Windows Vista Pretty Much Sucks

[bgavin]

Re: Windows Vista Pretty Much Sucks

Win7 is the Vista follow-on, same as XP was the follow-on to WindowsME.

This week's eWeek magazine has an article on Win7. MS is building a whole bunch of Rich Internet Application b.s. into their operating system. Evidently the world is going to give up doing business on computers, and just use them for silly play time activities.

Out of the box, my copy of Win7 is a whole lot better than Vista. As it should be, since Vista is dead this coming November. I have a script that disables most of the irritating Vista-shit, and this makes it a lot more use friendly. Disabling UAC, etc, and going back to the Vista Basic interface recovered over 300mb of system ram.

I wish they would spend more time on changing the architecture to make it closer to a main frame (or unix), where application software is never allowed to become part of the OS and then run amuck. Windows has always been an also-ran Tinker Toy compared to MVS or unix. And, my apologies to Tinker Toys for equating them with Windows.

From my perch, it looks like Linux might become the business machine of choice. Unlike Windows, it can be recompiled without all the embedded play-time code.

[Junk Parts]

Re: Windows Vista Pretty Much Sucks

I have all of Windows 7 that I need. The backgounds are nice. I just downloaded them. Now I'll hit them with my Picsresizer. Even the backgound Jpegs are bloated pigs.

[Per Hansson]

Re: Windows Vista Pretty Much Sucks

Win7 is the Vista follow-on, same as XP was the follow-on to WindowsME.

I don't understand why people keep saying this
ME and XP has NOTHING in common
One is based on MS-DOS the other on Windows NT kernel!

XP is an upgrade (or downgrade as I'd call it personally) of Windows 2000 (NT v5.0) and nothing else
Windows 2000 NT build number is v5.0
Windows XP's NT build number is NT v5.1

Windows Vista is NT v6.0
Windows 7 is NT v6.1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT

[Sparky]

Re: Windows Vista Pretty Much Sucks

XP >>> 2000
Vista SP1 > XP
Win 7 ? Haven't tried it.

anything >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> windows ME

[KeriJane]

Re: Windows Vista Pretty Much Sucks

I don't understand why people keep saying this
ME and XP has NOTHING in common
One is based on MS-DOS the other on Windows NT kernel!


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT

Hi Per Hansson

Actually, Windows ME and Vista do have something in common.

They don't work very well.

This appears to be for a similar cause:

Microsoft tried to do too much with ME for a DOS system to handle and/or released a bunch of new features before they were ready. As a result the basic operation suffered.
I had ME and liked all of the cool new features that work great in XP but for whatever reason "weren't ready yet" for ME.

So now here we are a few years later and they did it again!
Out comes Vista all bloated up with a gazillion "features" that brings the whole user experience crashing down into oblivion. It didn't help V(Bleep!)sta's reputation that it was heavily promoted on Laptops for which it is poorly suited due to its demanding nature.

The fact that the actual code is completely unrelated has nothing to do with our most unfair (but accurate) comparison to ME.


Windows Vista= ME Too (Two, II or 2) - The TITANIC of Operating Systems!
Proof that giant successful corporations with thousands of employees dedicated to avoiding failure can do just that.

Have Fun,
Keri

[bgavin]

Re: Windows Vista Pretty Much Sucks

I don't understand why people keep saying this
ME and XP has NOTHING in common
One is based on MS-DOS the other on Windows NT kernel!

They appear to be written by the same team. Multiple teams are required to keep the development process far enough into the future to not lose momentum.

Win2000 was the intervening team between ME and XP.
I have a feeling the Win2000 team is responsible for Win7, again based upon previous historical performance.

[Sparky]

Re: Windows Vista Pretty Much Sucks

Actually, Windows ME and Vista do have something in common.

They don't work very well.

[...]

Windows Vista= ME Too (Two, II or 2) - The TITANIC of Operating Systems!

I have a question for you... do you even use Vista?

Reason I ask is the majority of the Vista bashers out there haven't even used it, they just "heard from a friend/relative/online/etc" that somebody said it is bad.

I use it. I like it. It works well. It is nowhere close to the disaster that ME was. Vista never can come close to the wreckage called ME.

Yeah the release was a bit screwed up but they've long since fixed it.

[KeriJane]

Re: Windows Vista Pretty Much Sucks

I have a question for you... do you even use Vista?

Reason I ask is the majority of the Vista bashers out there haven't even used it, they just "heard from a friend/relative/online/etc" that somebody said it is bad.

I use it. I like it. It works well. It is nowhere close to the disaster that ME was. Vista never can come close to the wreckage called ME.

Yeah the release was a bit screwed up but they've long since fixed it.

Hi Sparky!

Why, yes I did! I did V(bleep!)sta from the later Beta through the Release Canididate and then bought the Home Premium when it came out.
I used it for well over a year after purchase. I gave up on it after SP1 came out.
I used it on two systems, both fairly powerful Core2Duo (an e6600 and an e6750) systems built for video editing with 4gb memory, x1900 then HD3850 video cards and even Hardware RAID.

I really, really wanted to like V(bleep!)sta.
I really wanted it to run well.


I just don't like it. Even on a very strong system it was sluggish.
The only configuration that seemed decent to me was the 6750/Hd3850/4GB/Hardware RAID0 system.
Even that was buggy and constantly revoking my Windows Activation.

Disabling piles of services got it going better.... but then you get "Side Effects".

The User Interface was pretty to look at. But a pain to navigate. Even Leopard is easier for me to navigate, and that's a lot like Linux. (I don't like Linux)

Yes, V(bleep!)sta is more stable than ME. Stability wasn't a problem. Speaking of problems, it just seems that V(bleep!)sta tried to achieve perfection by eliminating all problems..... and that make for an un-inspired and annoying OS.

All of my software was Windows. I've been using Windows since 3.1!
In the end I gave up and bought a Mac. And started all over again with Leopard.
And you know what? Leopard has gobs of people screaming about its bugs!
But at least it's not an insipid sluggish testament to copyright protection paranoia.


I still use Vista Wallpaper.... on my mac!
Keri

PS. All right, NOTHING could ever match ME, but what SEQUEL ever matches the original?

V(bleep!)sta video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiYQg...06B053&index=5

PPS. It's still the TITANIC of Operating Systems!

[tazwegion]

Re: Windows Vista Pretty Much Sucks

I primarily use 'trailing technology' so power/resource hungry OSes are not something I want to get mixed up with, personally I value free CPU cycles (on tap) over BLING anyday!

Ubuntu 8.10 FTW!

[bgavin]

Re: Windows Vista Pretty Much Sucks

If Microsoft holds true to past history, then Vista will be with us a long time as Windows7. I am ramping up on it in advance, as I will have to support it for a long time after this November.

I don't get all the new technology in Vista, but I suspect it ties into the multi-media industry. Microsoft is just another whore looking for the biggest buck, so I suspect the entertainment industry is paying them big time.

This strikes me the same as HP wasting all those programming hours to include a supplies-ordering web server in their printer drivers. Same as Microsoft, those hours would be better spent improving the product instead of squandered on endless marketing.

Eventually, MS will introduce a managed code module that is not backward compatible with XP, and that will force users to upgrade. This is typically done by Intuit (Quickbooks) to their clients. Those wanting to use this product will be forced to upgrade.

[KeriJane]

Re: Windows Vista Pretty Much Sucks

If Microsoft holds true to past history, then Vista will be with us a long time as Windows7. I am ramping up on it in advance, as I will have to support it for a long time after this November.

I don't get all the new technology in Vista, but I suspect it ties into the multi-media industry. Microsoft is just another whore looking for the biggest buck, so I suspect the entertainment industry is paying them big time.

This strikes me the same as HP wasting all those programming hours to include a supplies-ordering web server in their printer drivers. Same as Microsoft, those hours would be better spent improving the product instead of squandered on endless marketing.

Eventually, MS will introduce a managed code module that is not backward compatible with XP, and that will force users to upgrade. This is typically done by Intuit (Quickbooks) to their clients. Those wanting to use this product will be forced to upgrade.

Hi bgavin.

Yes, that's pretty much it.
A huge part of V(bleep!)sta's code is dedicated protecting Hollywood's profits! In order to obtain a license to play "protected" HD media, MS had to agree to all sorts of outrageous concoctions in order to make "theft" of HD content "impossible". These include something called "Tilt Bits" whose whole purpose in life is to detect any system hardware or software abnormality, deduce if it is an attempt to tap into HD content and stop (Tilt!) it.

As one could imagine, continually checking for traces of suspicious activity on everything including Hardware all the way up to the Monitor is just a tiny bit resource hungry.

Then of course there's V(bleep!)sta's own anti-theft "Activation" system specially designed to protect MS from us thieving Users.
This is the element that I found most distatesful.

At one point I was having to telephone MS every WEEK OR TWO to explain that I was not stealing Vista, I had merely changed RAID settings or changed some insignificant piece of Hardware such as a Video card, DVD burner, RAID card etc. all while using the same motherboard! They never refused to "Re-activate" my Vista license but this is what drove me and numerous others into the waiting arms of Apple computers.

V(bleep!)sta!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOh6Nh8w6f8
Keri

[zandrax]

Re: Windows Vista Pretty Much Sucks

At one point I was having to telephone MS every WEEK OR TWO to explain that I was not stealing Vista, I had merely changed RAID settings or changed some insignificant piece of Hardware such as a Video card, DVD burner, RAID card etc. all while using the same motherboard! They never refused to "Re-activate" my Vista license but this is what drove me and numerous others into the waiting arms of Apple computers.

Well, I agree Windows activation is a real annoyance (not only Vista's, XP's one too) but your logic puzzles me: you were changing a lot of components in you old desktop, roughly once a week, so Windows detected every change and forced you to activate it every time; later you moved to a computer you can barely upgrade (disc and memory for notebooks and iMacs) or have to pay a lot to get one really expandeable (Mac Pro) and are happy because there is no activation on OS X.
I suppose you really needed the components you were changing, so what about the lack of expansions on most Apple gears? How can you set a raid on an Apple computer different from the Mac Pro? Does this mean you own a Mac Pro?

Zandrax

[Sparky]

Re: Windows Vista Pretty Much Sucks

At one point I was having to telephone MS every WEEK OR TWO to explain that I was not stealing Vista, I had merely changed RAID settings or changed some insignificant piece of Hardware such as a Video card, DVD burner, RAID card etc. all while using the same motherboard! They never refused to "Re-activate" my Vista license but this is what drove me and numerous others into the waiting arms of Apple computers.

I don't get it. Vista wanted you to reactivate all the time because you were changing hardware and you got tired of it. OK... but how does going to a mac that gives you extremely limited choice of hardware changes (if you can do any at all) better? It doesn't bother you to activate because there is nothing you can change to make need reactivation in the first place.

I guess I don't get it. I've upgraded my ram, changed my graphics card, and removed a CD burner I don't use (was a secondary drive) and Vista hasn't required reactivation...

[momaka]

Re: Windows Vista Pretty Much Sucks

was pretty to look at. But a pain to navigate. Even Leopard is easier for me to navigate, and that's a lot like Linux. (I don't like Linux)

From my experience, Vista isn't that bad at all, but I strongly dislike the interface as well... Some keyboard shortcuts are just not there. Example: Windows Key>U>U which makes the computer shut down - not there in Vista. Yes I can click with a mouse, but I like keyboard shortcuts better .

Overall, I would rate the Vista interface on par with a Mac OS X. Couple of days ago, I had to use a Mac (G5 to be precise) in school for the first time in my life. Took me about the same time to get used to it as I did with Vista. And no, I don't like it either.
On a sidenote, why is everything on a Mac so drag'n'drop happy? And Macs need a right mouse button too.
...
Other than that, Vista is ok. I was just restoring my friend's laptop today to the factory stored recovery. The computer was a total mess (there was probably every possible instant messeging program + a ton of other crap + bloatware from Sony; and the result - 90something processes ). Although it was very slow, it was stable. I'm sure that wouldn't be the case with ME .
Again, the only downside was that it took a while to find where the factory recovery was due to stupid Vista interface, but I found it nonetheless. While at it, I noticed some of the Vista tips/help gave wrong info (it was telling me to go in Boot Menu on startup and select "Restore Computer to Factory Setting", an item that I was sure wouldn't be there - and it wasn't).

[KeriJane]

Re: Windows Vista Pretty Much Sucks

I don't get it. Vista wanted you to reactivate all the time because you were changing hardware and you got tired of it. OK... but how does going to a mac that gives you extremely limited choice of hardware changes (if you can do any at all) better? It doesn't bother you to activate because there is nothing you can change to make need reactivation in the first place.

I guess I don't get it. I've upgraded my ram, changed my graphics card, and removed a CD burner I don't use (was a secondary drive) and Vista hasn't required reactivation...

Hi Sparky!
The thing I like best about Mac is that their idea of "Activation" means that the Leopard install DVD merely checks to see if you are in fact installing it on an Apple product, and that it is a compatible model. No serial numbers, No "call home" no constant re-checking to see if you stuck the boot drive in a different machine, no constant assumption that you as a User are a Thief.

Can Leopard be "Cracked"? Easily. There are "Hackintosh" computers all over the world running Mac OS.
What is Apple's response? Well, if they catch you they'll prosecute. And that's about it. No assumption that every user is a thief, no Rube Goldberg Activation schemes, just a reasonable price for a legit copy so as to discourage theft.

With a Mac Pro there is quite a lot of hardware you can play with. A Hardware RAID card is an option, as are several video cards, up to 16gb RAM, 4 internal SATA, 2 DVD burners and also many PCIe cards will work in the 4 PCIe 16 slots. Nothing like the flexibility a PC offers, but enough for my demanding uses.

Mostly, this system is strong enough that I don't have to mess with it much. Right now it's got 8GB ram in Quad channel configuration, 1x ATI 2600, 2x XEON CPUs 1 DVD burner, Bluetooth, 4 internal SATA and 1 external FW800 RAID enclosure. It is strong, and Leopard is no slouch. Even XP runs beautifully on it in "Boot Camp" mode. Someday soon I'm gonna get that HD3870 for it. And Snow Leopard too.

BTW, Vista uses a different activation scheme for store-bought computers such as HP, Dell, etc. This activation is locked only to the system's BIOS and allows far more in the way of hardware changes than the generic OEM version I used, which considers many hardware changes to be an installation on a different system.

Have Fun!
Keri

PS. Maybe I'll just download some viruses on purpose just to laugh at them

[Sparky]

Re: Windows Vista Pretty Much Sucks

BTW, Vista uses a different activation scheme for store-bought computers such as HP, Dell, etc. This activation is locked only to the system's BIOS and allows far more in the way of hardware changes than the generic OEM version I used, which considers many hardware changes to be an installation on a different system.

I'm not using a prebuilt machine. I'm using a standard retail copy of Vista on my custom-built watercooled PC. I don't do prebuilt machines

[bgavin]

Re: Windows Vista Pretty Much Sucks

Microsoft is foremost a marketing company.
As such, Microsoft is driven by Pain.

Pain occurs when the business, government, and military communities say to Vista.

Microsoft responds to Pain by using Change. Windows7 is Change.
It still has all the Marketing B.S. installed (i.e. Hollywood profits), but hopefully in a package more palatable to the large user communities.

Here is the deal for the Mac folks: when the Mac can run mainstream Windows business apps flawlessly, that business will then belong to Apple. Simple as that.
My clients don't give one whit about multimedia junk. They want their Quickbooks, etc, to work flawlessly. Do that with the Mac, and they are yours.

[willawake]

Re: Windows Vista Pretty Much Sucks

many people struggle with windows. to use a new os would be a big step for them. mac is too expensive anyway.

[KeriJane]

Re: Windows Vista Pretty Much Sucks

many people struggle with windows. to use a new os would be a big step for them. mac is too expensive anyway.

Hi Willawake.

Having just gone through that big step....

Why yes, it was a big step! But I made it OK.

After getting accustomed to Leopard, it it a lot less struggle than Windows, particularly Windows Vista.

So far as "too expensive"? Actually not. If you compare *Apples to Oranges", then yes they are.
But if you compare roughly similar models the price difference is not that great.

Examples: Compare a Mac Mini to a similarly equipped Shuttle. And.... don't forget to include OS, KB and mouse!

Compare an iMac to a similarly equipped Sony, HP or Gateway all-in-one iMac knockoff, the PC types just aren't as cheap as you'd think. Please don't quote the giveaway prices that the PC makers are forced to dump them at after they fail to sell.

or.... and this always causes the most controversy.... compare a Mac Pro to another Server-based i5400 chipset dual-Xeon with 8 cores total, quad channel memory, a 1,000w PSU, an expensive solid aluminum case equal to or better than Lian-Li (I have one) all the memory, drives, cards, fans, KB, Mouse, OS, etc.. and see if it isn't nearly the same (or higher) price!

Please do not compare a first gen Quad MacPro to a Core2Quad system. It isn't one.

Have Fun,
Get a Mac!
Keri

[Wizard]

Re: Windows Vista Pretty Much Sucks

and forgotten to include upgraded using decent PSU, old but nice case, new board and similar CPU, and copy of OEM XP with legal COA sticker and 2GB of ram and decent video card? If you even have good monitor, keyboard and mouse.

Cheers, Wizard