|
AlexCode wrote: In my opinion, the first thing you have to do is disable UAC.
After that you won't be bothered anymore
But the problem I found was that in doing this some applications simply no longer worked. For instance I use PolarTrainer to download data from my bike computer and with UAC on I get all sorts of warnings but it worked. With UAC off I got no warnings but the application simply doesn't work. No warnings, no errors, no crashes. It's there, it's trying to do stuff, but nothing gets saved, no data is displayed, and it looks sad and confused.
Driver support for me was the killer that forced me back to XP.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: With UAC off I got no warnings but the application simply doesn't work.
this is also one of the great issues of Vista. And one of my peeves about the software industry. Again I heard the complaints before at various times, not necessarily related to Vista. But I hear the cautions "do not use dual core" "do not use Vista" as a developer how can any of us hope to make something "WORK" for our customers if we never use new technologies? One reason I am OS agnostic is because my customer base needs choices. I recognize this, and adapt because my job is not just about what I want, but also what my customers want. If one customer installs Vista, I'll have a 3rd machine or a multi-boot on an existing machine in days. I'm already gearing up for this, one reason I don't mind helping others with Vista because *I* get more experience in Vista to benefit my own customers. Sure there will be issues with my software on Vista, that means *I* have to fix my software. Actually there may be fewer than most because most of those were fixed for the high-security settings of RedHat and XP. I have fixed several software issues with other software programs for Vista, I just haven't tried my own software since Beta2. If I get any of my new contracts I already have plans to get Vista in both 32/64 versions to work on both sets of issues. If I do not, then I leave my customers the same way you have been left. Failure to run the software under Vista is my problem and mine alone. Like it or not, Vista is here, that isn't apologetic, it is just a fact of life. It's here, but if the programmers don't support multi-core, no software will support multi-core, the same with Vista or any other new technology. The main person we fail is ourselves and our customers. I run multiple OS's mainly to support myself and my own personal use, and work use for customer support. When the technology is ready to move both into one, fine no problem, by then there will be a new technology I will have to support.
If I don't support it as a programmer? then who will? Last time I checked programs don't write themselves outside of Hollywood. If we don't write it, how can we complain that someone else didn't?
I am not saying die for your own customers, like I said, I run multiple OS's for my benefit as well as their's. It's not that difficult these days, at least not for programmers.
_________________________
Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau.
Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
|
|
|
|
|
Vista doesn't have the same support or capabilities that XP does. When that happens, then it will be good.
GrizMan
|
|
|
|
|
GrizzlyDoug wrote: Vista doesn't have the same support or capabilities that XP does.
Did you mean the driver support and all those things? Can you quantify your statement on where are you missing the support or lack of capabilities in Vista relative to Windows XP or its predecessor operating systems?
|
|
|
|
|
I would say the drivers do not have the same capabilities that the XP drivers had. I find myself using the compatibility tab in the properties for an executable and setting it to use the XP compatibility when something doesn't work for Vista. It seems to solve the problems in some cases.
GrizMan
|
|
|
|
|
Vista is little different than every other OS. Programmers ranted and raved and hated XP, before that they ranted and raved and hated 2000, before that it was 95... and the cuss words I heard about Windows 3.11 work-groups with 32bit extensions... hoooo! That was a doozy. I find it ironic that people now like XP, because it was the most hated OS on the planet when it came out. There were folks refusing to change from 2000 and windows 98. AND screaming that XP was just "eyecandy" and served no useful purpose. And if you were developing on 2000 it was easier, if you came from 98 it was difficult, and then XP was the most horrid destroyer of software and it was all the OS fault, etc. etc.
Now here we are full circle. The only new complaint offered is the UAC. The one and only new complaint I have heard over XP. That tells me right now Vista isn't as bad as most people make it out to be. It's no better or worse than XP was when it came out and people are already praising XP and forgotten how much it was hated.
_________________________
Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau.
Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
|
|
|
|
|
Huh? Where are the "rants and raves" about XP, or 2k?
Stop being an MS apologist. Vista is VERY, VERY bloated and doesn't offer any great features over XP. I have been using Vista since I first had access to it via MSDN. All I can say is, SLOW AND BLOATED. UAC sucks compared to what has been available under Mac OS X and Linux for many years now. MS UAC feels bolted on and out of place.
The "eye candy" of Vista is just so freaking slow. Can't they hire ONE decent graphics programmer?
At my house I have 2 Intel Macs, 2 Ubuntu boxes, a Win XP box and a Vista box. The Vista box is has the biggest specs of any other system I have. However, the Vista "eye candy" feels sluggish and out of place.
In contrast, my Mac OS X systems (new 10.5 Leopard) just blow Vista away. Eye candy is only where is should be, and where it is at, it is fast and not intrusive.
Heck, my Ubuntu systems running with 4 year old NVidia cards show much better eye candy.
MS screwed the pooch on Vista. That is why if I need an MS system I stay with Win XP. 
|
|
|
|
|
Jim4Prez wrote: Vista is VERY, VERY bloated and doesn't offer any great features over XP.
So was XP when it was released. I am not apologizing for anyone. All I am saying is I haven't seen anything "new" in complaints here. I have lived through decades of operating system changes and I see it EVERY generation. There were threads a mile long complaining about XP and compatibility issues, especially with hardware. Win-98 to XP was very rough. I came from 2000 which meant that I dealt with the issues ahead of time, got it overwith. But that is all forgotten. XP is now an angel of mercy and a beauty to see, everyone has forgotten how much it was hated.
Jim4Prez wrote: The "eye candy" of Vista is just so freaking slow. Can't they hire ONE decent graphics programmer?
So was the eye-candy under XP. Hardware eventually caught up to the XP we know now, but when it was released, again there were mile long complaints about how slow the eye-candy on XP was and telling folks how to go through the settings and turn it off. Hey, if you don't like it, treat it the same way everyone did when XP was the latest MS frankenstein monster, turn it off. Again, the same complaint that was there for XP, the EXACT same complaint for XP. But now XP is the "good" one. 
Jim4Prez wrote: MS screwed the pooch on Vista.
I never said otherwise. They also screwed up XP and 98 and 95 and Win 3.11. Primarily because they have to support 75% of the market. Apple doesn't have to worry about compatibility problems the way windows does, nor really does Ubuntu. Though Ubuntu and other Linux systems are attempting to support everything and already bloating up to support it. Supporting everything is DIFFICULT!! VERY DIFFICULT!
If MS did things the Apple way, they could force you to buy only one or two graphics cards, and only the drives they allow you to buy, only the printers they allow you to print on, etc. Very easy. You are comparing Apples to Oranges.
Jim4Prez wrote: That is why if I need an MS system I stay with Win XP.
And that was my comment. This is the greatest irony of it all: XP was hated when it was released for all the SAME reasons that Vista is hated now. It is hilarious. The main reason XP is "good" is simply because everyone adapted to it. It was just as horrid when it was released, it was just as hated, it had all the same problems, all the same complaints. You like XP because it is old, specifically. Eventually Vista will be old, and everyone will be complaining about Vista 2010 or what ever they choose to call it, and praising Vista. and years after that, they will be complaining about the latest one, and supporting Vista 2010. Just as they have for all the other Operating Systems that MS has ever produced. With one exception. And that was ME. But even that was there primarily as an answer to the problems with XP. 98 users had too many difficulties converting to the terror of XP. It was just too much difficulty, too much change. ME was the glue, it was the bridge between 98 and XP. But eventually people discovered that  surprise the gap was more hot-air than reality, and came to like XP and eventually (as we see today) to even love and praise XP. ME became useless because the hatred of XP was mostly just word-of-mouth, passed from person to person who listened and said, "Yeah! I would hate that too!! I hate XP!!!" And ME attempted to fill a need that was never there. It was a short-sighted not-well-thought-out solution to a problem that never existed. Because now you love XP. People have forgotten how many hated operating systems have been released, including XP.
Linux slackware was going to replace XP, that was how bad XP was. They were praising Linux back there, 6 months I heard it said and XP would be dead and Linux would rule the planet on every computer and XP would die the death it deserved. Instead, they learned to like XP and Linux grew more like XP. Eventually, as it has been in the past, people will learn to like Vista, and Linux will grow more like Vista to compete against it. Because this is exactly the same thing that has happened time after time, generation after generation. DESQview X was going to replace windows, it was better, techically than Windows 3.11, but it still could not compete against MS because eventually people stopped hating Windows 3.11. Windows 95 signed the official death warrent for DESQview X. Windows 95b became the service pack 2 controversy of Windows 95 chainging how 95 operated behind the scenes and changing compatibilty and causing problems. But eventually 95b was working well and everyone forgot the nightmare. 98 introduced all new compatibility problems, and 2000 a laundry list that made XP and Vista look like easy changes. But eventually 2000 was adopted and 98 and their hated past forgotten. Then XP introduced new hates, new problems, new complaints. It was hated, but now loved.
_________________________
Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau.
Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
|
|
|
|
|
<br />
So was the eye-candy under XP. Hardware eventually caught up to the XP we know now, but when it was released, again there were mile long complaints about how slow the eye-candy on XP was and telling folks how to go through the settings and turn it off. Hey, if you don't like it, treat it the same way everyone did when XP was the latest MS frankenstein monster, turn it off. Again, the same complaint that was there for XP, the EXACT same complaint for XP. But now XP is the "good" one.<br />
XP and "eye candy"? Are you for real? There was and is no "eye candy" under XP. If you consider the Fisher Price look-n-feel of XP to be "eye candy", than sorry, I just don't agree.
I never said "XP was the good one". I personally thing XP is a crappy OS. It is only OK because I need to run Visual Studio, so I run XP in a Virtual Machine only. As far as OS systems go, XP is VERY lacking.
XP/2003 has piss poor GUI programming support. XP/2003 has piss poor automation support.
As far as your comment that people "love" XP, well I think you are exaggerating a little bit. I have never met one person that "loves" XP besides a gamer.
MS Window XP Pro gives an end-user basically crap as an OS goes. MS Win XP is a bare-bones system, end of story.
Hmm, you "heard" that Slackware would "rule" XP? Strange, I have been using Linux since it first came out and never heard that one. Slackware was always designed to be a more tech-savvy Linux OS. I guess you and say what you want now to shill your Vista OS.
Oh, well, I have used Vista since it was first available over MSDN, and it has always sucked. I wasn't someone who just compared it to XP. I got to compare it to OS X and Ubuntu.
OS X just blows it away. I know why you would say otherwise, it is because you have never and do not own an Intel Mac.
|
|
|
|
|
Jim4Prez wrote: I know why you would say otherwise, it is because you have never and do not own an Intel Mac.
Give the man the gong.... wrong. Careful with your assumptions.
Actually I have used a Mac. We have them at work, and I have helped artists and musicians pick them out and set them up for them. At work they were introduced by a couple of geeks we referred to as the sandle twins. I showed them what a UI really was, Macs don't save you from incompetance. You can mess up any computer, or improve any computer, if you are a true CS professional. Sure I like OS X, no more or less than any other operating system. I am actually OS agnostic. I've got Linux, I've Windows, and I've got Vista (not mine, but helped with it since I understand it better than anyone else here). I've setup Linux systems, XP systems and recently even a Vista system for various people. I have suggested Macs to a few people who don't want to have learn computers. Macs are great for Artists and Musicians and a few other careers. But in the end, the Mac was too limiting in my line of work. Windows may be more difficult because it supports so much, but it is powerful BECAUSE it supports so much. If you want 3D graphics and scientific visualization, you can beat your head against OS X, Linux, or use a Windows Operating system and learn how to use it right.
Right now I have a common desktop between Linux Fedora and Windows. I use them together completely interchangeably. It gives me about 8 cores when used together.
_________________________
Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau.
Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
|
|
|
|
|
El Corazon wrote: But in the end, the Mac was too limiting in my line of work
Just out of curiosity was this a hardware or software issue (or both)? Is it because adding 3rd part hardware is PITA on a Mac or because the dev tools aren't up to snuff?
¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire!
Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)!
SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0
0 rows returned
Save an Orange - Use the VCF!
VCF Blog
|
|
|
|
|
Jim Crafton wrote: Just out of curiosity was this a hardware or software issue (or both)?
Both really. As I expand into capabilities we get timing cards, capture cards, motion picture cards, physics cards, high speed network cards, etc. The list goes on and on for different needs per customer. They all support Windows, a few Mac, and a few more Linux, but no one solution other than Windows is available. Windows remains the constant. Dev tools are okay, though I like the added number of Intel tools on Windows, but that is slowly growing for Mac/Linux. It may eventually get to the same place. And you could certainly live without the "extra" level of debugging and introspection of software activity that you get under Windows. But then you start making a list of the things you have to do without, or write yourself, and then why are you doing more work on an OS? We had the one project that required Macs, we had one that required Suns, so we learn to be flexible as customer demands need to be met. But you don't go out of your way to make yourself miserable to justify an development environment that is weaker in almost all respects.
I can make do without any of that, just as I did when I started in DOS. But then why do you have to do without? If tomorrow I have another call for a Sun, I'll support it, if I have a call for a Mac, I'll support it too. But I won't go out of my way to make my life more miserable.
Vista isn't great either, but support is growing and bugs are being worked out faster than support is being added to the other choices. I am not likely to see IRIG timing options on the Mac, and Linux may be supported well, but you aren't likely to see motion picture standards support because of the hardware cost. A guy isn't likely to buy a $25,000 hardware board just so he can write a driver for linux and release it free. On the other hand, Apple isn't likely to think there is much money in that Niche so they are not likely to support it either. By default Windows gets the support of almost all industries. No matter how you slice it, eventually Windows will get better support broad-industry.
By the time Apple supported 3D graphics on the whole, we were already augmented reality with embedded streaming video. So Apple was still behind. By the time Apple supports full aspects of Motion Picture Stands, there will be a new motion picture standard. In fact, we are part of the team working with the Motion Picture Standards for that standard to include augmented reality information in video streams as a standard.
It's just a matter of economics, we can rarely wait for Apple or Linux to catch up, so Windows stays primary. But we don't loose track of the customers who have specific needs on any hardware or software platform. If they want Solaris on a PC, we'll give them what they want. We don't have to like it to use it, it's just a fact of life we have to have that choice available.
For general 3D work we do have Linux and Windows as standard boxes under support. And we have pushed somethings to Linux as well as general industry to make our lives easier. This improves Windows, Linux, Apple, and Sun. It's far easier to get your stuff defined as a standard than change your stuff later. So you pull out your boxing gloves and go in dancing.
![Badger | [badger,badger,badger,badger...]](https://codeproject.freetls.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/badger.gif)
_________________________
Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau.
Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
|
|
|
|
|
Yawn,...
Give me a call when you actually USE a Mac 10.4 or 10.5 for more than a week.
Again, I say the same thing, you have never PURCHASED a Mac on your own and used the thing for more than a few day/weeks
Stop with all your, Linux/Windows/Vista crap. I have been there done that. Go out an actually USE a Mac for a week, then your post will be different.
I sounded like you not too long ago before I ever owned a Mac. I programmed for MS Windows, Linux and Solaris. I thought I used all the OS options out there. Heck, I played with a Mac for a little while too.
It wasn't until I actually BOUGHT and USED a Mac that I could make any fair statements.
I always said, just like you, "I have Linux for this and XP for that".
Your statement: "Macs are great for Artists and Musicians and a few other careers". This tells me you have never used a freaking Intel based Mac. End of story. It is easy to dismiss an OS you do not understand and have never used.
|
|
|
|
|
Jim4Prez wrote: Give me a call when you actually USE a Mac 10.4 or 10.5 for more than a week.
Yawn... Give me a call when Apple supports Industry standard military, sci-vis, and motion picture standards you can find one, sometimes two, but never all three. At least they are finally parallel, but it took them bloody long enough. Apple is trying. But they are far from standards compliant. It is easy for you to say, "hey give up your work, get fired, and use a Mac for something it cannot do and was never designed to do" but try listening to what you are saying before you open your mouth sometime. It's harder to force a square peg through a round hole without a really big knife. In which case, why use the knife when you can buy a freakin' round peg for the round hole! For all Apple's security bragging, they still can't pass a DIACAP/DITSCAP. Vista hasn't either, but XP did, so Vista eventually will. Apple's got a long way to go. So far only RedHad and MS survive the DIACAP/DITSCAP without reservations, clauses, and exceptions.
Now, get off slashdot...
Now, give it a rest. Macs are great for many things, but they still cannot compete across the entire spectrum of hardware available for Windows. For the same reason many people complain about Vista, Macs are not a choice either, in fact worse for some industries. Sure we can finally do 3D graphics on a Mac. Sure as long as we rewrite our software for the few motion picture boards and Irig boards available for the Mac, no problem. But the rest of the hardware? sorry, no go. Do we stop work and give up projects, turn away money just to play with Macs full time? go ahead, but I can't turn away money to play with a Mac.
For a new limited project, not a problem, as we have done. As long as it doesn't require hardware not supported by Mac yet. The problem is, when you are remote controlling full scale air-craft maybe you might just need to use something more than Mac. Did you ever think of that?
For some applications Linux cannot be used, for some Macs, for some Suns, in those instances, a large majority of our work, Windows is still the only choice. For others we have flexibility, and we will use it. I'll buy a Mac when it can fly-by-wire an F4 via telepresence. Until then, grow up and learn some people are actually working doing more than playing games. Of course some of us are doing work that looks remarkably like a game. [^] The difference is there is a lot of hardware that has to change before a Mac can enter that playfield. They made the first step by going Intel and that increased their foot-print in the military. But Macs have a lot of growing to do before they enter full-force. RedHat and Windows still have a controlling force with Windows still pulling the vast majority of hardware behind it. Because of that force of support, Windows will still have a major advantage.
_________________________
Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau.
Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
|
|
|
|
|
You read Slashdot alot don't you?
¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire!
Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)!
SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0
0 rows returned
Save an Orange - Use the VCF!
VCF Blog
|
|
|
|
|
Jim4Prez wrote: If you consider the Fisher Price look-n-feel of XP to be "eye candy", than sorry, I just don't agree.
I never thought of it like that, but that IS exactly what the XP look is 'Fisher Price' ...good one.
Thank goodness I was able to find the 'Windows Classic' desktop settings...still looks like my good old Win2000
|
|
|
|
|
I remember the rants about the File and Folder tasks sidebar in Explorer...
Hang on - I *still* hate that thing! Thanks for reminding me 
cheers,
Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: I remember the rants about the File and Folder tasks
I remember the "tutorials" repeatedly showing up how to turn off the XP new look. It was "called" eye-candy back then even though now it is just normal stuff. Gradient coloring, rounded edges, shadowed look on bevels and stuff. I forget who posted most of the "turn off this" bit, but I do find it ironic that everything that was hated is at the very least accepted and even praised by some.
"You'll pry my copy of DOS 3.3 DOS 6.0 Windows 3.0 Windows 3.1 Windows 3.11 Windows 95 Windows 98 Windows 2000 Windows XP from my cold dead fingers, I will never use DOS 6.0 Windows 3.0 Windows 3.1 Windows 3.11 Windows 95 Windows 98 Windows 2000 Windows XP Windows Vista!"
_________________________
Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau.
Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
|
|
|
|
|
Me too...I keep forgetting how to turn it off when I do a reinstall...
|
|
|
|
|
if you want to run the latest software, try updating your hardware. I have an e-machine and I ripped out the 2.9ghz Celeron and put in a 1.8ghz P4 processor, updated my ram to 1gb and overlayed Vista Home Premium on top of XP. I now have all my files(this was a huge deal to make my Itunes work again)in a folder called windows.old. I can run both VS2005 and VS2008 at the same time for code comparisons, while my google mail is open and I'm chatting and studying college classes online all at the same time with no problems.
Most people don't understand Vista because some very important user functions have had their names changed a little and can be found in a different place. However, if you take the time to learn how to use it, you'll be surprised at how much you can do and how easy it is.
As far as other problems such as lockups/freezes and things like that, I've never had that problem. But then, I'm the only one I know that successfully ran Windows ME for over a year without experiencing any of the horrors we all heard so much about.
If you can read, you will learn
|
|
|
|
|
I run Vista at home and on one of my developer boxes at work and I haven't had any problems since I installed the service packs for Visual Studio and SQL Server. Well there is the problem I had with UltraEdit but I blame UltraEdit, not Vista (their installer doesn't like IE7 so I switched to PSPad).
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I guess it goes under "haven't used it enough to make a call".
Seriously, I have heard mostly good things about Vista (well except here at CP  ), but the machines I use are simply not good enough to run it. When I buy/get a new one, it will probably have Vista pre-installed anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
Every tried to get a Vista machine onto a secured wireless network? Why is it that 50% of the time it prompts for the WEP key and the other 50% it asks for a username and password? Close the wireless options and reopen them a few times and low and behold it will change it's mind every few times. I've seen this with about 50-60 different Vista machines. Makes no sense at all.
I've also seen about a dozen Vista infected machines (yes...Vista is a disease!) that wouldn't run the updater automatically even though it's set to run automatically, OR it will do some updates and not others. Got people on the phone to Microsoft trying to figure out why and the Microsoft phone reps are APOLOGIZING for the evil product!
When opening and saving files it's totally clunky if you need to choose a different folder than the one you are already pointing at.
POS OS in my opinion. Who needs 'pretty' when you can have functionality!
|
|
|
|
|
I suspect Vista is so slow because MS has used .NET code in it. .NET requires JITing, boxing/unboxing, array-bounds checking, and automatic gargage collection.
While this is acceptable for an average business application, I think this technology is inappropriate for an operating system.
|
|
|
|
|
Alan Balkany wrote: I suspect Vista is so slow because MS has used .NET code in it.
They tried, but eventually removed it (one of the reasons Vista was late).
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
