|
Yes, I like the UI alot..
No, because its painfully slow, especially IO operations..and I have an Ahtlon64 X2 5000, 2GB of Memory, 256MB Video Memory..
The new IO queue in the kernel is broken
|
|
|
|
|
Robert Buldoc wrote: No, because its painfully slow, especially IO operations..and I have an Ahtlon64 X2 5000, 2GB of Memory, 256MB
Agree. Its too slow!
|
|
|
|
|
|
The only complaints I have directed at Vista are actually the responsibility of other parties: old hardware with no vista driver and old software that doesn't run without UAC requests.
It seems to me that manufactures are using Vista as a schill to force us to upgrade/replace when we don't want to and they should be named and shamed - we'll start with Hewlett packard[^], of course.
"We are sorry to inform you that there will be no Windows Vista support available for your HP product. Therefore your product will not work with Windows Vista.
If you are using the Windows Vista operating system on your computer, please consider upgrading to a newer HP product that is supported on Windows Vista. HP has numerous products on the market that support Windows Vista." is not acceptable for a 2 year old scanner and a 3 year old printer...
|
|
|
|
|
There are people who like Vista ?
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
"also I don't think "TranslateOneToTwoBillion OneHundredAndFortySevenMillion FourHundredAndEightyThreeThousand SixHundredAndFortySeven()" is a very good choice for a function name" - SpacixOne ( offering help to someone who really needed it ) ( spaces added for the benefit of people running at < 1280x1024 )
|
|
|
|
|
I do - post SP1....have been using it for 6 months and not had a single blue screen type crash
(This may also be because I have been much more circumspect on what devices and drivers are on this machine...)
|
|
|
|
|
Vista doesn't have to crash to annoy. 
regards,
Paul Watson
Ireland & South Africa
Andy Brummer wrote: Watson's law:
As an online discussion of cars grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving the Bugatti Veyron approaches one.
|
|
|
|
|
Just like XP, it may just go silently and reboot your PC.
God bless,
Ernest Laurentin
|
|
|
|
|
Ernest Laurentin wrote: it may just go silently and reboot your PC
as slipperly as an eel. 
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, because the blame for most of its problems goes to the driver/software makers. I for one wouldn't use anything else. Especially not crap XP.
Also, I appear to be one of those rare ones, who has never had any problems at all with Vista...not even the beta versions.
|
|
|
|
|
Well as you said yourself, a majority of people are experiencing problems with Vista which is why most people do not like it. It brings zero advantage and lots of problems.
Before you get into it, I don't see Aero as anything but resource consuming slow annoyance and as what goes for superfetch, I prefer to wait for my apps to open for 1-2 seconds instead of listening to my HD trash for minutes for no apparent reason.
|
|
|
|
|
With superfetch I'll agree...I've yet to see any real advantage to it, as for Aero...whats annoying about it? Its not slow or resource consuming (at least not on my end).
|
|
|
|
|
robertw019 wrote: Also, I appear to be one of those rare ones, who has never had any problems at all with Vista...not even the beta versions.
Well, you gotta start clicking on things. Just letting it sit there doesn't count.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
|
|
|
|
|
I've been using it as my primary OS since the early betas.
|
|
|
|
|
I have been using Vista x64 for a long time now and every time I have to go back to XP I am amazed about how slow it is to get things done. Vista increases your productivity and ease.
I think the whole complaining is people afaid of something new. Yes You might have a driver problem but that only means your hardware is out of date(or cheap stuff rubish) and needs to be replaced anyway. I have not had any software problems. Or hardware problems.
The only remotely thing wrong I can think about Vista is that Flash is not available in x64 yet and I have to use the x32 browser for that but this is not a vista mistake rathe the guyes from macromedia that was picking thier noses.
|
|
|
|
|
Sean Botha wrote: that only means your hardware is out of date(or cheap stuff rubish) and needs to be replaced anyway
Why should anybody replace good working hardware, because of a software problem?! There is no reason at all to throw away things that could still their job fine enough for you. The sofware is there to make the hardware run - not the other way round.
____________________________________
There is no proof for this sentence.
|
|
|
|
|
It's not really a software problem - as the software is working as intended, rather it is a USER problem for deciding to upgrade their OS when they shouldn't have.
|
|
|
|
|
It's a software problem all right. Go run Win98 on a 3GHz P4 single core machine and compare it to the days of Pentium 1s.
The fact is, we get a lot more crap and a lot more slower (newer hardware just balances it out somewhat) for very little gain. Sometimes less is more, but I don't think MS will ever see it that way.
|
|
|
|
|
A lot of people do call Windows bloated - however, did you hear recently about MinWin? The very core of Windows - only around 25MB. It is the UI, and all the extras that allow the technologically challenged out there to use the computer that cause the bloat.
On the same note, say your computer has 2GB of ram and a 3GHz processor. Using an older OS, may not use many resources. From what I've heard, Vista is supposed to "intelligently" utilize your system resources. If you have the resources available it will use them, to maximize perceived user performace. If you load up something that needs resources its using, its supposed to dial back so you can do what you want to do. Granted this is just something I heard - I don't know the validity of the claim, or remember where I heard it.
Back to the bloat problem.
It is the complexity that the users of today require - note REQUIRE, that cause this problem. You and I may not require it, but then again - we know how to use a computer without screwing it up. The users of today, want the computer to be hassle free and secure - mainly because they don't know how to use it properly. The want the software to compensate for their stupidity. When they get a popup that warns them they are doing something wrong - they complain, because it isn't hassle free. So they get the popups turned off, then they do something wrong - and they complain again because they screwed something up.
They also want it to look nice while they work.
It's a no-win situation for the software makers. People say go to MAC - they'll just find a way to screw up the MAC too, I hear about it all the time from my Dad who is a network admin at a school that uses all Macs - he quite often relies on me, because I know a bit of Linux.
I say to the users of today, LEARN TO USE A COMPUTER - then the software wouldn't have to be so bloated to compensate for user stupidity.
Personally, when I ran Win98 I was getting the BSOD every other day - but then again I was a developer that played around to much with the OS and registry. My system now with Vista runs quite a bit faster than it did with XP - ON THE SAME HARDWARE.
I've seen people comparing Vista to ME - HOW? Vista IS better than XP, and therefore WAY better than ME. ME was so full of holes, I could have walked through them standing up and I'm over 6'. I have never had a problem with Vista, except user stupidity, whereas with ME I had problems to no end.
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Kolkman wrote: however, did you hear recently about MinWin?
No, but I like the idea of it. Is this gonna be for embedded devices only or something?
Chris Kolkman wrote: Using an older OS, may not use many resources. From what I've heard, Vista is supposed to "intelligently" utilize your system resources.
Well, this is may be the case, the aspect I was trying to get at was that, by the end of the day, we have a system that does just about the same exact thing as Win95 and yet requires much greater hardware to run. All specifics aside, I just think that's silly the amount of stuff that gets thrown into Windows. I mean, if MinWin is 25MB, why is a standard install of XP 1GB (I realize some of that is drivers) and needs at least 128MB RAM, so on and so forth, when it does exactly the same thing as NT4?
Chris Kolkman wrote: I've seen people comparing Vista to ME - HOW?
Beats me, I still haven't used Vista. I mean, I will, I have no real choice in the matter as a dev, but I think Me is a tough one to beat. 
|
|
|
|
|
Apparently we will never see MinWin as a product, it will the the basis for everything including the next Windows Desktop, server, embedded devices, etc... By having the core separated they can allow them to work together better apparently.
-----------------------------------------------
It does do a bit more than those earlier windows version (though really not a whole lot compared to XP). I'd say a good deal of it comes with trying to make everything more secure.
I agree - with a core of around 25MB, why install so much more?
I'd say the UI takes up probably a good 100-500MB (this is just guesswork by the way), which already puts you at .5GB. Then you have all the default programs (which are dependent on the UI), paint, IE, etc. that also expand that some more. Not to forget what you mentioned about the drivers. It does seem to copy ALL the drivers to the computer, instead of installing just the ones you need - for convienience when swapping out I suppose. But if they only installed the drivers for what you needed, deleting the drivers for hardware you remove from the system as you go, I'm sure you could cut down a bit on the size.
-----------------------------------------------
It is a tough one to beat isn't it.
Good luck for when you get to Vista, I hope it goes as painless for you as it did me (which was pretty painless).
|
|
|
|
|
Just to clarify the MinWin thingy....because it has been around for weeks and don't seems to be understood by people. Even though it is explained in the article that everyone is quoting.
MinWin is a nickname for the core (heart) component of the Windows operating system. It is the windows kernel and the most basic windows operations. In other words the foundation on which the operating system is built. It is NOT an operating system. It is NOT Windows and NO it is not a product and never will. Not that it does very much by itself if that's all that you would have on your pc.
For the past weeks in almost all online communities what is written in the forums is "Hey I would like to get MinWin"..."It would be nice if they released MinWin". It is very simply the windows kernel.
Dewm Solo - Managed C++ Developer
|
|
|
|
|
Sean Botha wrote: The only remotely thing wrong I can think about Vista is that Flash is not available in x64 yet
Wow! Finally a good reason to switch to Vista x64. I hate Flash.
|
|
|
|
|
I wouldn't mind it, but I think I'm waiting until my next PC upgrade before I swap over. Only problem I can see is I'll really miss my Olive Green on XP. 
|
|
|
|
|
Having been using it at work for about 1 year now, I have found nothing about Vista that would compel me to move from XP. On top of that, there are:
1. Considerable hardware problems (lack of driver support for hardware even 1 year old)
2. Software application compatibility problems (even ported apps are inconsistent, some require UAC to be enabled! - e.g., QuickBooks)
3. Just to run the OS at home, at a speed and manner that I would find acceptable, I would have to purchase all new machines. Something I do not want to, nor can I afford to do just because of a new OS; and for what?
4. Not developer friendly in the least. I keep saying this, and saying this, and saying this: Microsoft needs to put out an OS that is targeted for software developers. I should be able to do anything I want, when I want to, how I want to. Period. If I screw up my system because I was stupid, oh well, that's MY fault. I am anything but a typical "home user", and when it comes to technology, one size DOES NOT FIT ALL!
... that's my short list ...
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
