Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 3rd Apr 2007 17:09 UTC, submitted by Jeremy
Windows "Unlike previous Microsoft operating systems, Windows Vista is pretty streamlined right out of the box. It makes terrific use of a system's resources, but it's built as much for pretty looks and increased stability and security as it is for horsepower. It's time now for a course of action that will take the ball and chain off this baby and let it fly. The ink on Windows Vista's EULA is barely dry, so it's very likely that more speed tips, registry hacks, and deep settings will be revealed in the weeks, months, and years to come. For now, here's our set of tweaks that can help you turn up the throttle on your new operating system."
Thread beginning with comment 227005
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: right
by Laurence on Tue 3rd Apr 2007 18:29 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: right"
Laurence
Member since:
2007-03-26

how many computer users do you know that actually CARE what goes on under the hood of their OS? how many peeple do you know would even notice a difference?

geeks, techys. sure, how many of yur friends read www.osnews.com?


The majorety care. Nobody wants a system that can't support their game (because DirectX10 isn't supported on XP) or doesn't offer the latest drivers for their USB devices. People might well care about the (reportedly) improved securety (although I'm yet to but Vistas security through it's paces).

An OS isn't defined by its GUI.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: right
by Zedicus on Tue 3rd Apr 2007 18:40 in reply to "RE[3]: right"
Zedicus Member since:
2005-12-05

the only thing vista has going for it is DX10 and that could have been backported but MS just wanted a reason to force peeple to upgrade. drivers for 'new USB' devices will be made for XP and essentially also 2000 for a long time yet.

to us an OS isnt defined by its GUI. to the majority of PC users the GUI is the OS.

security is as good as xp with all the patches an hotfixes.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: right
by stare on Tue 3rd Apr 2007 18:55 in reply to "RE[4]: right"
stare Member since:
2005-07-06

the only thing vista has going for it is DX10 and that could have been backported

No it couldn't. DX10 relies on Vista's new WDDM driver model, which is fundamentally different than 2000/XP's WDM. It makes no technical or economical sense to backport such a major new OS part to older version.

Edited 2007-04-03 18:57

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[5]: right
by google_ninja on Tue 3rd Apr 2007 19:16 in reply to "RE[4]: right"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

the only thing vista has going for it is DX10 and that could have been backported but MS just wanted a reason to force peeple to upgrade.


There is DX10, theres also a modern ui, a modern (fully integrated) search, intelligent replacement for menus (taking into account fitts law), an extremely upgraded file explorer, a self optimizing/diagnosing/repairing system, the ability to play dvds out of the box, and a networking interface that is actually intuitive and intelligent (to name the things that make me significantly happier with it then any previous version of windows.)
[i]
to us an OS isnt defined by its GUI. to the majority of PC users the GUI is the OS. [/q]

Amen to that, and the bling factor is definitely there. However, the interface will be the most frustrating thing for longtime windows users to adjust to. Win95 copied the mac os like crazy without a real understand of what the principals were behind the design choices. Nowadays, usability isn't exactly cutting edge and microsoft has professional designers, however they have been saddled with the win95 ui legacy. This is the version of windows (and office, office 2k7 is hands down the easiest to use so far) that breaks the old ways of doing things. As such the most complaints I hear from vista users (in RL, not tech forums) are ui related.

security is as good as xp with all the patches an hotfixes.


You are forgetting the integrated spyware and firewall that ships with it, and the much maligned UAC. On previous versions of windows if something were going to write to places it shouldn't, there was no protection. Now windows is on par with mac and linux when it comes to user level security. UAC still needs tweaking (mac is the only one who gets this right, gksudo and uac pop up WAY too often on linux and windows for desktop machines), but I have used linux for years and that not only doesnt bother me, but I would much rather have it there then not have it there. As for the spyware and firewall, I have been using it for a few weeks now so its hard to give an honest critique, however, there is no spyware on my system so far (that i know of, i verify every now and then with third party apps), and registry changes whatnot are flagged for approval every time.

Overall, the security in vista is (if anything) too paranoid, and needs to be toned down in certain ways. The overall methodology is bang-on though, everything is locked down, and privileges are only escalated when its needed. Compared to previous versions, security is like night and day on vista, and brings it up to being an acceptable os to use on the web, which previous versions of windows definitely weren't (from an objective point of view)

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[5]: right
by Laurence on Tue 3rd Apr 2007 20:22 in reply to "RE[4]: right"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

to us an OS isnt defined by its GUI. to the majority of PC users the GUI is the OS.


I think you're underestimating PC Worlds sales abilities somewhat. ;-)

Seriously though, these days most average users do care a little more about what's under the bonnet. They may not understand the details (they take what MS / PC World say as gospel) but they still do care. In fact, over the years I've been working in IT (and baring in mind I don't work in sales), I've had quite a number of people who are far from techies ask me about the latest OS (be it XP, 2000 or even Windows systems prior to that) and what the OS offered that the previous didn't.

In short - i think that, while most consumers may not understand the jargon, they do care that there are fundamental differences beyond the user interface.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: right
by Phloptical on Wed 4th Apr 2007 00:13 in reply to "RE[3]: right"
Phloptical Member since:
2006-10-10

An OS isn't defined by its GUI.

.....but it's judged by it most heavily.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: right
by abdavidson on Wed 4th Apr 2007 02:21 in reply to "RE[3]: right"
abdavidson Member since:
2005-07-06

"An OS isn't defined by its GUI."

Given that the operating system is designed to be used, then its interface, given that it is graphical is very much how it is defined as far as the user of the operating system is concerned.

That the drivers are outside the kernel space now, or the sound architecture has been revamped means nothing to me as a user of the system.

That aside, if people want w2k looks from Vista for a bit more speed thats fair enough; that is their defining concern for the operating system experience.

After some initial GUI-shock given the differences between XP and Vista I really like what Microsoft have done. I'm not saying they are innovative because they're not, but they are done well for the most part. The searches built in work really well and are slick (not just the one on the "Start" menu) the breadcrumb navigation is an excellent improvement on the old pathing.

Reply Parent Score: 2