Linked by Adam S on Tue 26th Aug 2008 14:55 UTC
Windows What makes this Vista article any different? The title provides a clue: it's as much about providing practical working solutions to resolve some of the commonly-quoted Vista annoyances as anything else. That in itself should give all Vista users a reason to read it. However it doesn't matter whether you use Vista or not, because this article does something that most of the others don't: it takes an objective and up-to-date look at the current state of Vista, with a range of facts, clear examples and informed opinions aimed squarely at debunking a lot of the myths and FUD we've been gagging on for the past year. So for those of you still considering whether to make the switch from XP, for those of you who want to abandon Vista and go back to XP, for those of you who used Vista a while ago and who are wondering whether it's worth using again now - this article puts things in perspective with the latest facts.
Order by: Score:
well done
by poundsmack on Tue 26th Aug 2008 15:12 UTC
poundsmack
Member since:
2005-07-13

i have to say i am actualy rather impressed with the article, and thats a big deal comming from me. Well writen, factual, and gives the information in a way anyone can understand.

So offten everyone (myself included) focus's on Vista's negatives, its nice to see its achievements pointed out like this.

Reply Score: 3

RE: well done
by sbergman27 on Tue 26th Aug 2008 16:58 UTC in reply to "well done"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

...its nice to see its achievements pointed out like this.

Seven years after the release of XP, one would hope that it would have some.

Reply Score: 0

Win2k -> WinXP -> WinVista
by REM2000 on Tue 26th Aug 2008 15:16 UTC
REM2000
Member since:
2006-07-25

Overall a good article

The only point i will raise with it, is the history of XP. I was one of the IT Administrators who put off the upgrade to XP from Win2k for as long as possible. As indeed XP didn't offer anything new, i would need more powerful machines, plus countless man hours upgrading the OS to get the users to where they were before. Win2k required less memory, processing power and hdd space to run the same applications without now difference. I did finally succumb and upgrade networks to WinXP, however i still have a higher regard for Windows 2000 than any of the relases after it.

As per the article my argument is still the same. I have x number of machines all running Windows XP + Office XP. Now do i spent a lot of money in time and resources upgrading my network to Vista just so the users can do exactly the same thing.

When Microsoft and other companies release a product there has to be a reason to upgrade and not to just upgrade for upgrades sake. Windows 2000 gave us USB support and better driver and hardware support over NT4. Windows XP didn't really offer anything, as vista doesn't

I know it's horses for courses but with Mac OSX they offered Time Machine, a speed increase and some other features (although i know the speed increase is subjective however my machines did run about the same or a little faster after leopard). These i thought were good enough to upgrade.

I do agree that Microsoft have ironed out some pretty big bugs such as the slow network and zip file operations. The memory usage seems better with Vista returning memory more efficently. However again i can't see nothing new with Vista over XP over Win2k. DirectX 10 is the only thing i know XP can't do.

Suggestions for Microsoft and Vista, i think if were microsoft i would have spent some more time taking advantage of some good technology they have in Windows, .Net 3.0 a la WPF. Why they didn't rewrite most of the apps and UI to utilise this technology is a mystery, as i think this would have made the biggest impact. Im not talking about just making apps flashy for no reason, im thinking more of making some well designed OS apps which are easy to use and visually show the user whats going on and what to do next. Movie maker and DVD maker are a joke, there are projects on sourceforge that are more professional looking. This would have helped the perception of vista in the home. As for the perception of vista in the workplace. I don't know what to say to help Microsoft apart from Windows 2008 and Vista share the same kernel and a lot of other code, however the difference between them is night and day. Windows 2008 is a great product where i can see immediant reasons to upgrade because of a feature list that goes on forever (server core, improved AD and AD services DNS, DHCP, improved management and resource management and hyperV).

Reply Score: 12

RE: Win2k -> WinXP -> WinVista
by stestagg on Wed 27th Aug 2008 23:06 UTC in reply to "Win2k -> WinXP -> WinVista"
stestagg Member since:
2006-06-03

I do agree that Microsoft have ironed out some pretty big bugs such as the slow network and zip file operations.


Actually, No. They improved things slightly, but Zip and Network performance in Vista is still a major fail. I measured Vista zip extraction speed against 7-zip and Winzip. Vista SP0 was 3000% slower. SP1 only 900%. To put this into perspective, on SP0, you'd be waiting almost an hour for a zip file to extract, SP1 would take 15 minutes, while 7-zip only takes 2 minutes.

As for network performance, just try deleting a file on a windows share over a VPN connection. In fact, don't. It would be faster to implement the fabled IP over carrier pidgeon protocol and send your file delete instructions in an email via IPCP.

Reply Score: 2

v Comment by pcunite
by pcunite on Tue 26th Aug 2008 15:34 UTC
RE: Comment by pcunite
by poundsmack on Tue 26th Aug 2008 15:41 UTC in reply to "Comment by pcunite"
poundsmack Member since:
2005-07-13

you can fairly easily make it look like 2000. right click somewhere on the start menue and go to "properties" then "start menu" then clasic start menue"

as for teh rest of the OS (close but not all the way like 2000) right click on the desktop go to "personalize" then go to "themes" then go to "windows clasic theme"

tada!

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Comment by pcunite
by pcunite on Tue 26th Aug 2008 17:28 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by pcunite"
pcunite Member since:
2008-08-26

Thank you. This does help. But other problems remain:

1. folder navigation changes - no up arrow.
2. Copy a file into a directory where another exists - look at that huge dialog!

Many other very tiny things that require me to think differently for no reason. It is like getting into a car and the steering wheel has been moved! Why?

Just give me the OPTION to revert EVERYTHING to windows 2000 interface. Thank you!

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by pcunite
by eggs on Tue 26th Aug 2008 18:31 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by pcunite"
eggs Member since:
2006-01-23

I know it's a lot of work to adapt, but if you remain headstrong you can persevere through it like the dinosaurs.

The copy dialog is bigger because it's more descriptive and gives you a third option (it talks about it right in the linked article.

I missed the up arrow at first as well. However after really using it for like 10 minutes I like explorer much better in Vista. All you have to do is click the name of a folder in the address bar to go to that folder (one click, instead of 3 to go up three levels and it's easier to see where you are going). Also, the little down arrow lets you select a sub folder. If you can grow up a little bit and give something a chance you'll probably like it more.

Reply Score: 6

RE[3]: Comment by pcunite
by Morgan on Tue 26th Aug 2008 19:37 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by pcunite"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Many other very tiny things that require me to think differently for no reason. It is like getting into a car and the steering wheel has been moved! Why?


It's called a progression, though I agree this version of Windows is quite a leap forward in features. Whether that's good or bad depends on what you want. I've been trying to get used to these changes myself (I'm running it to learn to support it better for family) and overall it's been very similar to my experience moving from OS X Tiger to Leopard. My only true gripe is a slower workflow due to UAC. I know I can turn it off, but I rather like the fact that it's making sure actions are really started by me. It's a trade-off in the end; put up with a workflow delay to avoid that one bug that would slip through otherwise.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by pcunite
by modmans2ndcoming on Tue 26th Aug 2008 21:29 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by pcunite"
modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

The bread crumb trail is more efficient than the up arrow. If I want to go up 4 levels, and down two from that level, I click the down arrow next to the location I want to move up to and then select the sub directory I want to move down into. I can navigate through the directory structure in 2 seconds rather than 10.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by pcunite
by Temcat on Wed 27th Aug 2008 11:06 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by pcunite"
Temcat Member since:
2005-10-18

Instead of Up arrow, you can use Backspace key.

Reply Score: 2

Mirror please?
by Shannara on Tue 26th Aug 2008 15:35 UTC
Shannara
Member since:
2005-07-06

For some reason, State of Alaska is lazy to implement a real web site blocker, so this site is blocked under "games".

Could someone provide the text to the article, or at least a mirror?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Mirror please?
by satan666 on Tue 26th Aug 2008 16:18 UTC in reply to "Mirror please?"
satan666 Member since:
2008-04-18

For some reason, State of Alaska is lazy to implement a real web site blocker, so this site is blocked under "games".

Could someone provide the text to the article, or at least a mirror?

proxylord.com

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Mirror please?
by Shannara on Tue 26th Aug 2008 16:20 UTC in reply to "RE: Mirror please?"
Shannara Member since:
2005-07-06

Proxy sites are blocked. Thats why I asked for a mirror ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Mirror please?
by Piranha on Tue 26th Aug 2008 16:27 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Mirror please?"
Piranha Member since:
2008-06-24

Alaska blocks websites?? Since when?

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Mirror please?
by Ressev on Tue 26th Aug 2008 17:11 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Mirror please?"
Ressev Member since:
2005-07-18

A lot of government bodies throw out wide blanket blocks. Also, if the website self-tags as 'Games', it gets blocked by Policy. I assume the individual works for the State of Alaska or is browsing from a Government computer, as opposed to being a private citizen whose access is blocked from their home.

Edited 2008-08-26 17:13 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Mirror please?
by flanque on Tue 26th Aug 2008 21:55 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Mirror please?"
flanque Member since:
2005-12-15

www.vpntunnel.net ?

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Mirror please?
by poundsmack on Tue 26th Aug 2008 16:45 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Mirror please?"
poundsmack Member since:
2005-07-13

try this http://www.avivadirectory.com/bethebot/

its a great way to get around most things. it should work for you

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Mirror please?
by Shannara on Tue 26th Aug 2008 18:06 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Mirror please?"
Shannara Member since:
2005-07-06

thank you very much. your a life saver!

Reply Score: 1

"Oh lord, not another Vista article!"
by Bully on Tue 26th Aug 2008 16:07 UTC
Bully
Member since:
2006-04-07

I thought the author summed it up nicely with that, if only he had stopped there ;D

Edited 2008-08-26 16:08 UTC

Reply Score: 4

mmmh
by Anacardo on Tue 26th Aug 2008 16:19 UTC
Anacardo
Member since:
2005-10-30

I finished reading the article and yet, I'm still not convinced of the "objective point of view" of the writing. For starters, an article named "vista annoyances resolved" has 3 pages of rebuttal of FUD and "lies"... since when these can be considered Vista annoyances? Is this an article covering how to cope with real vista annoyances, or an article trying to convince you that you're imagining things? that you're a victim of bad advertising? The more I went on, the more I came with things I definitely don't agree with: "Windows XP was subject to the exact same types of criticisms ... many of them totally baseless or sensationalist as we now know." But many of them were absolutely true and later became "shortcomings" that we ended up accepting because we simply didn't have another choice. I don't want to eat more garbage simply because it's the "next big thing" anymore. Vista has the same shortcomings of XP plus more, especially from an interface and usability point of view. And again, maybe we differ a lot in the way we use our computers as the author found windows Xp Sp1 to be completely up to his expectations, while I found running heavy applications on the same system to be a hit & miss till Sp2 (I don't want to sound sarcastic, but my old Amiga 4000 could do the same things he's doing on the video, I have a vaguely different idea of "heavy work")
I don't know, maybe it's just me, but the more I use Vista, the more it seems to me as a collection of interesting technologies glued together somehow rather than a real product. I somewhat believe that Windows XP begun to tell us that the OS was more important than the software we would eventually run on top of it, and Vista went down the same damned road again. Possibly too much for me. From this point of view I tend to agree with those that predict the ending of Operating Systems as consumer products and the rise of some OS indifference where people use/buy the application (web application?) they want and forget about the OS behind it.

Reply Score: 10

RE: mmmh
by modmans2ndcoming on Tue 26th Aug 2008 21:32 UTC in reply to "mmmh"
modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

uhh...

part of being objective is debunking unfair and outdated criticism.

Reply Score: 2

RE: mmmh
by tomcat on Wed 27th Aug 2008 01:24 UTC in reply to "mmmh"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

I finished reading the article and yet, I'm still not convinced of the "objective point of view" of the writing. For starters, an article named "vista annoyances resolved" has 3 pages of rebuttal of FUD and "lies"... since when these can be considered Vista annoyances?


I use Vista on a daily basis, and I have to say that it IS annoying to read crap about Vista that doesn't have any basis in reality.

Is this an article covering how to cope with real vista annoyances, or an article trying to convince you that you're imagining things? that you're a victim of bad advertising?


The Mojave experiment proves, in a lot of ways, that memes about Vista are largely bullshit. If you ARE imagining flaws that don't exist, it's reasonable to point out the facts, in my opinion.

The more I went on, the more I came with things I definitely don't agree with: "Windows XP was subject to the exact same types of criticisms ... many of them totally baseless or sensationalist as we now know."


I remember reading the press articles at the time. The same sentiments were being expressed. You may not remember them, but they were indeed said.

But many of them were absolutely true and later became "shortcomings" that we ended up accepting because we simply didn't have another choice. I don't want to eat more garbage simply because it's the "next big thing" anymore.


You should never buy technology based on buzz alone. Buy it because it's USEFUL and RELEVANT.

Vista has the same shortcomings of XP plus more, especially from an interface and usability point of view.


Example?

And again, maybe we differ a lot in the way we use our computers as the author found windows Xp Sp1 to be completely up to his expectations, while I found running heavy applications on the same system to be a hit & miss till Sp2


I think that most people agree that Microsoft finally got XP right around SP2.

I don't know, maybe it's just me, but the more I use Vista, the more it seems to me as a collection of interesting technologies glued together somehow rather than a real product.


I'm not sure how that differs from previous versions of Windows?

I somewhat believe that Windows XP begun to tell us that the OS was more important than the software we would eventually run on top of it, and Vista went down the same damned road again. Possibly too much for me.


How so?

From this point of view I tend to agree with those that predict the ending of Operating Systems as consumer products and the rise of some OS indifference where people use/buy the application (web application?) they want and forget about the OS behind it.


OSes have NEVER been consumer products on their own, and we shouldn't treat them that way. They're ALWAYS purchased as part of a bundled hardware/software package. Nobody buys Windows at retail. Microsoft reportedly sells less than 1% of its licenses that way. Which is essentially nobody.

Reply Score: 3

v Anyone Notice?
by hibridmatthias on Tue 26th Aug 2008 16:38 UTC
RE: Anyone Notice?
by soonerproud on Tue 26th Aug 2008 17:09 UTC in reply to "Anyone Notice?"
soonerproud Member since:
2008-03-05

He spelled tire as "tyre"? Was that on purpose?


Koroush Ghazi is not a native English speaker so he is using a international English spelling for tire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tire

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Anyone Notice?
by hibridmatthias on Tue 26th Aug 2008 18:52 UTC in reply to "RE: Anyone Notice?"
hibridmatthias Member since:
2007-04-11

Awesome. Thank you.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Anyone Notice?
by HappyGod on Wed 27th Aug 2008 07:19 UTC in reply to "RE: Anyone Notice?"
HappyGod Member since:
2005-10-19

He spelled tire as "tyre"? Was that on purpose?


Koroush Ghazi is not a native English speaker so he is using a international English spelling for tire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tire


The above quotes are interesting for two reasons:

1. The author of the first quote is totally unaware that most people in the world spell the word: "tyre".

2. The author of the second quote asserted that only non-native English speakers use International English, and made a grammatical error while doing so :-).

I'm an Australian, a native speaker, and I use International English. As do the following (to name a few):

UK
Canada
Australia
New Zealand
India
Hong Kong
Fiji
Singapore
The other 46 countries of The Commonwealth
Pretty much everyone else ...

Edited 2008-08-27 07:24 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Anyone Notice?
by StephenBeDoper on Sat 30th Aug 2008 23:11 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Anyone Notice?"
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

I'm an Australian, a native speaker, and I use International English. As do the following (to name a few):

UK
Canada
...


Canadian English is bit of a special case. UK English is the standard for official government publications in Canada, but a large number of "American-isms" have crept into colloquial use. E.g., while you're likely to seeing the spelling "colour" in Canada, you're probably not going to ever see "tyre" or "foetus".

Reply Score: 2

RE: Anyone Notice?
by Kroc on Tue 26th Aug 2008 17:34 UTC in reply to "Anyone Notice?"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

"Tyre" is typically used in Britain, I personally wouldn't spell it the other way.

Reply Score: 2

Solid article
by Tuishimi on Tue 26th Aug 2008 16:44 UTC
Tuishimi
Member since:
2005-07-06

I am an Apple/Mac OS X user mostly, but I do work on Windows. I think Vista has (and if you see any of my older posts regarding Vista you will see that I am consistent in this) taken quite a bad rap. Windows in general, really.

re. -1:
Tyre and "ise" as opposed to "ize" are British-English spellings.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Solid article
by Beta on Tue 26th Aug 2008 17:48 UTC in reply to "Solid article"
Beta Member since:
2005-07-06

*ize is also an accepted British use, for those that follow the Oxford (OED) convention.
I however do not.

Reply Score: 2

Regarding graphics memory use
by Noremacam on Tue 26th Aug 2008 16:56 UTC
Noremacam
Member since:
2006-03-08

I'm in xp right now, but if someone is in vista, maybe you can verify this. I tried out vista, and with the full aero display, explorer.exe was using nearly 100mb more, than on windows classic(w2k look). Ironically, just disabling aero, but maintaining the theme didn't drop the memory usage nearly as much.

I only have 1gb ram, so to me that's quite a bit.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Regarding graphics memory use
by mikefarinha on Tue 26th Aug 2008 17:18 UTC in reply to "Regarding graphics memory use"
mikefarinha Member since:
2008-06-25

I don't quite understand your question, but one thing to keep in mind is that when Vista is using Aero it off loads the GUI to be processed by the graphics processor, thus freeing the CPU from having to deal with the GUI. If your graphics processor is up to snuff Vista should be more responsive with Aero enabled.

Reply Score: 2

Noremacam Member since:
2006-03-08

well my argument is(and I have an Nvidia 8500GT 512mb), aero uses an extra 100 mb of system ram, and on a 1gb system(which is double the requirements for vista) that's a significant punishment in system responsiveness. As I said before also I only noticed that memory freed when using the w2k look.

Reply Score: 1

modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

Ram is cheap, add another gig.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Regarding graphics memory use
by OddFox on Tue 26th Aug 2008 21:53 UTC in reply to "Regarding graphics memory use"
OddFox Member since:
2005-10-05

On my Vista x64 SP1 explorer.exe reports just under 7MB and dwm.exe has just under 19MB, going by Task Manager. My Resource Manager says the current working sets are 61MB for dwm.exe and 14MB for explorer.exe. 1GB of RAM is probably the least amount I'd want to have on a Vista system, and 2GB on an x64 one. Disabling Aero Glass will only slightly reduce the dwm.exe memory usage, at the expense of the more responsive and advanced GUI.

Reply Score: 2

google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

I usually run with aero-basic, since i have a cruddy integrated GPU on this laptop, and there is a slight hesitation when i try and minimize if the machine is being pushed (most people probably wouldnt even notice it, but i am kind of anal about that sort of thing.) Aero basic is pretty much just aero without the transparency.

dwm is the vista window manager, you can see here
http://img222.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dwmaerobasicwu2.jpg

that it is at around 400k without transparency, and that ie is at 24megs. Firefox is close to 70megs, but I am a web developer, so i have a bunch of plugins that probably bloat it out a bit.

If i turn on transparency, you can see here
http://img291.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dwmaerofullxo2.jpg

dwm jumped about 25megs, but ie actually went down to 17 megs (probably did a memory de-allocation while I was writing this).

Whoever told you that about vista was either lying (pretty sad, but it does happen), or they had something pretty messed up with their computer.

Reply Score: 2

Noremacam Member since:
2006-03-08

Well, you didn't do the test case I mentioned, and it wasn't the dwm I was referring to, but explorer.exe. I don't have vista installed anymore, so I cannot verify it. Finally the difference was between classic(w2k style) and full aero glass(composite) desktop.

Reply Score: 1

google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

explorer memory usage doesn't change, let alone by 100megs. the only memory usage that changes is dwm. if you want, ill take screen captures later showing you the difference between windows classic and aero

Reply Score: 2

Noremacam Member since:
2006-03-08

go for it. I know it shouldn't change, but it did. Maybe it was a bug on my end(3rd party software maybe?).

Reply Score: 1

I missed some ?
by Ikshaar on Tue 26th Aug 2008 17:46 UTC
Ikshaar
Member since:
2005-07-14

Decent article but still missing many of Vista flaws.

- removal of hardware 3D sound
- removal of pan mode for dual screen
- erratic behavior of explorer of file copy (prompting of overwrite of non existing files)
- overall change of navigation paradigm adn explorer UI which can be argued as useless (the un-removable BURN icon in toolbar !!)
- badly design new network center

Not Vista OS per se but :
- vista-capable PC which are way under-equipped to handle Vista. This is MS own making - so the "lies" started at MS.

Article looks more like a list of tweaks so it does not feel so bad.

FYI, I have Vista on a "vista-capable" laptop and I switched back to XP my desktop.

Reply Score: 3

RE: I missed some ?
by OddFox on Tue 26th Aug 2008 22:10 UTC in reply to "I missed some ?"
OddFox Member since:
2005-10-05

Removal of hardware 3D sound by creating the Universal Audio Architecture (UAA) is a very good thing, and here is one article explaining why: http://l33t-tweaks.blogspot.com/2007/03/vista-and-3d-hardware-accel...

Removal of pan mode for dual screen? Sounds like something that should be handled by the drivers but sure, I guess if it's something you like, never cared much for a desktop I have to pan, and I get it on my Ubuntu install until I run xrandr to manually set 1440x900. Only on fglrx, too.

Erratic behavior of the file copy dialog? How can you overwrite a non-existent file since it's not there in the first place. It sounds like you've got a bigger problem than Vista if you're having something like that happen to you, or you're forgetting about hidden files.

The breadcrumb navigation system is far superior, and I notice this especially at work which just upgraded to Server 2008 Standard. Give it an honest shot and learn to use it, it is a more powerful approach. As for the burn icon, what the hey does it matter if it isn't as stylistic as you'd like? It's an icon and it gets its point across, people know what "Burn" means these days in the context of computers.

The Network Center is badly designed? Well, thanks for your opinion, it seems to be doing just fine and dandy for me and everyone else I know who is using Vista.

Microsoft does not lie about Vista-Capable PCs, hardware manufacturers do when they give you the impression that what they sold you supports a Vista setup. Furthermore, Vista-Capable is just that, capable of running Vista. If you want to actually give Vista room to breathe, you step up to the Vista Premium Ready specs. And honestly, a PC with specs those low is hard to find (And harder to justify spending money on). Take a look at Wikipedia under Hardware Requirements for more information.

And those tweaks actually address the concerns people have with Windows Vista which are analyzed in this article. They aren't thrown in so it doesn't feel bad, they are thrown in because that's what the article was for, helping people optimize as they so desire. They were extremely useful tips for anyone whos system might need them.

Edited 2008-08-26 22:10 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: I missed some ?
by dagw on Wed 27th Aug 2008 12:26 UTC in reply to "RE: I missed some ?"
dagw Member since:
2005-07-06

Microsoft does not lie about Vista-Capable PCs, hardware manufacturers do when they give you the impression that what they sold you supports a Vista setup.

While I agree with your other points, I think Microsoft is in no way free from blame here. MS, not the hardware manufacturer, is the one who decided what specs a system has to have to qualify as Vista-Capable, and they set them very low indeed. They should have set the bar higher making sure that any hardware that's Vista-Capable cannot just run Vista, but run Vista well.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: I missed some ?
by OddFox on Wed 27th Aug 2008 14:41 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: I missed some ?"
OddFox Member since:
2005-10-05

Look, minimum system requirements are minimum system requirements. See how fun it is to run the latest mainstream desktop-oriented Linux distro on the minimum recommended specs for an install that uses KDE/GNOME. Don't forget that the other side of the fence isn't so green when it comes to running the latest and greatest on old outdated hardware. It runs, it just isn't going to run as quickly as it would with a more lightweight solution. FWIW, I don't think it would be very fair to compare something like Vista with a minimalist distro designed to run on old hardware.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: I missed some ?
by lemur2 on Wed 27th Aug 2008 14:56 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: I missed some ?"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Look, minimum system requirements are minimum system requirements. See how fun it is to run the latest mainstream desktop-oriented Linux distro on the minimum recommended specs for an install that uses KDE/GNOME. Don't forget that the other side of the fence isn't so green when it comes to running the latest and greatest on old outdated hardware. It runs, it just isn't going to run as quickly as it would with a more lightweight solution. FWIW, I don't think it would be very fair to compare something like Vista with a minimalist distro designed to run on old hardware.


There are versions of Linux that run from RAM and are lightning fast as a result:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puppy_linux
http://www.puppylinux.com/about.htm

and there are versions that will run on old machines with very sparse resources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSL_Linux
http://www.damnsmalllinux.org/
"Run light enough to power a 486DX with 16MB of Ram"

but, as you say, they are minimalist.

Having said that, I don't know about GNOME, but KDE normally improves with speed as time goes along.

Since KDE 3.3 or so, every subsequent version of KDE 3 series had noticeable speed improvement on the same hardware.

KDE 4.0 went backwards, so that KDE 3.5.8 was significantly better on the same hardware that KDE 4.0, but now with KDE 4.1 it is approximately on par with KDE 3.5.9.

Anyway, even on very modest contemporary machines, such as the OPLC XO machine or the new class of netbook machines, one can easily and readily run a full Linux distribution. You can't do that with Vista.

Vista is slow enough to bring some quite well specified contemporary machines to their knees, and it won't run at all on a significant percentage of personal machines that are made even now. Hence the whole "Vista capable" controversy.

http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/software/soa/Microsoft-Vista-Capable-d...

http://www.itnews.com.au/News/70829,microsoft-vista-capable-lawsuit...

Edited 2008-08-27 15:02 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: I missed some ?
by OddFox on Wed 27th Aug 2008 15:20 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: I missed some ?"
OddFox Member since:
2005-10-05

"Basically, the laptop runs the Fedora Linux distribution; On top of the X Window System and the Matchbox window manager, we run a novel "Sugar" user interface and support library, supporting a core set of "activities". Activities are programs that follow the OLPC Human Interface Guidelines. There is an emphasis on Python and GTK. Other Linux software can be run too, but having a common and enabling user interface is nice; requiring additional libraries (KDE, java runtime, whatever) is in tension with disk and memory limits."

Yeah, the OPLC XO machine sounds like is can easily run a full Linux distribution, minus those libraries nobody wants such as KDElibs and Java. Sorry, that's not fully featured and it is for specific cases. The use a stripped-down Fedora, and everything that you can get from the Linux world that will run on minimal hardware requires that you take a performance hit or run older software. KDE 4.1 is on par and KDE 3.3 got quick, so did GNOME a while after 2.x, but the fact remains that they are still rather heavy compared to even Windows XP.

Look, I'm not saying Vista isn't bigger, I'm just saying if you want a fully-functional and fully-featured equivalent Linux distro you will want to have better hardware than the minimum specs for Vista-Capable and closer to the Vista Premium Ready.

I know all about the minimalist distros BTW I end up using them a lot of the time, they're great but they are not even in the same playing field as the full-on distros. They are meant to extend the life of old hardware, they are not meant to be the functional equivalent of a more modern desktop solution. I don't see how you can even think to compare Vista to a slimmed-down Linux of any sort when really, a slimmed-down Linux is usually an order of magnitude more lightweight than a stock XP setup. Are you going to start railing against XP while you're at it? As someone who's used KDE/GNOME/Vista/XP on minimum hardware specs I know that they are all painful on minimum and to be comfortable you go with recommended, it's the same with games.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: I missed some ?
by REM2000 on Thu 28th Aug 2008 09:22 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: I missed some ?"
REM2000 Member since:
2006-07-25

I thought the XO was a good example, however also bear in mind that Vista is no go on other netbooks (laptops) such as the EeePC and the Acer, they had to use XP instead, which is the main reason support was extended, i don't believe it was extended purely because of the demand to keep XP, Microsoft usually doesn't care.

This doesn't mean to say that Vista is all bad, however there is no getting away from the fact that Vista requires a lot of resources to run.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: I missed some ?
by OddFox on Thu 28th Aug 2008 18:10 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: I missed some ?"
OddFox Member since:
2005-10-05

The worst hit to your laptop would be quicker draining of the battery because of the Aero Glass UI putting extra load on the GPU, really everything else that Vista does which tends to drain batteries (Such as indexing) XP does as well. Just because it takes more memory and disk space doesn't mean it takes more battery power just because it's not as slim as XP. Tom's Hardware Guide has this to say on Vista vs. XP power conspumption from http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/xp-vs-vista,1531-11.html :

Windows Vista doesn't require more energy than Windows XP, whether running under full CPU load or idle. We also tried to stimulate the power consumption at the plug by aggressively moving windows or by switching between multiple tasks in 3D mode (Windows key + [Tab]). We would have expected an increased power draw, since Vista and its AeroGlass interface are more 3D-intensive and require 3D acceleration. However, there was no noticeable increase in power requirements due to the involvement of the 3D subsystem. This might be different with automated loads, but a single user cannot cause sufficient 3D load to influence the power draw.

Keep in mind this test was performed in January of 2007, and things have only continued to get better over time as Microsoft keeps tweaking things and the driver providers do the same. Wonder if I could find a more recent article if I gave it a bit of effort...

And yes, I realize you were speaking about resources in general and not merely power consumption and battery life, but when you realize that 500$ easily buys you a laptop capable of running Vista (32-bit, since 64-bit I usually recommend a bit more memory) it's hard to get upset at hardware requirements when you really can't buy anything worse than what it requires unless you look for old/used hardware.

Reply Score: 1

RE: I missed some ?
by google_ninja on Tue 26th Aug 2008 23:54 UTC in reply to "I missed some ?"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

I actually like network center. The options are pretty clearly laid out, as opposed to a wizard in xp that rarely worked properly.

I agree with you about the lack of customizability of the explorer toolbar, but i like the breadcrumbs and the favorite places. I didn't grow up on explorer and I know alot of people love the whole file tree thing, but I always found the windows file manager pretty weak compared to osx (more usable), or konq (same ideas, better executed)

Edited 2008-08-26 23:57 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: I missed some ?
by lemur2 on Wed 27th Aug 2008 06:34 UTC in reply to "I missed some ?"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Decent article but still missing many of Vista flaws. - removal of hardware 3D sound - removal of pan mode for dual screen - erratic behavior of explorer of file copy (prompting of overwrite of non existing files) - overall change of navigation paradigm adn explorer UI which can be argued as useless (the un-removable BURN icon in toolbar !!) - badly design new network center Not Vista OS per se but : - vista-capable PC which are way under-equipped to handle Vista. This is MS own making - so the "lies" started at MS. Article looks more like a list of tweaks so it does not feel so bad. FYI, I have Vista on a "vista-capable" laptop and I switched back to XP my desktop.


It totally missed by far & away the biggest annoyance of Vista ... and that is the fact that Vista is not written to the best interest of the owner of the machine, the party who is actually expected to purchase Vista.

Format lock-ins, lack of support for cross-platform compatibility of applications and data, WGA, registration and activation requirements, call-home spyware, DRM-required performance degradations of your own machine, susceptibility to malware, embedded spyware, lack of support to be run in a virtual machine, obscured APIs, 32-bit still, inadequate "premissions" structure built in to the filesystem, inadequate filesystem support for SSDs, ActiveX and other built-in security holes, Windows Update backdoor, requirement to run many applications with administrator priveledges, lack of a single consistent place to browse and install new software, lack of open Java and open Flash support, lack of SVG support, lack of support for most W3C standards, browser and media player irremoveably embedded into the OS, lack of support for open multimedia codecs, lack of support for many filesystems, lack of support for alternative network filesystems and other standard protocols, incompatibility with earlier versions of network protocols, poor performance, poor implementation of UAC, artificial limits on interconnectivity for "basic" versions, no implementation (even a viewer) for OpenDocument, most critical drivers are 3rd party and not part of the OS, excessive hardware requirements (can't run on netbooks for example), etc, etc ...

Those are the annoyances of Vista.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: I missed some ?
by lemur2 on Wed 27th Aug 2008 10:31 UTC in reply to "RE: I missed some ?"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Those are the annoyances of Vista.


That is interesting ... that post got modded down presumably because it listed Vista annoyances in a thread about Vista annoyances that linked to an article that failed to mention Vista's annoyances.

Hmmmmmmmm.

OK, here is an independent article to provide some much-needed counterbalance:

http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/10things/?p=406

Further support for the point that Vista is simply not written in the best interests of the parties that are expected to purchase the software.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: I missed some ?
by rockwell on Wed 27th Aug 2008 21:08 UTC in reply to "RE: I missed some ?"
rockwell Member since:
2005-09-13

Wow, I've never seen such a well-reasoned paragraph ... full of complete bullshit.

Reply Score: 1

Article is NOT Objective
by reduz on Tue 26th Aug 2008 17:50 UTC
reduz
Member since:
2006-02-25

I believe the main reason vista is disliked is that it looks even more complex than XP, even though microsfot attempted the opposite. Every dialog, window, prompt, etc got a lot more complex, with several detailed (and hidden) options.
The author (and microsoft) seem to believe that this is good, that the proper thing to do is teach users about everything going on, with wizards, options, etc.

People in general using a computer really don't want to learn, or learn as minimum possible to do the tasks they need. Forcing them to learn and showing off craploads of features, colors, flashy effects, buttons, etc is something i don't think is very good.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Article is NOT Objective
by Earl C Pottinger on Wed 27th Aug 2008 00:44 UTC in reply to "Article is NOT Objective"
Earl C Pottinger Member since:
2008-07-12

I believe the main reason vista is disliked is that it looks even more complex than XP, even though microsfot attempted the opposite. Every dialog, window, prompt, etc got a lot more complex, with several detailed (and hidden) options.

That is why when I run across with a lot of complex options I look to see if there is an (B)asic-(A)vanced-(E)xpert option. Sound like something many Vista users could use.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Article is NOT Objective
by tomcat on Wed 27th Aug 2008 01:16 UTC in reply to "Article is NOT Objective"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

Every dialog, window, prompt, etc got a lot more complex, with several detailed (and hidden) options.
The author (and microsoft) seem to believe that this is good, that the proper thing to do is teach users about everything going on, with wizards, options, etc.


can you provide any examples?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Article is NOT Objective
by wakeupneo on Wed 27th Aug 2008 03:15 UTC in reply to "RE: Article is NOT Objective"
wakeupneo Member since:
2005-07-06

can you provide any examples?


My Computer:

XP: http://windows.uwaterloo.ca/Managed/.%5CIST_Changes_Basic_files...

Vista: http://thavarajah.dk/sites/thavarajah.dk/uploads/2007/01/my_compute...

The XP version was nice and simple. With Vista I think they've gone a bit overboard.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Article is NOT Objective
by dagw on Wed 27th Aug 2008 12:29 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Article is NOT Objective"
dagw Member since:
2005-07-06

While the XP on in certainly simpler, the Vista one gives more of the info you need at a glance. There are times when simple isn't necessarily the best, and being able to quickly see how much space you have left on each partition/disk is an example of something I consider rather useful and am willing to give up some simplicity for.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Article is NOT Objective
by Soulbender on Wed 27th Aug 2008 13:06 UTC in reply to "Article is NOT Objective"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Of course it isn't objective but thathas nothing to do with if it'sgood or not. Most good journalism is objective.

Reply Score: 2

Pro Vista
by cyclops on Tue 26th Aug 2008 17:50 UTC
cyclops
Member since:
2006-03-12

from the article
"clear examples and informed opinions aimed squarely at debunking a lot of the myths and FUD we've been gagging on for the past year"

from the article
"In November 2006 Vista was completed and released to manufacturers"

Vista is pushing 2 years I'm getting ready for its birthday

Reply Score: 2

Comment by Kroc
by Kroc on Tue 26th Aug 2008 17:52 UTC
Kroc
Member since:
2005-11-10

I remember Windows XP being a terrible RAM hog at the time. Back in 2000, a Windows 98 machine would have had 32~64 MB of RAM and that's as much as you needed. XP ate everything you had, and left no more for actually running anything. Some manufacturers were still shipping machines with 128MB of RAM as late as 2003.

Microsoft are not in the business of making Windows what you want it to be. They are in the business of making you buy Windows, again, and again.

The same applies to Apple, except they are in the business of making you buy a new computer again, and again - and they do that by making the OS better each time.

I don't feel locked-in by OS X, but I do feel locked-in by the quality. I want Windows 7 to be great as does everybody, but I'm reluctant to think that that'll be the case. :/

Reply Score: 6

Definitely bookmarking this article
by WorknMan on Tue 26th Aug 2008 18:18 UTC
WorknMan
Member since:
2005-11-13

I've been running Vista now for about 2 weeks and the biggest problem I've had with it was the constantly changing folder views. Of course, one of the first things a power user does on a new Windows install is to replace Explorer with something that's actually usable. But the folder views issue still pops up in open/save dialogs. I'm gonna try this remedy ;)

Reply Score: 2

Comment by siki_miki
by siki_miki on Tue 26th Aug 2008 18:46 UTC
siki_miki
Member since:
2006-01-17

One of the flops with wista was a push for DX10.
Yes, it's working only on 1 year old hardware, and no it doesn't work on anything but Vista. MS hopes were that gamers would soon switch, and game companies would quickly move to the v10. It didn't happen. DX9 and OpenGL 2.x are still major way to go. And even the popular Xbox 360 is DX9, meaning that developers will focus on the older version of API for a long time. While DX9 works at least a bit better on XP, gamers won't switch either.

Other flop was another .NET push, especially WPF which noone uses. It's not so easy to replace win32, regardless of it's crappyness. See Apple for how to introduce new core API's.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by siki_miki
by miscz on Tue 26th Aug 2008 19:13 UTC in reply to "Comment by siki_miki"
miscz Member since:
2005-07-17

The main issue with DX10 is the performance. Even if you have DX10 capable card, and even if it was the best one few months ago - it won't be able to run DX10 games well. It's usually better to choose DX9 rendering and crank every setting up to high or ultra than watch your computer struggle with DX10 on medium settings.

I have recently bought Radeon HD4870 which at the time was 2nd or 3rd best GPU available and still can't run Crysis well in DX10. And this game was released 8 or 9 months ago - you can only imagine what was it like back then.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by siki_miki
by tomcat on Wed 27th Aug 2008 01:34 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by siki_miki"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

The main issue with DX10 is the performance. Even if you have DX10 capable card, and even if it was the best one few months ago - it won't be able to run DX10 games well. It's usually better to choose DX9 rendering and crank every setting up to high or ultra than watch your computer struggle with DX10 on medium settings.


What are you using to measure them? D3D9 and D3D10 rendering are completely different. Apps need to be completely rewritten to use D3D10, so I'm just curious how you reached this conclusion.

I have recently bought Radeon HD4870 which at the time was 2nd or 3rd best GPU available and still can't run Crysis well in DX10. And this game was released 8 or 9 months ago - you can only imagine what was it like back then.


Crysis's problems have more to do with the fact that they're completely saturating the GPU -- even high end GPUs -- rather than throttling content. I think they made some basic mistakes in coming up with their pedal-to-the-metal approach to the hardware. They don't scale down to lower-capability GPUs at all. Big mistake. You can try to blame that on D3D10, but the same would have been true of D3D9, if they had approached the architecture in the same way.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by siki_miki
by miscz on Wed 27th Aug 2008 13:11 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by siki_miki"
miscz Member since:
2005-07-17

What are you using to measure them? D3D9 and D3D10 rendering are completely different. Apps need to be completely rewritten to use D3D10, so I'm just curious how you reached this conclusion.

No, every single DX10 game offers DX9 renderer too. It'd be madness not to do so. Most top of the line GPUs can run Crysis in DX9 with high settings without trouble. It's not a problem of scaling, because the game runs like crap even on modern computers.

Usually setting graphic details to medium level makes game look worse than in DX9 and it's loosing DX10 specific features ("god rays", smoke that doesn't look like a 2D sprite), and it's still running SLOW. Devil May Cry 4 is the only exception I've seen so far but it doesn't seem to be using DX10 features at all.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by siki_miki
by Nex6 on Tue 26th Aug 2008 19:38 UTC in reply to "Comment by siki_miki"
Nex6 Member since:
2005-07-06

I disagree, that dotNET is a flop, drastically new stuff, like dotNET take time to make there way into enterpise shops. just take alook at the moster.com job listing for dotNET.

and, apple, its easyer for them becuase of there smaller market share. and apple does not really care when the break something. microsft dos.

-Nex6

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by siki_miki
by tomcat on Wed 27th Aug 2008 01:13 UTC in reply to "Comment by siki_miki"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

One of the flops with wista was a push for DX10.


You're thinking a bit too short-term. The thing that really distinguishes D3D10 from D3D9 is resource management. D3D9 has a lot of fixed-functionality; whereas, D3D10 is kind of a generalized mechanism for assembling vector and pixel pipelines. D3D10 doesn't care what your vertex format is. It doesn't care how you store your textures. Most of the heavy-lifting is done by writing vertex and pixel shaders. This is a marked departure from D3D9, and I would argue that the complexity can be a little daunting for developers who were familiar with the D3D7 to D3D9 way of doing things; where the D3D runtime tried to anticipate everything that you possibly wanted to do, but couldn't handle scenarios beyond those fundamental limits. More and more functionality is moving up to the GPU. Indeed GPUs are becoming an array of low-end processors running its own operating system. Consequently, I have to believe that the fundamental architecture of D3D10 and D3D11 are correct and headed in the right direction, in terms of flexibility and capability. You are right that developers will cling to what they know and to market realities. But that will change over time. It has to, if games are to take advantage of the kind of capabilities offered in the next generation of GPUs. So, really, it's kind of too early to call D3D10 a "flop".

Other flop was another .NET push, especially WPF which noone uses. It's not so easy to replace win32, regardless of it's crappyness. See Apple for how to introduce new core API's.


Disagree. The developer market isn't as uniform as you think. There are many different silos. For example, corporate developers primarily use managed code (C#, Java, VB.NET, etc). If you doubt this, I'd encourage you to go up to one of the job websites (monster.com, dice.com, etc) or pick up a newspaper, and look at the job listings for Java and .NET. They DWARF all other categories. ISVs primarily tend to use native code (C/C++, etc) but, then again, there are developers such as Autodesk that use a hybrid approach. They use WPF for their UI chrome, while the rest of their 3D engine is written in C++. Then, there are the Web developers. There are a ton of different technologies in this space (Python, JSP, ASP.NET, etc), but .NET is widely used.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by siki_miki
by siki_miki on Wed 27th Aug 2008 13:19 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by siki_miki"
siki_miki Member since:
2006-01-17

Sure, I don't dislike DirectX10 per se, but what Microsoft intended to achieve. They stopped improvement work on DX9 and shifted to DX10, as they thought that everyone would quickly upgrade to Vista and buy a DX10-class new graphic card, and developers would embrace it as a primary API. Didn't work out though, so the plan was a flop.

IMO, Better transition would be that they extended DX9 to use subset of the new hardware (in a way that would work on both XP and Vista, and games would optionally use those new features), and introduced DX10 either later or at the same time. As far as I saw, lots of API improvements in DX10 seem to be appendable to old version. Agreed, memory and resource management stuff is probably hard to port to XP without rewriting half of the OS (and it doesn't fit with the rest od DX9).

Since games today run a DX9 engine sometimes tweaked to be "native" DX10 (but not built around it to benefit enough), they end up being slower in DX10 mode (I don't believe it's just a driver issue). That's definitely a failure for Microsoft (although it could be hardware issue as well).

Agreed that DX10 is a great technology, and it's a step in right direction. However I don't expect a PC game built exclusively around it so soon.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by siki_miki
by lemur2 on Wed 27th Aug 2008 13:47 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by siki_miki"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Sure, I don't dislike DirectX10 per se, but what Microsoft intended to achieve. They stopped improvement work on DX9 and shifted to DX10, as they thought that everyone would quickly upgrade to Vista and buy a DX10-class new graphic card, and developers would embrace it as a primary API. Didn't work out though, so the plan was a flop.


They did a few more things than that.

They made DX10 in such a way that it was not backwards compatible (ie a DX10 game cannot run on DX9), and it was not made available for XP. The clear intent was that new games written to DX10 would become Vista-only, hence forcing any gamers wanting to play the latest game to have to upgrade to Vista.

Forced upgrade is NOT an OS written in the best interests of the users.

At the same time, Microsoft wrote their video driver stack on Vista in such a way as to cripple the performance of OpenGL.

Attempting to kill a competing graphics API and hence forcing all graphics applications into a Windows-only API (ie directX) is also NOT an OS written in the best interests of the users, and it is decidedly anti-trust.

There are a number of application areas that depend on OpenGL ... none of the vendors of such applications could have been be very happy with Microsoft.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vista

There are some issues for software developers using some of the graphics APIs in Vista. Games or programs which are built solely on the Windows Vista-exclusive version of DirectX, version 10, cannot work on prior versions of Windows, as DirectX 10 is not available for previous Windows versions. Also, games which require the features of D3D9Ex, the updated implementation of DirectX 9 in Windows Vista are also incompatible with previous Windows versions.[33] According to a Microsoft blog, there are three choices for OpenGL implementation on Vista. An application can use the default implementation, which translates OpenGL calls into the Direct3D API and is frozen at OpenGL version 1.4,


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vista#Reception

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Windows_Vista

Edited 2008-08-27 13:57 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Skip to page 4
by rockwell on Tue 26th Aug 2008 19:16 UTC
rockwell
Member since:
2005-09-13

For shit's sake ... the article wastes the first four pages bitching about Vista's launch/issues/FUD/etc.

Just skip all that crap, and give us the info, dimwit.

Reply Score: 4

Wat?
by MechaShiva on Tue 26th Aug 2008 19:16 UTC
MechaShiva
Member since:
2005-07-06

The above information is provided simply to demonstrate that Windows XP was subject to the exact same types of criticisms and concerns as Windows Vista, many of them totally baseless or sensationalist as we now know.


I thought most IT professionals were in agreement that prior to SP2 of Windows XP, it was a steaming heap. With all the security and stability issues it had prior to SP2, it's kind of amazing to me that people have gotten as attached to it as they have.

I can't help but find it funny that he is comparing Vista's 'unfair' reception to XP's 'unfair' reception. How about saying that both sucked out of the gate, but the good news for Vista is that SP2 is probably right around the corner and if history is any indicator...

Reply Score: 7

Good article
by ronaldst on Tue 26th Aug 2008 19:30 UTC
ronaldst
Member since:
2005-06-29

I like how it shows how "mob mentality" doesn't reflect the actual reality.

Reply Score: 3

My Issues
by MikeekiM on Tue 26th Aug 2008 20:29 UTC
MikeekiM
Member since:
2005-11-16

- I bought the business edition so that I wouldn't have installed:
Microsoft Media Player, Movie Maker, and Photo Gallery, and yet, there they are, un-installable!

( Microsoft, trying to INFLATE your software Usage stats? )

- I turned OFF indexing, yet Vista, behind my back, indexed the drive.
( What's the common meaning of OFF? Don't they know. )

- It runs Hotter then XP by up to 10 degrees.
- It runs like crap under VMWare unless it's got 1.6 Gig of memory.

But, it is prettier.
And, random loading of DLL's should help it's anti-virus protection.

Reply Score: 0

RE: My Issues
by modmans2ndcoming on Tue 26th Aug 2008 21:42 UTC in reply to "My Issues"
modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

why did you turn off indexing?

People turn off crap in an OS that is designed to have it running and then complain about it not working right.

Indexing, once completed the first time does not kill your computer resources.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: My Issues
by dagw on Wed 27th Aug 2008 12:31 UTC in reply to "RE: My Issues"
dagw Member since:
2005-07-06

why did you turn off indexing?

What difference does it make why he turned it off? If the OS offers the option to turn a feature off it should respect that and not turn the feature back on behind the users back.

He may have had a perfectly good reason or the reason might have been really bad, but that shouldn't matter. If you turn something off it should stay off and not try to second guess you.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: My Issues
by modmans2ndcoming on Wed 27th Aug 2008 18:24 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: My Issues"
modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

Considering vista is not magic. I bet he turned off the service for his current session but then forgot to disable it so when he started his computer back up the indexer was running.

all issues like that are PEBKAC. Beyond that, WTF is he doing turning off a valuable service that allows you to find things faster right from the start menu?

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: My Issues
by dagw on Wed 27th Aug 2008 20:14 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: My Issues"
dagw Member since:
2005-07-06

all issues like that are PEBKAC.

That's one way to look at it. Another way to look at it is that it's bad interface design. As soon as the user finds a program behaving in a way he didn't expect, you really should look and see if the UI designer couldn't have done a better job. Most PEBKAC issues are also UI design issues.

Beyond that, WTF is he doing turning off a valuable service that allows you to find things faster right from the start menu?

Again what difference does it make? Just because you find it valuable doesn't mean everybody will.

If it makes you feel better assume he's a masochistic moron who doesn't know what's best for him. The very fact that they make it possible to turn it off means that the user should be able to actually turn it off. If there really was no possible reason for wanting turning it off why make it possible to turn off? Your valuable service could be my annoying feature.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: 'YOUR' Issues
by mikefarinha on Wed 27th Aug 2008 20:40 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: My Issues"
mikefarinha Member since:
2008-06-25

What difference does it make why he turned it off? If the OS offers the option to turn a feature off it should respect that and not turn the feature back on behind the users back.


Calm down, he was simply trying to figure out his logic... plus your argument is very lame, let me fix it for you.

What difference does it make why he removed his windshield wipers? If the auto-manufacture offers the option to remove windshield wipers they should respect that and not reinstall the windshield wipers behind the users back.


Sounds silly doesn't it?

Most PEBKAC issues are also UI design issues.


OK, you just lost your geek-card.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: My Issues
by rockwell on Wed 27th Aug 2008 21:13 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: My Issues"
rockwell Member since:
2005-09-13

//Again what difference does it make? Just because you find it valuable doesn't mean everybody will. //

How in the holy hell could anyone find indexing NOT valuable? That's an asshat statement.

"Just because my car has air conditioning, why the heck should I use it when it's 110 outside? It makes me lose 2 MPG. I should be able to tear out the compressor so that I never have to turn it on."

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: My Issues
by WereCatf on Thu 28th Aug 2008 00:51 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: My Issues"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

How in the holy hell could anyone find indexing NOT valuable? That's an asshat statement.

I have absolutely no use for indexing. Mandriva does come with Beagle installed and enabled by default but since I have no use for it I just disable it. Why don't I have any use for indexing? Well, because I already know where I have my files, there's no point in searching for them.

Claiming indexing is valuable to everyone is, to quote you, "an asshat statement".

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: My Issues
by 6c1452 on Thu 28th Aug 2008 01:39 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: My Issues"
6c1452 Member since:
2007-08-29

Seconding what WereCatf said. I know where my files are and have no need to futz around with a dysfunctional widget or run extra services.

"What difference does it make why he removed his windshield wipers? If the auto-manufacture offers the option to remove windshield wipers they should respect that and not reinstall the windshield wipers behind the users back.

Sounds silly doesn't it?
"

Um, not really. If somebody came to my house in the middle of the night and installed windshield wipers on my car it would creep the hell out of me.

Edited 2008-08-28 01:39 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: My Issues
by dagw on Thu 28th Aug 2008 10:16 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: My Issues"
dagw Member since:
2005-07-06

How in the holy hell could anyone find indexing NOT valuable?

What? Everybody must work like you work and like what you like? Why is it so hard to accept that someone doesn't want indexing? Why does it piss you off so much that someone doesn't love your favorite feature?

"Just because my car has air conditioning, why the heck should I use it when it's 110 outside? It makes me lose 2 MPG. I should be able to tear out the compressor so that I never have to turn it on."


First of all we're not talking about ripping out the compressor. We're talking about that when I've set the air conditioner to "off" it should be off and not running in the background.

And why shouldn't I, as the owner of the car, get to decide when to use and not use the air conditioner? What if where I live it's never 110, it's hardly ever above 70. In fact it's far more likely to be 10 than 110. Obviously my air conditioning needs differ from yours, and if I bought a car where the air conditioner could never be completely turned off I'd be very annoyed indeed.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: My Issues
by rockwell on Thu 28th Aug 2008 21:03 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: My Issues"
rockwell Member since:
2005-09-13

//Why does it piss you off so much that someone doesn't love your favorite feature? //

Boy, you freetards sure get excited over nothing.

1.) Indexing, once completed, has negligible impact on daily computing. Therefore, it's plain retarded to "shut it down because I don't like it."

2.) Never said it was my favorite feature. Where did you learn to read? Oh yah, man pages.

3.) Who's pissed off? You clearly have the psycho-schematic irrational attachment to your OS of choice. But, most lusers do, so it's not surprising. Me, I just get shit done (with Indexing enabled) as do bajillions of other users.

Edited 2008-08-28 21:05 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: My Issues
by modmans2ndcoming on Fri 29th Aug 2008 17:18 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: My Issues"
modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

Considering the guy is not an admin and the admin tools are set up for admins, I don't think it is bad design.

Edited 2008-08-29 17:21 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: My Issues
by Aeko on Wed 27th Aug 2008 08:10 UTC in reply to "My Issues"
Aeko Member since:
2007-10-20

"
- It runs Hotter then XP by up to 10 degrees.
"

Yesterday I read again about NVidia faulty chips and DELL laptops. I have a Vostro 1510, with this supposed faulty chip "that doesn't like hot temperatures". Few weeks ago I applied de DELL's bios patch, that, in other words, keeps lower the GPU temperature by using more often the fan (so, lowering the battery life if unplugged).

With XP, I have dual booting, I also noticed that doing the same tasks but GPU was cooler, even turning off the Aero theme.

So, you can imagine I've decided.

Reply Score: 0

DRM?
by reflect on Tue 26th Aug 2008 20:29 UTC
reflect
Member since:
2007-07-10

There are no background processes or programs which "spy" on you and report back personal or private details to Microsoft without your explicit permission.

It was a long time since I used Windows Media Player, but when I did, it reported back what I was watching or listening to without asking. I consider that private information. That alone makes me wonder what other things are reporting back without my knowledge. Has all that changed now?

Also, I'd like a more indepth report on how DRM actually works for the plain consumer - even if that consumer decides to take a copy of a DVD and place it on a harddrive, or any other case. In which instances will it affect quality of playback, or is that also just a rumour and FUD?

Reply Score: 2

RE: DRM?
by OddFox on Tue 26th Aug 2008 22:30 UTC in reply to "DRM?"
OddFox Member since:
2005-10-05

Those settings for Windows Media Player are configurable upon installation of WMP or first-run and they are used only to try to fill in any missing pieces (I.E. -- Tags/album art/etc) you don't already have. This is a common feature of many modern media players and even the venerable WinAMP asks during installation and applications like Amarok, IIRC, default to jumping online thru various resources in order to find more information about your media library.

As for the DRM, the Wikipedia article on it can explain it far better than myself, here's a snippet: "These restrictions only apply to DRM-restricted content, such as HD DVD or Blu-ray that are encrypted with AACS, and also apply in Windows XP using supported playback applications.[2] [3] Users' standard unprotected content will not be faced with these restrictions. Some output types such as S/PDIF (Sony/Philips Digital Interchange Format) typically don’t have a suitable DRM scheme available, so these need to be reliably turned off if the content so specifies." and here's the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_Media_Path

The DRM in Vista is merely the subsystems put into place by Microsoft to allow its OS to be useful to people who may end up wanting to play DRM-controlled content on their systems. Linux will have to implement it and XP systems honor these DRM policies, software has to support them to playback controlled content. The solution to the DRM problem is simple: Don't purchase any DRM-controlled content.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: DRM?
by reflect on Tue 26th Aug 2008 23:59 UTC in reply to "RE: DRM?"
reflect Member since:
2007-07-10

Thank you for the DRM hint..

However, the bits of information like tags or etc you stated, isn't the same as what I'm talking about - WMP used to "call home" and report the title of what you were viewing or listening to.

http://www.davidarussell.co.uk/2005/10/16/wmp-phone-home/

Microsoft even has a webpage about it, since a reporter found out and confronted them about it where they admit to storing such information, along with IP adresses and so on - nothing nefarious, just for research.

The reporter, and Microsofts reponse, isn't in the above url.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: DRM?
by OddFox on Wed 27th Aug 2008 00:06 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: DRM?"
OddFox Member since:
2005-10-05

Ah, well in that case you are absolutely correct about the tracking of usage habits as well as the titles of what you were playing. I usually disable that functionality myself in all of my media players that ask me if I want to do that. Back when I was a bit more paranoid about things I used to just add "problem apps" to my firewall blacklist. ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: DRM?
by reflect on Wed 27th Aug 2008 00:16 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: DRM?"
reflect Member since:
2007-07-10

I wasn't aware that WMP asked you for permission.. as I was dumbfounded when I found out about it?

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: DRM?
by OddFox on Wed 27th Aug 2008 00:22 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: DRM?"
OddFox Member since:
2005-10-05

The questions it asks you specifically upon install relate to "Send unique Player ID to content providers" as well as "I want to help make Microsoft software and services better by sending Player usage data to Microsoft". Also, "Display media information from the Internet", "Update music files by retrieving media info from the Internet", and "Download usage rights automatically when I play or sync a file". Ensuring your privacy during an install of WMP generally includes unchecking every checkbox you are offered during install, unless you know you specifically want that.

I can't remember how far back it's been this way, but I think since WMP 9 or 10.

Reply Score: 1

Here's what I don't get
by Phloptical on Wed 27th Aug 2008 00:00 UTC
Phloptical
Member since:
2006-10-10

Ok, so we have Vista FUD lurking around every corner of the net. I get it. I don't need the first 4 pages of an article telling me not to believe the hype. I'll decide what's FUD and what's not, thank you very much.

But when I read things like (and I'm paraphrasing) 'even with all of Vista's eye candy and features enabled, it's just as fast as Windows XP'. Umm....shouldn't it be faster? If, in fact, Superfetch is that good, and cramming as much as possible into every last portion of RAM, totally 2nd guessing my every move....and everything is indexed and cached to death. And Aero is completely unloading across the CPU and GPU......how in the world is it 'just as fast as XP'? I'm running the OS on new hardware (dual core, DX10, latest drivers) and all I can expect is the same (or almost the same) performance as a nearly decade-old OS, and I dropped upwards of $300 to buy it? No thanks.

Even though there is a lot of sensationalized FUD out there regarding Vista, I believe a good portion of it is based in some sort of reality. There's way too many users out there, that are using it daily, that still complain about it. Even after 1 1/2 years.

Oh, and UAC being a necessary aggravation? Yeah, right. Linux and MAC should have been the model. In those two systems I can, at least, delete a shortcut off my desktop without some prompt in my face asking me for permission or verification.

Reply Score: 4

FUD what?!?
by AnythingButVista on Wed 27th Aug 2008 01:21 UTC
AnythingButVista
Member since:
2008-08-27

Not only I agree that the article wastes way too much time on "debunking" the so called Vista FUD. I like how the term FUD has become so popular and used so loosely on the web these days. So now whenever someone posts something you don't like to hear, you just call it FUD.

I've been suffering with Windows Vista since mid March 2008. More than a year and a service pack later, I hate Vista just as much as when it first came out. For the Mojave project Microsoft took unsuspecting newbies, because they knew they can't fool us real power users. We know how bloated Vista is compared to XP. We are the ones who get a new Vista computer and reformat to get a clean install using the OEM key that came with the computer, just to be penalized by having to activate over the phone and having the installation invalidated for no valid reason at any point - something Microsoft has posted a solution for, which involves another painful phone-based re-activatition experience. And how about when you have a multi-boot setup using a third-party boot manager and Vista randomly decides to knock out your boot manager and instate itself as the one and only OS you can and should boot. Hint, XP and Linux don't have problems with using a 3rd party boot manager. Vista shouldn't either but it does.

DRM? I've had DRM issues when trying to play MP3 files (which are supposedly unprotected) via a stereo Bluetooth headset. I've also had regular DVD's (not HD, not BluRay) stopped in the middle of playback and display an error that "Analog copy protection could not be enabled". So, the crap about DRM-protection being only enforced on "premium" content is a blatant lie. None of these issues exist (or ever existed) in Windows XP.

I'm looking forward to buying my next computer, a Mac or worst case scenario, a Linux-only PC until Microsoft can get their act together a release an OS that doesn't disrespect the power user.

Yes, Vista will work fine for anyone doing the basics (web browsing, email, word processing), but so does Linux, which is free and won't treat its customers as "guilty until proven innocent" with draconian activation and validation schemes, while the real pirates keep enjoying their cracked copies of the OS.

Reply Score: 1

RE: FUD what?!?
by hollovoid on Wed 27th Aug 2008 04:45 UTC in reply to "FUD what?!?"
hollovoid Member since:
2005-09-21

DRM Issues with unprotected mp3's? I call BS. Explain how that happened a little, and maybe half the people here wont write that block of nonsense out by looking at your name alone. The only time you should have DRM issues is with DRM content. Period. Ive had many issues using my bluetooth headset that were in no way related to a rougue DRM system blocking all of my unprotected mp3's.

And... the bootmanager being knocked out randomly, ive had that happen... but coincidentally, I also happenend to have a Grub update around the same time... wierd, must have been windows.

Edited 2008-08-27 04:47 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: FUD what?!?
by lemur2 on Wed 27th Aug 2008 06:47 UTC in reply to "RE: FUD what?!?"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

DRM Issues with unprotected mp3's? I call BS. Explain how that happened a little, and maybe half the people here wont write that block of nonsense out by looking at your name alone. The only time you should have DRM issues is with DRM content. Period. Ive had many issues using my bluetooth headset that were in no way related to a rougue DRM system blocking all of my unprotected mp3's.


AFAIK, anything "ripped" from an ordinary CD or DVD can only be played on the Vista machine that ripped it or a very limited number of other machines, which must only be Windows machines ... this check is DRM enforced and requires obtaining a license key from Microsoft servers, so they track what you do.

In other words, although you can play an unprotected mp3, you can't create one AFAIK.

If you want to get your own legally purchased music off a CD and into mp3 format to play on your own portable generic mp3player (which is perfectly legal in my country) don't do it using Vista.

Caveat: This is only second-hand knowledge, gained by investigating problems someone else was having playing a "ripped" file on their machine.

Edited 2008-08-27 06:50 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: FUD what?!?
by hollovoid on Wed 27th Aug 2008 10:10 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: FUD what?!?"
hollovoid Member since:
2005-09-21

There is a user preference to change how you rip audio cd's in windows media player, by default it is in windows media, but it can be changed.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: FUD what?!?
by lemur2 on Wed 27th Aug 2008 10:45 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: FUD what?!?"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

There is a user preference to change how you rip audio cd's in windows media player, by default it is in windows media, but it can be changed.


OK, it looks like that may be fair enough.

http://www.tech-recipes.com/rx/2602/vista_how_to_rip_music_from_cd_...

It looks like the default in Vista may be to always rip to DRM-protected WMA files, but you are given the option to change to mp3 files.

However, what the link does not say is if this works for all CDs, or only for CDs that have no form of nominal "copy protection" (which BTW is not part of the CD standard).

Nevertheless, the person in my anecdote who was having trouble with ripped files certainly did not know about this option to change Vista WMP settings, and they certainly ran into the unwelcome Vista-imposed restrictions that should not have applied (in this country) to what they were trying to do.

Reply Score: 2

RE: FUD what?!?
by google_ninja on Wed 27th Aug 2008 05:23 UTC in reply to "FUD what?!?"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

Not only I agree that the article wastes way too much time on "debunking" the so called Vista FUD. I like how the term FUD has become so popular and used so loosely on the web these days. So now whenever someone posts something you don't like to hear, you just call it FUD.


So basically FUD is anything that denies the perfection of Linux? There is plenty of Vista FUD being spread out there.

http://badvista.fsf.org/
That is a site specifically created to cause Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt about Vista. It is written in a dishonest way to push an agenda.

We are the ones who get a new Vista computer and reformat to get a clean install using the OEM key that came with the computer, just to be penalized by having to activate over the phone and having the installation invalidated for no valid reason at any point - something Microsoft has posted a solution for, which involves another painful phone-based re-activatition experience.


I own three laptops that shipped with OEM vista, all came pre activated. I have never had to do any activation of vista whatsoever, and I have been using it since the launch.

And how about when you have a multi-boot setup using a third-party boot manager and Vista randomly decides to knock out your boot manager and instate itself as the one and only OS you can and should boot. Hint, XP and Linux don't have problems with using a 3rd party boot manager. Vista shouldn't either but it does.


One of my machines dual boots Vista and Ubuntu, the other Triple boots Vista, Ubuntu, and OSX. Not only that, but the triple boot machine actually uses the windows bootloader, not grub, just due to the order I did my installs. Vista not only works fine with 3rd party bootloaders, but it is trivial to configure its own bootloader to load 3rd party operating systems.

DRM? I've had DRM issues when trying to play MP3 files (which are supposedly unprotected) via a stereo Bluetooth headset. I've also had regular DVD's (not HD, not BluRay) stopped in the middle of playback and display an error that "Analog copy protection could not be enabled". So, the crap about DRM-protection being only enforced on "premium" content is a blatant lie. None of these issues exist (or ever existed) in Windows XP.


I listen to mp3s all day, every day, and have for the last two years on vista without a single issue. I have probably watched close to a hundred DVDs (yeah, I'm a film buff) at this point, again without issue. Not only that, but DVD playback is smooth as silk no matter what is going on. DVD playback on XP when anything else was going on would result in choppiness.

Yes, Vista will work fine for anyone doing the basics (web browsing, email, word processing), but so does Linux, which is free and won't treat its customers as "guilty until proven innocent" with draconian activation and validation schemes, while the real pirates keep enjoying their cracked copies of the OS.


Linux is many things, but if you think windows is unfriendly to users, just wait for your linux machine.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: FUD what?!?
by hollovoid on Wed 27th Aug 2008 05:52 UTC in reply to "RE: FUD what?!?"
hollovoid Member since:
2005-09-21

http://badvista.fsf.org/

That is a site specifically created to cause Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt about Vista. It is written in a dishonest way to push an agenda.


Oh my lord that is the biggest line of s#$t I have ever read, thanks for the link, I will be using it for a good laugh now and again.

amazing!

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: FUD what?!?
by dagw on Wed 27th Aug 2008 12:39 UTC in reply to "RE: FUD what?!?"
dagw Member since:
2005-07-06

I listen to mp3s all day, every day, and have for the last two years on vista without a single issue.

Where you using a Bluetooth stereo headset? If not what makes you think that your experience is relevant to the other persons problem?

I have probably watched close to a hundred DVDs (yeah, I'm a film buff) at this point, again without issue. Not only that, but DVD playback is smooth as silk no matter what is going on. DVD playback on XP when anything else was going on would result in choppiness.

Why do people always respond to other peoples problems with "I've never had that problem" as if that might prove something? I doubt anyone thought that no one has ever been able to play DVDs on Vista. The very fact that there exists common setups which can cause these issues is a real problem, despite the fact that there exists other configurations where these particular issues don't exist.

Let's face it Vista has issues, the fact that you cannot reproduce them is more or less irrelevant.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: FUD what?!?
by google_ninja on Wed 27th Aug 2008 14:09 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: FUD what?!?"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

Where you using a Bluetooth stereo headset? If not what makes you think that your experience is relevant to the other persons problem?


That was kind of the point. If it were a DRM issue with un protected mp3s, it wouldn't matter what you were listening to them on.

Why do people always respond to other peoples problems with "I've never had that problem" as if that might prove something? I doubt anyone thought that no one has ever been able to play DVDs on Vista. The very fact that there exists common setups which can cause these issues is a real problem, despite the fact that there exists other configurations where these particular issues don't exist.


There is a difference between common problems, and edge cases. I have yet to even hear of any problems with anything remotely approaching modern hardware and vista in my real world circle of friends, family, and peers.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: FUD what?!?
by l3v1 on Wed 27th Aug 2008 13:11 UTC in reply to "RE: FUD what?!?"
l3v1 Member since:
2005-07-06

I own three laptops that shipped with OEM vista, all came pre activated. I have never had to do any activation of vista whatsoever, and I have been using it since the launch.


So, your point is ? I mean you say that if you have a preactivated Vista, then you don't have to activate it. Mmmkay.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: FUD what?!?
by l3v1 on Wed 27th Aug 2008 13:13 UTC in reply to "RE: FUD what?!?"
l3v1 Member since:
2005-07-06

I have probably watched close to a hundred DVDs (yeah, I'm a film buff) at this point, again without issue.


Uhmm, so what ? You didn't have issues, others [myself included] had. What's your point ?

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: FUD what?!?
by zlynx on Wed 27th Aug 2008 13:54 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: FUD what?!?"
zlynx Member since:
2005-07-20

What was your point in complaining about Vista? You surely don't expect anyone here to fix your problem.

So you post in order to vent and get your opinion across to others and perhaps convince them to punish MS by not using Vista. Just guessing on that last one.

Other people post supporting Vista. Perhaps because they feel its being unfairly presented, so they want to provide some balance in the opinions.

For example, I've been running Vista Ultimate 64-bit since Beta 2 and I quite like it.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: FUD what?!?
by WereCatf on Wed 27th Aug 2008 14:08 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: FUD what?!?"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Other people post supporting Vista. Perhaps because they feel its being unfairly presented, so they want to provide some balance in the opinions.

I personally don't use Vista nor do I ever have even the slightest plan to start using it. I have my own reasons for that. I still see continuous bashing of Vista by various kinds of fanatics as not only moronic, but also inherently annoying. It works well for lots of people, and as long the user likes Vista then there's no point in trying to push to him the idea that Vista is somehow too horrible to use..

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: FUD what?!?
by lemur2 on Wed 27th Aug 2008 14:23 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: FUD what?!?"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Other people post supporting Vista. Perhaps because they feel its being unfairly presented, so they want to provide some balance in the opinions.

I personally don't use Vista nor do I ever have even the slightest plan to start using it. I have my own reasons for that. I still see continuous bashing of Vista by various kinds of fanatics as not only moronic, but also inherently annoying. It works well for lots of people, and as long the user likes Vista then there's no point in trying to push to him the idea that Vista is somehow too horrible to use..


The main problem that I have with Vista is that people are not offered a choice.

The PC architecture was intentionally designed to support a choice in the Operating System. It was designed this way by IBM, it was not designed by Microsoft.

Through backdoor deals Microsoft eventually gained control of the PC OEM manufacturer channels. Today, even though there are alternative Operating Systems for PCs that perform significantly better and are infinitely cheaper, the general public is unaware of them and more importantly is not offered them as a purchase choice.

Meanwhile, Vista has all sorts of restrictions and not-in-the-purchasers-interest "features", and the everyday purchaser of a PC machine is still required to actually pay for this dross. Actually pay just to use it ... they get no other rights to their copy at all. The whole system seems to be purposely designed so that having used it for a short time one has no ability to migrate to any other system.

Rip-off and swindles such as selling Vista to an ill-informed public really gets my goat. I dislike the practice of swindling the public intensely, it is exploitation, the very worst face of rampant capitalism.

Spreading the word about it in any forum is a public service, even if it is terribly boring and repetitious for those of us who already know all about it.

Edited 2008-08-27 14:35 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Comment by porcel
by porcel on Wed 27th Aug 2008 09:54 UTC
porcel
Member since:
2006-01-28

So an operating system that was close to seven years in the making needs four pages of tweaks, including pretty dangerous editing of the registry for it to run acceptably and this means that all problems with Windows have been resolved.

By comparison, how can people even post about Linux being "ready for the desktop" when this sort of thing is needed and you still have a bloated and slow system when comparing the performance on the same hardware?

If you like windows, stay with XP. You would be in good company:

"We figured that we'd find more than a few systems within our 3,000-plus-strong membership that had been "de-Vista-fied" -- either by the manufacturer or directly by the end customer. What we didn't expect was for nearly 35 percent of all current-model PCs (that is those that normally ship with Vista installed) in the repository to be running a different OS.

In other words, more than a third of customers chose to dump Vista from their new PCs -- typically in favor of XP, but sometimes also one of the Server variants."


Source: http://weblog.infoworld.com/sentinel/archives/2008/08/bursting_the_...

Reply Score: 2

zaine_ridling
Member since:
2007-05-13

Great article, but I'll pass on all the intricate registry tweaking. I tweak my Linux distro once -- or more accurately, KDE/Gnome/Xfce -- and I'm done. It just works from then on. Besides, pointing out user-hostile design flaws and things that MS can't be bothered to fix themselves in an update or Service Pack clearly demonstrates why you should not be using their OS.

Reply Score: 1

Simple
by stereotype on Sat 30th Aug 2008 12:06 UTC
stereotype
Member since:
2007-04-06

For me the whole Vista thing boils down to two things.

1. Since the dawn of DOS/Windows, Microsoft has had a pretty though time making Windows a somewhat reliable and technically respectable OS. That only happened with Windows 2000 - technically speaking, everything else before it was ultimately crap, even back in the day. After 2000, with a solid base, Microsoft had all the time in the world to make things prettier and to load the system with whatever user-friendly crap it could think off. XP only took one year to make, hence it came with lesser crap. Vista took a long time to come out, hence it came loaded with extra bloat and crap. And that's the way its gonna be...

2. Computing was lot more "naive" during the pre-2000 years. Computers were more of a geek thing and the internet was not so mainstream, so no one really cared much. These days Microsoft needs to juggle with the interests of a lot of powerful people out there, not to mention lawmakers, lobbyists and other types of pressure from all over the world that weren't there say 15 years ago... This also leads to the conclusion that it ain't about the power user anymore. It's about the crowd. And there's 6 billion of them out there. So no, it ain't about geeks no more... It's about youtube and your gramma.

Just my $0.02...

PS: By the way, from day one, I always felt XP was so damn ugly... Annoyingly toyish or something... Vista is kinda pretty, but a bit daggy at the same time... What's up with the style of those icons... Kinda like Picasso on Red Bull... Whatever happened to classic and elegant... I guess I'm an old fart, what do I know...

Edited 2008-08-30 12:10 UTC

Reply Score: 1