Vista #1 biggest tech disappointment of 2007

[Pat]

Oh? Why do you say that?. Obviously there are differences, but what is so substantial in
a) their purpose
b) the principle
c) the use cases

I can assure you, for the most part, they exist for the same reason, and they act the same way. Don't say su - su is basically like running as an admin on XP, while sudo is like running as an admin on Vista. In ubuntu, even if you run as a user in sudoers, you still need to do the actual sudo to be able to do anything remotely admin like. And that is how it should be.

EDIT: The one substantial difference is they often allow you to continue doing admin actions when you do a sudo. I personally consider that somewhat of a security bug, but since you still run with low privileges most of the time, I guess that can be forgiven.

Oh..well..you just dont want to give up right? Ofcourse,M$ copied the concept from *nix based systems for the same purpose,principle etc. etc.

And when I said they are different,I meant architecturally different! Go and read about it if you are interested in knowing it!

The thing that you have mentioned in EDIT is the biggest advantage IMO it has over UAC!

 

[superczar]

Why does Vista keep thrashing my HDD all the time ?

even when I am doing nothing on the said comp, and have indexing disabled

 

[Balkazzaar]

my friend is using vista and he says that the task manager displays atleast 40% RAM usage even when the PC is idle....completely insane :no: if u ask me........:S

 

[Quad Master]

Dude, you just don't stop talking crap, do you? Comparing a game to an operating system is the most idiotic comparison I've seen in years.

If and when I buy a new game, it costs 20-30$ or approximately 1,000 bucks. If and when I buy a new operating system like Windows Vista it costs 200-400$ i.e. approximately 10,000-15,000 rupees.

Now, finding out that the 1000-buck game you just purchased runs like a b**ch on two-year-old hardware is quite expected. After all, games are meant on run on newer hardware. If yours doesn't make the cut, don't cry about it. 3D animators and developers don't spend years designing models with 1 million polygons so that they can be run on a 400MHz GPU with 8 non-programmable shader processors.

But finding out that the ~10,000-buck operating system (which Microsoft has been touting for years and apparently "streamlining on older hardware") runs like a mangy flea-ridden rabid dog on a two-year-old system is a major setback and a thing that cannot be forgiven.

When Windows XP entered the market, I gleefully changed over from Windows 98 and missed nothing. I didn't have a high-end system at that time and I had changed over within a few months of the OS's launch. I pretty much did the same with Vista and well, what can I say, things were rather different.

Exactly my point.

 

[ComradE_BeaN]

my friend is using vista and he says that the task manager displays atleast 40% RAM usage even when the PC is idle....completely insane :no: if u ask me........:S

why would u want to see the hardware(ram in this case) not used ?

then wats the point of having hugh size rams ? .. disable superfetch & see the ram usage come low...

but i think superfetch actally helps..

 

[Shripad]

All the Vista users , what virtual drive [mounting images] and image [iso,mds-mdf,bin-cue] burning\editing software are u guys using.

@Kenpachi - I too haven't formated and re-installed XP in past 1~1.5 Yrs.[Touch Wood]

I am simply using free Daemon tools X64. Works like charm.
And Nero 7 for burning. Even Nero 6.6 works just fine.

All those talking about memory leak, compatibility issue. Honestly tell me how many of you have tried vista with the critical hotfixes installed?? If you had, you would know that those issues have been fixed long time back now. Few months back to be honest.
More memory usage is because of superfetch which actually is good.

I have Vista as my primary and only OS. I have separate HDD with XP loaded just for those odd bench runs for ORBs

about vista running like crap on slow systems, I have XPS 1210 with 1.66Ghz processor with just 1G ram running vista smoothly. Considering this kinda power is now common to the average Desktop it kinda confuses me whats the defination of high system requirements are

ok ignore all this.
Honestly tell me what problems you have faced with vista recently as such?? The last major critical update ( compatibility fix came out 2 months back ) and ever since there has not been a single app I have tried that has given me any problems with vista.
The newest forceware vista have closed the performance gap very much with XP in most games. 169.25 is freakin fast even in crysis.
Crysis performance is on par with XP DX9 mode with custom cfg file.

All I see here are more speculations from what you guys have heard over net and very few personal experiences. Try and talk.
Every OS needs time to mature, have you guys forgot the nightmares gamers had to go through on XP? Memory is funny thing, its easy to forget. And as we are using XP for long time we have really forgotten the hickups early on.
Half the games out there didnt work on XP. The entire NFS series didnt work on XP, half the softwares threw kernel errors. Security was joke. Remember sasser worm anyone, remember that backdoor entry firewall worm, remember that auto reboot worm???
Its after SP2 that the XP really became OS it is today. Before SP1 it was complete joke as far as security was concerned.

So we gave XP chance, do same to vista. Try it out now with these hotfixes and report back.

The only fixes one really needs are here. These are all I have installed on my system.

 

[Quad Master]

Its not that i wont use vista in my life , am waiting for SP1 Final for Vista to roll out.

Its just that i feel currently XP is serving me with what i need and feel that will get Vista when it becomes more stable or after SP releases for it.

 

[Dark Star]

Im no fanboy...If i find something good i stick by it...And i've used linux a lot too..and if u say that finding apps is as easy..den evidently ur jus arguing for the sake of argument...Every one here gives in and agree to the fact that windows has an incomparable software library...

Dude your each and every post says everything that you cannot listen anything against Windows whether you are right or wrong ! and that's what tha bad part and ask any1 he will say that you are a Windows can't say abt. Ms but total Windows Fanboi

Dude, you just don't stop talking crap, do you? Comparing a game to an operating system is the most idiotic comparison I've seen in years.

If and when I buy a new game, it costs 20-30$ or approximately 1,000 bucks. If and when I buy a new operating system like Windows Vista it costs 200-400$ i.e. approximately 10,000-15,000 rupees.

Now, finding out that the 1000-buck game you just purchased runs like a b**ch on two-year-old hardware is quite expected. After all, games are meant on run on newer hardware. If yours doesn't make the cut, don't cry about it. 3D animators and developers don't spend years designing models with 1 million polygons so that they can be run on a 400MHz GPU with 8 non-programmable shader processors.

But finding out that the ~10,000-buck operating system (which Microsoft has been touting for years and apparently "streamlining on older hardware") runs like a mangy flea-ridden rabid dog on a two-year-old system is a major setback and a thing that cannot be forgiven.

When Windows XP entered the market, I gleefully changed over from Windows 98 and missed nothing. I didn't have a high-end system at that time and I had changed over within a few months of the OS's launch. I pretty much did the same with Vista and well, what can I say, things were rather different.

About Mac OS X Leopard, dude please stop talking through your arse. Have you tried Leopard on a mac? If you haven't, then refrain from the BS. If yes then which mac? From what I've seen, you've only used a half-assed pirated and hacked Windows version. Leopard works at least just as fast as Tiger, if not faster. If anything, the developers might have reasons to shout about (Like Lord Nemesis and KK and I thank them for bringing that to light) but as a home user, I have no issues with it. Note that I'm curently running Leopard on my three-year-old Powerbook G4 and not an Intel-based Mac. It's almost wondrous then how well it performs.

If you have anything sensible and relevant to say, then please reply. After all, I'd love to hear at least the littlest bit of sense from you before this debate is done. If you don't however, and end up pointlessly dissecting my post line by line with stupid smileys and one-liners, then you win, if that makes you happy.

:clap: :clap: Couldn't have been much better than that Tracer.. Owner every 1

 

[Party Monger]

If you have anything sensible and relevant to say, then please reply. After all, I'd love to hear at least the littlest bit of sense from you before this debate is done. If you don't however, and end up pointlessly dissecting my post line by line with stupid smileys and one-liners, then you win, if that makes you happy.

"My POST"??

Buddy y dont u look up ur arse and see that u havent wrote even once on this thread, talkin of debate...

Trust me i have no pleasure in replying to ur posts...and i dont... its u who keep asking...
Heres an example:-

http://www.techenclave.com/forums/windows-vista-did-not-steal-ideas-102713.html

Darkstar:-Enough of this non-sense .. Does it make sense.. Vista got doomed .. and its MS strategy of jabbering around about their work which they really did not Vista stole ideas cause the effects were pretty same as of Mac so as the interface

Partymonger:-^ What rubbish,,, Its mac who copied from vista,, theres soo much evidence,,,
And who said vista is doomed???

All the people here playing soo many vista exclusive games, use vista, enjoy those games, the interface the stablity,, alls well, then y doomed??
And every operating system in the begining receives flak,,, it takes time to mature,,, even xp was said to be rubbish and people wanted a second edition to 98 then???
And for gods sake stop the copying debate,,,unless u r bill gates or steve jobs, u'l never know..
Talk abt who implemented it better..

Darkstar:-^^ I am afraid that you are suffering from Hypermetropia

I believe ur suffering hyperfanboymania:bleh:

Tracerbullet:-

Quote:

Originally Posted by Party Monger

^ What rubbish,,, Its mac who copied from vista,, theres soo much evidence,,,
please provide (evidence). I'm eager to know just how profound your knowledge is.

Partymonger:-

Quote:

Originally Posted by KingKrool

As for Vista copying Mac or vice versa, its pretty well known that many Vista features were revealed long before they were announced in OSX. On the other hand, the full fledged implementation in OSX was out before Vista. So it is hard to say who did what. The truth is there are many ideas in computer science that are developed independently by different people at the same time.
EXactly..:cool2:
Quote:

Integrated search

When Microsoft first legitimized operating system based integrated desktop search back in 2003, it sounded like such a great idea that Apple jumpstarted its own efforts and was able to rush Spotlight to market as part of Mac OS X 10.4 "Tiger" in 2005, a full year and a half before Vista. Too, companies like Google started shipping desktop search products to capitalize on Microsoft's tardy operating system and the huge installed base of XP users. That's what happens when you broadcast your plans and then don't follow through quickly, I guess.

Paul Thurrott's SuperSite for Windows: Five Great Features in Windows Vista RC1
Heres one..

i've read abt many others too...like SPACES copied from linux, Time machine from vista's previous version..

n many more..
And again i repeat..It not who copied the feature..Its who IMPLEMENTED them better..N independent reviews show that Vista does it better..
N im not interested in any flame wars,,,u guys enjoy that,,,:bleh:

Also, Im no Vista Fanboy,, jus to quote an instance.

Tracerbullet:-

This who-copied-whom argument can and will go on endlessly and there's no point to it, really. PC users have their own reasons why they use Windows and Mac guys will always love their macs. Even if a feature's been badly implemented on either, it doesn't matter after the initial learning curve required. Then once you're used to doing things in a certain way, it's easier to continue doing them that way than having to reorient yourself all over again with a new operating system.
Now after that spiel, allow me to shoot myself in the foot Last night, I smacked the living daylights out of my Vista installation. I formatted its

partition and utterly erased its memory from my computer's mind. Here's why:
1. It couldn't game smoothly on it. This is after having installed the latest drivers for everything. And note, my system is rather decently configured.

2. It was laggy as hell and I'd constantly get errors out of the blue (pun unintended) with system processes like svchost constantly utilising 50% of the processor's resources. I had to then forcefully disable malfunctioning services. Note that I had all Windows updates installed.

3. Its Windows Side by Side feature is the biggest piece of bloatware to have hit humanity. My Winsxs folder in Windows has eaten over 5GB of my hard drive's space with pointless dll and whatnot backups.

4. I tried a reinstall, but after a couple of weeks, Vista went back to its stubborn state.

5. XP at the moment does everything better. Well not everything but whatever's currently required by me.

If u jus read the posts above u'l see that i've given all the proof asked for my "silly one liners" as u called it..

But since Mr tracerbullet didnt have anything to say that time he decided to come here...

As for disecting the posts, its my way of posting..So shut the fook up...

 

[Party Monger]

Dude, you just don't stop talking crap, do you? Comparing a game to an operating system is the most idiotic comparison I've seen in years.

If and when I buy a new game, it costs 20-30$ or approximately 1,000 bucks. If and when I buy a new operating system like Windows Vista it costs 200-400$ i.e. approximately 10,000-15,000 rupees.

Now, finding out that the 1000-buck game you just purchased runs like a b**ch on two-year-old hardware is quite expected. After all, games are meant on run on newer hardware. If yours doesn't make the cut, don't cry about it. 3D animators and developers don't spend years designing models with 1 million polygons so that they can be run on a 400MHz GPU with 8 non-programmable shader processors.

But finding out that the ~10,000-buck operating system (which Microsoft has been touting for years and apparently "streamlining on older hardware") runs like a mangy flea-ridden rabid dog on a two-year-old system is a major setback and a thing that cannot be forgiven.

Ok so as per ur price tags an Operating System is ten times costly than a game right???

Now lets take a game like half life 2(excellent game)..An average gamer would play it for 10days at the max....And how long on an average would u use a genuine Operating System???

3years atleast..So thats round abt 1000 days..so maybe ur OS it ten times costly, but then u use it 100 times more...so whats wrong in upgrading hardware for an OS??

And in terms of money, the upgrading doesnt even cost a quater of what it costs with games...

A ram upgrade and a decent budget procer motherboard do the trick...

So its u who's talking nonsense, ok?

While making an OS, the priority is to make it secure and user friendly...And most would give more than a few bucks for hardware to ensure it...

When Windows XP entered the market, I gleefully changed over from Windows 98 and missed nothing. I didn't have a high-end system at that time and I had changed over within a few months of the OS's launch. I pretty much did the same with Vista and well, what can I say, things were rather different.

About Mac OS X Leopard, dude please stop talking through your arse. Have you tried Leopard on a mac? If you haven't, then refrain from the BS. If yes then which mac? From what I've seen, you've only used a half-assed pirated and hacked Windows version. Leopard works at least just as fast as Tiger, if not faster. If anything, the developers might have reasons to shout about (Like Lord Nemesis and KK and I thank them for bringing that to light) but as a home user, I have no issues with it. Note that I'm curently running Leopard on my three-year-old Powerbook G4 and not an Intel-based Mac. It's almost wondrous then how well it performs.

Things were different cause back then, u werent an overambitious g*t like u are now...Ur wholesome OSX fanboyism is overflowing from that post of urs...And right now you expect too much out of windows

And what i have tried or not tried does not concern u...But jus for clearing it up, ive used my friends mac book pro recently and thus based my arguments on my experiences with it...

Unlike u,I respect not only our developer bros but everyone here,,,and thus dont go abt picking on people...and most certainly not when im not even a part of the conversation,Maybe u have a thousand posts under ur belt,, It doesnt give u the right to play with any ones reputation with such sick posts..Even im a regular home and office user,,,and maybe I dont understand the programming logics...But i am smart enough to, like u, have an opinion abt things...

Still if I've said a bit too much in any of my posts,or got a bit carried away, I appologise to all the members,,,I cant "OWN" him as someone said...cause its not even my motive...

 

[KingKrool]

And when I said they are different,I meant architecturally different! Go and read about it if you are interested in knowing it!

The thing that you have mentioned in EDIT is the biggest advantage IMO it has over UAC!

I think you really need to explain how they are architecturally different, and how that provides a benefit to the end user either in security, or in use.

BTW, I know a bit about sudo, and a bit about UAC too. The differences people claim are not substantial. Sudo allows an elevation of privileges, while UAC _usually_ involves running as a different user. HOWEVER, if the user you are normally running as is an administrator, then UAC simply does elevate privileges (and doesn't ask for the password either). Also, UAC doesn't allow specifying specific applications (sudo does). UAC does have some support for applications asking for specific privileges, sudo does not not. Yes, there are differences, but none of them would really affect what you face.

According to me, the edit reveals a weakness of sudo, not a benefit, but since you don't seem to understand any of the points I mentioned before about security (about how you should not run with admin privileges even when you are one), I doubt you would agree.

 

[Party Monger]

Dude your each and every post says everything that you cannot listen anything against Windows whether you are right or wrong ! and that's what tha bad part and ask any1 he will say that you are a Windows can't say abt. Ms but total Windows Fanboi

See man, i hav an opinion too,,if i think its right , then i reason it out,, like numerous times i have before..If u think mine is wrong, or even just that urs is more sensible then give reasons..im ready to accept no big deal...
Till say 4 months ago i used to dislike MS as a whole..For so many glitches..I learned from people like u and took up linux and Mac Osx...(if u seen in ur threads and many other linux ones i do appreciate good things,...
Its jus that for the above quoted reasons, Windows work out just better,,,Instead of striking the man, strike his reasons which if valid, will make him see wats good..:cool2:

 

[Balkazzaar]

See man, i hav an opinion too,,if i think its right , then i reason it out,, like numerous times i have before..If u think mine is wrong, or even just that urs is more sensible then give reasons..im ready to accept no big deal...
Till say 4 months ago i used to dislike MS as a whole..For so many glitches..I learned from people like u and took up linux and Mac Osx...(if u seen in ur threads and many other linux ones i do appreciate good things,...
Its jus that for the above quoted reasons, Windows work out just better,,,Instead of striking the man, strike his reasons which if valid, will make him see wats good..:cool2:

Man :S relax bro, v r all here to help each other out..........

 

[KingKrool]

^^Actually I am here to fight

There are many things you might say against Vista, and many of them I'll accept. The high hardware requirements is something you can b**ch about if you feel like it. MS is not too worried as it runs fine on many existing and new PCs. Will it run on a Pentium? No. Will Linux? Yes, if you strip it down. OK, fine, criticism accepted. And the RAM usage argument is bogus. Yes, it uses more RAM, but the stupid "I switch on and it already uses N%" is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. With RAM there is only one thing that counts wrt OS implementation - how many page faults do you have? How many need to be serviced from disk (and this is really the key in most systems, unless you are into extreme perf)?

Aero? I have issues with Aero, in that I think they could have done more (Expose! where are you!).

Search? I wish that they made it easier to add locations to the index.

UAC? No, I won't accept most of the criticisms made here.

The backup facility is actually amazing. I haven't used time machine for OSX, but I hear the tech underlying it sucks - they don't use diffs, they actually rearchive entire files, if you change just a single word. Vista gets this right, and I guess time vault in ubuntu (not used it) also does.

 

[Party Monger]

^^Actually I am here to fight
There are many things you might say against Vista, and many of them I'll accept. The high hardware requirements is something you can b**ch about if you feel like it. MS is not too worried as it runs fine on many existing and new PCs. Will it run on a Pentium? No. Will Linux? Yes, if you strip it down. OK, fine, criticism accepted. And the RAM usage argument is bogus. Yes, it uses more RAM, but the stupid "I switch on and it already uses N%" is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. With RAM there is only one thing that counts wrt OS implementation - how many page faults do you have? How many need to be serviced from disk (and this is really the key in most systems, unless you are into extreme perf)?
Aero? I have issues with Aero, in that I think they could have done more (Expose! where are you!).
Search? I wish that they made it easier to add locations to the index.
UAC? No, I won't accept most of the criticisms made here.
The backup facility is actually amazing. I haven't used time machine for OSX, but I hear the tech underlying it sucks - they don't use diffs, they actually rearchive entire files, if you change just a single word. Vista gets this right, and I guess time vault in ubuntu (not used it) also does.

Agree with u..
But stil i think aero is pretty sufficient...I find it cool and sexy...hyeah:
Time machine in Leopard also works with a few apps like data files Address Book, Mail, and iPhoto 08...
So i guess thats a plus point...
But then i havent tried previous version..(prev version, bit locker and a few x64 features r the only ones i havent checked out..) but my friend says that he deleted some of our precious coll pics by mistake.. but was able to get it back using previous version..So i guess it rocks too..

 

[KingKrool]

Well, Vista's backup utility catches pretty much everything in the user's directory. It gets all the photos (iPhoto 08?), your mail archives (at least for Outlook and OE), so that is cool. Previous versions is neat, but I've never had need for it. It is more of a soft backup than a hard one AFAIK.

My point with Aero is that till date, I think just about all these 3d workspaces (whether OSX, Compiz or Aero or even Sun's thing) are mostly loads of BS. Sure they look nice (which is why I use them), but they don't really bring me much in the way of enhanced usability. Expose is the one and only feature that I ever liked in any of them. Compiz is terrible in that it switches on that stupid window distortion by default (or maybe that was just Fedora core 6), which is the anti-thesis of usability. Drag a window and it compresses and stretches such that you can no longer understand its content until it stabilizes. That sucks. MS did get that right - none of their effects decrease usability. The Alt+Tab is nice (Compiz has similar, no idea about OSX, but I bet it does), and the window switch is OK, but not as good as expose.

 

[Party Monger]

Yeah i know, previous version tracks the changes, as in changes in parts of the files and only stores these changes,, thus saving space...While Time Machine uses a second harddisk for backup...If the harddisk is removed,, simple gives an error and exits...

lol ya..Expose is cool,, didnt get much time to check it out but it sure did LOOK nice...

One feature i like abt compiz is the cover flow sorta window changing using alt tab...look really cool...

 

[Balkazzaar]

^^Actually I am here to fight
There are many things you might say against Vista, and many of them I'll accept. The high hardware requirements is something you can b**ch about if you feel like it. MS is not too worried as it runs fine on many existing and new PCs. Will it run on a Pentium? No. Will Linux? Yes, if you strip it down. OK, fine, criticism accepted. And the RAM usage argument is bogus. Yes, it uses more RAM, but the stupid "I switch on and it already uses N%" is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. With RAM there is only one thing that counts wrt OS implementation - how many page faults do you have? How many need to be serviced from disk (and this is really the key in most systems, unless you are into extreme perf)?
Aero? I have issues with Aero, in that I think they could have done more (Expose! where are you!).
Search? I wish that they made it easier to add locations to the index.
UAC? No, I won't accept most of the criticisms made here.
The backup facility is actually amazing. I haven't used time machine for OSX, but I hear the tech underlying it sucks - they don't use diffs, they actually rearchive entire files, if you change just a single word. Vista gets this right, and I guess time vault in ubuntu (not used it) also does.

I accept ur support for Vista yaar, but as i said earlier, Vista needs to mature more like Win XP SP2..then i like everybody else i will welcome Vista with open arms........ till then XP SP2 just suffices me with all i need.........

 

[KingKrool]

^^No issues there. I actually like to take stuff on point by point. A lot of the negative feeling for Vista is hardly backed up, while some is. I don't doubt that people running P3's will have a hell of a time running Vista, as will people with just 512MB RAM who also want to run Aero.

However, that market is small enough (especially amongst the geeks who are complaining) to not be an issue at all.

Personally my favourite OS is DOS. I don't actually consider it as OS at all, just a shell, and it was so good at it.

 

[Pat]

I knew it long back that you are here to fight! And as such you are completely taking the wrong meaning out of my posts.I did not once say that it being architecturally different provides an advantage to users.

According to me, the edit reveals a weakness of sudo, not a benefit, but since you don't seem to understand any of the points I mentioned before about security (about how you should not run with admin privileges even when you are one), I doubt you would agree.

Ofcourse I dont agree because thats just how I am.I know how to take care of my system and I dont need a shitty security prompt every time I move my mouse (ok..that was exaggerated )

P.S: You might be paranoid about security on your system.I am not coz :
a:>I am not running a server or a corporate desktop.
b:>I am smart enough to manage things myself using better 3rd party apps.

Now you can argue that the points I made are stupid or whatever.Doesnt change my line of thinking. eace: