Windows Vista has kind of gotten a bum rap. Some of the rap is deserved -- Microsoft shipped it too early. But for the most part, the rap is carried on by vocal techies who just like to poop on things because they think criticizing things makes them appear more knowledgeable.
Talking to a techie about the quality of mainstream software is a lot like talking to a film school graduate about the quality of mainstream movies. Sure, you might have liked Pirates of the Caribbean but talk to a film snob and it's the 7th sign of the Apocalypse. So how good is Windows Vista? The answer is, pretty good. Far better than Windows XP. But I can think of 5 big mistakes Microsoft made that has taken a window out of its sails.
Let me outline those 5 mistakes Microsoft made with the Windows Vista launch and talk about how Microsoft might be able to keep Windows Vista from being a sequel to Windows ME.
Talking to a techie about the quality of mainstream software is a lot like talking to a film school graduate about the quality of mainstream movies. Sure, you might have liked Pirates of the Caribbean but talk to a film snob and it's the 7th sign of the Apocalypse. So how good is Windows Vista? The answer is, pretty good. Far better than Windows XP. But I can think of 5 big mistakes Microsoft made that has taken a window out of its sails.
Let me outline those 5 mistakes Microsoft made with the Windows Vista launch and talk about how Microsoft might be able to keep Windows Vista from being a sequel to Windows ME.
#1 The UAC. The User Account Control in Windows Vista is a feature that appears to have been designed by a marketing committee. Some casual computer user decided that the way to make other casual users think that Windows Vista was "secure" was to have more prompts. A lot more prompts. And so, even a power user (i.e. early adopters) logged on as an administrator is going to find themselves being prompted regularly. They can turn it off but that defeats the entire purpose of having better security.
The result: Power users turn it off and casual users learn to ignore the myriad of repetitive dialogs.
Solution: Have the UAC be a lot smarter. A simple "Always give permission to continue for this action" checkbox at the bottom of the dialog would be nice. It's bad enough that changing the IP address on Vista requires 5 clicks to get to (versus 2 in Windows XP) but it adds a 6th click to get past the UAC.
#2 Windows Vista was shipped before drivers were ready. This, combined with item #1 are probably responsible for the majority of the negative vibe Windows Vista has received.
As a practical matter, the first usable beta of Windows Vista wasn't made available until 4 or so months before Windows Vista shipped (or merely 1 month before "gold". This meant that many drivers, video drivers in particular, weren't ready. But for all those people who have a finicky scanner or Air card or other specialty peripheral had to be guinea pigs.
The result: Early adopters were stung with problematic behavior and a lack of drivers which caused frustration that they shared a lot with others.
Solution: This is mostly dealt with now (as of July 26th for nVidia users for instance). But when one considers how much reputation damage this caused Microsoft should really give more care in the future. Release a stable public beta long enough before going gold so that developers can provide adequate support.
#3 The new Start menu. Love the new Start Search. Kudos. Don't love the Start menu navigation which wants to exist in a fixed window. The example screenshot shows Microsoft's own apps being cut off. For those of us who liked to seriously organize our Start menu items into categories and such, this new start menu option is a huge pain.
Solution: Make the All Programs button behavior an option between the classic expanding menu or the new menu container.
#4 Unbelievably bad desktop performance. Another item that really hurt the initial impression of Windows Vista was how horrible basic desktop operations like copying and zipping were. A user would be copying a handful of files and would get this dialog trying to estimate how long the copy should take. Here's your answer: less than a second! At least, that's what it should have taken. Instead, the estimating time dialog would take a few seconds and then the copy would take a second or two. This sort of thing on routine file copying and moving made Windows Vista feel like a pig.
Solution: Service Pack 1 is supposed to address this sort of thing more thoroughly but the good news is that Microsoft did officially release some patches that improves desktop performance significantly.
#5 Upgrade Pricing is a joke. I wonder what color the sky is on planet Microsoft. Because on planet Microsoft, the Xbox 360 is $350 which not only includes the OS (with Media Center), a 20 Gigabyte Hard drive and other goodies, but at the same time Windows Vista Home Premium Upgrade lists for $160. Sure, it's not a truly fair comparison (console makers get a piece of revenue from console games) but the point is still valid. One might get the impression that Microsoft has a monopoly in the PC OS market but does not in the console market.
The big problem is that Microsoft's marketing never made the case for what you are actually getting for that $160. I like Windows Vista. I think it's a big improvement over Windows XP. And when I buy a computer, I am glad Windows Vista comes with it. But upgrading my existing computers? The incredibly stingy "Family Discount" (which has expired) wasn't even close to justifying upgrading machines to Vista.
Maybe there is $160 in value buried in Windows Vista Home Premium but Microsoft's marketing didn't make the case. And I can't find it -- especially when you combine it with the above issues. This wasn't a problem with Windows XP. Windows XP was blatantly better than Windows ME/98 and it was noticeably better than Windows 2000 (which only had a tiny share of the market compared to 98/ME). As a result, 7 months later, Windows Vista has less than 10% of the market. By contrast, I remember watching Windows XP's launch and the migration to Windows XP was pretty swift.
Solution: No solution. They aren't likely to lower pricing any time soon. Once Service Pack 1 has been integrated into the OEM versions (the ones that ship with new PCs) you'll see nearly everyone opting for Windows Vista on a new machine while older machines continue with Windows XP.
Conclusions:
I could go on with numerous other items like the terrible icon handling, the fact that development tools weren't ready for prime time, that Microsoft's marketing efforts were seemingly handled by non-technical people (I mean, really, Flip3D is actually one of the first things mentioned on the Windows Vista home page -- how deep are you digging to find compelling features when a fairly useless task switcher is your money shot?), all have contributed to the negative buzz around Windows Vista.
Which is a shame because Windows Vista is really very good. On a scale from 1 to 10, if Windows 98 was a 4, Windows ME a 3, Windows 2000 a 6 and Windows XP a 7 then Windows Vista is easily an 8. It's a worthy and significant upgrade. It deserves a good reputation. Hopefully, Microsoft can get Service Pack 1 out sooner rather than later and address as best they can the issues that many people have brought up.
Note: This is the first of the new series of weekly Neowin.net editorials. Let us know what you think.
Ah good point! Early adopters who got PC's that implied they could use Windows Vista as marketed soon discovered that they couldn't even get Aero to run decently thus helping put a taint on the early experience.
Wow. Text book Microsoft apologist. It's the customer's fault that they didn't intuitively get the difference between Vista capable and Vista ready.
Wow. Text book Microsoft apologist. It's the customer's fault that they didn't intuitively get the difference between Vista capable and Vista ready.
Do you honestly think Microsoft is the only company where people have trouble? Ask a couple of randoms on the street if they can tell you the difference between 1080i and 1080p for a digital television, or HD-DVD and BluRay, or DVD-R and DVD+R.
If you're unsure, would you just blindly pick one or research it first? Of course, these days, easier to make a mistake and blame the other person than take responsibility, who takes responsibility these days? That's old fashioned.
Wow. Text book Microsoft apologist. It's the customer's fault that they didn't intuitively get the difference between Vista capable and Vista ready.
Do you honestly think Microsoft is the only company where people have trouble? Ask a couple of randoms on the street if they can tell you the difference between 1080i and 1080p for a digital television, or HD-DVD and BluRay, or DVD-R and DVD+R.
If you're unsure, would you just blindly pick one or research it first? Of course, these days, easier to make a mistake and blame the other person than take responsibility, who takes responsibility these days? That's old fashioned.
If i buy a bluray palyer that sasy HD-DVD compatible i expect it to play HD-DVD, if i buy a TV trhat says 1080p i expect it to have 1080p if i buy a DVD-R i expect it to be a DVD-R
if i buy a vista capable machine i expect it to be able to handle all the features of vista.
why shoudl the consumer have to research if a computer that says it is vista capable is actually vista capable.
Wow. Text book Microsoft apologist. It's the customer's fault that they didn't intuitively get the difference between Vista capable and Vista ready.
Sad but true, Mascrin - people don't take time to read what they need to. If they did, they'd never step foot in a McDonalds or any other fast food establishment. I take it that you've never heard of "caveat emptor" before?
If consumers don't take the time to actually READ about things that they're going to purchase, is that the manufacturer's fault? Hardly - it's the consumer's fault for not taking a few minutes and ask someone those important questions about the product...someone who might actually KNOW what they're talking about
It's late here, and I don't have the time to dig into Brad's comments - but rest assured that I'll be fresh-as-old-socks tomorrow and dive into this Editorial in the morning.
Pardon, how is t the end users fault - when I see 'Windows Vista Capable', I assume that if I purchase a computer now, my specificiations will be enough to be able to not only run Windows Vista but have all the cool features mentioned that will come with Windows Vista.
Its not *MY* or anyone elses problem that Microsoft can't adequately and clearly aticulate what they mean by capable - what is so hard with having two or more stickers with the level of support one should get from Windows Vista, "Windows Vista Basic - this will support the core features", "Windows Vista Premium - This will support advanced features" then have a pamphlet with a matrix outlinging what each term means what each term will provide - "Windows Basic Capable means that [list of features] will be supported].
Wow. Text book Microsoft apologist. It's the customer's fault that they didn't intuitively get the difference between Vista capable and Vista ready.
Do you honestly think Microsoft is the only company where people have trouble? Ask a couple of randoms on the street if they can tell you the difference between 1080i and 1080p for a digital television, or HD-DVD and BluRay, or DVD-R and DVD+R.
If you're unsure, would you just blindly pick one or research it first? Of course, these days, easier to make a mistake and blame the other person than take responsibility, who takes responsibility these days? That's old fashioned.
If i buy a bluray palyer that sasy HD-DVD compatible i expect it to play HD-DVD, if i buy a TV trhat says 1080p i expect it to have 1080p if i buy a DVD-R i expect it to be a DVD-R
if i buy a vista capable machine i expect it to be able to handle all the features of vista.
why shoudl the consumer have to research if a computer that says it is vista capable is actually vista capable.
if your new TV is HD Ready ... does that mean that it can do 1080p ?
no ... because HD ready means it's 720p ... full hd is 1080p
if consumers don't get their act togheter, they shouldn't whine.
i hate whiners
Wow. Text book Microsoft apologist. It's the customer's fault that they didn't intuitively get the difference between Vista capable and Vista ready.
Do you honestly think Microsoft is the only company where people have trouble? Ask a couple of randoms on the street if they can tell you the difference between 1080i and 1080p for a digital television, or HD-DVD and BluRay, or DVD-R and DVD+R.
If you're unsure, would you just blindly pick one or research it first? Of course, these days, easier to make a mistake and blame the other person than take responsibility, who takes responsibility these days? That's old fashioned.
If i buy a bluray palyer that sasy HD-DVD compatible i expect it to play HD-DVD, if i buy a TV trhat says 1080p i expect it to have 1080p if i buy a DVD-R i expect it to be a DVD-R
if i buy a vista capable machine i expect it to be able to handle all the features of vista.
why shoudl the consumer have to research if a computer that says it is vista capable is actually vista capable.
if your new TV is HD Ready ... does that mean that it can do 1080p ?
no ... because HD ready means it's 720p ... full hd is 1080p
if consumers don't get their act togheter, they shouldn't whine.
i hate whiners
Pardon? the agreed definition of what HD is just that. The issue at play is the fact that defining what capable actually was by providing materials to retailers.
Now, is Microsoft trying to rip off customers? nope. One could actually say the responsibility actually falls on the OEM's who deliberately under powered the machines.
I think "Vista Retarded" and "Vista Ready" would had been more intuitive.
Except that we have to take into consideration that Microsoft DID do this. Hop on over to microsoft.com and if you still can't find the information you want I'll be happy to provide a direct link. Anyway, if you still don't understand you should get help making your purchasing decision. Making false assumptions and then blaming the manufacturer for YOUR error is still YOUR own fault.
Why consumers so reluctant to take responsibility for their own money is beyond me.
Except that we have to take into consideration that Microsoft DID do this. Hop on over to microsoft.com and if you still can't find the information you want I'll be happy to provide a direct link. Anyway, if you still don't understand you should get help making your purchasing decision. Making false assumptions and then blaming the manufacturer for YOUR error is still YOUR own fault.
Why consumers so reluctant to take responsibility for their own money is beyond me.
Exactly. Was I the only one to download AND run the "Vista upgrade compatibility wizard"? It ran it's tests, and told you what hardware you should upgrade and what hardware was fine for vista. You picked at the start what version of Vista you wanted.. and there ya go! Why others didn't bother to run that is beyond me... oh wait... it's not. People are ignorant, for the most part.
Except that we have to take into consideration that Microsoft DID do this. Hop on over to microsoft.com and if you still can't find the information you want I'll be happy to provide a direct link. Anyway, if you still don't understand you should get help making your purchasing decision. Making false assumptions and then blaming the manufacturer for YOUR error is still YOUR own fault.
Why consumers so reluctant to take responsibility for their own money is beyond me.
Exactly. Was I the only one to download AND run the "Vista upgrade compatibility wizard"? It ran it's tests, and told you what hardware you should upgrade and what hardware was fine for vista. You picked at the start what version of Vista you wanted.. and there ya go! Why others didn't bother to run that is beyond me... oh wait... it's not. People are ignorant, for the most part.
******** - read the article - the issue is that they made the decision AT the purchase of the computer - are you telling me that these customers can go into the store and say, "may I run this application on the machine before purchasing it?" you're saying that the average customer is smart enough to actually navigate Microsoft.com - these are the same morons who open up attachments and stuff without checking who sent it, people who install *.exes from emails that claim to be be 'updates' from Microsoft.
But like I said, it isn't Microsofts responsibility.
Pardon, how is t the end users fault - when I see 'Windows Vista Capable', I assume that if I purchase a computer now, my specificiations will be enough to be able to not only run Windows Vista but have all the cool features mentioned that will come with Windows Vista.
Its not *MY* or anyone elses problem that Microsoft can't adequately and clearly aticulate what they mean by capable - what is so hard with having two or more stickers with the level of support one should get from Windows Vista, "Windows Vista Basic - this will support the core features", "Windows Vista Premium - This will support advanced features" then have a pamphlet with a matrix outlinging what each term means what each term will provide - "Windows Basic Capable means that [list of features] will be supported].
Actually Microsoft can.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/...de/capable.mspx
A lot of the people in this thread are perfect textbook examples of those who should not consider themselves knowledgable about technology, and who should not give anyone else advice.
Reminds me of Geek Squad techs
Pardon, how is t the end users fault - when I see 'Windows Vista Capable', I assume that if I purchase a computer now, my specificiations will be enough to be able to not only run Windows Vista but have all the cool features mentioned that will come with Windows Vista.
Its not *MY* or anyone elses problem that Microsoft can't adequately and clearly aticulate what they mean by capable - what is so hard with having two or more stickers with the level of support one should get from Windows Vista, "Windows Vista Basic - this will support the core features", "Windows Vista Premium - This will support advanced features" then have a pamphlet with a matrix outlinging what each term means what each term will provide - "Windows Basic Capable means that [list of features] will be supported].
Actually Microsoft can.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/...de/capable.mspx
A lot of the people in this thread are perfect textbook examples of those who should not consider themselves knowledgable about technology, and who should not give anyone else advice.
Reminds me of Geek Squad techs
And people like you should learn how to read before considering you know something about IT.
I never said the information wasn't there, I said that the end user was too dumb to actually find the information on Microsofts website. I also said that it isn't Microsofts responsibility - how about reading before making an ass of yourself.
i hate whiners
i understand the differences and do not consider it whining to ask for somethign to do what it states it does
cause im still using windows xp myself, and i wont even consider using vista til atleast SP1 minimum.
This is all just history repeating itself people. But many have short memories and forget the past.
What's the point in buying a new operating system if you're a gamer just to put up with irritatingly slower games, which results in you doing worse.
Just thought that would be worth mentioning.
Even with the early 'bad' drivers, the performance difference in the 'average' of the games was 10%, so this was 54FPS instead of 60FPS compared to XP, which wasn't a major drop.
Not only is Vista matching XP in terms of gaming performance, but with the WDDM and VRAM virtualization in Vista, gamers can turn up texture quality higher than in XP. So for example in City of Heroes you could run at Medium in XP and get 60FPS with a 128mb card, in Vista with the same card you can run at Very High and get 60FPS+, and enjoy a better quality game.
A couple of tricks for people that have had performance issues with games in Vista.
• Set your Anti-Aliasing in the ATI or NVidia Driver, and don't turn on this feature in game unless the game was released this year. Older games try to enable AA in a way that is a major performance killer with how the Vista Video Subsystem works. (i.e. the games don't understand Vista, so end up enabling AA in a way that kills performance.)
• If the game is still performing badly, in the compatibility tab of the Shortcut for the game, set it to "WindowsXP SP2". Most games this doesn't matter, but some games don't see higher than 5.1 when versioning the OS, and will fall back to Win98 or Win2k optimized settings. There are also some games like a few Sony MMOs that don't detect the RAM in your system properly because it doesn't know what Vista is, so instead of the game using 700mb for smooth performance, it will only allocate 200mb even if you have 1GB or 2GB of RAM.
• You can try, The 'Disable Desktop Composition" in the compatibility tab as well and it MAY help with some games, but also it may 'slow' down some games, as the Aero interface is actually faster than falling back to the XP method of drawing without a direct write composer (Aero). Also this usually only affects games that you play in a 'Window' as Vista is good about setting the Aero "Desktop Composistion" for full screen games, usually turning it partially or all the way off if needed.
• Last rule, BE SURE to install your video drivers from the NVidia or ATI web site. The Drivers for Video that MS ships with Vista (and even available via Windows Update) are not allowed to have the OpenGL ICD, which means OpenGL games get NO hardware acceleration with the default drivers, and many games use OpenGL, or even if they are DirectX, will sometimes be hybrids and utilizing some OpenGL code. (I have seen many gamers uninstall Vista because they never installed the 'real' drivers from NVidia or ATI, and were horrified at the performance of the 'out of the box' MS supplied Video drivers.
I agree that at launch the drivers from ATI and NVidia were awful, and in some games the performance penalty was more than the 10% average. However there were some games that had a 10% gain in Vista even at launch with the crap drivers. (Go look up the January tests people did online.)
However with the mature drivers from NVidia and ATi, Vista gaming is on track and pulling away from XP. If you play MMOs or games with a lot of 'instancing/loading' you will find your game load times and 'zoning/loading' times several times faster than XP due to the smart caching system in Vista. In groups of players, you can always spot the people running Vista, as they are already loaded into the instance before everyone else, even if they have low end hardware.
So don't discount Vista on Gaming, and the editorial did 'kind of' mention this issue, but only via the poor driver support topic instead of talking full scale about the Gaming and how it gave Vista a bad start because of the drivers for Gaming specifically.
Its the same with every new version of Windows.. and you either upgrade your PC enough that you don't notice the hit of the new OS because the overall speed boost from the new hardware negates it, or you stick with dual boot for the forseeable future.
Not that i'm justifying the speed hit of course - I still can't get "into" Vista, but just saying it was the same with XP before it!
1) Linux didn't always have a mechanism in the Desktop Manager to handle 'elevation'.
2) Since this is fork is talking about gaming performance, how's gaming working for you in Linux? Even games ported to Linux DO NOT have the same level of performance as they do in Windows for a reason. Linux has been around longer than MS has been trying to do gaming on NT, why is gaming on NT still winning?
3) Ubuntu? You realize some of their servers were just hacked a few days ago. Nice OS Pick.
Its the same with every new version of Windows.. and you either upgrade your PC enough that you don't notice the hit of the new OS because the overall speed boost from the new hardware negates it, or you stick with dual boot for the forseeable future.
Not that i'm justifying the speed hit of course - I still can't get "into" Vista, but just saying it was the same with XP before it!
Great point! Finally someone who remembers the past. I thought I was the only one here that did. Forget XP, even going back to Win2k it was a pain until drivers got good enough to pass Win98 in gaming. If Vista kept the same driver model as XP, we wouldn't be having this issue, but they changed it all around and this is why nVidia and ATi have problems. The newest drivers should be good and on par with XP performence wise. Give them a few more updates, and by the end of the year Vista performence will have passed up XP.
The way it handles permissions is far less annoying than with Vista.
There are Linux programs like Transgaming, and Crossover that use Wine (the newest version is much better at emulating DirectX now) to play games and many games do run quite well under them. Though, as I stated, I dual boot with a stripped down version of Xp just for games. The only reason its winning is that its on more systems. This is also why Windows' OSes also have a greater amount of viruses and the like as well. Popular doesn't always mean better. Games are the only thing holding me back from going all the way with Linux.
So, what? M$ servers are hacked far more often.
Trust me, I know what I'm talking about. Windows is still crap. You can put all of the pretty wrappers on crap and it'll still be nothing more than crap.
Is that a real percentage or did you make that up? I'm not trying to be an ass by asking, but it seems extremely unlikely. I, for one, have only found one or two games that go faster in Vista. And, yeah, they're the newer games. But, even after trying everything you've said, the other games I play still run awful.
Warrock - I experience random chopping, which is a VERY low end graphics game, and some of the vehicles just disappear right before my eyes, which causes almost instant death.
Silkroadonline - You're right about MMOs in a certain aspect. The game runs more smoothly than it ever did on XP (which is something, because XP ran nearly perfect unless in town), but the problems far surpass the advantages in this game. Starting up this little beauty takes a cool 5-10 minutes minimum. The first time my screen just went black for 15 minutes (on an intesting note, ALL games I play take longer to start up than they ever did on XP, even if the FPS when I finally start playing are increased) and I thought my computer froze. But, yeah, faster actual gameplay once you get inside. Too bad those friggin' Korean game makers can't make it so their game doesn't crash all the time and I have to start up (another 5-10 minutes) every time I go to town.
Sims 2 (I don't play it, just had it lying around and decided to test it) - EVERYTHING is slower. This is the Sims 2 man, the graphics suck. But starting it up and loading up the neighborhoods is just RIDICULOUSLY slow. I installed it on XP and the game took about 20 seconds to start up. Vista it took 3 minutes the first time, 2 minutes every time after that. Loading up a neighborhood in XP takes me about 10 seconds, Vista it takes 1 minute. FPS wise Vista is about 20% slower all the time.
CSS - Slower. Everything.
Chaos Theory - Faster. Start up, FPS, everything. I liked this.
I could go on but there's not really any point. My experience, even after trying all your tricks (which I tried almost all of them before you mentioned and when I made my initial post), is still below XP. I play a lot of Korean MMOs and FPSs that are pretty offbrand generic rip offs of other good games, and I play a lot of popular and all around good games, and very few of them run faster than they do in XP. This is all based on experience, as well, and after doing most of the things you described. So, I don't know where you got your facts from, or if you actually just have such a nice computer that the OS doesn't matter to you, but using a pretty midline computer (it was amazing 5 months ago, but you know how it is), Vista is failing me at every front.
Meaning what? If you're talking about the GNU/Linux equiv. of UAC it has been in GNU/Linux since I've started messing around with it about 10 years ago...
The guy already explained that he dual boots XP to serve is gaming needs when it doesn't work well under GNU/Linux. Are you just baiting for something?
Also, GNU/Linux has NOT been around longer than Microsoft... Might do you some good to learn computer history if you're going to consider youself a worthwhile technician. MS was incorporated in 1975 and GNU/Linux wasn't even started until 1984 with the work started by the GNU project.
If you're going to talk about Windows NT it started in 1988 with GNU/Linux coming together with the start of Linus' Kernel in 1991... Both are around the same age...
So you base your OS choice on who got cracked? If so I'm not sure why you're arguing on the Microsoft side. MS has gotten their head in the right pond and Vista is their first OS since their Secure Code practices matured, but their history in the security department is lack luster. We can only wait and see if real results are in for Vista...
Historically Unix based OS' have the best security track record. It is why Microsoft hosted their own website on Unix servers until the release of Windows Server 2003!
Certainly not the same performance... actually it's ofter better on linux.
<quote>It's a worthy and significant upgrade</quote> Really? Why? What is worthy about it and why is it a significant upgrade? How is it better than XP? I've yet to see any real discussion of that. There is a lot of material that describes what is wrong with Vista, but very little that really describes just what is right and why it is necessary.
Security? No, my XP installation is not insecure. Ease of use? What's not easy about XP? Frankly, the truth is there is no compelling reason to upgrade that I can think of. Pretty doesn't cut it. XP is pretty. Everything can be made even prettier with a bit of work, but that's not a compelling reason to upgrade.
Until I see a truly informative description of what is right about Vista that is better than what exists in XP, I will remain with what I know and what works.
And I must add, if it weren't for Adobe products and the games and supporting software that I enjoy, I'd be a Linux user. My Mandriva 2007.1 work box is outstanding. It IS pretty, solid, reliable, and does all I need to have done at work.
But I'm always interested in reading opinions and evaluations of what is right and better.
Is it better? Crashes are about the same and still get BSOD's, so I'm not sure how much of an improvement it is. Certainly not the Longhorn I was expecting... but not the Windows ME many said it was.
i just think people expect a big boost over the previous version of windows which those days are not going to happen since WinXP already got pretty much everything people need from a pc... stuff just works and is stable and has a pretty good speed which xp already has.
Dam you Microsoft for not making DX10 for XP. Dam you to hell.
Doesn't matter now, becasue everyone's making their games XP compatible now (by allowing DX9 fall-back support if you don't have Vista) but there's no reason why DX10 couldn't have been made for XP. Except then NOBODY would have bought Vista, and MS knows it.
#2: I kind of agree with this one, but it's also the hardware makers fault. You're going to have growing pains anytime a new OS is released.
#3: Start Menu Navigation is not needed for 95% of the things you should be using the start menu for. Removing the option for running it in "classic" mode makes people learn the new way, which is better. I know, people think better is subjective and hate change, but it really is better
#4: I never had these problems so I can't really comment on them.
#5: Most people get an OS with their new PC. Very few actually buy upgrades. Even those that do, they'll probably do it now when it's new. Pretty soon it'll be on the next PC they buy.
Just my $0.02. YMMV
For number 2, Vista has had release candidates and betas for some time, these should be considered stable enough to start making drivers for, if not beta then definitely release candidates. Also, Vista was out for businesses in November, while out for consumers three months later for home users. What were the hardware driver developers doing in this time? Also, this is a standard gripe with any new Windows version. Not new.
For number 3, the new Vista UI guidelines say that programs should not make a folder in the start menu, and only put in application icons necessary (i.e. the main program). This will take some time for new software developers/installer makers to get used to. Plus, you have Search... just type in what you want?
For number 2, Vista has had release candidates and betas for some time, these should be considered stable enough to start making drivers for, if not beta then definitely release candidates. Also, Vista was out for businesses in November, while out for consumers three months later for home users. What were the hardware driver developers doing in this time? Also, this is a standard gripe with any new Windows version. Not new.
For number 3, the new Vista UI guidelines say that programs should not make a folder in the start menu, and only put in application icons necessary (i.e. the main program). This will take some time for new software developers/installer makers to get used to. Plus, you have Search... just type in what you want?
Actually the driver API has been stable for alot longer than the whole operating system; and the stability of interfaces lower down have been stable for quite some time too - IIRC many of the interfaces were on paper2-3 years before the beta releases. These driver companies have had plenty of time to get their act together. Just as I am disgusted with AMD's half ass drivers for *NIX (and only supporting Linux - no FreeBSD or Solaris support) I am disgusted at the laziness in regards to Windows Vista driver development.
My experience has been mixed. Some aspects of Vista are very good but the general performance is just too slow. I'm back on XP at the moment but I've downloaded the SP1 ISO and intend to try that when I have some spare time.
3 digit??
I.E. 100C+ GFX Card?
Or do you mean, it's over 100F in your room and you card doesn't overheat?
Not clear.
Anyway, buy an 8800, then you'll worry about 3 digit temperatures.
So you illegally downloaded the leaked Vista ISO eh?
Good luck with that!
So you illegally downloaded the leaked Vista ISO eh?
Good luck with that!
its a service pack that is going to be released for free, it is a beta version of the SP, there is nothign reallly illegal about it, the only issue is it has got out to the public when ms didn't really want it to.
It is completely unarguably 100% illegal.
Very old, yet apparently still very current. Worthy of an editorial IMHO...
It is completely unarguably 100% illegal.
how do you come to that conclusion, as i said in the end it is goign to be released for free ?? and it's beta which will be released to the public for free to test in a month or two anyway, is there some licensing issue here i don't know about.
It is completely unarguably 100% illegal.
how do you come to that conclusion, as i said in the end it is goign to be released for free ?? and it's beta which will be released to the public for free to test in a month or two anyway, is there some licensing issue here i don't know about.
The Vista SP1 Beta was released to a small amount of testers in ISO format. It wasn't just SP1 in exe form to install on a Vista system like the leaked XP SP3 Beta. It was an enitre Vista build with SP1 integrated. Now tell me how that couldn't be illegal?
I still can't believe people don't understand the differences in the two betas. I mean how can people see the Vista SP1 download size at a little over 3gb's in ISO form and think it's just the service pack alone? That would be the biggest service pack ever
Also, it's annoying that people automatically assume that the user theyarecomingforyou got it illegally. I don't know how they got it, but for all we know they could very well be a part of the small group of testers. Don't just quickly jump to the conclusion they got it illegally.
My 2 cents worth
To use it you still need a valid licence for Vista, so it's not like it's a way to bypass anything.
To use it you still need a valid licence for Vista, so it's not like it's a way to bypass anything.
I actually meant to bring that up. I'm sure that ISO floating around doesn't work with any of those cracks that are also floating around. I'd be too nervous if I downlaoded it and activated it and find out that it doesn't run on my system. There goes an activation I could have used on my original copy.
That's why I don't mess with anything that's leaked anymore. A few years ago when I didn't know as much as I do now, I would have downloaded it in a heartbeat.
is the new filesystemups i forgot that they removed it, so vista just give directx10 (still a buggy and unsupported stuff).And no, i don't think that it's the price, almost all windows are illegal copies, so if vista is still inpopular, you cannot blame the price since even people didn't installed for free.
is the new filesystemups i forgot that they removed it, so vista just give directx10 (still a buggy and unsupported stuff).And no, i don't think that it's the price, almost all windows are illegal copies, so if vista is still inpopular, you cannot blame the price since even people didn't installed for free.
Vista/Longhorn was never, ever going to have a new file system.
is the new filesystemups i forgot that they removed it, so vista just give directx10 (still a buggy and unsupported stuff).And no, i don't think that it's the price, almost all windows are illegal copies, so if vista is still inpopular, you cannot blame the price since even people didn't installed for free.
Vista/Longhorn was never, ever going to have a new file system.
umm yeah it was, it was one of the main things MS was goign on about when they first srtarted talkign about vista/longhorm, in fact here is an article that tells you all about it
http://news.com.com/2009-1017-857509.html
did you even try and look it up
Um.. just so some reading around on Google and you'll know thats a complete load of nonsense!
http://cogscanthink.blogsome.com/2007/01/0...moved-features/
http://www.creationrobot.com/?p=1876
http://www.informationweek.com/windows/sho...1738&pgno=1
Um.. just so some reading around on Google and you'll know thats a complete load of nonsense!
http://cogscanthink.blogsome.com/2007/01/0...moved-features/
http://www.creationrobot.com/?p=1876
http://www.informationweek.com/windows/sho...1738&pgno=1
WinFS is not a file system.
Ask Brandon Live where he works at
Then let's see you argue about that new file system
is the new filesystemups i forgot that they removed it, so vista just give directx10 (still a buggy and unsupported stuff).And no, i don't think that it's the price, almost all windows are illegal copies, so if vista is still inpopular, you cannot blame the price since even people didn't installed for free.
Vista/Longhorn was never, ever going to have a new file system.
<snip> don't call users names...
WinFS stands for Windows Future Storage... not for windows file system
Last edited by neufuse on 16 Aug 2007 - 14:52
is the new filesystemups i forgot that they removed it, so vista just give directx10 (still a buggy and unsupported stuff).And no, i don't think that it's the price, almost all windows are illegal copies, so if vista is still inpopular, you cannot blame the price since even people didn't installed for free.
Vista/Longhorn was never, ever going to have a new file system.
<snipped> what do you think the FS stands for in WINFS duh "File System" ofcourse or perhaps you thought it stood for Full Speed or some other nonesense name
It stands for "Future Storage." Go look it up. WinFS is not and never was a file system.
Last edited by neufuse on 16 Aug 2007 - 14:55
WinFS stands for Windows Future Storage. pwned!
WinFS is not a file system, it's a "data storage and management system".
Last edited by neufuse on 16 Aug 2007 - 15:06
is the new filesystemups i forgot that they removed it, so vista just give directx10 (still a buggy and unsupported stuff).And no, i don't think that it's the price, almost all windows are illegal copies, so if vista is still inpopular, you cannot blame the price since even people didn't installed for free.
Vista/Longhorn was never, ever going to have a new file system.
<snipped> what do you think the FS stands for in WINFS duh "File System" ofcourse or perhaps you thought it stood for Full Speed or some other nonesense name
It stands for "Future Storage." Go look it up. WinFS is not and never was a file system.
Right, it was just another major feature that was left out, but not a file system!
Can you see the difference?!
Last edited by neufuse on 16 Aug 2007 - 15:07
is the new filesystemups i forgot that they removed it, so vista just give directx10 (still a buggy and unsupported stuff).And no, i don't think that it's the price, almost all windows are illegal copies, so if vista is still inpopular, you cannot blame the price since even people didn't installed for free.
Vista/Longhorn was never, ever going to have a new file system.
umm yeah it was, it was one of the main things MS was goign on about when they first srtarted talkign about vista/longhorm, in fact here is an article that tells you all about it
http://news.com.com/2009-1017-857509.html
did you even try and look it up
WinFS was a database indexing system that was ON TOP OF NTFS. Basically adding SQL type abilities to tracking files in the User's folder.
It NEVER was going to replace NTFS (the file system) and it certain is NOT a file system. (The main reason it was removed, is MS found they could get just as good performance and features using just a new indexing system and NTFS for holding metadata. Hence WinFS was removed more of out not being needed, rather than being a 'failed' anything.)
If you want to rant about an OS removing support for a file system, go look up Apple. Last year Apple had FULL plans to make ZFS the new file system in 10.5; however, now it is down to just 'maybe' being able to read ZFS partitions. And sadly the ONLY FS OS X uses are horribly dated and pale 'severly' in comparision to MS's 1992 NTFS.
So if want to rant on some company dropping the ball on FS's go bash Apple. MS has a solid FS that has features that even rival ZFS which is the newest and best featured *nix FS to date.
is the new filesystemups i forgot that they removed it, so vista just give directx10 (still a buggy and unsupported stuff).And no, i don't think that it's the price, almost all windows are illegal copies, so if vista is still inpopular, you cannot blame the price since even people didn't installed for free.
Vista/Longhorn was never, ever going to have a new file system.
umm yeah it was, it was one of the main things MS was goign on about when they first srtarted talkign about vista/longhorm, in fact here is an article that tells you all about it
http://news.com.com/2009-1017-857509.html
did you even try and look it up
WinFS was a database indexing system that was ON TOP OF NTFS. Basically adding SQL type abilities to tracking files in the User's folder.
It NEVER was going to replace NTFS (the file system) and it certain is NOT a file system. (The main reason it was removed, is MS found they could get just as good performance and features using just a new indexing system and NTFS for holding metadata. Hence WinFS was removed more of out not being needed, rather than being a 'failed' anything.)
If you want to rant about an OS removing support for a file system, go look up Apple. Last year Apple had FULL plans to make ZFS the new file system in 10.5; however, now it is down to just 'maybe' being able to read ZFS partitions. And sadly the ONLY FS OS X uses are horribly dated and pale 'severly' in comparision to MS's 1992 NTFS.
So if want to rant on some company dropping the ball on FS's go bash Apple. MS has a solid FS that has features that even rival ZFS which is the newest and best featured *nix FS to date.
While I agree that NTFS is good, it could be even better if MS upgraded it even more. Unlike older unix file systems that prevent fragmentation before data is writen to the harddrive, NTFS tries to fix the problem after it's happend. Why can't they make it fragment way less than what it does? Are the hdd app makers going to bitch and moan? Who cares about them anyways? The only problem left for NTFS is that it still fragments, it's 2007 people, I'm sure we can work this out. Look at ufs and others that take care of the problem before it is a problem.
Ask Brandon Live where he works at
Then let's see you argue about that new file system
MS stated very early on in it's development of vista that it would have a new file system, if they said this but never actually planned to do it then they are plain Lying.
10.1 adds virtually nothing that gamers will care about and, more to the point, adds almost nothing that developers are likely to care about. The spec revision basically makes a number of things that are optional in DX10 compulsory under the new standard - such as 32-bit floating point filtering, as opposed to the 16-bit current. 4xAA is a compulsory standard to support in 10.1, whereas graphics vendors can pick and choose their anti-aliasing support currently.
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=41577
Not all of the DX10.1 features are incompatible with DX10 VIDEO hardware. There are a 'few' changes that Video card MFRs can add, but this is a lot like DirectX 8 and 8.1 or 9.0 and 9.0c. These are not things users will see for a long time, nor does it have any real direct impact, as the changes are so small game developers and even the ones that use the 10.1 video aspects, can easily check for and continue to use DX10 if the hardware is not present for the extra .1 features. As one game developer stated, it is not even worth a story of difference, let alone all the FUD being spread around about it.
However DX10.1 is MORE about the API changes regarding Sound and other aspects of the DirectX than Video. Video is a small change.
All the non-video 10.1 changes like Sound and Physics are all supported on current hardware.
For example MS is adding back in an API set to replace DirectSound; however, this time making it hardware agnostic and using the new Vista audio stack for some really cool effects. Game designers will have full control over every speaker in your system instead of 'emulated 3D environments' as you would get with EAX and DirectSound of the past. (So the developers can pump your subwoofer to scare the hell out of you while bringing up a chainsaw sound from the right side and right rear speaker in varying levels of volume directly to bring to life real 5.1 or 7.1 sound.
BTW People that rely on the Inquirer for 'factual', 'accurate', or non-MS Bashing don't realize who runs the site and why they picked a name that resembles other 'tabloid' quality journalism. Just take the Vista HD article from the site a few days ago, the person's article they reported on has never even used Vista, but it was a complete rant on how Vista was messing with HD, and 100% inaccurate, but they put the article up anyway even though the author of the Vista FUD had been called out and debunked on almost every other technical site, and yes, even anti-MS sites.
10.1 adds virtually nothing that gamers will care about and, more to the point, adds almost nothing that developers are likely to care about. The spec revision basically makes a number of things that are optional in DX10 compulsory under the new standard - such as 32-bit floating point filtering, as opposed to the 16-bit current. 4xAA is a compulsory standard to support in 10.1, whereas graphics vendors can pick and choose their anti-aliasing support currently.
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=41577
Way to go, quoting BS from theinquirer, there editorial articles like this one are 100%spin and hype
I agree.
Its there for a purpose and its annoying to the point of where people want to turn it off... and do.
So it is self defeating.
Some developers have gone back to XP to code and then test on Vista.
What also would be nice would be to possibly have a list of options / permissives that a program can or can not do; maybe something similar to a firewall setup. Possibly include where a user can always run certain programs with admin rights...?
The list can go on; it definitely needs work.
What i would like is some type of hashing done with applications we would choose if they would allow "always give permission" to specific programs.
I will kind of go with you in that direction... but just a little.
I am glad there is more protection... and it should probably be at the kernel level. OK.
What is frustrating is that programs that already access the registry (VS2005 for instance) have to be ran with administrative rights or they simply do not work correctly, period.
Even though you log in as an administrator, you do not have administrative rights with the programs that you run.
Or simply... you only have rights to write to your folder and not to any system folder without admin rights.
The reference I am basically talking about is older programs that are installed or use an installer that was not originally designed for Vista... or about some that never will be designed for Vista.
The problem with this is that people with admin rights disable the UAC...
That is correct or acceptable...? I don't think so...
I think that is the biggest hole of all...
There are mulitple ways to enable protocol for user / program rights, or rights to write to certain parts of the registry.
I don't think the UAC is correct in its... implementation.
The initial concept is fine, it just needs to be refined.
Last edited by WindSailor on 16 Aug 2007 - 05:30
Good idea, how about you always allow cmd.exe administrative rights. Why would you even bother modifying cmd.exe, you already have unrestricted access to do anything via the command line. This is why you're always prompted. To "always allow this" is a major security flaw and to think otherwise is downright stupid.
By allowing cmd.exe to be elevated all the time, just make your virus, and then run itself via cmd.exe, instant administrative access.
True.
This is already in existence.
All a program has to do is be legit for a short period of time... update itself with an evil side... and presto...
The admin will never know until it is too late.
This has already been done with signed drivers etc.
By allowing cmd.exe to be elevated all the time, just make your virus, and then run itself via cmd.exe, instant administrative access.
You can run cmd.exe with administrative rights by holding down Ctrl and Shift when you type it into the Windows / Start menu. Yes, UAC will kick in every time you run cmd.exe this way, but at least then all the commands inside run with administrator privileges.
I think having an "always accept" tick box is a dangerous thing, but an "always reject" would be useful for things like Adobe updater etc.
By allowing cmd.exe to be elevated all the time, just make your virus, and then run itself via cmd.exe, instant administrative access.
You can run cmd.exe with administrative rights by holding down Ctrl and Shift when you type it into the Windows / Start menu. Yes, UAC will kick in every time you run cmd.exe this way, but at least then all the commands inside run with administrator privileges.
I think having an "always accept" tick box is a dangerous thing, but an "always reject" would be useful for things like Adobe updater etc.
That's what saves you. If you have a batch file that does something destructive or uses some command line app that requires administrative rights, you run it and you'll find most of the commands fail because you need to elevate. If you have a virus or spyware, run it w/o administrative rights, then it does mostly nothing. However, if you always allow cmd.exe because you always find yourself doing command line things and can't stand elevating all the time, then cmd.exe becomes administrator always, so the way to exploit it is to run via the command line.
Creating a shortcut to say cmd.exe /C [program] would then always run any program on your system, including batch files with administrative rights, so you've no longer solved any problem, you've created a much bigger problem simply because instead of thinking a solution through, you decided you know more than all the people at Microsoft regarding UAC, which a lot of UAC critics here have done.
A simple test and example. Create a shortcut on your desktop to cmd.exe /K "ipconfig /flushdns". Double click on it and execute it with UAC, notice it doesn't work and says you need elevating. Now, simulate a stupid 'hashing' or 'remembering' design that someone has done for cmd.exe by right-clicking and picking Run as administrator. Notice it runs fine, gee, that was easy.
they actually released 8800, too soon.
ati managed to get their drivers.
Even and accurate and none of the overblown MS-bashing rhetoric that is so common.
Every single criticism is dead on, IMHO. I have also, at different times, been ****ed and impressed by this OS.
However, the biggest single flaw I see (and I just discovered this recently after I spent $100) is one that is shared by every other 32-bit OS out there AFAIK - the failure to use all of the 4GB you can jam into the system. I started out with 1GB on this machine, dual booting XP and Vista Ultimate (betas and RCs until RTM) and having a slow experience in Vista. So I bought another stick, taking it to 2GB - drastic improvement in Vista!
Recently I found a deal on some nice overclockable 1GB sticks and bought 2 to fill the slots on my motherboard. I had switched over to Vista full time due to a blown out XP partition so I was really expecting some smoothing out of the system. Shut it down and popped them in and watched, smiling as the memory check counted up to 4 GB. However, Vista reports only 3! It seems that 32-bit operating systems don't actually RECOGNIZE above 3GB or so.
THIS BLOG is good reading about why this is the case.
Actually this has less to do with 32bit OSes and more to do with Mainboard chipsets. Do a search on this. Sometimes a 64bit OS on some mainboards will get you back the lost GB of RAM, but on some mainboards, it gets reserved pre-boot by system devices by the BIOS and will not appear to any OS.
So check out your mainboard and chipset directly to see if running the 64bit version would make it recognize the missing RAM, and if it will, give 64bit Vista a try, MS will give you the 64bit DVD if you don't have access to it.
Also the 64bit version of Vista is very polished, with lots of driver support and doesn't have features missing XP 64bit did in comparison to the 32bit version. The only thing you lose with the 64bit version is running Windows 3.1 applications and true DOS applications, which most people haven't used for over 10 years now.
Good luck to you...
Drivers are a huge issue for Vista 64: I have a Toshiba Portege' 400 and all the apps like HHD shock, Fingerprint etc. do not work in Vista 64. The other day I spent hours on the phone with Toshiba, escalated to their third tier tech support and the rep, a very nice and knowleadgeable person btw, confirmed that there are no plans to release them. What MS should have done is to organize the "Vista ready" labeling to specify if the box is ready for Vista 32 and/or Vista 64.
Not just in Australia are prices skyhigh here in new zealand vista ultimate will cost you $979.00NZD yup you read that right nearly a grand in cold hard cash and M$ wonders why we pirate it with prices that exhorbatant is it any wonder i can buy a new pc for that much maybe if they priced it a bit more fairly i'd be tempted to buy it but right now i'll just make do with WinXP pro and a (shhhh dont tell M$
#3 - Just use Classic Start?
#5 - I have to agree
the rest I dont agree so much
did you fall into the 'using default MS video drivers sucks' trap?
MediaStudio Pro 8 doesn't work with Vista...period. In fact, ALL of the Ulead Video Editing applications were croaked by Vista. They've had to release updates to get a few of them to work, but others (like MS8, their only PRO quality application mind you) may be prematurely end of life'd simply because they won't work with Vista without a major overhaul.
QED.
Last edited by PureLegend on 16 Aug 2007 - 08:51
Just because they don't throw big version numbers around doesn't mean they've been working on the same thing this entire time. In October, there will have been 5 half-big OS X releases with new features. Vista is a big upgrade, but look at how long it took for it to be released. OS X has had a pretty consistent release schedule up until the delay of Leopard.
OS X Jaguar
OS X Panther
OS X Tiger
OS X Leopard . . .
are all different Operating systems.
Just like
Windows 98
Windows 2000
Windows XP , etc.
are all different, major releases.
WTF are you talking about?????
OS X Jaguar
OS X Panther
OS X Tiger
OS X Leopard . . .
are all different Operating systems.
Just like
Windows 98
Windows 2000
Windows XP , etc.
are all different, major releases.
WTF are you talking about?????
Um, ouch... Actually NO...
OS X versions would be like going from WindowsXP to WindowsXP SP2. (AS SP2 added new fixes, features, new versions of included utilities like Movie Maker, etc. Just like each 10.x OS X release adds.) BTW SP2 for XP was free.
For example, there is more difference between Windows98/WindowsME and Windows2000/WindowsXP than there is between any version of OS X 10.x version. See they are completely difference OS technologies, and have as much different between them as OS 9 and OS X did, go look up Win9x technology OSes compared to the NT based architecture.
Technically there is more difference between Windows XP and Vista than there is between OS X (10.0) and OS X (10.5)
See, Windows 9x and 2000/XP have similar interfaces but different kernels altogether. The architecture and coding is completely different. Vista is again a whole new level of code.
Unfortunately, OS X has maintained nearly the same interface and same kernel (uni
Therefore, a fair comparison to OS X 10.1, 10.2, 10.3 etc. is
Windows XP, XP SP1, XP SP2.
But now let's get back on topic.
OS X versions would be like going from WindowsXP to WindowsXP SP2. (AS SP2 added new fixes, features, new versions of included utilities like Movie Maker, etc. Just like each 10.x OS X release adds.) BTW SP2 for XP was free.
For example, there is more difference between Windows98/WindowsME and Windows2000/WindowsXP than there is between any version of OS X 10.x version. See they are completely difference OS technologies, and have as much different between them as OS 9 and OS X did, go look up Win9x technology OSes compared to the NT based architecture.
Technically there is more difference between Windows XP and Vista than there is between OS X (10.0) and OS X (10.5)
I don't usually get involved with Windows versus Mac debates, however when I read your last line I had to comment - it is just completely incorrect.
Not really. Windows XP and Windows XP with SP2 are both Windows 5.1 (Build 2600), unlike OS X where each new release is a new minor version (e.g. Tiger 10.4 to Leopard 10.5). Look at Windows 2000 to Windows XP: version 5.0 to 5.1.
Have you ever used OS X 10.0 Cheetah before? If you have then you would have noticed a huge jump in functionality and overall experience when comparing the initial OS X release with the latest OS X release. Don't get me wrong, there is a huge difference between Windows 98 and Windows XP (just like OS 9 and OS X).
Well I'm not sure about that, as Leopard is still in development. However this takes me to my previous statement, have you ever used OS X 10.0 before?
Getting back on topic, I agree with all the mistakes pointed out (especially #1, #4 and #5). I don't use any of the fancy features introduced with Windows Vista (in fact I use the Windows Classic theme) and the company I work for doesn't plan to upgrade at least for the next 24 months. Like that article states, Windows Vista does feel like a sequel to Windows ME. Hopefully the first SP will resolve this?
OS X Jaguar
OS X Panther
OS X Tiger
OS X Leopard . . .
are all different Operating systems.
Just like
Windows 98
Windows 2000
Windows XP , etc.
are all different, major releases.
WTF are you talking about?????
LMAO OK if you believe then i will let you. but just out of curiosity didn't they just release a whole bunch of updates for one of the OSX's, havent they been out for over a year, (i am not sure cause i really don't care for apple) in which case umm no it is not
Well said! People who constantly bash vista stating that it is a piece of crap, or even the next version of Windows Me are either: 1) Anti-MS extremists 2) Ignorant 3) Lacking Knowledge/Facts or 4) A combo of these.
I would like to mention something...
Microsoft was bound to drop backwards compatibility (at least some of it) at one point or another. The software needs to be modernized, or disposed of. Apple did it when they jumped from os 9 to os x. Microsoft was just letting go some dead weight.
1) i like MS and prefer it over all the others
2) if by ignorant you mean i have never used it, you are far from correct.
3) i know enough to know vista is nowhere near as stable or usable as XP
4) if i don't fit into any how can i be a combo
1) i like MS and prefer it over all the others
2) if by ignorant you mean i have never used it, you are far from correct.
3) i know enough to know vista is nowhere near as stable or usable as XP
4) if i don't fit into any how can i be a combo
Okay, see, the thing is after a period of time an OS becomes more stable and usable thanks to driver improvements and updates.
And it looks as if you've made 4 points there, though I can simplify it down to one: I have used Vista and it was unusable for me. The rest is just about how you think you're right because you like MS and how you're not ignorant
Well said! People who constantly bash vista stating that it is a piece of crap, or even the next version of Windows Me are either: 1) Anti-MS extremists 2) Ignorant 3) Lacking Knowledge/Facts or 4) A combo of these.
I would like to mention something...
Microsoft was bound to drop backwards compatibility (at least some of it) at one point or another. The software needs to be modernized, or disposed of. Apple did it when they jumped from os 9 to os x. Microsoft was just letting go some dead weight.
so if it was dead weight that M$ lost then why is it that Vista is 4 times the installed size of my XP pro come on they didnt add that much to the new os nor did they do anything i cant do in winxp pro cept for maybe DX10 but thats being figured out aswell soon my XP pro will be doing that too all i can see is code bloat and pretty gui and a whole lotta stuff that doesn't work in its defense i'll give it this a game i realy liked NFS Porsche 2000 wouldn't play right under xp sp2 but under vista i runs flawlessly go figure
1) i like MS and prefer it over all the others
2) if by ignorant you mean i have never used it, you are far from correct.
3) i know enough to know vista is nowhere near as stable or usable as XP
4) if i don't fit into any how can i be a combo
Okay, see, the thing is after a period of time an OS becomes more stable and usable thanks to driver improvements and updates.
And it looks as if you've made 4 points there, though I can simplify it down to one: I have used Vista and it was unusable for me. The rest is just about how you think you're right because you like MS and how you're not ignorant
my four points were in relation to the four points made by the user above putting vista haters into 4 categories, i was pointing out that i did not fit into any of his categories yet still don't liek vista, i don't think i am right, i have MY opinions you can have yours and everyone else can have theirs but minne is vista is crap, and yes i realise an OS can and generally does become more stable i am not that stupid, wow all these service packs and updates for XP are actually waht made it work, never new that one
First of all, Vista didn't ship early. It shipped late, VERY late. Was it a pre-mature release? Absolutely. But it was the longest Windows development ever and delivered sub-quality too long after it was promised.
Second, there are clearly a lot of people who don't "get" the idea behind UAC which is too bad. On the other hand, if it is that hard to "get" maybe it needs a bit more tweaking. Much as I hate to admit it, this is one thing Apple got right in OS X. Their "version" of UAC is much less intrusive.
Third, quit blaming Microsoft for lack of drivers. It's not like your hardware vendor didn't have a chance to develop them. They had more than enough time.
Fourth, if you don't like the price don't buy it. Microsoft programmers aren't cheap.
Yes, the author is correct about poor desktop performance *but* how could he have missed the most significant "mistake" of Vista?
It's not longhorn.
And as such, it is missing critical new features that were originally supposed to be in this version of Windows that are going to be made available later for download. Well whoop-dee doo.
I also feel bad that this is the last Windows that will have a lot of influence from Bill Gates, the empire builder. It's a shame his last Windows is Vista.
I remain confident that Microsoft will learn from it's mistakes and that the next Windows will be worth the wait, the hype, and the price.
Kinda like XP in it's day.
Microsoft could have improved the situation by freezing driver APIs much earlier. On the forum for my soundcard the developers stated that they couldn't risk developing drivers for Vista when it was changing around so much - instead they chose to wait and it took them several months after release to get beta drivers out (final drivers are due in a few months time). Now I obviously take that comment with a pinch of salt because it could easily just be an excuse but when I look at drivers from ATi and nVidia for Vista's launch, two big companies with a vested interest in getting it right, then it makes me consider whether the developer's point was indeed actually correct.
You can't. It's an editorial. It's his opinion. You cannot point out an error in someone else's opinion, because that's YOUR opinion then.
These past few years Bill has been more of a businessman than a developer. And, yeah, it may seem like a shame that his last Windows is Vista, but in a way it shows how Bill has lost it, in a way, and Ray Ozzie will now be setting realistic goals and achieveable deadlines.
If Ray does his job we won't see such a massive gap between Windows versions as we did with Longhorn.
So answer me this, when were the hardware manufacturers going to have time to develop proper drivers on such a short notice?
Where the hell do people keep coming up with the total load of BS??
Where the hell do people keep coming up with the total load of BS??[/quote]
Because it's TRUE and you obviously need to look up the actual history of BOTH versions of Vista.
Ahem.
Where the hell do people keep coming up with the total load of BS??[/quote]
Because it's TRUE and you obviously need to look up the actual history of BOTH versions of Vista.
Ahem.[/quote]
Again, thats bullcrap, the only thing they did do was transfer the enhancements from the Windows XP base to Windows 2003 SP1 due to Windows 2003 improved security and stability; it was NEVER EVER rewritten from scratch. Don't be so bloody stupid.
Last edited by neufuse on 16 Aug 2007 - 15:15
Last edited by neufuse on 16 Aug 2007 - 15:15
Home Premium
Business
Ultimate
... eh?
Home Premium
Business
Ultimate
... eh?
Actually:
Starter
Home Basic
Home Basic N
Home Premium
Ultimate
Business
Business N
7 and those are all included on the Vista disc itself. You can throw in the Enterprise version and make it 8 versions all together.
Starter
Home Basic
Home Basic N
Home Premium
Ultimate
Business
Business N
7 and those are all included on the Vista disc itself. You can throw in the Enterprise version and make it 8 versions all together.
Yeeah how did I know that was coming... Need I list XP Home, Professional, Media Centre Edition, Tablet PC Edition, Home N, Professional N, Starter and Professional x64?
My point is for all intents and purposes there are only 4 versions of Vista to worry about, and they're a hell of a lot more organised and well thought-out than the array of XP versions.
Starter
Home Basic
Home Basic N
Home Premium
Ultimate
Business
Business N
7 and those are all included on the Vista disc itself. You can throw in the Enterprise version and make it 8 versions all together.
Yeeah how did I know that was coming... Need I list XP Home, Professional, Media Centre Edition, Tablet PC Edition, Home N, Professional N, Starter and Professional x64?
My point is for all intents and purposes there are only 4 versions of Vista to worry about, and they're a hell of a lot more organised and well thought-out than the array of XP versions.
Actually I just think the N versions would be considered stupid because anyone who has to use it can just easily go download what didn't come with it.
I wasn't trying to be an ass about it or anything. The only ones I think are stupid are the N versions and maybe Ultimate. If you live where the N version is all you can get, you can just easily download what doesn't come with it. It's pretty pointless IMO and Ultimate is Home Premium with a couple extra games and apps.
Starter and Business are self explanatory
I wasn't trying to be an ass about it or anything. The only ones I think are stupid are the N versions and maybe Ultimate. If you live where the N version is all you can get, you can just easily download what doesn't come with it. It's pretty pointless IMO and Ultimate is Home Premium with a couple extra games and apps.
Starter and Business are self explanatory
I use Ultimate because I wanted Media Centre and to be able to connect to my PC remotely from work, but the N versions are pretty pointless, yeah, no one wants them and you'd be hard pressed to find somewhere that actually sells them, they were just a stupid demand from the EU who have nothing better to do.
The ONLY reason they get away with it (any other vendor would be laughed off the order page) is because WE gave them a virtually unregulated monopoly.
And even Ultimate comes off as a slow, quirky, but pretty version of XP with little to distinguish it to end users from XP. It comes with NOTHING (from an end user perspective) that justifies the upgrade OR the exorbitant price.
So Brad's points are all well taken, if not nearly ANGRY enough to truly represent the temperature out there.
Then the new set came out but I switched back to XP because I had a 1gb stick of ram die and only using 256mb's right now
I have no good luck
Wrong. Wrong Wrong Wrong!
Any "allowed" list would be disasterous. You'd open tons of holes. It's been said on the forums tons of times, there's simply no way to do an allowed list that couldn't be exploited horribly.
#1 the flaw in is logic has been mentioned many times within this thread
#2 I don't think it was a matter of giving more time per say.... I think Microsoft needed to give incentives to manufacturers i.e. free driver signings etc. for the drivers released during launch
#3 How many people actually use the menu in the start menu, I personally find it faster to type in the app name or part of it.... so it doesn't bother me at all... and if you do need to look at occasionally, it'll look alright
#4 the points isn't nearly as valid with the new performance and reliability patches, however it would always be nice to have a faster OS
#5 It would be nice if MS did make their OS a lot more cheaper for multiple OS purchases i.e. buying 4 Vista OSs for a family is still expensive, considering that activation is now a requirement, instead of the days when people just installed one copy of 98 on all their machines.
I'd be interested if they can use the same technology which gives us Flip3D to do something more useful-- maybe different window-management paradigms. I could imagine the option to resize windows by scaling instead of cropping them would THRILL people with slightly subpar vision... anyone who runs an LCD at non-native resolution would be interested. Maybe we're also finally heading for resolution-independent display.
IE7, I like the way it resizes by scaling better than Firefox's resize-by-resizing text, but I don't resize the text that often, and it's nothing you can't get elsewhere (IE7/XP, Opera)
The Sidebar leaves me with a question: WHY IS PIDGIN OR SIMILAR NOT A SIDEBAR GADGET. It should have been long before RTM.
I'd love it if there was a much clearer set of rules as to when I'll lose Aero. I know it has *something* to do with my TV card, but I haven't the foggiest what. I also suspect they could be more agressive about re-enabling it; why should it go away for four hours (until I close the app) if it's only bad for 10 minutes.
One thrilling thing: They finally dumped the "My" crap. Why does the entire computer industry sound like it's ran by a bunch of whiny two-year-olds? MY preferences! MY (sitename)! MY documents! MY blankie!
Apparently XP did this too, but with Vista it's blatant-- they'll get you to a responsive desktop long before you're done loading. And that means doing chores like firing up the Wi-Fi. It seems to do that absolute last, after my "load at startup" IM client has already admitted defeat and probably after I've finished loading a Firefox window that says "cannot find start page".
UAC was not the mess I expected it to be, perhaps because I didn't need much to run elevated on a daily basis (although Firefox Flash plugin installs fail :/)
Driver support though ranges from the comical to the absurd. Who knows what to call the latest video drivers-- they actually produce a lower experience index than the original on-disc ones!
I'm also strongly disappointed at the state of 64-bit Windows. I have a 64-bit machine. I wanted to go for 64-bit Vista, but I'd have to give up two of my favourite peripherals, with a combined replacement cost of well over USD100.
hmm...
Issue #1- WHAT is the ratio of power users... those who received Vista early or were early adopters, and maybe installed it on computers that weren't fully capable of running it (because the hardware vendors were lazy and didn't write drivers)... and are the ones prominently lecturing and vociferating their anti-Vista cause...
...to normal-everyday people who purchased a computer with Vista with drivers certified by the vendors?
Issue #2- See #1 above.
Issue #3- Umm... New Start Menu or old one should be an option.... you mean the old menu isn't an option? I thought it was... it's in there... it's called the "Classic Start Menu"- right click, choose 'properties'... it's there.
Issue #4- uhh... what?
Issue #5- not worthy of a response.
I'm guessing that... should Gerber release an operating system...
Um... nevermind.
He meant the option to keep the Vista Start panel, but to show a XP-style All Programs cascading menu instead of a cramped listview box.
As a practical matter, the first usable beta of Windows Vista wasn't made available until 4 or so months before Windows Vista shipped (or merely 1 month before "gold". This meant that many drivers, video drivers in particular, weren't ready. But for all those people who have a finicky scanner or Air card or other specialty peripheral had to be guinea pigs.
The result: Early adopters were stung with problematic behavior and a lack of drivers which caused frustration that they shared a lot with others.
Solution: This is mostly dealt with now (as of July 26th for nVidia users for instance). But when one considers how much reputation damage this caused Microsoft should really give more care in the future. Release a stable public beta long enough before going gold so that developers can provide adequate support.
I agree that this is probably what hurt Vista the most. However, beta testing started in September 2005. You specifically worded it as "first usable beta", but nevertheless, it was in developers hands, or should have been, for over a year. There is only so much excusing you can do to 3rd party vendors that took months to get even a beta out. That's just laziness.
I have no quarrel with Microsoft cutting off support for old hardware either. You still want to use your PIII system? Use Linux. Next generation OS' aren't meant for legacy systems. When I built my Core 2 Duo system, everything except the built in sound worked, in which there were drivers on the Giga-byte website.
Unfortunately, sales and marketing, for the most part, dictate the software release. As a developer, I can personally attest to this as it is very, very common for sales people to sell features that do not exist and promise to have it in half the time it takes to make it. It's sad but true and it drives me to no end.
One person above made mention about UAC and I think he's dead on. Once programmers figure out how to work with UAC, it will be an argument of the past. That's if they wise up to learning it, which I'm sure all major players will.
Many peripherals are getting to be "good enough."
Printers, for example. It's hard to sell a home user a 35-page-per-minute printer if their typical printing load is 100 pages per month or less. Or scanners (you don't need 9600 dpi to scan in expense-account reciepts). Why should you replace them?
But vendors don't want to support a $29 printer or $49 TV card for the next 500 years... so they just let the devices "rot" by not dragging their feet on Vista drivers. The result: Vista looks bad.
Vista x64 requires drivers to be digitally signed, effectively killing the development of free legacy and overclocking drivers.
Vista x64 requires drivers to be digitally signed, effectively killing the development of free legacy and overclocking drivers.
Actually it only hurts 'kernel' level drivers, user mode drivers don't have to be signed.
Also for 'overclocking' every Video card MFR supports Overclocking on the 64bit version, and can also be accessed by third parties without digital signatures because this is a part of Video that is now in 'user mode'...
The main thing people forget here, is there aren't any 64bit drivers out there that aren't signed that run in kernel mode. XP 64bit wasn't very successful, and Vista 64bit is the first OS many device MFRs have actually taken time to write drivers for, and one reason they have is that they know it requires signed drivers from them.
Oh, and there is also the whole 'extra stability' and 'extra security' that this rule gains users, so that joe smoo isn't installing a kernel level driver or a rootkit.
Also people don't seem to realize that kernel level drivers are more rare than they think. Go look at freeware like Virtual CD/DVD software, they run without signed drivers. i.e. they don't run in kernel mode.
only 5 issues, and vista is better than XP yet mentions MS need to ix a few things so it isn't the next ME. XP was never even closely comparedf to ME when it was released.
although i agree with the issues he mentions, i reckon he is mostly dribbling, i guess i get placed into one of those vocal techies that reckons it is crap, but i don't say it because it makes me look smart dumb or even ugly, it is because it sux, if a techie says somethign is bad and another techie knows it isn't then first techie does not look smart rather looks like he doesn't know s&*t. Techies are the ones that use the nuts and bolts of these OS's for the average user that just uses IE and office it aint an issue but when i have all sorts of networking and UAC issues let alone driver support, it just isn't supportable.
as for this being a useful article/editorial
Umm my answer is NO
Last edited by whocares78 on 16 Aug 2007 - 07:27
I have UAC turned off too, but other then that only thing I see is crappy, is the lack of driver support, which isn't really Microsofts
concernOh almost forgot one thing... I don't have anything against Microsoft, but the fact that they released Vista too soon, just to stay in the timeline, was pretty stupid. They should've just finish it whenever they feel it's ready. That should be all
---
And about antique periperhials... If You want to use antique equipment... use antique OS.
How could anyone expect to have support for their 10yr old what-ever-you-have with a brandnew OS meant for today and for near future. Let go of the past dudes (and maybe even some girls)
Last edited by Sirius on 16 Aug 2007 - 07:07
Actually I like it too... although I sometimes swear at it <g>
It is a needed step foward
Looks like someone thinks they are a psychologist who presumes to know why others may dislike it by dismissing their ideas as self delusion. Seems to me someone else is delusional.
Compare this to just using the mousewheel and shorter mouse movements to open programs in Vista, plus an autosorting menu. And the search.
Nice, no bad idea. But the topic was definately wrong, as you can see by the comments. Lots of trolls whining because they are not capable of running the easiest and most stable OS Microsoft ever made. I (and many other people I know) must have done something wrong, because Vista runs perfectly here.
Oh, and I don't agree with all point.
1) Would be a security hole to have a checkbox.
2) And if they had given a 5 years beta test, drivers would still have been crap, not Microsoft's fault.
3) Who needs to organize the Start menu when you can find and start any application with just a few keystrokes?
4) 150% perfomance here compared to XP. You sure this isn't related to point 2?
5) Upgrade pricing too high? Oh my god, I got Ultimate [full release, no upgrade] for 165€. What did I do wrong ?
I am so sick of people saying it works on my machine so your all idiots if you can't get it to work, developers get in the crapper when they say that in my office. not all machines are the same, and yuou may have been lucky that all your hardware adn the apps you use are supported, the truth is the majority arent. i have been a techie for over ten years now so i know how to build a box adn if a driver or app does not work it is generally not my fault, (althoguh all techies make mistakes, and miss the odd checkbo
(easiest and most stable OS ever made) i will get banned if i comment on this with what i woudl like to say, so i will stay calm, but i have to say the most ridiculaous comment i have ever seen on this site. i think you will have every Linux MS and MAc user bag you out on that one. it doesn't come close to XP in regards to stability, let alone half the other os's ever made.
[]
Oh, and I said easiest and most stable OS Microsoft ever made... see the difference ?
[]
Oh, and I said easiest and most stable OS Microsoft ever made... see the difference ?
I see your point (to me it appeared you were talkig about everyone), but there is also the users that have no idea that manage to get it all working and then come and say it's the best OS MS ever made, the reality is at the moment XP is undoubtably the Best OS MS ever made, and honestly anyone that is willing to argue against that really needs to do some research, vista may pass it once it is all service packed adn stable but at present as it stands it doens't come close, howver if you want to go in our test area and try tell our testers that vista is good (most stable), they would drag you over hot coals then hang you out to be stoned.
Vista is a half hearted attempt to emulate the Mac. I know that hurts the feelings of you Microsoft fan boys but I'm sure by now you know it's true. Why be a retard and upgrade to vista when you can upgrade to a Mac?
Here I'll make it easier for you to switch. You don't even have to type in the web address just click here: Superior Computing and Virus Free
Last edited by internetworld7 on 16 Aug 2007 - 08:29
hmmm, hang on, it doesn't even work
Agreed, Apple would be a lot more attractive if they didn't force you to use their hardware. Let Steve and co. put out OS X for ANY system, a software only purchase, in stores and I'd be a lot more impressed.
And more secure? Only because Apple has such a low market share. Virus and malware authors don't hunt where there is barely any game, they hunt in a target rich environment. Were Apple to have a similar share to Windows, they'd have the same issues with security.
Here I'll make it easier for you to switch. You don't even have to type in the web address just click here: Superior Computing and Virus Free[/quote]
Because only dimm witted mactards would pay for service packs atleast M$ gives them away for free and as for mac bieng virus free what stone do you live under
Why does his stupid comment need a reply on OS X on 3rd party hw and what has any of this to do with virus free Macs?
As the old saying goes, one good troll deserves another
.
Last edited by bobbba on 16 Aug 2007 - 13:57
Folks it's not trolling it's called Preaching The Gospel of Superior and Malware Free Computing. This is your salvation call people. Wake up and Come to computer heaven (Mac OS X) and escape hell (Windows and Dell).
This is like a retard calling another retard a retard. It's retarded. In this context you have to look in the mirror. A windows user such as your self has swallowed Bill Gates' B$ hook, line and sinker. Why would anybody want to put up with malware infestation and crashing computers? Well rm20010, you've already answered the question. BRAIN WASHED.
Last edited by internetworld7 on 16 Aug 2007 - 17:03
Dude it's not "preaching the gospel of superior and malware free computing", it's called trolling... take a look... http://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?act=...;f=110&id=7
If i were a mac fan boy (which i'm not, but wouldnt mind getting a mac)... and not those extremist types (like being able to live with windows and accept it)... i would be pretty embarrassed to call myself a mac fan boy when i see such huge egos flashing their simple minded view.
This is like a retard calling another retard a retard. It's retarded. In this context you have to look in the mirror. A windows user such as your self has swallowed Bill Gates' B$ hook, line and sinker. Why would anybody want to put up with malware infestation and crashing computers? Well rm20010, you've already answered the question. BRAIN WASHED.
Hmm. Funny I didn't mention being a MS user anywhere in my post. I could've been a Linux user legitimately questioning Apple's TV ads. But lucky for you, yes I am a Windows user of 8 years (with bits and pieces of OS X and Linux here and there).
Honestly, I have nothing against their hardware. Or their software. I like playing around with them at the Apple Stores. I may consider them for my future tech purchases. What I DO have problems with are their various marketing tactics and the several fanatics of their userbase.
Keep this hostile attitude against Windows users if you insist. I'll let the news mods have their way.
Last edited by rm20010 on 16 Aug 2007 - 17:56
You need to grow up and be a little more mature. A disagreement isn't hostility, it's a lack of agreement. news mods? LOL. I don't think neowin pays my bills so you need to do better than that.
You need to grow up and be a little more mature. A disagreement isn't hostility, it's a lack of agreement. news mods? LOL. I don't think neowin pays my bills so you need to do better than that.
i dont think neowin invited you here either, so you definitely need to do better than that. rm20010 has tried to put his comments to your post in the most mature form - definitly a sign that hes mature...
you on the other hand... well... i'll let the others judge...
grow up.. neowin is a very respectable community ran by awesome admins and pretty good staff. this isnt digg (where fan boys and atheists reign supreme)
Folks it's not trolling it's called Preaching The Gospel of Superior and Malware Free Computing. This is your salvation call people. Wake up and Come to computer heaven (Mac OS X) and escape hell (Windows and Dell).
haha LMAO,your funny
p.s. nice to see you figured out how to do a link properly, i know it is hard
This is like a retard calling another retard a retard. It's retarded. In this context you have to look in the mirror. A windows user such as your self has swallowed Bill Gates' B$ hook, line and sinker. Why would anybody want to put up with malware infestation and crashing computers? Well rm20010, you've already answered the question. BRAIN WASHED.
i can not even recall the last time my XP box crashed. it woudl have been 3 or 4 years ago, in fact i had a user that came to me after he had crashed windwos and he was proud that he had actually managed to make it crash, hate to say this to all you mac users but windwos XP is compeletely stable maybe you should try it before you say all the crap, at least i have actually tried and used MAC OS befroe i said i hate macs
#2 Personally speaking, Creative, Logitech and NVIDIA just didn't want to release drivers during the beta phase and the first two wouldn't even acknowledge Vista was out for 3 months because it wasn't final until it was on shelves. Creative even spun a line about the driver framework manual not being available. 9 months on and drivers are still poor for Creative cards (just visit the happy folks on their forums) and while Logitech drivers are better they still throw up all kinds fos ecurity alerts in my logs. NVIDIA have come leaps and bounds but only after being threatened by at least one class room full of angry children wanting to sue.
#3 Definately agree there, simple as that.
#4 Even after the patches, desktop coping is still in some cases a painful experience, I hope SP1 improves things further.
#5 The migration was swift but i think the pain was the same. It has been said many times that Vista's biggest competitor is WindowsXP and really WindowsXP is still pretty damn good.
Other than that, love the new start menu and desktop performance is great for me.
Now in vista basic or vista home (not sure about business) if you have the same account name and password as has been setup (under permissions) for said network drive , it wont authenticate with that network share and will prompt you for a user name and password every time. Why you ask ? because vista uses a new way of authenticating with network shares, No problem why dont you change it i hear ? well in home and basic you cant >.< **** poor microsoft **** poor. Only in ultimate (maybe business i dont know) you can change the authentication level so you dont get prompted for a username and password. Now for a desktop user not a problem maybe ? but take a moment to consider those users of media centre who want to browse DVD's without putting in a username and password every time , or having to drop out of media centre and connect to the network share. So the only version that may be worthy over Xp is ultimate, even then you have software compatability issues, driver issues, UAC. To sum it up thanks but no thanks. I will be sticking with xp till 2009.
errrmm nice try being a smart ass but i tested all possible ways of doing this. Its a known fact basic versions of vista (home and basic) use a different authentication method and you cant change it. Only in ultimate can you change between the vista authentication or xp/2003 authentication , lookup ntlm and different levels of ntlm. Not got vista installed now as im on xp but vista uses ntlm v2 whereas pre vista its ntlm v1 and kerberos. Ntlmv2 is on by default in vista but in home and basic you cant change it. Only in ultimate can you change ntlm levels.
My PC claimed to be "Vista capable", but only came with 1GB RAM. ReadyBoost eased the pain until I upped the RAM and my PI went to 5.9 for everything but the CPU (as it's only a E6300). Problem being the average owner doesn't know anything about RAM upgrades or why they should be necessary.
just gives you a baaaaad image
Not always. Go look at the last editorial "Is Vista x86 a Trojan Horse for Windows7 (Vienna) after-all?"
Not a whole lot of people loving that editorial
And I'm not complaining about this editorial incase certain people want to say I am. Just saying that not all of them are going to come out good.
flamebait = comments
.
not when most of the posts are basically saying the article is a load of rubbish
Already to late for that, as I've seen it called VistaMe2 at several sites, several times, and that is EXACTLY what I think of it. In fact, I'd call it a bigger POS than Me was!! If it wasn't for the NTFS files structure, it DEFINITELY would a bigger POS than ME.
The idiots that call it VistaMe2, see my comment below.
se·quel [see-kwuhl]
-noun
an event or circumstance following something; subsequent course of affairs.
"the rap is carried on by vocal techies who just like to poop on things because they think criticizing things makes them appear more knowledgeable. "
I think this statement describes a lot of people on this forum when talking about Xbox 360 vs Playstation 3 vs Wii, HD-DVD vs Blu-ray, Internet Explore vs Firefox, anything Microsoft and last but certainly not least anything Symantec.
Last edited by Draganta on 16 Aug 2007 - 11:31
"the rap is carried on by vocal techies who just like to poop on things because they think criticizing things makes them appear more knowledgeable. "
I think this statement describes a lot of people on this forum when talking about Xbox 360 vs Playstation 3 vs Wii, HD-DVD vs Blu-ray, Microsoft and last but certainly not least Symantec.
well i may not be a Techie but evan i know symantics products are rubish as are Mcstuffies aswell
NIS 2007 is not bad at all. I am a techie and I use it.
1. The UAC - If you are a techie, turn off UAC because it is annoying to a power user. If you are not a power user then you don’t know any better and perhaps the warnings might be good.
2. Windows Vista was shipped before drivers were ready - How is this an issue now? If you bought it when there were no drivers available chances are you are aware that drivers exist now (unless you are completely stupid). There is no negative press about this now.
3. The new Start Menu – Techies complain that the design of Windows hasn’t changed since Windows 95. Now there are new changes, but when changes come, they are not comfortable with it because they are not used to it. This is a loose, loose situation.
4. Unbelievably bad desktop performance – A little dramatic don’t you think? I have been using it since February and I wouldn't go that far. I would say minor performance issues and the file calculations dialogs needs to be overhauled. What other bad desktop performances are there that is noticeable?
5. Upgrade Pricing is a joke – Well if this is such an issue, then don’t get it. For example I had Playstation 2; when Playstation 3 came out I didn’t get it because it was too expensive for a casual gamer like myself.
I see now where NeoWin gets its “Unprofessional Journalism”. You would never see such a fluff piece like this article in the NY Times.
Last edited by Draganta on 16 Aug 2007 - 11:28
You would never see such a fluff piece like this article in the NY Times.
You obviously never read the NYT's then. LOL.
Firstly turn down the font size, everyone here can read, and if they have eye sight problems then they've probably got some assistive software already. Secondly, it also sounds like you're pretty new here, this is an editorial, ie, the opinion of one of the moderators who is mulling over where Vista went wrong from a PR sense, an issue Brad obviously feels needs to be discussed.
The one thing that does annoy me though with your argument is how you speak for the collective technical community, just because your machine has never had issues etc does not mean that everyone else has the same experience, this is probably one of the microsoft's biggest problems when creating a new version of Windows because of the large diversity of computers out there means that bugs have far more variables.
Firstly turn down the font size, everyone here can read, and if they have eye sight problems then they've probably got some assistive software already. Secondly, it also sounds like you're pretty new here, this is an editorial, ie, the opinion of one of the moderators who is mulling over where Vista went wrong from a PR sense, an issue Brad obviously feels needs to be discussed.
The one thing that does annoy me though with your argument is how you speak for the collective technical community, just because your machine has never had issues etc does not mean that everyone else has the same experience, this is probably one of the microsoft's biggest problems when creating a new version of Windows because of the large diversity of computers out there means that bugs have far more variables.
#1 I will use whatever font/size I want. If Neowin didn't like it then they would turn it off. Just for you i upped it a notch.
#2 I am not new here, I just don't post as often because of all the wanna bees like yourself who think there smart and upping there post count.
#3 I deployed Vista for my unit of 15 people in April 07. I turned off the UAC feature. I have not had any complaints. If you are having problems my solution to you is:
a. update your driver use something like http://driveragent.com/ you might be surprised. Make sure you uninstall your old ones first. In some cases I have seen upgrading on top of the old ones doesn't make the issue go away.
b. don't run software that is not compatible (a lot of idiots out there think they can run older software on Vista because it ran on XP. One of the engineers at work who is probably someone like you ho thinks they know computers insisted Autodesk Land Desktop 2007 is compatible with Vista.
c. Don't run beta software for Vista. Again you would be surprised.
I hope that fixes your issues and anybody else who is having a problem. Good luck in the future pretending to be smart.
agreed.
I could go to any number of websites and gotten this kind of "editorial"...2 months ago.
as a matter of fact, you could probably search through Neowin forums and find pretty much the same thing posted by the members.
I still say that it's the members that should be writing the editorials and the mods picking the best one for the front page.
Mods already have their blogs that if people wanted to , could just go there to read their useless babble.
Why not give some members the opportunity to show off their editorial skills?
Last edited by bibutteryboy on 16 Aug 2007 - 11:40
Reminder: Vista came at the beginning of this year - consider yourself a beta-tester. I had no expectation of the OS being perfect at launch and that is what most of you guys are forgetting, then somehow you move on to talking about blue-ray and hd-dvd....
I believe that Brad's point is valid: Microsoft is going to have to level with the demands of their customers when it concerns Vista's usablity and offerings (just like they had to with the Xbox 360). And he is right, a lot of techies are dissing the OS because that makes them appear more knowlegeable, the entire IT service industry is based on this "you know more about computers than I do, so I will listen to you," attitude and it is important for us to hang to that, but we need to be honest when it comes to questions among ourselves like, "Does Vista have potential?" and when we question the intregity of an OS. I think that Brad has brought up some very valid points, especially the UAC situation, and while I don't agree on his solution, I think we all need to understand that Vista will become more stable. Really, Microsoft hasn't even got the iron heated to start anything big yet (liek the annoying zip/copy calculator,
Any real solutions to problems with the OS is going to come from the user base, well errr... at least be voiced by the user base, and right now, Vista's user base isn't exactly the everyday computer user - its power user wanna-bes or people who just bought new boxes.
Your statement makes no sense. If this article came out in February or March, it would have made sense. Would you say that it has evolved since January? I have stated my issues with WebDAV (updated May) and performance (updated August).
Who started talking about HD-DVD/Blu-ray??? It was mentioned.
Your statement makes no sense. If this article came out in February or March, it would have made sense. Would you say that it has evolved since January? I have stated my issues with WebDAV (updated May) and performance (updated August).
Who started talking about HD-DVD/Blu-ray??? It was mentioned.
My point is that I believe that it has evolved from January and that the evolution has just begun, ergo the use of the term beta. It just seems like the average user expected for Vista to overhaul their ideas of an operating system, there was an anticipation for it to be a big (errr... overblown) change from the perspective of those of us who never saw the canidates. As far as the timing of this article, I think it matters very little, as Vista is still a young OS and discussions like Brad's discussion will go on until the end of time... new problems are always arising and new solutions are always coming forth.
As for your last comment, the purpose was merely to illustrate some deteriation in these editorials and discussions.
I don't think people are contesting it's validity. It's the fact that everyone already knows the shortcommings (personal opinion by many) of Vista. In other words, ho-hum.
I installed Vista ULtimate on a P4 3.0 Ghz with
1 MB1 GB RAM, and it went quite OK,the only issue was the struggle of the Aero things because it had a NVidia FX5200.
I mean, MS decision to push Graphics cards requirements was just as a market move, a low end, old Card should be able to handle those type of animations (that don't even had anything to someone who just uses office, the internet and non-games/non-graphic intensive applications). I don't think it's a bug ou a mistake, it was on purpose so that the non-gamers have now one more thing to worry (and spend) when buying a new computer . In the mentioned computer, turning off Aero made Vista run only a little bit slower then XP (although Vista consumes like 100/200 MB more RAM just for itself than XP)
Also those computer ratings are totally flawed, If I have a old Graphics card it will easily get a 1 rating, and due to the way they did the ratings, the whole computer gets a 1! Even if it's a modern Intel Core 2 computer with top components (and a old Graphics card, or a modern low end one). It's a bit ridiculous IMO.
And for what I saw, the Capable vs Ready just goes down to the Graphics card, all modern computers have at least 1 GB which, in typical situations should be more then enough to run Vista.
For Desktop computers, a low end Graphics card is not expensive, but budget laptops usually have the integrated Graphics in the Intel MB, which makes them less attractive.
Of course, in a couple of years, this will be a non issue, since all modern computers will have Aero capable graphics cards.
Last edited by Gerhard on 16 Aug 2007 - 15:59
Wow! 1Mb of RAM? Even I didn't know Vista would run on that.
Wow! 1Mb of RAM? Even I didn't know Vista would run on that.
LOL, I mean 1 GB evidently
Wow! 1Mb of RAM? Even I didn't know Vista would run on that.
LOL, I mean 1 GB evidently
Wow! 1GB of RAM? Even I didn't know Vista would run on that.
j/k
I don't know, I'm running Aero on my FX5200 and it does just fine (128 MB on the card). I have 1.5 GB of RAM, though, and an AMD 64 3000+. It runs quite well on my machine.
Pathetic article (I disagree or/and have nonissues on all the points said) and pathetic editorial. I knew this editorial thing was a bad idea.
I 2nd that...
You can turn the UAC off if you want, but personally I think UAC is spot on. I feel a macabre sense of enjoyment every time I tell Adobe Updater to go to hell.
#2 Windows Vista was shipped before drivers were ready
I'll agree with this, but it was a chicken and egg problem. Most hardware vendors buried their heads in the sand over this one. Microsoft gave vendors plenty enough time to get themselves sorted out, and delaying the roll out of Vista wouldn't have made the situation any better.
#3 The new Start menu
I don't agree with this at all - I think the old program menu became unwieldy as the number of items on it grew.
I think the trick with the new "Start" menu is to type in a few letters of the thing you want. After a few times, items you chose will appear at the top of the list.
#4 Unbelievably bad desktop performance
Fully agree. It's not NTFS' fault since things are generally as fast as my linux boxes from the command line. They need to sort out desktop file performance once and for all.
#5 Upgrade Pricing is a joke
It is expensive to upgrade. Thankfully my new laptop came with Vista preinstalled. I think people are doing themselves a disfavour by selecting Windows XP with new machines.
That does not mean you did not pay for it!
That does not mean you did not pay for it!
He essentially paid $30 for a copy that would have been in the region of around NZ$300 had they bought it from a retail chain.
I've tried vista 2-3 times throughout those months and would usually get 3-4 BSOD's plus graphical artifacts within the first few days.
Tried just last week with those 2 new fixes posted as well as the lastest nVidia drivers for my GF8600GT. Same deal. Constant crashes, and still plenty of graphics artifacts.
Loaded XP x64 now since I have 4GB of RAM and its just as stable as XP, with no graphic glitches.
The driver issue were the other companies fault, they had more than enough time to have drivers ready but choose not to do so, just look at how long it took Nvidia to start getting their act together, and look at Creative, they have tha audacity to charge for their drivers.
The new start menu is fine I dont know what crack that guy was smoking.
Desktop performance, that is just an issue of all of these fake vista-ready pcs with horrible onboard video and barely enough ram to run vista let alone a few apps. Users need to do their homework when buying a pc, 20 times out of 10 the guy at walmart or circuit city that is selling you the pc does not know jack **** about pcs in the first place.
The only legit complain in the article is the pricing but even then I would still buy it at that price.
The only good thing that is useful to me is the eye-candy GUI.
I have to say, it is a POS. and I'll never get it for my own PC.
Totally agree. Many businesses arent switching because of this alone.
#2 Windows Vista was shipped before drivers were ready.
Vista was in developement for 5 years. I put the driver issue squarely on the lap of everyone except MS.
#3 The new Start menu.
Again I agree. I hate having everything crammed into that little space and I absolutely hate having to scroll. Yeah there s that excellent search, but almost no common Joe is going to use that.
#4 Unbelievably bad desktop performance.
Im actually impressed with the performance, altho I wasnt until I added another gig of ram...really shouldnt have to do that, so this ones a wash for me.
#5 Upgrade Pricing is a joke.
Im happy with Home Premium of which I paid $120 as OEM when I purchased that extra gig of ram...a deal at FRY's I couldnt pass up..I wasnt even thinking of buying Vista until I saw that price, I had to at that point.
Bottom line: Vista is the new ME, just the way it is....get over it and hold on till Windows 7 in a couple years.... wow that exactly like ME isnt it? ME sucked and you grin and bore it for a couple years with 98se until XP.
#2 Windows Vista was shipped before drivers were ready. The WDM was hammered out jointly by Microsoft AND the hardware manufacturers. The device makers worked hand in hand with microsoft to ensure an extensible driver so future devices wouldn't be hampered by the driver framework in which they are built. The fact they couldn't get the drivers up to snuff before launch can be blamed on capitalism. If each of the vendors could dedicate the resources microsoft did for development, the drivers would have shipped on time with QA. However, each of these companies have their own bottom line, and need to sell their current gen over developing next gen in an effort to remain profitable.
#3 The new Start menu.
....
Solution: type the name of what you're looking for in the search box on the start menu and do away with all that cumbersome navigation, period.
#4 Unbelievably bad desktop performance. On current gen hardware, you won't get the same performance with the same specs as your old XP installation. The same could have been said for XP vs Win2k on that generation hardware. Yes service packs will improve performance somewhat, but newer faster devices are needed for long term performance gains.
Who do you think is keeping Moore's law on track? If Microsoft didn't make new software to challenge the limits of existing hardware, enticing the consumer to WANT and eventually require new hardware, the consumer would become complacent, and entire industry would have given up on the concept a long time ago. After all, Linux still runs on my 286.
#5 Upgrade Pricing is a joke. Upgrade pricing is quite reasonable when properly adjusted for inflation. When you look at the video game industry, the Atari2600 is still the most expensive console ever released (when adjusted for inflation).
As far as assigning arbitrary numbers to operating systems to gauge performance, Vista should easily get a 10, XP should get a 3, and everything prior to win2k should get point values. Vista has some major 'under the hood' changes that allow for a more robust, more manageable, and more extensible system than XP or any windows OS prior could hope to achieve.
bull****. Everything else in the computer industry has seen monstrous price/performance GAINS. What was a $3,000 computer when XP was released is, what, $100 now? The point is that when XP retail was $200 of a $2,000 system price, it seemed a reasonable bundle. But when Vista Ultimate is $400 on top of a $500 desktop, for what end-users see as simply XP with a built-in Stardock skin, the market segmentation and pricing of Vista become simply ludicrous.
Now, I KNOW Vista is more than that. But as Brad points out, Flip3D and the Ultimate (only) Extra DreamScene (which is only NOW starting to work reliably with OS and driver updates) are the only obvious selling points of Vista from an end user perspective. And that's hardly worth $100 to anyone with an existing PC.
I guess Vista won't really be showing what the underlying architecture changes can do until the 2009 release. Which, because of the way Apple does things, they will sure to have lifted and released ahead of Vista...sigh.
....
Solution: type the name of what you're looking for in the search box on the start menu and do away with all that cumbersome navigation, period.
Oh riiiiiiight. The answer to the new half-arsed Start Menu is for end users to drop the point-and-click interface and go back to the command line model of typing the program name in a box?
Nice try. But I have no interest in going back to the 70's...
My solution would be not to use the Start Menu anymore. I don't. I've replaced the entire taskbar/systray/start menu paradigm with Object Dock (from, ironically, the poster's company Stardock).
....
Solution: type the name of what you're looking for in the search box on the start menu and do away with all that cumbersome navigation, period.
Oh riiiiiiight. The answer to the new half-arsed Start Menu is for end users to drop the point-and-click interface and go back to the command line model of typing the program name in a box?
Nice try. But I have no interest in going back to the 70's...
My solution would be not to use the Start Menu anymore. I don't. I've replaced the entire taskbar/systray/start menu paradigm with Object Dock (from, ironically, the poster's company Stardock).
Bingo. And thats the problem with Vista in a nutshell. The average user, 99% of people, share your feelings. People responding here are not the norm. Vista was dead on arrival because of things like UAC and the crammed up start menu.
....
Solution: type the name of what you're looking for in the search box on the start menu and do away with all that cumbersome navigation, period.
Oh riiiiiiight. The answer to the new half-arsed Start Menu is for end users to drop the point-and-click interface and go back to the command line model of typing the program name in a box?
Nice try. But I have no interest in going back to the 70's...
My solution would be not to use the Start Menu anymore. I don't. I've replaced the entire taskbar/systray/start menu paradigm with Object Dock (from, ironically, the poster's company Stardock).
Bingo. And thats the problem with Vista in a nutshell. The average user, 99% of people, share your feelings. People responding here are not the norm. Vista was dead on arrival because of things like UAC and the crammed up start menu.
U don't get it do you...
It's not command line, it's a very very intivative way of getting rid of the things yiou don't want at the current moment, eg og if you don't wanna type the whole "windows update" in the search pane, just typing W and I will eliminate over 90 % of start menu entries and will focus on the application u are finding that is windows update, now that it quite classy i would say... Concider starting windows update from xp based start menu using mouse with everyday applications installed and i bet the vista based approach is far far better and it's nearly instantaneous. i would say just giv it a try in your start menu.... it rocks!
Using object dock, it's rediculous, you have 20 + applications then there is no way u can arrange them in a dock in an intivative way (i know it has tabs but still it sucks) plus u have to need a lot of ram if u are gonna handle 20 + applications with OD. i would say thats a waste of time, money and resources...
There has been alot said about UAC and i will just add my 2 cents into it....
UAC is annoying cause it launches up for the applications that i don't think need UAC any more.... Eg launching disk defregmenter triggers UAC dialog. (Y) launching disk check utility triggers UAC... i think it does this cause the applications are running from windows sub directory or soemthing, that is annoying... other then that i have no problems with UAC, i just encounter it when i need to change some settings and installations whiich is rarely done after your system is set up after the initial configuration...
bull****. Everything else in the computer industry has seen monstrous price/performance GAINS. What was a $3,000 computer when XP was released is, what, $100 now? The point is that when XP retail was $200 of a $2,000 system price, it seemed a reasonable bundle. But when Vista Ultimate is $400 on top of a $500 desktop, for what end-users see as simply XP with a built-in Stardock skin, the market segmentation and pricing of Vista become simply ludicrous.
Now, I KNOW Vista is more than that. But as Brad points out, Flip3D and the Ultimate (only) Extra DreamScene (which is only NOW starting to work reliably with OS and driver updates) are the only obvious selling points of Vista from an end user perspective. And that's hardly worth $100 to anyone with an existing PC.
I guess Vista won't really be showing what the underlying architecture changes can do until the 2009 release. Which, because of the way Apple does things, they will sure to have lifted and released ahead of Vista...sigh.
Solutions for guys like u is vista home premium....
Faster hardware means more sophisticated software, not necessarily faster software.
I like Vista, it is ok, just has driver issues and but works for the most part.
Classic! Well said.
I would then offer a corollary that OS X is like a box of chocolate-covered cherries. Everyone gets the exact same (arguably tasty) thing, whether you like chocolate-covered cherries or not.
So I've gone with the box of chocolates, but I've thrown out the ones I'm allergic too and replaced them with a few chocolate-covered cherries. Seems to work pretty well for me.
Your mileage (and diet) may vary.
Okay so when is it Microsofts responsibility to wait for drivers? When did Vista RTM? Wasnt it Nov 2006. When did it release to the public. Jan 2007. So that leaves 2 months that they had to get drivers ready. Did Creative, nVidia, or ATi jump at this opportunity? NO. So please place the blame where it belongs. With the companies that failed to get drivers ready for the OS after it had RTM'd. They all wanted to wait for it to be released. That was their fault that they waited till Jan just to find out that doing drivers for Vista was a lot harder than it was for XP. Then they delayed putting them out.
I jsut love how M$ gets all the jumk about the driver support. Why is it that no one blames the companies that make the devices and drivers? M$ doesnt make all the drivers. If they did XP would be a lot more than a CD in size. Vista would be a couple DVD's worth to isntall and need well over 20GB to include all the drivers needed.
So point #2 in null. While it was a problem. It was NOT Microsoft problem. Creative failed to create barely any Beta drivers and said they would not do anything till it was released. Yet not one mention of that. It is M$ fault for releasign it to early. Which still wouldnt have solved this problem with Creative cause they wanted it released. So what do you do then?
nVidia had some Beta driver but is still having a problem getting DX10 correctly. But at least they have made more of a effort than ATi which has been all but absent since it was acquired by AMD.
Then you have RealTek who makes the most on board sound. Their rivers are shotty at best. Yet this is still Vista's fault for being completely coded from the ground up. Right.
I too am surprised Microsoft is now being blamed even in the slightest bit for drivers not being ready. That's just absurd to me.
I too am surprised Microsoft is now being blamed even in the slightest bit for drivers not being ready. That's just absurd to me.
Exactly. All that time and people are still saying it's all Microsoft's fault. That got old a long time ago.
"Hey this driver I just downloaded from ATI/Nvidia just caused a BSOD. Damn you Microsoft, damn you all to HELL!!!!"
XP took almost 6 years to being one of the best OS, got it issues, before and after sp1 even with SP2. Give microsoft and vista more time, we know that XP its perfect and for many of us the only way to get vista its with a banrd new pc, upgrade never seem an option for many of loyal XP users.
The only thing that i would like to eliminate in vista its the whole SKU they got, and specially vista home basic which its completely lame almost like xp starter edition, next windows 7 version we really need 1 version only try to imitate apple and leopard on this microsoft....
especially this one... since I've recently upgraded to Vista and I agree with all (but the start menu) issues mentioned in this editorial.
Because of the Live Search in the Start menu, the new way to navigate it is much more bearable. I hardly find myself manually going through the menu.
I also wish indexing would not thrash my drives as much as it does :s
2 x 74gb raptors in Raid 0 and it still thrashes... and that is after the two 'reliability' updates from August 8 and 9.
I really hope SP1 comes out soon :yes:
65 mistakes
Pretty obvious you have no clue what you're talking about and just went looking for the article that talked about the most issues.
upgrade the ram to 2 gigs. It's stable and faster than XP.
If you have "newer" hardware, and the drivers are available, Vista is a pretty good OS. Now, my home
box, a P4 2.8ghz HT with 1 gig ram, XP will stay on that one until I rebuild it.
I'm sure by SP1, Vista will be accepted a little more in the consumer market, but in the business market, I can't
see Vista being adopted, until MS sunsets XP.
That would completely defeat the purpose of UAC. It would mean that any malicious code could perform any administrative task that you had chosen to "always give permission to." I don't think that the author gets what UAC is about or why it's enabled.
Second, why are people always comparing Vista and XP as they are today? I mean, XP is a great OS NOW. Does anyone remember when it first launched? It was full of problems and people complained that they didn't want to or have the need to upgrade. I remember my school district stuck with 98 for years after XP arrived due to the fact that their software wasn't compatible and they didn't feel a need to upgrade. Move forward to today, XP is a great OS now because of the hundreds of patches and 2 service packs! Why are we comparing this battlehardened OS to a fresh outta boot camp OS? Yes, Vista has problems. Yes, it will need patches and service packs, but shouldn't people realize that XP went through the same thing? Give Vista a chance, if you don't want to upgrade, fine. XP is still an excellent OS. I'm glad Microsoft is still supporting it. However, don't sit there and bash something that isn't even a year old yet. Lets wait for SP1 or maybe even 2 and then compare. I bet in 5 years (yep, I'm betting Windows 7 will be delayed) people will be saying whats wrong with 7 and how much better Vista is.
Just for reference, I do not work for Microsoft. I was part of the Vista CPP and upgraded both of my XP machines (one of which is Vista "capable"
Finally, I think this is an excellent article. I hope we can see more to come that are both balanced and stimulate such large amounts of readers.
hi there i just thought this would be a fun update from the future it is 2009 we are still running vista and are receiving the beta's for win 7
anyhow we are on sp2 for vista and the majority of the irritating bugs are still not fixed
1 copying files still take more time to calculate then it often is to copy the stupid file
2 the u.a.c i cant tell i am one of the idiots that rather turned it of then to live with the popups
3.that flip-3d its a fun option but they made the mistake making it a option it schould do this automaticly if there are more than for example 2or 3 windows open
seeing the whole support and updates come and go the last few years we havent been given the fixes to the most irritating bugs
conclussion is microsoft ****ing there costumers yes and no they update youre security and features of the os most users will never use or find
ps the underpowerd machine that you find at the oem's is so due to contract limits between microsoft and the oem's its one of the points on the contract this ensures memory upgrades and maybe even graphics upgrades if ya upgrade youre os .
and yes custumors should do a bit of investigating but on the other side how much can ya expect most people need a manual to find a power on button if you dont know anything about computers you can investigate what u want but most of the time you just find more questions than answers because they dont understand anything about it so they go to the vendors in good faith they will make the good descision for them
pure and simple
Words speak louder than actions...... wait......... im sure thats right...
sigh
Anyway, I know it's terribly off-topic, but I noticed someone used it above...
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.