The Vista Thread

Discussion in 'Technology' started by Stogey23, Aug 30, 2007.

  1. nsa

    nsa Member+

    New England Revolution; Boston Breakers
    United States
    Feb 22, 1999
    Notboston, MA
    Club:
    New England Revolution
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    All in all, I have enjoyed Vista running on my HP notebook computer (Intel T5200, 2 GB, 17 in. WS). I've had it a year now. The widget panel lost its novelty quickly 'cause I needed the space to do real work. My biggest complaint has been games that ran well on XP, but die on Vista (HoMM V, most notably).

    That, and the incessant security messages. My regular user account has full admin privileges, yet I would still get warning messages stating that I had to be an Administrator to perform certain actions. WTF??? Recently I discovered the <right-click><Run as Administrator> action. Works great. But, why make the user jump through hoops like that?
     
  2. Forza_Totti

    Forza_Totti Member

    Oct 16, 2006
    Toronto
    Club:
    AS Roma
    ^ Ya, that's annoying, but you can remove that. It's called UAC (User Account Control)

    This is how to disable it But i would just right click(Admin) to run programs.
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
  3. Forza_Totti

    Forza_Totti Member

    Oct 16, 2006
    Toronto
    Club:
    AS Roma
  4. Naughtius Maximus

    Jul 10, 2001
    Shropshire
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    Nat'l Team:
    England
  5. JeffS

    JeffS New Member

    Oct 15, 2001
    Cameron Park, CA
    Club:
    Everton FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Not worthless at all. Patrick makes an excellent point. Vista, with all it's features and eye candy, is very very very hungry for resources. To say "all you need is 2GB of RAM, and it runs fine" is really quite ridiculous, don't you think? Really, how is that okay? 2GB of RAM just to make the OS run acceptably? C'mon.

    Then there is all the DRM that is built in. This may or may not affect users. But once a user is denied the ability to view/listen to any legal, desired, content, it will matter plenty.

    To add to this, it seems most here in this thread are happy with Vista. But most people I know, including non-techies, including all people who have never used Mac or Linux, hate Vista, and want to stick to XP. Again, these are people that have never used Mac or Linux, and never intend to, and are comfortable with Windows in general, but they hate Vista.

    These people's opinions, as well as Patricks, are not worthless at all.

    If any post was worthless, it was yours. It was basically saying "don't rain on our Vista love-fest parade".

    All that said, I don't hate Vista. I'm quite impressed with it's graphics. And if you have a modern machine with a dual core processor, and 2gigs of Ram, it runs pretty well. But, I'd rather have all that RAM available for my applications.
     
  6. ElJefe

    ElJefe Moderator
    Staff Member

    Feb 16, 1999
    Colorful Colorado
    Club:
    FC Dallas
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Seriously? I can find 10 more worthless posts in under an hour on BigSoccer.

    And while I don't hate Vista, I'll be sticking with XP for another year or two or until software and hardware developers make my life excessively inconvenient for sticking with XP.
     
  7. spejic

    spejic Cautionary example

    Mar 1, 1999
    San Rafael, CA
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    He doesn't make any point at all.
    Features and eye candy take resources.
    How much does a gig of ram cost? Like $70? And it takes just minutes to install. It really isn't that big a deal. If it is, then why are you spending hundreds on a new OS?
    This is total BS. The DRM is required by the HD companies, and is only needed to play commercial disks. If Vista didn't have the DRM system, you can't play HDDVD or Blu-Ray. You would need the same DRM on Macs if you want to play commercial HD video. And it does nothing to stop downloading HD-quality video from the net.
    No, I'm saying that if you are going to criticize it, at least give us some particular issues instead of just a general "It sucks". Like you did. Even thought you were wrong.
     
  8. CutePuppy

    CutePuppy Red Card

    Nov 14, 2006
    2GB of RAM for OS is today's standard just as 128MB was 10 years ago and 8MB was 20 years ago. plus just to run the OS acceptably you'll only need 1GB.
     
  9. patrickdavila

    patrickdavila Member

    Jan 13, 1999
    Easton, PA
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Go ahead and list my "worthless posts". You make it sound I just go around trolling. Everyone has an opinion and is free to express it even though you might not agree with them.

    Go ahead and enjoy your 6 year old OS. Me, I prefer a more up to date and modern operating system that's less resource hungry and not crippled by viruses and DRM. My original point is that Vista is driving computer users to other operating systems in droves. You can deny it all you want but it's happening. I have family, friends and coworkers asking me all the time about this Linux thing. How many times do you have to re-install your operating system because it's slowed to a crawl due to spyware? Go peek in the window of your local Apple store. The place is buzzing. Get over it, Microsoft is not the monster it once was. Their grip is slowly eroding. In fact they were just fined $1.34 billion by the EU:
    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=athPn633b5SM&refer=news

    There's a reason why there's been an exodus of talent from Redmond. You really want this ass clown running your beloved Microsoft?:
    [youtube]KMU0tzLwhbE[/youtube]

    Please carry on with Vista lovefest.
     
  10. Naughtius Maximus

    Jul 10, 2001
    Shropshire
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    Nat'l Team:
    England
    I agree that an extra 1-1.5Gb of additional memory, (assume your board isn't fully loaded anyway as then you'd have to junk the existing stuff), isn't THAT significant but to say that 2Gb is 'today's standard', (whatever THAT mean), is simply not true.

    I'm running Opensuse Linux v10.3 in 512mb ram and it does everything I want. An upgrade to 1Gb might make it a bit quicker but to suggest that a minimum amount of 2Gb is necessary just to run an operating system just isn't true.
     
  11. JeffS

    JeffS New Member

    Oct 15, 2001
    Cameron Park, CA
    Club:
    Everton FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Featuring comparable features and eye candy, Linux can run on 1/4 (or less) the resources Vista can.

    I'm not spending hundreds on a new OS. The software company that I work for, that makes software that targets Windows btw, has an MSDN subscription, which gives us all the latest software from MS. We have Vista, we've installed it on some test boxes, and we are sticking with XP internally, other than having a few Vista test boxes for testing our software. For our own usage though, we're avoiding Vista like the plague.

    $70 for a Gig stick of Ram isn't that much, and it is easy to install. However, I'd rather spend that $70 on other things, and if I do buy more RAM, it's for the purpose of running my apps better, or using virtualization (VirtualBox is my favorite). I don't want to spend an extra $70 just to make the OS run decently.

    Really, it's about the apps. The OS should just get fsck out of the way. The user shouldn't even have to think about the OS, and spending an extra $70 to get it run decently. Ironically, understanding the concept of "it's about the apps" is part of what put Microsoft into it's current dominating monopoly in the first place.

    Vista monitors all digital content being accessed by the user, and phones home, reporting on it.

    I didn't just say "it sucks". Re-read my post. I pointed out specific things that I dislike. I also said that I did not hate Vista (I like it's eye candy), but that I had issues with it (like I'd rather save all that RAM for applications). Frankly, I thought my post was fair and balanced.

    And to be more specific for you, here are things I think are bad about Vista:

    1. RAM, CPU, and video card requirements. It's simply too high for my tastes. Again, I'd rather have more of those resources be available for my applications.

    2. Built in DRM, and content monitoring. And I don't like that in Apple products either.

    3. Vista monitors what you type, and phones it home. This is an invasion of privacy, and it badly slows down the system.

    4. Indexing desktop search engine. This is a "feature" that some Linux distros enable as well (Beagle or Tracker are the programs they use). But in either case (Vista or Linux distros), I hate it. An indexing search engine causes a lot of disc I/O, and it uses a lot of CPU and RAM, all for the purpose of speeding up desktop search. To me, this is stupid. You sacrifice speed on general usage for the purpose of increasing speed on desktop searches. Personally, I have no trouble finding files on my own system, so a fast, indexed search is useless to me, and I hate the performance penalty the indexing search engine brings.

    5. Laptop battery re-charging. Vista has a completely moronic implementation of battery recharging. It only recharges the battery if, and only if, the battery is completely drained. So, you can have your laptop plugged in, thinking that your battery is being recharged, and you'll have at least a few hours worth of usage when you get on the plane. Nope. It did not recharge at all, and you have much less usage available to you than you thought. This exact scenario happened to my boss recently. He has since wiped the drive and installed XP.

    6. Organization of the interface. I can get used to the changes over time, but they moved a lot of stuff around, and buried a lot of stuff that was previously more immediately available via fewer clicks. This is just annoying. They don't need to make such drastic interface changes. They did the same thing with Office. I, and most people, would prefer more incremental changes. I also don't like change for the sake of change. And I only like interface changes that offer clear, obvious, improvements. The interface changes in Vista as compared to XP are very questionable as to how, or if, they improve things.

    7. User Account Control (UAC). It's great to prompt for a root (admin) password for doing potentially harmful things, or installing new software, or general admin stuff. In Linux/Unix, you have to enter a root password for a lot things. But with Linux/Unix, you enter it once, and it's done. Simple, clean, easy, and still secure. But Vista goes way overboard, prompting for admin password over and over again, annoying the hell out of the user, and causing the user to ignore the messages and enter the password, or click through, ultimately defeating the purpose. Yes, I'm well aware that UAC can be disabled, but many people are not.

    8. Sluggish networking. In my experience anyway, Vista has been sluggish with networking. Setting up networking is more difficult as well.

    Things I do like about Vista:

    1. Very slick graphics.
    2. (supposedly) improved security
    3. More multimedia goodies
    4. .Net CLR (runtime) is installed by default.
    5. ?????????
     
  12. patrickdavila

    patrickdavila Member

    Jan 13, 1999
    Easton, PA
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
  13. bostonsoccermdl

    bostonsoccermdl Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 3, 2002
    Denver, CO

    Exactly..

    Like a good referee, he is rarely mentioned or noticed in a match.. ;)
     
  14. spejic

    spejic Cautionary example

    Mar 1, 1999
    San Rafael, CA
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    It's the nature of all software. AutoCAD used to run in 512K. That does not mean that that is the right amount of memory for a CAD application. When XP first came out, people had to upgrade their memory as well.
    These statements contradict each other. The OS exists to make the job of programming apps easier. The more the OS does, the easier it is for app writers to write good apps. The OS should not get out of the way at all - it should be the way. And if I'm programming, I want it to be the chauffeured limo on a wide new road with satellite navigation and police and guardrails way, not the dirtbike on a goat trail way.
    Link please.
    Is it not clear that I was talking about patrickdavila?
    Is it really so hard to turn off Aero?
    Why it is better to have no option to play HDDVD and Blue-Ray than to have the option?
    Link please.
    I turned it off.

    As for the rest of it, it isn't that big a deal. I think there are plenty of things XP does better, but lots of these things are just because we are used to the old way. For example, I wish I could get XP to do that battery draining thing on my work laptop, but I can't. It means they have to replace the battery every year because the constant charging with no full drains wrecks it.
     
  15. Naughtius Maximus

    Jul 10, 2001
    Shropshire
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    Nat'l Team:
    England
    I particularly love the guy that bought a Sony laptop because it had the Vista logo and it won't run his software properly... I now have a $2100 email machine he says. :D

    Somebody also says that some hardware hasn't got drivers available now and may NEVER have a driver available to use all the features of the hardware in question :eek:

    Great stuff :)
     
  16. Naughtius Maximus

    Jul 10, 2001
    Shropshire
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    Nat'l Team:
    England
    Yeah, but AutoCad's an app... and a pretty big one at that depending on what version and features you use. I could run Linux in about 128Mb adequately 8-9 years ago, (ideally 256Mb), and now I need about 256Mb or 512Mb for the same levels of performance. That seems to me to be a reasonable level of increase in an op. sys. requirements.

    Going from 128Mb to 2Gb is NOT a reasonable increase. It's excessive.
     
  17. CutePuppy

    CutePuppy Red Card

    Nov 14, 2006
    Pricewise it is very reasonable.
     
  18. Naughtius Maximus

    Jul 10, 2001
    Shropshire
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    Nat'l Team:
    England
    What.... even if your motherboard won't take it and you have to change pretty much your entire PC to accommodate it?
     
  19. patrickdavila

    patrickdavila Member

    Jan 13, 1999
    Easton, PA
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
  20. Grouchy

    Grouchy Member+

    turkey bacon with swiss
    Apr 18, 1999
    Canal Winchester
    Club:
    Columbus Crew
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    That's why the whole "just upgrade to 2GB isn't entirely correct". If you have an older system with DDR memory it is going to cost you $104-$124 when comparing the highest rated budget-performance memory on Newegg compared to $44-64 for current technology; DDR2.

    You also need to make sure the power supply is adequate to handle the extra draw (although technically minimal compared to the rest of the system). Some systems, like the Shuttle mini/xPC computers only have 200W supplies.

    You also need a system capable of using 2GB. Some of my older DDR based systems are rock solid at 1GB but some are not tested as stable at 2GB. Case in point I couldn't get my SK41 stable at 2GB but my Soltek motherboard was able to operate with it.

    Sorry for the sidetrack. I know this thread is supposed to be a discussion of Windows Vista and using it, not a bitch session about what is good or bad about it. However, I've been an IT professional since DOS 2.0 and have seen what all the upgrades have been like from DOS 5 to DOS 6/7, Windows 2.0, Windows 3.1, Windows for Workgroups, 95, 98, 2000 and XP. What sickens me as a professional is that the majority of computing system users can do their jobs just as quickly, efficiently and successfully on a standard Windows 95 machine as they could on today's standard Windows XP machine. True "power" users is a different story. Home users with music, games, etc. different story. But if I were the owner of a company facing another $200,000 to upgrade a 1,000 machines so I can spend another $24-$120,000 on the operating system, yet again; I'd begin to wonder.

    Again, sorry for the sidetrack. Continue the decades long Microsoft vs. the world...
     
  21. Naughtius Maximus

    Jul 10, 2001
    Shropshire
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    Nat'l Team:
    England
    I think this is the point grouchy... it's not like 99% of people have changed what they do with their PC's. They type letters, they enter/retrieve and manipulate data and do their accounts. They did that 10 years ago and they're STILL doing it.

    Also, you mention changes in M/B's and such like.

    I'm still using a board with an AMD Athlon XP processor which has DDR memory and an AGP graphics card so I'd probably need to change my GPU as well to get a reasonably priced PCI-express one. If I'm gonna do that I may as well change my hard disks to get a larger SATA one, (I'm still using IDE), so that's another cost.

    That's what I mean... It's not that all that is strictly necessary, (although some of it is, obviously), but it won't make sense to just change a bit of it.

    I bet, if you looked into it, something like 30-40%, (or more), have bought a new PC to run Vista, (certainly corporate buyers), because changing all that takes time and money and that's a bloody sight more expensive than the cost of a new PC by the time you've finished... particularly when you bear in mind that quite a few systems won't run it properly even after you've changed all the bits and pieces.
     
  22. Naughtius Maximus

    Jul 10, 2001
    Shropshire
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    Nat'l Team:
    England
  23. ElJefe

    ElJefe Moderator
    Staff Member

    Feb 16, 1999
    Colorful Colorado
    Club:
    FC Dallas
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Actually, I wasn't referring exclusively to you when I was talking about that. In all likelihood, I wouldn't find one of your posts in the magic 10.
    Seriously, why? Maybe I take a minimalist view of what an operating system should do, but to me, an operating system should just manage system resources for applications, which is what I care about. In that respect, Vista is only marginally better than XP (or Windows 2000, for that matter).
    I don't know where you get the idea that I'm in love with Microsoft or any of their operating systems. I use them, but that's as deep as my love goes for them.
     
  24. Naughtius Maximus

    Jul 10, 2001
    Shropshire
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    Nat'l Team:
    England
    If we're talking about ages of the operating system Linux and Unix are still based on the idea of a monolithic operating system from the.... er..... well, there was an '8' in the year... I think :confused: Anyway, I still remember going to a talk about the 'new' microkernel, message-passing operating systems like QNX. Interesting stuff actually but that's about as 'new' as it gets' in terms of operating systems. Windows is similar to Unix in that respect. A fairly large kernel with other services provided by other programs.

    All the stuff about Vista being new, strictly speaking, is total bullshit. At it's core it's about as new as the platform shoes and the NASL.
     

Share This Page