Vista Following the Footsteps of Windows ME

[estreetguy]

[citation][nom]fake1234[/nom]Tied of reading this kind of stupid artical over and over again. The quote of Telus is stupid too. People in the industry that knows Telus knows it cannot really support anyone. How many times it needed to call the actual vendor in just to resolve some basic installtion problem?[/citation]

Yer like that dog that some people own. Every time you come home it runs across the linoleum floor, skids, and then smashes into the fridge. Will you ever learn ?

If yer tired of reading it, uhhh, don't read it?

 

[estreetguy]

[citation][nom]bourgeoisdude[/nom]On the article: Quite frankly this is a horribly opinionated article that really tells us nothing new. Factually it presents us with NOTHING at all, and it doesn't even mention that the call volume at Dell percentage wise rose higher during the 2000 to XP transition than the XP to Vista transition (oh--and I am an ex-Dell employee ).On Vista: it's fine. Mine actually boots faster than XP did on my box. The problem in most cases is configuration--software and hardware. Once you set it up the way you want it, it runs efficiently and is much more solid than XP was.It is also worth noting that this is the longest period of time Microsoft has gone without a major upgrade to their OS (although one could argue SP2 for XP was a major upgrade--and it took over a year for the naysayers to get over the "problems" with SP2), so it is understandable that people are upset that it requires so much more memory. Frankly, I still think that Windows 2000 is the best OS as far as resource utilization goes, but why do we even talk about this? It is eight and a half years old and XP is seven years old. It's time to move on.[/citation]

On your comment: Quite frankly, your comment is horribly opionated as well.

Ohhhh, in your eye tough guy !

 

[DXRick]

Just because businesses see no benefit of upgrading their business machines to Vista does not mean that Vista is like ME. It just means that XP Pro gives them what they need at the moment. The vast majority don't even need to update their hardware, since business apps run just fine on older stuff. My last company was still using Windows 2000 in 2005 and issuing IBM Thinkpads with the first Centrino chips.

The initial problems people had with Vista were due to problems with or the lack of drivers, and SP1 fixed the other problems. Vista just hasn't gotten any good press since these issues were resolved.

 

[crystal_tech]

well i hope that w7 will drop backwards support, go 64 bit, a file system like linux/unix (end of casual defraging), and have 2 reg files.

When i say drop backwards support i mean drop it but include a bare install opt of a vm xp pro to handle the backwards support issues.

The tech for 64 bit is here sure not EVERY body has a 64bit cpu out there but 64bit is more mainstream now time to move on. if you need 32 use the proposed vm of xp.

Give us WinFS already, but please look into how the nix people handle the file system. Ever heard of a linux user defraging everytime you delete tons of files or installing software?

now this is my odd idea about the 2 reg files. One reg would be the 'hard coded' OS core only that is setup after/during install. The only thing that can change this is a signed file thats encrypted that allows hardware updates and driver/firmware updates. the second reg file would be for everything else and would be sort of like a virtual reg. that way you can set up snapshots and do comparisons and if you ever get a virus or spyware it wouldn't be that hard to fix it from starting. this could also allow this second reg file be encrypted so people doing offline attacks can't steal keys from software or other info. i know that this one seems too much, but I would definitely like some feedback on this, good or bad.

 

[ossie]

Lots of lusers impressed by nicely colored animated bling-bling...
If they're standing in awe in font of Vishta's visual "niceties", then they haven't seen Beryl/Compiz. It's much more elaborate, was available before and runs on older hardware than micro$uxx's crap - and most importantly can be turned off, after getting tired of it.
Vishta is just an overblown piece of crap, infested with DRM, which is the main reason for huge resource consumption, sluggishness and incompatibilities, letting UAC (m$ "solution" to schweizer cheese security) aside.

 

[hemelskonijn]

win2k:
• 133 MHz or more Pentium microprocessor.
• 64 megabytes (MB) of RAM recommended minimum.
• A 2 GB hard disk that has 650 MB of free space.
• VGA or higher-resolution monitor.

Windows XP:
• Pentium 233-megahertz (MHz) processor or faster.
• At least 64 megabytes (MB) of RAM (128 MB is recommended).)
• At least 1.5 gigabytes (GB) of available space on the hard disk.
• Video adapter and monitor with Super VGA (800 x 600).

Windows Vista:
• 1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor
• 1 GB of system memory
• 40 GB hard drive with at least 15 GB of available space
• Support for DirectX 9 graphics and 128 MB of graphics memory

From windows 2k to windows XP you needed a cpu that has roughly 75% more power and to run nicely you would need twice as much ram and twice as much HDD space the grfx card requirements hardly changed specially since SVGA was already widely supported.

To go from XP to Vista your cpu should be at least 400% faster 8 times as much ram 10 times the free drive space and a 3d direct x 9.0c compatible grfx card.

So yes vista needs a whole lot more computer power to operate and these numbers are just for the minimum specs while windows 2k ran perfectly fine on a minimum spec box windows xp needed just a tad over the minimum recommended hardware where as vista needs almost double the minimum to preform workable.
One could argue that moore's law is at work here specially if you take in account the time line but it still is no justification for those exorbitant minimum system specifications.

I wont say windows vista is bad IMHO it works for most of my n00b clients specially in there home situations.
I dont believe windows vista will be a viable business solution for my the networks i support build and maintain.
Even if it was more stable and ran on older machines i still dont want my os to pop up make sounds and bug me with incremental STUPID questions like are you sure you want it?, are you really sure?, do you know the risk of telling me your sure when your not really sure?, than are you sure you read the last warning?, and finally we recommend you exit this installer press ok or continue to exit and ignore to continue.
And then there is the uber glossy uber theme in vista ... this part is personal but if i want glossy and stuff i will install it but I DONT WANT resource hogging popping and audio making way to glossy themes i want to run classic windows 2k style since it works for me.

I use windows 2k8 server as a desktop os now and i have to say if vista used the 2k8 interface and bugged me no more with stupid questions than 2k8 and was as stable i would buy and run it despite the loads of other things i hate about most if not all next gen os.

 

[nukemaster]

Lots of lusers impressed by nicely colored animated bling-bling...
If they're standing in awe in font of Vishta's visual "niceties", then they haven't seen Beryl/Compiz. It's much more elaborate, was available before and runs on older hardware than micro$uxx's crap - and most importantly can be turned off, after getting tired of it.
Vishta is just an overblown piece of crap, infested with DRM, which is the main reason for huge resource consumption, sluggishness and incompatibilities, letting UAC (m$ "solution" to schweizer cheese security) aside.

Yet another I bash MS cause its cool. Many users do not even care if Aero is on or off, its just a smoother way of running windows the same as it was. They added the 3d flip just for a new way to swap apps. Compiz is not about apps but more about swapping desktops(a feature most computer users do not need when they just want to surf the net and play a game[one of those things where, at least for now, it is windows or console]). There have been similar apps on XP in the past, but they all sucked due to lack of Vsync.

If you do not like "Vishtas's" Aero theme and having a hardware accelerated desktop(that the best part about it) then you CAN turn it off(hell you can even go back to the windows 2000 look if you want).

Where is this infestation of DRM you speak of? Windows requires activation, this is nothing new. There is DRM is almost all software(games,media player,itunes,napster,ect) now anyway, get used to it.

Advanced users CAN just turn UAC off it it bugs them

Have you ever even touched a Vista machine? Sure does not seem like it.

 

[blackened144]

Have you guys tried that new Windows Mojave? Its bad ass.. Vista sucks compared to Mojave..

 

[ossie]

@nukemaster
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html
Maybe you will now comprehend why Vishta's DRM sucks big time.

Regarding turning off UAC, that is exactly the way to defeat Vishta's so called "improved security", which is based on bugging the luser with idiotic questions and (re)confirmations.

Compiz is a compositing window manager (openGL based) and swapping desktops was available since old ages for WM's for X-Windows. Some video card manufacturers offered similar applications even for Windoze.
Beryl/Compiz is also offering "eye candy", with a lot of effects as plugins, for those interested in "appearance".
Another plus for Compiz is that it's working even on a i810, Radeon7k or early GeForces. Try Vishta on these...

 

[Guest]

Like,
many tests have already been done on mininotebooks having the Intel Atomprocessor.
Processor's not that bad,since it has impressive 533Mhz DDR2 speed for it's kind.
Boots xp in less then 50 seconds.
But during a Vista run, is constantly in 50% CPU usage, or more.
Conclusion, Vista runs on an atom (kinda) but not comfortably.
Xp runs like a breeze.

 

[estreetguy]

Vista runs like my grandmother, after I pay for her $5000 electric wheel-chair.

'nough said.

 

[nukemaster]

@nukemaster
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html
Maybe you will now comprehend why Vishta's DRM sucks big time.

Now maybe you can comprehend that Vista HAD to do some of this for LEGAL reasons. Do you know any BD player that will run HD without HDCP? Are you going to blame not being able to run your DVD through a VCR's input on them too even tho EVERY dvd player does the same thing(macrovision)?

Similarly, component (YPbPr) video will be disabled by Vista's content protection, so the same applies to a high-end video setup fed from component video. In fact even the most basic composite video out (a.k.a. “TV-out” on video cards) is disabled, at least by nVidia's drivers:

How old is this? I ALWAYS use TV-out for DVD playback(but not for long with my 245T being as big as the tv[space is limited] on wide screen movies). I have tested Nvidia and ATI and both worked even with older drivers.

While the new audio system in Vista is different almost all functions have come back(this is normal with any large scale change to an OS). This new system was desperately needed(even you have to admit this).

As far as Compiz, Its great, but not needed for many users anyway. Even Aero is not needed, but any kind of hardware accelerated desktop(its all about the Vsync) is for sure needed. When I use the computer, I do not care what it looks like as long as my apps run fast. Vista and XP both give me this, but having access to all 8 gigs of ram and better utilization of multi core cpus makes Vista win this round for me. For what I do it just works better and idle cpu usage is the exact same as XP on my system(0-2%).

 

[Milleman]

As the article pointed out:

A company DOESN'T HAVE TO change their already working fine Windows XP into Vista. For what reason? Their daily duties work as fine as they always do with the existing OS. They don't need Aeroglass. They don't need DirectX 10, etc. They just using their computers as smart terminals in an big cluster for their administration. So why on earth should the throw out all their already existing well working computers and buy new ones, only for installing Vista and then doing the same things they did in Windows XP? Then have to re-educate their employess on have to make what they already did before. Makes no sense in the world! It's just a waste of money in every end.

The corporate world is not like the world that the game toddlers are living in, tweaking and reinstlling different versions of Windows just to gain a few more FPS in the latest games.

 

[ossie]

@nukemaster
There was no reason, aside pleasing the greedy Hollywood/music industry crowd, to cripple the PC with DRM - there are no LEGAL reasons, it is just m$ willing to screw its customers and partners for some more profit.
The so called "copy protection" DRM has nothing to do with pirating - it is so easy to do a binary copy of a DVD, including CSS - but a lot more with content control (region locking) for profit maximizing. So far any DRM has failed to "protect" its content for longer as a few days.
Accepting ad absurdum the hypothesis of "legal" reasons, for a enterprise, which is using their PCs for work not entertainment, Vishta is completely useless, even a big step back due to DRM, compatibility issues, and bloating, all crippling the system. M$ biggest revenue is from enterprises, which license a ton of software, not from the casual movie watcher, so all this DRM BS will strike back at m$ - it already has.

Regarding Compiz/Aero effects they are just mostly useless "eye candy" for now. It still has to be seen how useful a 3D HW accelerated desktop is of any practical use - 2D acceleration was available for more than 15 years. There has even been a PostScript display system over 20 years ago (NeXT).
What I wanted to underline is that m$ is needing a state of the art 3D graphic accelerator for some lousy Aero effects, while Compiz is working on 8 years old HW - enough said about Vishta's "efficiency".

 

[eccentric909]

I've not run into any DRM problems with Vista.. but then again, I buy all of my software/games/movies/music, so perhaps that is the reason I haven't seen any problems.

When will eve Microsoft wake up and see that there are plenty of people out there called hardcore gamers and advanced experience users that are begging for a new OS for years. All we want is a Vista where we could push a button and turn off every background stupid trash that windows has. All we need is internet connection and our antivirus. Period!

Yay for ATI/AMD then? What you're asking for, seems to be exactly what AMD Fusion does or is trying to offer. Although I've heard contrary, Fusion seems to work with my X2 5000+ and Nvidia 8800GT, not necessarily needing all AMD parts (indeed AMD states you only need an AMD CPU). In the few games I still play on my PC, I've seen noticeable FPS gains. Turn it on before you game, turn it off after you're done.

Would be nice to see Intel or Nvidia release a comparable program, or even for MS to build it right into their next OS, as you state.