|
You're nuts. MS doesn't listen to its developers. We're relegated to the trash heap. MS only listens to the myopic ideas of large corporations.
MS Word is DONE. Nothing new is needed for 99% of its users, but it changes the file format anyway, and then puts in some bobble for high end corporation users.
Borland listened to its developers and exploded past MS early on. Then they lost their way.
MS for a few years, listened to us. But now, we are nothing to them. There is no support nor respect for people in the trenches doing the work that supports the OS.
REVOLT! I CALL. Let us RIDE through the streets calling all programmers to arms. Mwhahahaaa
Seriously, MS has to figure out where the money comes from. The largest profit are the corporate installs of thousands of computers. MS gets 100% profit from those companies, but we only buy a couple of copies of their products for our development. Who would you listen to.
|
|
|
|
|
I like vista a lot actually for all the small things they added/changed. But I had to say no because a lot of games run like *** on vista64. Too bad ms can't even do a thing about that problem.
|
|
|
|
|
StijnDP wrote: But I had to say no because a lot of games run like *** on vista64
Interesting the ones I've tried (although it hasn't been exhaustive) run flawlessly on Vista x64 Ultimate. The only one I had trouble with was SA-MP (San Andreas Multiplayer), running the server, but solved that by running it as an administrator (obvious really since it had to launch other programs / connections).
|
|
|
|
|
Half-life 2, Portal, Team fortress 2, episode one, ...
Crysis demo is also very bad. I have to run settings on high and no AA @ 1920x1200 while I know I have a lot more power in my machine.
Shutting down Aero everytime I want to play helps a magnificent amount.
|
|
|
|
|
StijnDP wrote: Shutting down Aero everytime I want to play helps a magnificent amount.
You _do_ realize aero turns itself of when you start a fullscreen directx application, right?
|
|
|
|
|
In most games yes but I can't help it if some are bugged, _right_?
|
|
|
|
|
I have to say, after using Vista at work for a few weeks now, I appreciate the difference and clarity in text rendering across all applications. There's a noticeable difference between Vista and XP on that front... if you're using IE 7 on XP and like the clarity of text, imagine that for all your apps and you've got Vista.
Again - only comparing Vista to XP here.
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Ellison wrote: I have to say, after using Vista at work for a few weeks now, I appreciate the difference and clarity in text rendering across all applications.
Then you should've switched to Macs years ago. And they still do it better btw. 
|
|
|
|
|
Yup! I knew I'd get this response - that's why I made a point to state my comparison was just with XP.
I cut my Pascal/C/C++ programming chops on macs back in the 80's. I'll always have a soft spot for them. But as long as my bread & butter requires PC's, I'm there to stay.
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Ellison wrote: Yup! I knew I'd get this response - that's why I made a point to state my comparison was just with XP.
Well, at least I didn't let you down. 
|
|
|
|
|
Vista, in my humble opinion is not as good as XP from a GUI perspective for one major reason.......I WANT MY OLD WINDOWS EXPLORER BACK....(OK rant over)
|
|
|
|
|
Doesn't the task bar properties allow you toggle to the default start menu?
|
|
|
|
|
When you can do a standard install of Vista 64 bit without pulling DIMM's from your machine and get drivers for common things like printers, scanners, microphones, etc ... then maybe I'll like it. With all the spiffy virtualization stuff going on, I'll never understand why MS didn't just create a little virtual XP box to run old drivers (printer and the like, not video) in ... perhaps in SP8 
|
|
|
|
|
That's what VMWare do 
|
|
|
|
|
It came on my new ASUS G1S and works just fine.
In my opinion, the first thing you have to do is disable UAC.
After that you won't be bothered anymore about having to give explicit permissions to do almost anything.
This UAC thing is something Linux has since... ever and I never heard anyone complain about it like most are about the same thing on Vista.
The OS sure is pretty, things come easy, the Start Search functionality is very productive, multi-monitor suport works great, games work as expected (good), I don't have a single updated application I can't run because it's Vista...
Sure there are old applications that won't run but that also happened with XP... no bit deal... it's evolution!
Memory usage... yeah, it starts with 1Gb in use... ok, no big deal... I have 2Gb.
Then I open 3 instances of VS2005 and they just pop on screen, no delays.
The memory just doesn't grow like on XP... it stays flat on a normal usage. So what I can conclude is that the memory management is more efficient. If we have 2Gb available should the OS try to use the less as possible or use as much as possible to improve performance?
I believe that if you have the machine to support it it's the best OS out there.
Sure it have its problems... after all it's software!! 
If you don't have a machine for it stick with XP... mature OS, lots of fixes, SP3 coming soon... just please... please... don't spend your precious memory and CPU trying to make it look like Vista and then say your better off with that XP metamorphose than with Vista!... please... 
Cheers,
AlexCode
|
|
|
|
|
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)
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
![Badger | [badger,badger,badger,badger...]](https://codeproject.global.ssl.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/badger.gif)
