Recommended Posts

Run XP for a while and you'll realize why we "really needed" Vista.... NOT!

I personally can't stand using XP any more. Thankfully I haven't had to in quite a while, but I do sometimes on friends' machines. I keep doing things that only work on Vista, and I get frustrated by the lack of control (no UAC, etc).

I personally can't stand using XP any more. Thankfully I haven't had to in quite a while, but I do sometimes on friends' machines. I keep doing things that only work on Vista, and I get frustrated by the lack of control (no UAC, etc).

same here, vista is stable and fast on my end. can't see myself going back to barebones XP.

I'd like to see components less hardcoded into the OS...I guess I've just been spoiled by Linux and Mac but it feels strange how I can't remove WMP or IE.

My god. Especially in 3rd party apps this is where it's worst. What is this? Seriously? Why does your ****ty little app need a custom skin? It serves no purpose other than to provide a terribly inconsistent GUI and confusing interface.

1. Really, you can remove QuickTime from OS X?

2.You mean like iTunes and it's totally non-compliant interface/skin?

Seriously, I like OS X and have an iMac right next to my PC, but don't hold up Apple as an example of openess and compliance. They nash their teeth when a new version of Office for Mac doens't totally follow their human interface guidelines but completely ignore MS policy.

I'm in the same boat as Brandon. I'm constantly pressing the start key on keyboards and typing letters to search for programs, until I realize I'm not at home on my pc with Vista, but on a school or work pc still running XP.

Having been a Vista user for almost 2.5 years now (since the December CTP), I don't think I could imagine going back to XP at this point. With features like the sidebar, desktop search, far superior explorer shell, improved start menu, better networking configuration, expanded group policy options...I could go on all day. Suffice to say, I will never (willingly) run XP again on my laptop, desktop, or Media Center.

Edited by kl33per

I really don't buy 'We don't need Windows 7' without really knowing what it brings to the table. People are happy with what they have until they see that something actually CAN be better than what they had imagined and the process is called: innovation.

We have Vista, OS X etc today because of this. Each new operating system version brings something new to the table. I've read numerous Vista bashing posts both on neowin and other forums and one thing I can tell is that there is an emerging pattern.

Most of the comments are made from a narrow perspective, there are a lot of fundamental changes at the driver model level, security stack level etc that people are bypassing. Sadly, these components get attention when they fail because of a 3rd party driver or anti-virus that crashes the system. If you realized with Vista your entire system doesn't go down when your graphics card driver stops working, it just recycles the process.

In short, my point is that we do need a new OS version every 2-3 years. I don't want intel to release a new chip every 10 years, same goes for OS.

lol... we dun need windows 7. microsoft is the one that needs it for it's survival. y get microsoft when u can get ubuntu?

Why get ubuntu when you can get Microsoft? :)

If you realized with Vista your entire system doesn't go down when your graphics card driver stops working, it just recycles the process.

If only that were true, which (often), it isn't.

Why get ubuntu when you can get Microsoft? :)

Clearly, that's bias showing through, making your Vista arguement, weakened in my opinion. People are free to choose what they like, same for me, when I choose XP over Vista.

lol... we dun need windows 7. microsoft is the one that needs it for it's survival. y get microsoft when u can get ubuntu?

.......Microsoft will survive (and thrive) regardless of how 7 pans out. Your ignorance is staggering.

i don't think they should release it. many of my friends and even myself have had problems with Vista. not driver issues but getting use to the damn OS! it's so much different and things are laid out in many different sections. it's pointless. the new searches and crap is pointless. they should of just stuck to Xp for a little longer.

it's so much different and things are laid out in many different sections. it's pointless. the new searches and crap is pointless. they should of just stuck to Xp for a little longer.

The vast majority of the change are for the better. Things under Vista aren't arranged perfectly, but in many cases, they're certainly better than XP.

The problem is that everyone has grown accustomed to the often convoluted way of doing things that XP gets you stuck into. Often, when you learn the 'Vista' way to do something, it's faster than the XP way.

Also, if you think the search is pointless, you've never used it.

you guys that think vista is better than xp have completely drunk the kool aid. it's probably the second worst introduction of a new OS I have ever seen, (ME was the worst). The only reason 7 is around is because microsoft knows that Vista is a disaster. 140 million licenses can't be wrong you say ? Jesus. I'm glad, becasue Microsoft sucks and the day I don't have to use another ****ing OS from them, the better.

The only reason 7 is around is because microsoft knows that Vista is a disaster.

So what you're saying is that if Microsoft releases an OS that you (Apparently the allmighty judge of what makes an OS good) deem to be good, then they shouldn't ever release a new version?

Windows Seven is coming out 3+ years after Vista. That's a perfectly reasonable release schedule, especially given how fast things in technology change.

you guys that think vista is better than xp have completely drunk the kool aid. it's probably the second worst introduction of a new OS I have ever seen, (ME was the worst). The only reason 7 is around is because microsoft knows that Vista is a disaster. 140 million licenses can't be wrong you say ? Jesus. I'm glad, becasue Microsoft sucks and the day I don't have to use another ****ing OS from them, the better.

I'm sure Microsoft's not worried about a clueless know-nothing not using their operating system. In fact, I'm sure they'd be glad.

By the way I forgot to mention that I also dual boot into Ubuntu and I really do like the system. It's a solid system, but for whatever reason when I'm done testing code on Ubuntu I find myself back using Windows (XP / Vista).. Also, as much as I hated the Vista UI when first used it, I find myself looking for Vista style things in XP lately. I guess I am just getting used to the UI..

Btw my last comment about why not get MS when you can was sarcastic. I have used UNIX (Solaris) / Linux (Slackware, Ubuntu, Gentoo) and pretty much all versions of Windows after 3.1 (including servers) and I really have to say that each has its own place. I wouldn't compare one to the other that's why I really don't like someone jumping and saying oh let's all switch to ABC from XYZ. Hence the comment I made.

PS: Keep in mind we still need a SP2 for Vista to make a lot of things better, also the hardware needs to catch up. When XP first came out machine specs were different, we are talking about how Vista is sluggish on today's hardware. Give it another 5 years and lets see how it runs on 8-core 64 bit machines with 8gb of memory and 1ghz video cards :)

(Just playing devil's advocate here)

ppl seriously, simply do a vlite version with the options you dont need removed and you are done, nothing that hard, anyone can put Vista having only XP resorces or Server2008 one

use it, make a iso from it, Test in Virtual pc 2007 or Vmware if you want, burn to a RW if you dont want to burn a normal DVD and install it with the stuff you want only

not that hard, the options in vLite are all documented inside the program in the right side when you select a component

Has for the topic, Windows 7 will be like XP was to 2000

in that time:

-> ppl considered XP an Service pack 1 or 2 (dont remember if 2000 already had a Sp1 in the time of XP release)

-> XP was 2000 with better compatibility for games, tweaked Win2000 for user experience

-> XP had from the start good compatibily for ppls hardware because it accepted the stables drivers already done it on Win2000, who had win2000 running well got xp running well also

sound familiar? is that Windows 7 will be

-> have the drivers system of Windows Vista so by that time it get released the drivers will be stable from the start (most noted in Graphics Cards ones).

-> tweaked OS (already said by Bill Gates).

etc etc

will be like 2000 to XP history and ppl will abrace Windows 7 really well because of it, maintaining the Drivers system from Vista

But then XP is optimized for it too, OSX is optimized for it too. So why change? Why spend money building updates to your programs and operating systems?

It's basically like saying why don't we all go back to Office 2000...it does everything we need.

Also I like your ending...you complain as if buying an OS every 3-5 years and paying what 150-200usd for it is costing you so much. Great.

Vista was more than $200, at least the version that mattered. OSX is $200 for a 5 computer liscence, basically $40 per computer where Vista Ultimate is $400 for one PC. Paying $400 every two years is quite a bit for a mere OS.

1. Really, you can remove QuickTime from OS X?

2.You mean like iTunes and it's totally non-compliant interface/skin?

Seriously, I like OS X and have an iMac right next to my PC, but don't hold up Apple as an example of openess and compliance. They nash their teeth when a new version of Office for Mac doens't totally follow their human interface guidelines but completely ignore MS policy.

1. You can, I just did it.

2. iTunes, unless it is on Windows, has the exact same interface as OSX.

3. Why is Apple in the wrong when MS can't comply with Apple's interface standards? At least Adobe seems to be OK with it.

The vast majority of the change are for the better. Things under Vista aren't arranged perfectly, but in many cases, they're certainly better than XP.

The problem is that everyone has grown accustomed to the often convoluted way of doing things that XP gets you stuck into. Often, when you learn the 'Vista' way to do something, it's faster than the XP way.

Also, if you think the search is pointless, you've never used it.

Exactly. Alot of the things in Vista and Office 2007 are more intelligently designed. Problem is that everyone who has touched a computer in the last 10 years is used to doing things the XP way and the old Office way. They know the interfaces so the bad design was negated and made conventional. It was a good thing MS changed it, but it was a bit late.

you guys that think vista is better than xp have completely drunk the kool aid. it's probably the second worst introduction of a new OS I have ever seen, (ME was the worst). The only reason 7 is around is because microsoft knows that Vista is a disaster. 140 million licenses can't be wrong you say ? Jesus. I'm glad, becasue Microsoft sucks and the day I don't have to use another ****ing OS from them, the better.

That day is sooner than you think, buy a Mac ;).

This is merely going back to the same release schedule Microsoft has ALWAYS had. The time line that Vista followed was an aberration and definitely not the norm. I don't get why some people on here just can't seem to grasp that concept.

I don't think it's cause people can't grasp the concept of a ~3 year OS life cycle, it's more they have become complacent with XP. It's been out for so long and matured a lot in that time that to alot of people they have never known anything but XP and suddenly going back to the default cycle has shaken up a somewhat static world (i.e. having Vista come out and only 3 or so years later Win7 and ~3 years after that Win8 etc). Not to mention it's human nature to resist change :p well that is my take on it anyway, take with a grain of salt.

that's kind of the point...apple ignores MS's interface standards.

WHAT STANDARD? There are 5 different icon styles for these 6 interfaces. 6 different layouts, and 2 completely different skins. And these are all standard MS applications!

post-162840-1212103453_thumb.jpg

Edited by Emn1ty
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • The quantum search for Time's origin had an equally mind-boggling conclusion by Sayan Sen Image by Steve Johnson via Pexels A theoretical study from researchers at the University of Surrey suggested that the direction of time may not be fundamentally fixed in certain quantum systems. The work, published in Scientific Reports, examined how the “arrow of time” could emerge from microscopic physics and found that time-reversal symmetry can remain intact even in models used to describe processes such as energy loss and thermalisation. The arrow of time refers to the observed one-way direction from past to future in everyday life. In macroscopic processes, this is easy to see. Spilled milk spreads across a table and does not gather back into a glass, and heat flows from hotter objects to colder ones. These processes shape the common sense idea that time moves in a single direction. However, at the level of fundamental physics, many equations do not prefer a direction of time. Time-reversal symmetry means that the same physical laws can describe a system whether time moves forward or backward. This has made it difficult to explain why irreversible behaviour appears in the large-scale world even when the underlying rules do not require it. Dr Andrea Rocco, Associate Professor in Physics and Mathematical Biology at the University of Surrey, described this contrast: "One way to explain this is when you look at a process like spilt milk spreading across a table, it's clear that time is moving forward. But if you were to play that in reverse, like a movie, you'd immediately know something was wrong – it would be hard to believe milk could just gather back into a glass. However, there are processes, such as the motion of a pendulum, that look just as believable in reverse. The puzzle is that, at the most fundamental level, the laws of physics resemble the pendulum; they do not account for irreversible processes. Our findings suggest that while our common experience tells us that time only moves one way, we are just unaware that the opposite direction would have been equally possible." The study focused on open quantum systems, which are quantum systems that interact with a surrounding environment. This environment, often described as a heat bath, can exchange energy and information with the system. The researchers used this framework to study how a direction of time might appear even when the underlying physics does not enforce one. A key part of the analysis involved the Markov approximation. This is a simplification used in many models where the system is assumed not to retain memory of its past states. The idea is that changes depend only on the current state, not on earlier history. This is commonly used when studying thermalisation, which is the process where a system settles into equilibrium with its environment. The study also used concepts such as master equations, including the Lindblad and Pauli equations, which describe how probabilities of different quantum states change over time. Another related model discussed was quantum Brownian motion, which describes the random-like movement of a quantum particle interacting continuously with its environment. In these descriptions, a “memory kernel” can appear, which is a mathematical term that accounts for how past states influence current behaviour. The researchers found that applying the Markov approximation did not break time-reversal symmetry. Even when the system interacted with an effectively infinite heat bath, the resulting equations of motion remained symmetric in time. This meant that the same mathematical description could, in principle, run forward or backward in time without contradiction. The study further showed that standard frameworks used in open quantum systems, including quantum Brownian motion and master equations like the Lindblad and Pauli forms, could be written in a time-symmetric way. These equations are typically used to describe processes that look irreversible, such as dissipation and thermalisation, but the results suggested they can also be interpreted as allowing evolution in both time directions. Thomas Guff, Research Fellow in Quantum Thermodynamics, said: "The surprising part of this project was that even after making the standard simplifying assumption to our equations describing open quantum systems, the equations still behaved the same way whether the system was moving forwards or backwards in time. When we carefully worked through the maths, we found that this behaviour had to be the case because a key part of the equation, the "memory kernel," is symmetrical in time. We also found a small but important detail which is usually overlooked – a time discontinuous factor emerged that kept the time-symmetry property intact. It’s unusual to see such a mathematical mechanism in a physics equation because it's not continuous, and it was very surprising to see it appear so naturally." The researchers also noted that deriving a one-way arrow of time from time-reversal symmetric microscopic dynamics remains an open problem across fields such as thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, particle physics, and cosmology. Their results suggested that some standard descriptions of irreversible behaviour in open quantum systems may be better understood using a time-symmetric formulation of Markovianity. According to the study, processes such as thermalisation, which are usually treated as irreversible, could in theory be described in a way that allows evolution in either time direction under the same rules. This does not imply that time reversal occurs in everyday life, but rather that the underlying equations do not strictly enforce a single direction. Overall, the findings suggested that the perceived direction of time may emerge from how physical systems are modelled and approximated, rather than from a fundamental asymmetry in the laws themselves. The researchers noted that this perspective could have implications for ongoing work in quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and cosmology on the origin of time’s arrow. Source: University of Surrey, Nature This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing
    • A bit premature... 100% Marketing. Bizarre.
    • A $300 price hike is insane! No one is going to want to pay that much!
    • Since the 1st one flopped, there is really no reason to make another one. It's just losing money left and right.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      BizSAR earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      581
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      182
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      75
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      73
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!