|
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 Yes You might have a driver problem but that only means your hardware is out of date(or cheap stuff rubish) and needs to be replaced anyway.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Sean Botha wrote: that only means your hardware is out of date(or cheap stuff rubish) and needs to be replaced anyway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 ...
|
|
|
|
|
Douglas,
I don't have Vista, just XP. But I'm building a new Quad Core computer (hopefully online by Thanksgiving Break for a programming stint). I am contemplating Vista only because of DirectX10 and Crysis.
I'm not a heavy duty gamer, but that would be the only compelling reason in my mind. If MS relents and puts DX10 into XP, then I'll never switch.
I don't have it so I can't say its crap, but from everyone who does have it that I know, they've all installed Win XP onto those computers.
So MS IS selling Vista, and its preinstalled, but how many people are using it is the indicator people want.
Their unification of OSs will be their downfall. Their supposed next OS where they have finally figured out that the Linux way of handling things is better (i.e. Load the OS modules that you need). You get a minimalist Ring 0 Core OS and everything else is outside of that. They are putting in a hypervisor as well. This will reinvigorate their OS market if the project doesn't get canned. Consumer choice!! Oh what a new concept.
|
|
|
|
|
MajorTom123 wrote: because of DirectX10 and Crysis.
Yes, this is a typical corporate tactic to 'force' users to switch; same as, say, a hardware vendor not updating drivers for older equipment to support a newer OS ... emmm ... gee, that sounds familiar ...
MajorTom123 wrote: I don't have it so I can't say its crap, but from everyone who does have it that I know, they've all installed Win XP onto those computers.
I wouldn't call it "crap"; but I have had enough problems with it to leave a sour taste in my mouth. There's just not enough in it that makes me say "Wow!", this is leaps-and-bounds better than XP! Nothing.
MajorTom123 wrote: a minimalist Ring 0 Core OS and everything else is outside of that
Yes, I've been following the whole "MinWin" concept, and I am keeping my fingers and toes crossed that they continue down the path ... but I won't hold my breath.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Excellent link. Thanks. Flame wars broke out between the "MS wouldn't do something like that" crowd and the "Tweak this and it increases detail" crowd. As usual in the tech community it skewed off topic. There's just so much to talk about .
It answers some questions, but the jury is still out on others. i.e. Does Crysis really need DX10? It sounds like for me the answer is no, DX9 will do with this config change. If I were hard core, then yeah Vista is the way the truth and the life. Sorry I don't drink that Kool-Aid.
Thanks for the follow-up.
|
|
|
|
|
Well said! I completely agree. I had many problems in Vista while developing an application to integrate with QuickBooks. And yes, i don't know why Microsoft doesn't release something like Windows Developer Edition with full features and targeted only for developers
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
had a little fear to vote the last choice, having no practical experience in vista.
But wondering: I found myself in a group of about 27%!
Sigh - I'm not absolutely outdated.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm running Vista on a P4 2,8 GHz with 1GB of memory and a 256MB PCI-E graphics card.
It installed in 15-20 minutes and is running just fine after you've switched of the UAC and the DEP.
And if my memory serves me well, Xp had similar compatibility problems at its release...
I wouldn't upgrade just for fun though, it's not better than Xp, but when you get it with a new machine... why not?
(I have to admit I didn't use it for development yet)
V.
No hurries, no worries
|
|
|
|
|
V. wrote: but when you get it with a new machine...
But is everyone so lucky to get a new machine at thier whims and fancies?
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, XP also had problems when it was released. I stuck to Win 2k for quite some time after the release of XP and I intend to do the same with Vista.
|
|
|
|
|
But when buying a new product the question should rather be WHY than WHY NOT?
With a new machine it's ok. I would do the same
|
|
|
|
|
i don't like vista...
i don't like transparency, disolvence aeroglass etc etc
i used to use always the windows classical theme also in xp.
i use xp pro sp2 and i think it's a good os... perhaps the best microsoft os
i suppose we have to wait for vista sp1 for releasing a real impression on vista.
someone would say: always wait for sp1 in microsoft os
but the real new vista features i were interested in as winfs!!?? where are they???
i think that the windows server 2008 will be a new os and not an new graphic interface as vista (i read some really interesting new features in a microsoft powerpoint)
----------------------------
nowhere now here-------> giammin.blogspot.com
|
|
|
|
|