joeydoo Posted September 27, 2005 Share Posted September 27, 2005 Can I ask some one, does vista still have the age old windows problem of letting applications create temp files and folders everywhere. After a few months the "documents and settings" folders in XP are full of junk. You never no what you can get rid of. XP doesn't clean it out properly when you use the drive clean-up function. Have they improved these kinds of things? I am hoping Vista restricts an installed application to having one "programs" folder and one "documents and settings" folder (for each user profile) It would make everything far clearer. This is kind of gonna turn into a rant now but I have to ask this as well. Have they sorted out the windows folder? XP's windows folder is a complete mess of unnesscary and duplicate files in badly labelled folders. To me this is the kind of thing that degrades the system over time. Windows has always lets programs run wild like that. Making more restrictions to keep everything in order would also increase security I should imagine. Applying a bit of logic and having some lowly Microsoft office boy go through and clean it all up, giving folders and proper names, all the update/install files/folders in their own directory, all the backup files together, would be far more useful to a novice user than a DVD full of wizards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commodore Max Posted September 28, 2005 Share Posted September 28, 2005 I hope they have changed that. That was a big problem and I agree with you. I know that one of the goals of Longhorn was to kill the registry, but I'm not sure if they're actually doing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagamer34 Posted September 28, 2005 Share Posted September 28, 2005 The registry really does need to die. Or at least Vista should manually log what install programs do to your system because I hate when they leave a mess. It makes re-installs a necessity after a 100s of program installs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freedom77 Posted September 28, 2005 Share Posted September 28, 2005 Yes i hope they do make it less messes, I do believe i heard in an interview with one of the important ppl behind vista he said when you uninstall a program your not left with rubish from it, so hopefully this is true Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stgeorge Posted September 28, 2005 Share Posted September 28, 2005 If you look at Vista, it's just Windows Server 2003 with a whole heap of cluttered junk piled on top of it like a house of cards (as usual since Windows NT4, the last "clean" operating system out of Redmond). They always cite "compatibility issues" as to why they must have crap like "Coffee Bean.bmp" (go take a look) in the /WINDOWS directory. Just try and get someone from Redmond to explain why in XP64, System32 contains 64-bit files and SysWow64 contains 32-bit files. Gee, I think the original creator of "System32" (NT4 devs) expected 64-bit files to be placed into "System64"... This is the kind of junk that Redmond is inexplicably proud of. Even the book "Windows Internals" (written by Windows guru Russonovitch of SysInternals fame, and is actually used by Redmond as a reference INTO THEIR OWN OPERATING SYSTEM) is cautiously critical of how MS bungles major architectural decisions about the operating system. Ever since Cutler moved on from designing OS's at Redmond, it's been a colossal disaster driven by marketing and sales rather than by people with a true respect for well-designed operating systems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cropcircles Posted September 28, 2005 Share Posted September 28, 2005 There will always be some type of registry if there will be tweaking modifications. Imagine XP without a registry,. YIKES! It would be nice to not have to constantly have to clean, run anti- whatever programs all the time just to keep your rig from accumulating junk, useless files. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoochieMamma Posted September 28, 2005 Share Posted September 28, 2005 I don't think they can get rid of it for compatibility reasons. 586589035[/snapback] Then why can't they make a 'virtual' registry that cannot affect the system in any way, but only is there for compatibility reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winston Posted September 28, 2005 Share Posted September 28, 2005 I don't think they can get rid of the registry for compatibility reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winston Posted September 28, 2005 Share Posted September 28, 2005 Then why can't they make a 'virtual' registry that cannot affect the system in any way, but only is there for compatibility reasons. 586589038[/snapback] Well i think they should firstly shift all of their code away from using one bit of the registry, but leave it there for legacy applications. I don't exactly know how they could shift developers from still using it in newly designed apps, but i think they shouldn't provide it under the new API set, they are providing, however i'm sure there are still are still functions in the old API (Win32), for developers to access, but definitely by eliminating it from the new set is a first step. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoochieMamma Posted September 28, 2005 Share Posted September 28, 2005 Well i think they should firstly shift all of their code away from using one bit of the registry, but leave it there for legacy applications. I don't exactly know how they could shift developers from still using it in newly designed apps, but i think they shouldn't provide it under the new API set, they are providing, however i'm sure there are still are still functions in the old API (Win32), for developers to access, but definitely by eliminating it from the new set is a first step. 586589044[/snapback] Do you think they will do some changes with the registry in Vista? I read a long time ago that they where going to do some major work with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeydoo Posted September 28, 2005 Author Share Posted September 28, 2005 So it's still a mess then? :blink: This is such a wasted opportunity. No-doubt there will be more file protection to stop you doing it yourself. :( The inherent lack of logic in that registry is mind boggling. It's just random hole patching. They should have some balls and rebuild things from the ground up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin-uk Veteran Posted September 28, 2005 Veteran Share Posted September 28, 2005 I totally agree, im obsessivly compulsive about having a clean drive, clean start menu, clean system folders, etc... :pinch: lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Dick Montage Subscriber² Posted September 28, 2005 Subscriber² Share Posted September 28, 2005 Agreed that NT4 was the last 100% clean OS. But I think labelling Vista as "2003 with a bunch more on top" is a little unfair! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malisk Posted September 28, 2005 Share Posted September 28, 2005 (edited) Agreed that NT4 was the last 100% clean OS.? But I think labelling Vista as "2003 with a bunch more on top" is a little unfair! 586589355[/snapback] I think he was talking about the patchwork, not the feature set or lack thereof. Rather that Vista is 2003 with awhole lot of stuff> on top. Point being that it isn't doing away with a lot of cruft since the older NT OS'es. I agree about the registry, it's strange how Microsoft could just make that sort of thing without any auditing support like in NTFS. Yes, it would require a little extra resources for bookkeeping, but doesn't a huge registry do that as well? :pinch:: Edited September 28, 2005 by Jugalator Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlibbyFlobby Posted September 28, 2005 Share Posted September 28, 2005 They could do with more clearly labelled default folders for one. I think "Program Files" should "Programs" and they should have a "Games" folder, which is the default install for your games (Duh). There should also be restrictions so the software has to go in the right folder "Programs"/"Games", and set these restrictions on as default or something. I think that would help a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BajiRav Posted September 28, 2005 Share Posted September 28, 2005 Can I ask some one, does vista still have the age old windows problem of letting applications create temp files and folders everywhere. After a few months the "documents and settings" folders in XP are full of junk. You never no what you can get rid of. XP doesn't clean it out properly when you use the drive clean-up function. Have they improved these kinds of things? The program files is for application files The Docs & Settings is for user preferences & files (also stuff common to all users) The situation sucks for obvious reasons 1. Program installers/uninstallers don't behave properly 2. Microsoft made a mistake in keeping C:\Windows\** open to add files (MS Office is the worst offender) 3. Although registry has a very logical structure, it suffers from the same problem mentioned in #1 & #2 I am hoping Vista restricts an installed application to having one "programs" folder and one "documents and settings" folder (for each user profile) It would make everything far clearer. 586587533[/snapback] Every other OS does that and its very logical to separate user settings & file from application files Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
905punk Posted September 28, 2005 Share Posted September 28, 2005 Vista is, literally, 2003 with stuff on top thou. It's using the .NET Enterprise Server 2003 SP1 Codebase i believe. And the registry is still very much alive and well in Pre-Beta 2 Build 5219. I dont think the Registry is going to be leaving in Vista - maybe Blackcomb? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
905punk Posted September 28, 2005 Share Posted September 28, 2005 They could do with more clearly labelled default folders for one. I think "Program Files" should "Programs" and they should have a "Games" folder, which is the default install for your games (Duh). There should also be restrictions so the software has to go in the right folder "Programs"/"Games", and set these restrictions on as default or something. I think that would help a bit. 586589379[/snapback] What they really need is default folders for /Viruses /Spyware /Adware - That'd make it real easy :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vcv Posted September 28, 2005 Share Posted September 28, 2005 A lot of the things they "should" get rid of, they simply can't. It doesn't matter what they want, you can't **** off most of your customers by breaking compatibility just to make some geeks that are anal about being "clean" happy. Vista will still perform better than XP does on the same hardware, so I see no big reason to complain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stunna Posted September 28, 2005 Share Posted September 28, 2005 ^truth and i believe the resaon for ur registry being messy is programmers that dont make a clean uninstall tool for their programs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackice Posted September 28, 2005 Share Posted September 28, 2005 Microsoft know the reigstry is messy and not good for a modern OS, but removing it would cause big compatibility issues. You can't write emulation layers for everything, you know... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TruckWEB Posted September 28, 2005 Share Posted September 28, 2005 Nothing can beat the simple Drag And Drop installation or removal of applications with Mac OSX. And it's like magic. As soon as a new app is in the "Applications" folder, all file assosiation are done like magic. No registry... I wish Microsoft would do something like that. How cool it would be to simply drag and drop Office 12 folder on your hard drive and VOILA, it works! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeremy1 Posted September 29, 2005 Share Posted September 29, 2005 Vista is, literally, 2003 with stuff on top thou.586590690[/snapback] No, it literally is not. It came from the 2003 codebase, but a lot of stuff was rewritten. Vista's got totally new audio, video, and networking subsystems for example. You just don't understand how big of a change Vista really is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commodore Max Posted September 29, 2005 Share Posted September 29, 2005 Vista isn't just 2003 with stuff on top. It's been completely built upon it, transformed, engineered. It's not like Media Center or Tablet PC, it's a whole new OS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The J Man Posted September 29, 2005 Share Posted September 29, 2005 They could do with more clearly labelled default folders for one. I think "Program Files" should "Programs" and they should have a "Games" folder, which is the default install for your games (Duh). There should also be restrictions so the software has to go in the right folder "Programs"/"Games", and set these restrictions on as default or something. I think that would help a bit. 586589379[/snapback] RIGHT. i agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts