
by HappyGod on Wed 19th Sep 2007 01:24 UTC
HappyGod
Member since:
2005-10-19

Example?

1. Where's the Directory "Up" button in explorer? I know I'm supposed to love the breadcrumb thing in the address bar ... but I don't.

2. Why does right-clicking the network connection icon insist on sending me to the "Network Center" (which takes ages to load)? It was way more intuitive to just <right-click> > "Open Network Connections".

3. Why does explorer just sit there doing God-knows-what when you open a folder with a lot of photos. It's loaded the thumbnails, what is it doing?

4. Why does copying a large file over a network take half as much time from within an XP virtual machine than on the Vista host?

5. Was there a directive to rename everything in the control panel?

6. Oh yeah, and why does Windows Update install drivers that kill my media center PC? I know this is probably a question for Dvico, but MS has decided to distribute the files, they could at least verify that they work!

I could go on ...

Edited 2007-09-19 01:26

Reply Score: 4

RE: It's the little differences
by Almafeta on Wed 19th Sep 2007 01:50 UTC in reply to "It's the little differences"
Almafeta Member since:
2007-02-22

1. Where's the Directory "Up" button in explorer? I know I'm supposed to love the breadcrumb thing in the address bar ... but I don't.


I was about to join you in complaining about something... but I just found out something neat. As in, JUST now.

Apparently, the keyboard command that should have worked in XP, Alt+Up, now works in Vista: it takes you up one directory. So they took it off the GUI, but put it back where I always wanted it...

The thing that annoys me the most about the new Explorer is the *nixification of the system. Instead of seeing the actual directory system, you are nown shown a directory based on your username: mine, for example, is "/Shanya". If you want to see the actual root of your system, you have to go to the Computer directory: e.g., "/Computer/Local Disc C/" instead of the actual directory ("C://") to get into your C drive. That change, for lack of a better term, is user-hating design...

(This and other little quirks guide me to the belief that Vista is the first version of Windows based on a BSD kernel... but I digress.)

Reply Score: 1

Johann Chua Member since:
2005-07-22

You do know that NT-based Windows doesn't need drive letters, right? It's just that not using drive letters would break compatibility with DOS-based Windows apps.

Reply Score: 2

modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

nixification makes it more usable :-)

Reply Score: 0

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

I went the other way, I've been wishing a long while that I could get rid of the stupid letter named mount points and use a proper (by my preferences) folder tree starting from root / and branching out from there.

Being able to natively mount everything to a folder off the system root makes all sorts of things happy for me. An example from the *nix side is my video player app. It doesn't like to use KDE's samba client to pull files off my NAS. Instead, I mounted my NAS (also through a samba client) to /media/NAS so any application can make use of it regardless of supporing windows shares or not.

I can also set /media/NAS as a read only mount so my media player doesn't eat my music archive by accident; that's really a tangent benifit though.

Being a life long Windows user, I was put off initially by the /root/subfolders way of managing directories but once you get used it it you find all kinds of benefits.

Reply Score: 2

RE: It's the little differences
by google_ninja on Wed 19th Sep 2007 03:05 UTC in reply to "It's the little differences"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

1. Where's the Directory "Up" button in explorer? I know I'm supposed to love the breadcrumb thing in the address bar ... but I don't.


It took me close to a month to get used to that. Now I find it to be FAR more flexible then the pre-vista way, and I get about as frustrated using the old explorer as I used to be using the new one.

2. Why does right-clicking the network connection icon insist on sending me to the "Network Center" (which takes ages to load)? It was way more intuitive to just <right-click> > "Open Network Connections".


If you left click the icon, you get "Connect or Disconnect..."

4. Why does copying a large file over a network take half as much time from within an XP virtual machine than on the Vista host?


Have you tried it since the two bigass patches a month or so ago? I have noticed a significant improvement in network file transfers.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: It's the little differences
by HappyGod on Wed 19th Sep 2007 08:14 UTC in reply to "RE: It's the little differences"
HappyGod Member since:
2005-10-19

Yeah, I've got the patches, but it still slower. Not ridiculously slow like it was, but slow.

As for the left-click Connect/Disconnect, that's not really what I meant. I mean if you want to modify your IP/Gateway settings, you have to go through the Network Center. It's pointless.

Reply Score: 1

google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

Ahhhhhhhhhhh, now I get what you are saying. Isn't that a once every very long while kind of thing though?

I'm just confused, because I am nothing but pleased with the new network panel. I find that it brings alot of stuff together that were scattered all over the place, and allows for easily changing settings that were really only available through wizards before. I used to point out that connect to a windows network is alot more reliable and easy on linux or osx compared to xp, which is kind of ridiculous when you think about it. For me at any rate, the new setup fixed that.

Reply Score: 2

same here.
by Robocoastie on Wed 19th Sep 2007 02:17 UTC
Robocoastie
Member since:
2005-09-15

I actually like it as well except for some niggling things such as:

1) it commonly takes nearly enough time to make instant coffee to open and load a directory. And don't even get me started on how long it takes to load up the Add/Remove programs list, I've fallen asleep waiting for that to load up.

2) "Aero" is well, - boreing. It does nothing more than some lame translucency that doesn't even get half as translucent of what the various 3d desktops on Linux can do. And "flip 3d" is a joke of all jokes, I much prefer the mini windows I can get with OpenSuse's 3d desktop. "Aero" seems to only have 2 features: flip 3d which isn't that convenient even since you have to mouse click it and a poor translucency.

3) Random program crashes particularly Internet Explorer 32bit (under Vista64) and even Office 2007. IE 64 bit functions a bit better but flash doesn't work on it so many features I need like web sites for my college don't work with it.

4) Media Center is sllllooowww. I use it for nothing more than setting a show to record then watch it in Media Player or even VLC instead because Media Center is so slow. And while I'm gripeing about this why the he double hockey sticks can't I use my monitor and computer while Media Center is outputting to the tv? All I can do is function the media center part while doing it, if I try to use the monitor it makes the TV media center minimize instantly. It does that even if I connect a second monitor instead of TV. This could be user error with how I've set up the dual head perhaps but I'd really love to know if it is cuz it drives me nuts.

5) horribly slow boot up of software, particularly media players such as Media Player, Media Center, and iTunes.

6) Networking with Linux or WindowsXP is nonexistent. The vista rig can see them, they can't access the vista rig no matter what I change in the firewall or even antivirus settings, it's maddening. So until that ever gets fixed or I figure out why it's doing that I simply file transfer to my Linux box from the vista rig. This seems to be a common problem as I've come across literally hundreds of this one complaint across the net and found no solution yet.

What it DOES do correctly:

Despite being a resource hog it does seem to manage the resources well. I can run Folding@Home and see my CPU listed as 100% in use and still do other things, except once in a while doing media work there may be a stutter, if that happens too much I just pause FAH and it gets cleared up. Under XP MC 2005 my sound driver would inexplicably quit working and require a reboot. Under VISTA the exact same driver from Dell works with no problems, go figure that one out.

When a program crashes just the one program crashes instead of the entire OS and other running apps as happens in xp.

Why despite these problems I still use Vista over my Linux partition: Linux programs are still pains in the rear to use. Take converting my tv show recordings to divx for example: in Vista drag drop the file into Roxio program, select divx and the quality setting, hit convert. In Linux the job is best done in the command line and I always had to refer back to my notes for all the little switches and such to get the string just right. Note VLC can actually do some conversions in both Windows and Linux but it's equally as tricky to use in both OS's.

Reply Score: 3

RE: same here.
by raver31 on Wed 19th Sep 2007 06:39 UTC in reply to "same here."
raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

In Linux the job is best done in the command line and I always had to refer back to my notes for all the little switches and such to get the string just right. Note VLC can actually do some conversions in both Windows and Linux but it's equally as tricky to use in both OS's.

have you tried Acidrip ?
I am not sure if that is what you are after, but you simply click the file, or disc you want converted, click on the codec, divx or xvid or whatever, select your options and convert.
Like I said though, it might not be what you need.

Reply Score: 1

vista beta-sp1
by camo r on Wed 19th Sep 2007 08:30 UTC
camo r
Member since:
2005-08-26

and found it very responsive, especially in the transfer of files (usually from usb and firewire drives, these were notoriously slow pre beta-sp1).

. usually has random network disconnects(most wifi), a diagnose and fix takes care of that. but the really strange problem, vista has NEVER connected at 108mbps (turbo g mode). irksome!

. faster to shutdown and restart than resume from sleep or hibernate.

. too many mouse click items (guess a carry over from previous versions)

Reply Score: 1

Font compositing?
by bert64 on Wed 19th Sep 2007 11:02 UTC
bert64
Member since:
2007-04-23

The idea of auto detecting the physical size of your display and displaying fonts correctly (that is, 1pt = 1/72 of an inch) is not new...
Linux can already do this, and has done for years, as will pretty much any unix system.. IRIX for instance, was able to detect the size of a monitor and adjust the DPI automatically.
On Linux, if you have a reasonably modern screen which supports reporting it's physical size (some simply dont bother, or report incorrect values, because they're targetted at windows which ignores this data anyway) your fonts will always be the same physical size, regardless of what resolution you set.

Reply Score: 2

Vista isn't bad, just boring...
by Dave_K on Wed 19th Sep 2007 12:03 UTC
Dave_K
Member since:
2005-11-16

I've just upgraded to Vista in the last couple of weeks and overall the experience has been pretty pleasant. It's a totally unimpressive operating system, utterly dull with no 'wow factor' whatsoever, but it seems usable enough with a few tweaks.

The novelty of Aero eye-candy wore off within a couple of hours, and within a day I started finding it quite distracting and annoying. I don't use my computer to watch pretty animations, 99% of the time I'm working in an application and just want the user interface to fade into the background.

Thankfully it's possible to turn Vista back to the classic Windows 2000 look, making it much more pleasant to use. The classic Windows theme also seems to make better use of space, thinner titlebars that kind of thing, which is nice when running it on a laptop.

UAC is another thing that I quickly turned off, it's easily one of the most worthless and irritating 'features' I've ever encountered in an OS. Of course protecting users is important, but constantly nagging them with virtually meaningless messages is an utterly stupid was of doing it. After a while I think most people are just going to stop reading them and click OK no matter what. Still, it's not really a big deal as it's easy enough to get rid of this nonsense.

Most of the remaining annoyances on my system are performance related. Intermittently I seem to suffer extremely slow file operations. Copying files between drives often isn't much slower than XP, but every once in a while I'll copy a folder and it'll crawl along at 1-2Mb/s.

This is something I intend to investigate, I assume that it depends on the composition of the files that are being transferred, or maybe Vista is running some file operation in the background...

Another surprising issue is that the user interface feels very sluggish. Admittedly I'm not using a high-end system, an X2 4000+ with 2Gb RAM and onboard x1250 graphics, but as I mentioned above I'm just using the eye-candy free classic UI.

Basic things like moving, resizing and scrolling windows often feel sluggish. Window contents sometimes flicker or judder when the window is resized, windows tear more when moved/resized quickly, and background windows are slow to update (you get a kind of 'eraser' effect when a window is moved over them).

Vista's UI actually feels slower on that system than Windows 2000 running on my old Pentium II. Trying different graphics drivers hasn't improved this and XP on the same system was smooth and responsive. Having said that, application speed seems perfectly fine and that's the important thing. The sluggish UI is just a minor irritation that I wasn't expecting.

What do I like about Vista? The integrated search is useful and works well, and file management is a bit more polished and efficient. Some of the tweaks to configuration seem quite well thought out and it was an easy OS to install and configure. Apart from that I see very little that's different from XP. It's not worth the money as an upgrade, but I'd definitely install it on any new PC I build. Roll on SP1...

Reply Score: 2

RE: Vista isn't bad, just boring...
by makfu on Wed 19th Sep 2007 16:35 UTC in reply to "Vista isn't bad, just boring..."
makfu Member since:
2005-12-18

"UAC is another thing that I quickly turned off, it's easily one of the most worthless and irritating 'features' I've ever encountered in an OS. Of course protecting users is important, but constantly nagging them with virtually meaningless messages is an utterly stupid was of doing it. After a while I think most people are just going to stop reading them and click OK no matter what. Still, it's not really a big deal as it's easy enough to get rid of this nonsense. "

UAC is NOT just about the prompting. In fact, the requests to elevate are of only minor benefit. HOWEVER, that applications that do not require elevation are running with least user privileges and lower integrity (in the MIC model) IS THE BIG WIN!!! Let me repeat that: Running IE, FireFox, Word, mIRC, MSN messenger, AIM, GAIM, Outlook, Eudora, Adobe Reader, etc, etc, etc, as a standard user BY DEFAULT is the BIG WIN with UAC.

If you disable UAC, and you keep your account in the local admins group, the security token generated for each of those processes you launch is now running with God privleges and high integrity. This is bad. Period.

Example scenario on XP or Vista with UAC disabled: I run “superduper IRC client”, which it turns out has a buffer overflow problem when parsing certain IRC output and as a result is a target for an automagic remote code exploit (yes, this has happened). Since I, the script kidiot on the other end of the exploit now has control of that process (via the injected payload), and that process is running with NT Administrator (God/root/etc.) privileges, I can embed all kinds of terrible things in the payload code, such as cross-process code injection (via debug facilities), loading a kernel mode driver, disabling malware protection, and patching the kernel (and don’t believe for one second your anti-malware software will mitigate because it most certainly is the first thing to get nuked). With UAC enabled these automatic silent attacks ALL WOULD FAIL and your machine would stand about 99% better chance of not getting owned.

Also, when disabling UAC, you also disable IE protected mode which runs IE with low Integrity, which prevents iexplore.exe from writing to files/registry entries belonging to your profile which even prevents profile hijacking when running with least privilege. A good example of this is how IE 7 with PM and UAC enabled protects against attacks leveraging flaws such as the animated cursor exploit. While the vulnerability existed in Vista, it was mitigated by IE7 Protected Mode because the MIC model wherein IE7 runs with low integrity, and communicates with higher integrity components via a broker process, protected the profile and shell components from this attack preventing profile based malware infection.

Understand that you can do EVERYTHING RIGHT from a user standpoint (e.g. not downloading suspicious apps, running AV, etc.) but you can STILL get owned through no fault of your own. Running your processes with super-user privs is equally dangerous on EVERY platform. So, for your own sake and others, leave UAC on and just live with the freakin prompts.

Reply Score: 3

nalf38 Member since:
2006-09-01

I get it, I just think it's amazing that any user would stand for it when this is implemented relatively seamlessly in Linux and OSX without a million-trillion-bagillion freaking UAC prompts. It's a big win for Windows, yes, but only for Windows. When you put it alongside with how Linux and OSX deal with user priveleges, it's a GIANT LOSER.

Reply Score: 1

makfu Member since:
2005-12-18

"I get it, I just think it's amazing that any user would stand for it when this is implemented relatively seamlessly in Linux and OSX without a million-trillion-bagillion freaking UAC prompts. It's a big win for Windows, yes, but only for Windows. When you put it alongside with how Linux and OSX deal with user priveleges, it's a GIANT LOSER."

Exactly how is it more seamlessly implemented in other platforms? On my ‘nix boxes I have to SU or get prompted for credentials for admin apps, utilities or global actions, JUST LIKE on Vista, but I have to carry out at least eight keystrokes for my password. Any other solution, such as a suid bit, trust this app or the “unlock” model that certain other systems use, are potentially dangerous and programmatically exploitable (see MOAB archives for examples).

Reply Score: 2

nalf38 Member since:
2006-09-01

Vista asks you for permission for a lot more than installing apps. I had to give Vista permission to allow my antivirus software to run, which I wouldn't have even needed on another OS. I had to give it permission to allow me to burn a CD; I think I even had to give it permission to play a CD. UAC even initially prohibited Diskeeper from running until I gave it permission.

Yeah, fine, suid bits are exploitable, but there has to be a balance somewhere. Vista's take on the situation seems to be that literally everything the user does is a security risk.

Reply Score: 1

Dave_K Member since:
2005-11-16

Understand that you can do EVERYTHING RIGHT from a user standpoint (e.g. not downloading suspicious apps, running AV, etc.) but you can STILL get owned through no fault of your own. Running your processes with super-user privs is equally dangerous on EVERY platform. So, for your own sake and others, leave UAC on and just live with the freakin prompts.


Without UAC the situation's no worse than in XP. With a router's hardware firewall, a software firewall, up to date security and AV software, and care taken with the apps I install and use (I don't use IE), the risk seems pretty small.

I'm pretty careful with personal information, so the worst thing that's likely to happen is that I have to wipe the system and restore from backups. Even if I had to do that once a year it would be a lot less annoying than the day to day irritation from UAC.

I'd rather take that risk than have to put up with Microsoft's ridiculous nagware.

Reply Score: 1

Very tiring...
by kaiwai on Wed 19th Sep 2007 12:19 UTC
kaiwai
Member since:
2005-07-06

This is what I can stand - sure, I don't mind within the month of the release, people bashing and praising it, but it has been over 6months after the release; this article is too little too late; its flogging the horse that is well and truly dead.

I'm all for in depth articles but after reading it, it told me nothing. It is the same whining points that everyone else has raised; heck, I'm sure if we sat down for a good 1/2 hour we could whine about lacking features in certain operating systems - that is why there are new releases, to add new features that are apparently lacking. This goes for all operating systems, not just Microsoft.

Yes, there are features missing from Windows, but lets remember, there is no operating system that can make everyone happy - there will always be features missing. For me, I love Solaris, but for another user, I am sure there are features missing that they want which I might find surplus to requirements.

From my perspective Windows Vista is deficient in so many areas, I question how Microsoft can charge in New Zealand almost NZ$900 for a copy of Windows Vista Ultimate, a shave below the cost of a brand new laptop. How can they justify NZ$900 for a product - are there really NZ$900 of investment into each unit shipped?

Reply Score: 1

v RE: Very tiring...
by cyclops on Wed 19th Sep 2007 13:35 UTC in reply to "Very tiring..."
Its the same OS with a new skin
by Bit_Rapist on Wed 19th Sep 2007 18:26 UTC
Bit_Rapist
Member since:
2005-11-13

Seriously I don't think they tested half of the basic functionality in Vista or payed much attention to usability in areas like the reworked network stack.

Handling networking in Vista is a maze of dialogs, even basics like changing your IP Address is just too many mouse clicks.

Then we have the fun little annoyances like taking your laptop on travel while off the company domain and watching the OS hang for 40+ seconds when trying to do simple stuff like open a text document in notepad.

This is supposed to be the future of windows on the desktop?

Call me up when MS starts caring about quality because Vista is far off the mark on what I'd consider to be a quality operating system.

Reply Score: 2