Users to Microsoft: 'Just make Windows faster'

[HawkMan]

  BilliShere said:

you are correct to a certain extent. Compiz can indeed run on lower hardware but i have to disagree with the quality arguement. The quality is actually very nice compared to what the DWM has to offer. and it is scalable depending on the graphics power you have just like DWM. It comes very close to DWM or even better as some may argue depnding on your hardware. Some plugins like blur, and too many effects run very slow on less powerful cards. The point here is squeezing the best out of normal hardware people use on a day to day basis. An intel graphics chipset can run not only cube, reflections, transparency, fire, water, and many many other effects but it runs it fast, good quality (high framerates) and very very stable at the same time. I have encountered no crashes due to compiz since i installed hardy heron. And yes...just like microsoft, canonical/ubuntu also has a minimal level of quality...The stable final releases are always polished and are actually stable :p...much, much, more than the state vista was in when it was released.

Furthermore, compiz is very flexible, you don't like an effect, disable the plugin and enjoy the rest. This sort of flexibility is just not available in vista. Instead like you say, they choose the simpler way and deliver this "quality" at the cost of performance and number of features.

The hell it can and the hell it is.

but you still missed the entire point I made so whatever.

It's not about being scalable. For somethign that is actually sold it needs to be easy, idiot proof and have a lower end barrier or peopel will complain.

As. But yeah, if you like tearing, artifacting, ixelation and bad aliasing, and you don't mind it crashign frequently, then yeah, you can run Compix, even on lower end hardware. But MS can't afford to have these issues.

[shockz]

I completely agree that something needs to be done about the speed of windows... especially at boot up.

Regular users don't know how to optomize, disable unused services, and clean up processes... I'm not trying to bash Windows here... but I also have users in work enviornments that use Macs or Linux and they are just a ton more speedier... I work at a helpdesk and rarely get calls from users on Macs or Linux at work regarding performance or slow response times.

[BilliShere]

  1759 said:

Please don't compare Compiz to Vista. It's nice, but it's also pretty buggy on ATI systems, and it's not nearly as fluid as Aero, same goes for the awn dock. And at the heart of it, Compiz just wants to be like Expose on OSX, but outside of the cube effect for switching workspaces, the other effects in Compiz are useless. Wobbly windows and drawing water/fire on the screen do not usability make.

As far as Vista being slow, unfortunately, that's been the case with every new Windows release, I don't think MS honestly knows any better.

The buggy-ness on ATI system is now pretty much fixed, much like how nvidia and ati drivers caused a huge amount of crashes on Vista when it was released. im sure you know about that.

Not nearly as fluid as Aero? pft.. I can't find the link currently but im very very sure ive seen benchmarks showing high framerates for compiz compared to vista's aero...this can be googled but i simply dont have the time to put that much effort into this.

and as for awn dock i have to agree it is indeed slow and a piece of junk. But seriously, its being phased out and being replaced by cairo-dock which does actually have a much much faster response, quality, and speedy startup. you should try it. Flexibility is the key to Linux's success.

Compiz does not want to be "just like Expose on OSX." <--clear bias of mac fanboy-ism. :p

I do appreciate the Expose effect on the OSX very very much. It is a very useful effect. But after trying a osx leopard for a few months and then using ubuntu with full blown compiz effects with very little performance sacrifice...you really can't live without those effects.

besides "the workspaces/cube effect", simple things like shading windows, enhanced zoom desktop, negatives, scaling and placing windows add not just usability but also creates a more fluid, natural, eye-pleasing, easier way to do daily computing.

compiz is a lot more than just wobbly windows, water/fire, and cube. Many of the other plugins have actual uses that less creative users simply can't think of how to use them. ;)

[Ci7]

  Scorbing said:

I don't like it there. I'm old fashioned.

not a big deal type any latter in the search box then choose search everywhere

but if you insist here you go ,

  Quote

In Windows Vista SP1 Microsoft removed the option for the Search button on the right side of the start panel. If you used that button frequently it is possible to bring it back by replacing the Help and Support button.

Just download the attached registry files and import.

Replace Help and Support with Search button: Enable ? Disable

source

[HawkMan]

Really there are benchmarks showing that compiz is faster than DWM ?

noooo really ? a system where the user can adjust FSAA, it doesn't run on the better PC3, no forces VSync, no forced high quality Filtering of the images can be configured to run much better than an idiot proof program allways set to run at the best posible quality ?

noooo really? you don't say .... :rolleyes:

[ViperAFK]

  BilliShere said:

The buggy-ness on ATI system is now pretty much fixed, much like how nvidia and ati drivers caused a huge amount of crashes on Vista when it was released. im sure you know about that.

Not nearly as fluid as Aero? pft.. I can't find the link currently but im very very sure ive seen benchmarks showing high framerates for compiz compared to vista's aero...this can be googled but i simply dont have the time to put that much effort into this.

and as for awn dock i have to agree it is indeed slow and a piece of junk. But seriously, its being phased out and being replaced by cairo-dock which does actually have a much much faster response, quality, and speedy startup. you should try it. Flexibility is the key to Linux's success.

Compiz does not want to be "just like Expose on OSX." <--clear bias of mac fanboy-ism. :p

I do appreciate the Expose effect on the OSX very very much. It is a very useful effect. But after trying a osx leopard for a few months and then using ubuntu with full blown compiz effects with very little performance sacrifice...you really can't live without those effects.

besides "the workspaces/cube effect", simple things like shading windows, enhanced zoom desktop, negatives, scaling and placing windows add not just usability but also creates a more fluid, natural, eye-pleasing, easier way to do daily computing.

compiz is a lot more than just wobbly windows, water/fire, and cube. Many of the other plugins have actual uses that less creative users simply can't think of how to use them. ;)

Compiz is buggy as hell for me on my nvidia and ati cards and not NEARLY as consistent, smooth and fluid as aero is. And simple things like window previews don't even work right (You just get a hideous blurry icon if the window is minimized, WTF is the point of the the previews if it doesn't work when they are minimized?) Same thing happens with the ring switcher/cover flow ect.. big blurry icon when the window is minimized, compiz has a LONG way to go when simple things like that don't work right.

Also compiz is NOT smoother than aero and is actually slower and laggier on every computer I have used it on leaving me perplexed as to how people can call aero slow and buggy and compiz fast and stable.

[BilliShere]

  HawkMan said:

The hell it can and the hell it is.

but you still missed the entire point I made so whatever.

It's not about being scalable. For somethign that is actually sold it needs to be easy, idiot proof and have a lower end barrier or peopel will complain.

As. But yeah, if you like tearing, artifacting, ixelation and bad aliasing, and you don't mind it crashign frequently, then yeah, you can run Compix, even on lower end hardware. But MS can't afford to have these issues.

That is exactly my point, these issues don't exist on compiz. what versions of compiz have you been using, betas, bzr code or summin? <-- even those versions are quite stable from my experience! and the scalability is part of the idiot-proofing :D What? do you expect a n00b to start tweaking around to get "hollywood effects?"

MS cannot afford such issues and neither can Linux distros...which is why these issues you claim do not exist anymore.

[39 Thieves]

New Ubuntards are so cute. X.org is an antiquated pile of crap, and Compiz is a feeble attempt at polishing a turd. I still fail to see what Linux has to do with users wanting Windows to be faster.

[BilliShere]

  HawkMan said:

Really there are benchmarks showing that compiz is faster than DWM ?

noooo really ? a system where the user can adjust FSAA, it doesn't run on the better PC3, no forces VSync, no forced high quality Filtering of the images can be configured to run much better than an idiot proof program allways set to run at the best posible quality ?

noooo really? you don't say .... :rolleyes:

you just proved my point aboot flexibility.. didntcha? ;)

[HawkMan]

  BilliShere said:

you just proved my point aboot flexibility.. didntcha? ;)

  BilliShere said:

you just proved my point aboot flexibility.. didntcha? ;)

I figured you'd be one of thos who think that kind of flexibility is a good thing, exept it's not, sure for the advanced users it can be cool to deal with. but for the average user it's not. Even more so it's useless even for the advanced user, running a 3D accelerated desktop without vsync, high quality map filtering, high level FSAA and such, well it's useless. who won't to run a desktop with pixelated graphics, jagged window edges, jerky movement, and tearing whenever you do something. and compiz has bad tearing even with it's so called Vsyn on.

[BilliShere]

  HawkMan said:

I figured you'd be one of thos who think that kind of flexibility is a good thing, exept it's not, sure for the advanced users it can be cool to deal with. but for the average user it's not. Even more so it's useless even for the advanced user, running a 3D accelerated desktop without vsync, high quality map filtering, high level FSAA and such, well it's useless. who won't to run a desktop with pixelated graphics, jagged window edges, jerky movement, and tearing whenever you do something. and compiz has bad tearing even with it's so called Vsyn on.

a very valid point about flexibility indeed. good only for the advanced users! not for the average joe. but nice to have nevertheless...it would be worse to not have the flexibility.

the scenario you raise with compiz looking as bad as you say.. indeed sounds terrible and one would hate to have a desk like that.

But like i said many of these problems don't exist anymore. atleast not with the very latest stable versions of compiz. They were indeed issues in the past. It once discouraged me from using linux. very true indeed. but the situation now is of course not as polished or good looking as vista as i aforementioned. (MS is a very professional company this must be kept in mind). But it is very very reasonable when taking a look at the thing from a quality:performance point of view.

[HawkMan]

The thing is, when you set compiz to have an acceptable quality level at full AF, Full FSAA, Vsync and so on. it's performance is no better than DWM really.

[ViperAFK]

  BilliShere said:

That is exactly my point, these issues don't exist on compiz. what versions of compiz have you been using, betas, bzr code or summin? <-- even those versions are quite stable from my experience! and the scalability is part of the idiot-proofing :D What? do you expect a n00b to start tweaking around to get "hollywood effects?"

MS cannot afford such issues and neither can Linux distros...which is why these issues you claim do not exist anymore.

I have always used the latest compiz fusion and drivers and get issues like this. Compiz is not ready for everyday use. And @ Hawk, I definitely agree one of the main advantages of a 3d desktop is vsync. Vsync only works on one of my machines no matter how much i tweak it and the tearing looks simply awful.

[sirgh0st]

Normally I would stay out of this because I am f*cking sick of the needless vista bashing. However, I will say this. If you think or "know" vista does not run well on your current hardware than do not f*cking use it. Simple as that as there are alot of alternatives out there in terms of operating systems to run on your computer including your current copy of xp if that is what you so desire.

[Ci7]

  sirgh0st said:

Normally I would stay out of this because I am f*cking sick of the needless vista bashing. However, I will say this. If you think or "know" vista does not run well on your current hardware than do not f*cking use it. Simple as that as there are alot of alternatives out there in terms of operating systems to run on your computer including your current copy of xp if that is what you so desire.

+1

[ScottKin]

  The2 said:

Argh! It's not something that "affects some people", it's not a bug, it's not a problem in Vista.

It's a ***** fact that Vista is slower than XP. And btw. I use Vista on my laptop,

CFR?

(for the uninitiated, CFR = Call For References)

I have had XP, XP64 and Vista on the same box - no changes - and Vista consistantly out-performs both. My measurements are done with using the exact same applications and systray items on each platform, and Vista's superior memory management lets me do more things at once than XP or XP64 - hands-down.

Anyone who makes claims that XP is faster is simply deluding themselves, or doesn't know how to make such verifiable assessments.

Vista FTW!

--ScottKin

[CrimsonBetrayal]

  brianshapiro said:

Just to comment, although I'm sure many people would like a faster windows, I doubt that the average person really wants to remove features. People who say that Microsoft should remove features are usually lower end techies who blame all of the problems with Windows on the fact that you couldn't uninstall IE. In terms of applications, there isn't really much that comes bundled in windows, and it doesn't really make windows slower. Play with all the features in windows and youll get bored in 10 minutes.

Low end techies? Window's has been bloated since XP! 2000 was the best thing they've ever put out, and even that's bordering on bloat. Have you ever checked to see the excessive number of un-used services are "just-running" on a Windows system as of late. Even XP is guilty of this. I've set up seperate hardware profiles just so I can get the performance I need when I need it. Running XP and Linux on the same hardware, Linux works much better, with or without Compiz.

I think the problem is we should have the option to turn these things on rather than figuring out how to turn them off. I mean sure, we'd all love it if when we bought a new car it came with a massage chair, media center, virtual co-pilot, eight air-bags, a bright blue dashboard with red, green, and yellow buttons, and a gauge area filled with the latest news and weather from the internet, but imagine having to have all these and not given the option on whether or not you want them. Then having to find a way to get a normal dashboard, a proper driving seat, turn off the co-pilot, and make the speedometer and tachometer legible behind all the fancy widgets.

Realistically, all we're asking for, is a bare-bones system, with the option to add the "extra's" that regular users for. In all honesty, they can feel free to continue doing what they're doing if they want to capture the "shiny" market. But in order for real it techies and geeks to ever take them seriously, they'll have to start designing it bare-bones, for speed, stability, and security, with optional addons for home-users.

My 2c.

~Wulf

[sirgh0st]

  CrimsonBetrayal said:

Low end techies? Window's has been bloated since XP! 2000 was the best thing they've ever put out, and even that's bordering on bloat. Have you ever checked to see the excessive number of un-used services are "just-running" on a Windows system as of late. Even XP is guilty of this. I've set up seperate hardware profiles just so I can get the performance I need when I need it. Running XP and Linux on the same hardware, Linux works much better, with or without Compiz.

I think the problem is we should have the option to turn these things on rather than figuring out how to turn them off. I mean sure, we'd all love it if when we bought a new car it came with a massage chair, media center, virtual co-pilot, eight air-bags, a bright blue dashboard with red, green, and yellow buttons, and a gauge area filled with the latest news and weather from the internet, but imagine having to have all these and not given the option on whether or not you want them. Then having to find a way to get a normal dashboard, a proper driving seat, turn off the co-pilot, and make the speedometer and tachometer legible behind all the fancy widgets.

Realistically, all we're asking for, is a bare-bones system, with the option to add the "extra's" that regular users for. In all honesty, they can feel free to continue doing what they're doing if they want to capture the "shiny" market. But in order for real it techies and geeks to ever take them seriously, they'll have to start designing it bare-bones, for speed, stability, and security, with optional addons for home-users.

My 2c.

~Wulf

And than you got all the noobs, mom and pops running around saying how much windows sucks because it does not have something they want to do already enabled.

This argument can go both ways.

[shakey_snake]

It would be nice if Windows could simply "become modular" or "eliminate starting too many applications on startup", or "bleh", but the reality is that sort of thing will never happen because it will break too many applications.

What honestly really needs to happen if MS is ever going to move forward is it needs to eliminate some of the more obvious "bad habits" that poorly written software has, but it needs to do so in a manner that offers some sort of graceful, limited compatability.

Also, tools need to be around which help a user monitor background processes and the volume of stuff being installed. My grandma has no idea what typing msconfig in the run dialog does, for example. But she sure knows when her computer is "running slow".

[HawkMan]

Do the math. Sell the OS to two techies who actually care, or 20 million regular users, and 5 million techies who know how to use their system ?

umm, Windows IS modular.

Edited August 20, 2008 by HawkMan

[+Warwagon MVC]

  Chicane-UK said:

Ugh - not going to bite on the ignorant comments from people with multicore CPU's and gigabytes of RAM - just remeber not everyone is in the same position as you with money to spend on the latest and greatest hardware.

While some of that is true, just make sure what ever computer you buy has 2 gigs of ram. Vista likes Ram. Ram is cheap. You don't have to have the latest and greatest machine. Just a machine with 2 gigs of ram and vista will run fine.

[Brandon Live Veteran]

  shockz said:

I completely agree that something needs to be done about the speed of windows... especially at boot up.

Do you really reboot that often?

[redfish]

  CrimsonBetrayal said:

Low end techies? Window's has been bloated since XP! 2000 was the best thing they've ever put out, and even that's bordering on bloat. Have you ever checked to see the excessive number of un-used services are "just-running" on a Windows system as of late. Even XP is guilty of this. I've set up seperate hardware profiles just so I can get the performance I need when I need it. Running XP and Linux on the same hardware, Linux works much better, with or without Compiz.

I think the problem is we should have the option to turn these things on rather than figuring out how to turn them off. I mean sure, we'd all love it if when we bought a new car it came with a massage chair, media center, virtual co-pilot, eight air-bags, a bright blue dashboard with red, green, and yellow buttons, and a gauge area filled with the latest news and weather from the internet, but imagine having to have all these and not given the option on whether or not you want them. Then having to find a way to get a normal dashboard, a proper driving seat, turn off the co-pilot, and make the speedometer and tachometer legible behind all the fancy widgets.

Realistically, all we're asking for, is a bare-bones system, with the option to add the "extra's" that regular users for. In all honesty, they can feel free to continue doing what they're doing if they want to capture the "shiny" market. But in order for real it techies and geeks to ever take them seriously, they'll have to start designing it bare-bones, for speed, stability, and security, with optional addons for home-users.

My 2c.

~Wulf

Oh yea, it would be nice to be able to strip down windows, just for the sake of flexibility. But can you name the services that add bloat and explain why customers would want them out?

Low end techies I mean what you said, geeks who are hobbyists. They know enough about the OS to complain about it.

[xpgeek]

  sirgh0st said:

Normally I would stay out of this because I am f*cking sick of the needless vista bashing. However, I will say this. If you think or "know" vista does not run well on your current hardware than do not f*cking use it. Simple as that as there are alot of alternatives out there in terms of operating systems to run on your computer including your current copy of xp if that is what you so desire.

+2

I have an older PC in the other room, and it still has XP on it because I know Vista won't run well on it. I don't blame Vista.

[DigitalE]

I haven't had any performance issues whatsoever with Vista. It actually feels faster on my laptop than XP did. Although a performance boost would definitely be nice (faster computers are always better), I don't see what's so bad about it right now.

Also, the main reasons I switched to Vista are because of its tablet support and Media Center. With XP, you can either run Tablet PC Edition or Media Center Edition. Not both. Vista has both features built in. :) Vista wins.