NationStates Jolt Archive

Now that I've got my new computer, my NSG activities will return to normal speed. And, I can't see why everyone dislikes Vista. It really is a nice OS, my only problem is that it asks you if you want to open every file you click on. I like the quicker start-up, the one-click open, and the easier file system in "All Programs" in the start menu.

So why does everyone hate Vista? And do you hate Vista?

Now that I've got my new computer, my NSG activities will return to normal speed. And, I can't see why everyone dislikes Vista. It really is a nice OS, my only problem is that it asks you if you want to open every file you click on. I like the quicker start-up, the one-click open, and the easier file system in "All Programs" in the start menu.

So why does everyone hate Vista? And do you hate Vista?


People offten dislike change, thats's all it is really. I Work in IT and I have seen the same thing going on for the last 20 years. Each time something is updated, initially people are quite dismisive of it, and they are so purly because it means changing how they presently do things.

Once they have gotten used to it though it's all, ohh I don't know how I ever worked with the old one.

*shrug* people huh!

Yeah, I gotta admit, I quite like Vista. It's been virtually bug free for me.

Also, you can turn off the thing that asks you every time you open something. You need to look under User Accounts, and then disable UAC.

Even critics who like it say it's a memory hog, which it is.

Even critics who like it say it's a memory hog, which it is.

It does take up a bit of memory, but when you consider it's relatively few flaws, and all of what improves upon, I think it's worth it.

Even critics who like it say it's a memory hog, which it is.

Well thats not going to cahnge much is it. Every incarnation of windows has been more greedy than the last.

It has no command prompt.

How can you have an OS without a command prompt?

It has no command prompt.

How can you have an OS without a command prompt?

Of course it does.

Of course it does.

Hmm, I don't use Vista... but someone told me it has no command prompt. Where is it located to access?

I own a Mac so, I don't or have never used Vista.

Hmm, I don't use Vista... but someone told me it has no command prompt. Where is it located to access?

Same as XP, Start\Run\Cmd.

Heh I remember they said the same about 95 when it was finaly released.:D

I own a Mac so, I don't or have never used Vista.

Heh and what can a PC user do that a MAc user can't?







Yep yep, right click!:D

Now that I've got my new computer, my NSG activities will return to normal speed. And, I can't see why everyone dislikes Vista. It really is a nice OS, my only problem is that it asks you if you want to open every file you click on. I like the quicker start-up, the one-click open, and the easier file system in "All Programs" in the start menu.

So why does everyone hate Vista? And do you hate Vista?

See the underlined. Plus the fact that it's a memory hog. Have they been able to make it more stable than it was when it first came out?

I really recommend upgrading to XP.

Same as XP, Start\Run\Cmd.

Heh I remember they said the same about 95 when it was finaly released.:D

http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/images/vista-start-menu-3.png

Where is run?

I'll probably get vista with my next computer purchase. Mostly due to the fact that by the time I buy another computer XP won't be sold by anyone.

Even critics who like it say it's a memory hog, which it is.

As is expected. Newer apps require more RAM, and OSs are no different. I don't understand the mindset of people who putter along with Pentium IIIs and then complain when they can't run Vista.

Hmm, I don't use Vista... but someone told me it has no command prompt. Where is it located to access?

In the Start Menu, Accessories.

Heh and what can a PC user do that a MAc user can't?

Play many PC games that aren't available for Mac? Or has that changed?

In the Start Menu, Accessories.

Ah. I'll pass that on.

I stick with XP - it's better.

Heh and what can a PC user do that a MAc user can't?







Yep yep, right click!:D

I can right click with the mouse I use homey, so there.
http://www.uco.es/~i72sagir/smiley_guy_sticking_out_tongue_lg_clr.gif

http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/images/vista-start-menu-3.png

Where is run?


Ahh you see where it says 'Start Search' where you have the curser, that is it.

Yeah, Start Search works the same as Run, but you can still get Run in the menu with customisation.

Ahh you see where it says 'Start Search' where you have the curser, that is it.

Ah. That works as a run prompt then? Ok.

I can right click with the mouse I use homey, so there.
http://www.uco.es/~i72sagir/smiley_guy_sticking_out_tongue_lg_clr.gif

Meh :p to ya!

Ah. That works as a run prompt then? Ok.

Yep.

Meh :p to ya!

Oh no, you did not bring it, brotha.:D

Oh no, you did not bring it, brotha.:D

No no I would not do such a thing. Besides I'm better at taking things away, you know like umm rubbish and dirty plates and cups and err stuff!

Oi and it's pronouced Bruva, okay.:D

No no I would not do such a thing. Besides I'm better at taking things away, you know like umm rubbish and dirty plates and cups and err stuff!

Oi and it's pronouced Bruva, okay.:D

Well, scuse me, I ain't proficient and stuff at ebonics and the like.:D

Vista eats memory, which is annoying. Thats why I stuck with XP.

XP SP2 is more compatible and less buggy, and takes up less memory and space. However there are lots of good things about Vista too.

http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/images/vista-start-menu-3.png

Where is run?
The cursor is on run field already...

Just type CMD in there. :tongue:

Vista eats memory, which is annoying. Thats why I stuck with XP.
If you have memory then isn't it better to use it for caching and other purposes? Doesn't that reduce lag? Besides, most of that memory use is dynamic meaning if an application needs the memory, it gets it. I actually tested this once in XP and the cache & various other memory allocations dynamically shrunk - from 900 megs to ~100-200 - when the application requirements grew.

Vista however isn't really an improvement if you consider what eg. Compiz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compiz) offers (even though Linux itself isn't quite yet a viable desktop alternative).

Also, disk operations seem to be hopelessly slow (indexing? security checks?) on Vista and the incessant popups are annoying - Yes, you can turn them off but it also turns off an important security feature.

The cursor is on run field already...

Just type CMD in there. :tongue:


If you have memory then isn't it better to use it for caching and other purposes? Doesn't that reduce lag? Besides, most of that memory use is dynamic meaning if an application needs the memory, it gets it. I actually tested this once in XP and the cache & various other memory allocations dynamically shrunk - from 900 megs to ~100-200 - when the application requirements grew.

Vista however isn't really an improvement if you consider what eg. Compiz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compiz) offers (even though Linux itself isn't quite yet a viable desktop alternative).

Also, disk operations seem to be hopelessly slow (indexing? security checks?) on Vista and the incessant popups are annoying - Yes, you can turn them off but it also turns off an important security feature.

Yeah fuck that I turn the indexing off any hoo.

Too much of a memory hog to run my nice shiny new Vista games, but incompatable with all my old XP/98 games, even with compatability mode.

Too much of a memory hog to run my nice shiny new Vista games, but incompatable with all my old XP/98 games, even with compatability mode.

Sounds like you've got a sucky computer.

Pfft, you and your "Windows" operating systems. Hooray Linux!(Though if I end up building a gaming computer like I've considered, I must admit I will pretty much have to use Windows:(.)

As a coder, I'm incredibly pro-Windows.

all Mac is good for is Video making and great graphics.....vista is fro gaming and coding

*for

Pfft, you and your "Windows" operating systems. Hooray Linux!(Though if I end up building a gaming computer like I've considered, I must admit I will pretty much have to use Windows:(.)
If you end up doing ANYTHING, you'll have to use Windows.

Edit: Unless you're hosting an internet server.

It really is a nice OS, my only problem is that it asks you if you want to open every file you click on.

You can turn that off, but it's really not that big of a deal


So why does everyone hate Vista? And do you hate Vista?
I don't hate Vista, I've had vista from day one, and I *Like* it.

Now that I've got my new computer, my NSG activities will return to normal speed. And, I can't see why everyone dislikes Vista. It really is a nice OS, my only problem is that it asks you if you want to open every file you click on. I like the quicker start-up, the one-click open, and the easier file system in "All Programs" in the start menu.

So why does everyone hate Vista? And do you hate Vista?


Yeah, I gotta admit, I quite like Vista. It's been virtually bug free for me.

Also, you can turn off the thing that asks you every time you open something. You need to look under User Accounts, and then disable UAC.

You can disable that thing, but I like it: Once, an unknown program wanted access, and I didn't give it permission, and it turned out to be a virus! My computer is saved. Long live Vista! :hail:

Even critics who like it say it's a memory hog, which it is.

Well that's not going to change much is it? Every incarnation of windows has been more greedy than the last.

Memory hog? You want an OS that isn't a memory hog? Switch back to 95.

Hmm, I don't use Vista... but someone told me it has no command prompt. Where is it located to access?

No wonder, guess you're 'friend' was lying! I have vista and the Command prompt works perfectly. I won't have people libeling my favorite operating system! :mad:
How, you ask? Here:

Same as XP, Start\Run\Cmd.

That's how!

See the underlined. Plus the fact that it's a memory hog. Have they been able to make it more stable than it was when it first came out?

I really recommend upgrading to XP.

Upgrading to XP? How dare you? You mean: downgrading! :mad:

http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/images/vista-start-menu-3.png

Where is run?

There's run: (in fact it's better than run)
Ahh you see where it says 'Start Search' where you have the curser, that is it.

Besides:

Yeah, Start Search works the same as Run, but you can still get Run in the menu with customisation.

Have you guys ever heard about the Mojave experiment? Microsoft demonstrated a new operating system called Mojave to XP users (That's right, they betrayed themselves!). 90% of the XP users said they liked it! It turns out that the operatign system was VISTA. Microsoft made a website about this! They recorded people's reactions on video! On the website, they show it. http://www.mojaveexperiment.com/html/?fbid=Pi4IDsg0him

Now that I've got my new computer, my NSG activities will return to normal speed. And, I can't see why everyone dislikes Vista. It really is a nice OS, my only problem is that it asks you if you want to open every file you click on. I like the quicker start-up, the one-click open, and the easier file system in "All Programs" in the start menu.

So why does everyone hate Vista? And do you hate Vista?I've had Vista for about the past year and a half now, and I've gotta say that I'm largely impressed by it. After running Windows 98 and XP for a number of years, its been a large improvement over the others, mostly in terms of stability, reliability and such.

It has never had a crash which forces a restart and certainly never had the old blue screen of death. Games operate much more smoothly than in previous years, even old ones from back in the 90s. I haven't run across a game that won't install/run on this computer yet, and it works with pretty much all my pre-existing hardware.

User Account Control is incredibly useful in keeping away any such terrible programs that try to wrestle control of your computer, along with Windows Firewall, and have been helpful in keeping away those "add-ons" to decent programs that try to throw junk on the system.

Now that I've got my new computer, my NSG activities will return to normal speed. And, I can't see why everyone dislikes Vista. It really is a nice OS, my only problem is that it asks you if you want to open every file you click on. I like the quicker start-up, the one-click open, and the easier file system in "All Programs" in the start menu.

So why does everyone hate Vista? And do you hate Vista?


i don't hate vista and i never have. turning off UAC is easy and probably the first thing i did, and i haven't noticed any memory hog issues with 4Gb of ram.

i think i've had more trouble with ubuntu lately than i've ever had with vista lol. though my dad, with 64 bit vista is still having lots of problems:-S

if its hogging resources, lots of unnecessary services and program can be turned off with msconfig

Now that I've got my new computer, my NSG activities will return to normal speed. And, I can't see why everyone dislikes Vista. It really is a nice OS, my only problem is that it asks you if you want to open every file you click on. I like the quicker start-up, the one-click open, and the easier file system in "All Programs" in the start menu.

So why does everyone hate Vista? And do you hate Vista?

Try installing a program on it. Especially Pro Tools.

Vista is a steaming pile of shit.

If you end up doing ANYTHING, you'll have to use Windows.

Edit: Unless you're hosting an internet server.

Or recording music. Macs are better for this.

Try installing a program on it. Especially Pro Tools.

Vista is a steaming pile of shit.

I just installed The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind, Warcraft III, Darwinia, World In Conflict, Splinter Cell: Pandora Tommorow, GIMP, Firefox, and The Sims 2. I've had no problems.

If you end up doing ANYTHING, you'll have to use Windows.

Edit: Unless you're hosting an internet server.

That's just plain wrong. You might as well tell that to the 4 machines* in general use in my house, not one of which boots any flavour of Windows.

And yes, we do everything we need on them. Homework, research, my brother programs, we game, etc.

All on hardware which would generally complain bitterly about trying to run Win 2k, in the case of my machines. With Linux, it's just as responsive for everyday tasks as most Windows machines, and a damn site nicer to use for someone like me, who generally lives without touching the mouse. And a darn sight more flexible too --- it's always nice to be able to change the entire Window Management model on the fly, without losing any apps, to get one more suited to the current task.

Windows is an interesting little toy OS, but it's useless for actually trying to do real work on.

*Which are:
My EeePC: Debian Lenny
My Box: Debian Etch
Brother's laptop: Xubuntu something (7.10 or 8.04)
Family Mac: Mac OS 10.5 or so

*snip*
Linux is an inferior OS, used by those who want to feel like a rebel, fighting against the all-powerful Microsoft corporation. I've had a Mac, completely unimpressed. I've tried Linux, it just isn't as good as Windows.

I've made countless mods, and a few small games using Python on Windows. Windows is just BETTER!

Oh, and any computer that refuses to run windows 2k needs to be looked at, or put in a museum.

Have you guys ever heard about the Mojave experiment? Microsoft demonstrated a new operating system called Mojave to XP users (That's right, they betrayed themselves!). 90% of the XP users said they liked it! It turns out that the operatign system was VISTA. Microsoft made a website about this! They recorded people's reactions on video! On the website, they show it. http://www.mojaveexperiment.com/html/?fbid=Pi4IDsg0him

I'm not going to jump into the Windows Civil War, given that I don't have nearly as much hands-on experience with Vista as I do with XP, so I can't really make a comparison. However, in the interest of fairness, I must point out something:
The "experiment" sounds flawed, because the main complaints about Vista aren't about the interface design so much as some of the technical details, many of which would not be immediately apparent if you're just taking it for a quick test drive. It would take prolonged use to really determine how good the OS is.

Linux is an inferior OS, used by those who want to feel like a rebel, fighting against the all-powerful Microsoft corporation. I've had a Mac, completely unimpressed. I've tried Linux, it just isn't as good as Windows.
Linux can't really be called an 'inferior OS'. Various distros have their pros and cons, but it's a little bit of a broad brush stroke to just lump them all into a single category and call them 'inferior'. You may well have 'tried Linux', and it may well be that it's not as good as Windows for you, but it's a 'horses for courses' situation, that's all, and it may be that some people prefer it for what they are doing. I'll skip your attempted characterisation of Linux users as wannabe rebels, because it's no more than tired and clichéd - an uninformed playground jibe.


Windows is loved and hated for the same reasons by different people. One of Microsoft's stated goals for the Windows series was that it should allow PCs to work, out of the box, with a minimum amount of fuss for the end user. To a certain extent they've succeeded, but the flip-side is that it boots up with all guns blazing, as it were, with a vast range of services running to offer whatever functionality might possibly be required by the average user who's just switched on their PC. Some people don't like that... they like to have a bit more control over the configuration of their PC; like to know exactly what's going on with it and on it, at all times; dislike having services and apps running on their machines that provide no benefit to the tasks that they want to perform. These people won't be using Windows or, if they are, they'll have monkeyed about with it to get it running exactly the way they want it.

That's just plain wrong. You might as well tell that to the 4 machines* in general use in my house, not one of which boots any flavour of Windows.

And yes, we do everything we need on them. Homework, research, my brother programs, we game, etc.

All on hardware which would generally complain bitterly about trying to run Win 2k <snip>
I know quite a few people who run home networks without any Windows installations and I agree that there're very few things that just can't be done without it. However, with the best will in the world, you're not doing any gaming on any contemporary titles on a machine that would balk at running Win2k.


As I said, it's 'horses for courses', but if someone is going to use Windows, and their machine is reasonably quick and has plenty of RAM to spare, then there's really no reason not to use Vista now that it's had a load of its initial issues resolved. I'm not suggesting that everyone (or, indeed, anyone) should rush out and buy it, or upgrade their current machine with it, but there's really no need for people to avoid it, either.

Haha, Vista. What a joke. It's also a little funny how the cultish people deny that it is. They're all just "you must try it. you must try it." I've tried it plenty, it stinks. And no, it doesn't end at all at the stuff that can be turned off like the UAC prompts, it's just a sloppy 2nd rate thing, that's a fact. You want an example of a core deficiency? Try copying a ton of little files, and you probably wouldn't even need to benchmark to realize how slow that operation is. I know I didn't. That UAC stuff isn't going to stop viruses all the time or even most times either. They'd have to pay ME to use Vista at this point.

I just installed The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind, Warcraft III, Darwinia, World In Conflict, Splinter Cell: Pandora Tommorow, GIMP, Firefox, and The Sims 2. I've had no problems.

Try installing something more than a video game. Such as Pro Tools. Vista is absolute shit.

Haha, Vista. What a joke. It's also a little funny how the cultish people deny that it is. They're all just "you must try it. you must try it." I've tried it plenty, it stinks. And no, it doesn't end at all at the stuff that can be turned off like the UAC prompts, it's just a sloppy 2nd rate thing, that's a fact. You want an example of a core deficiency? Try copying a ton of little files, and you probably wouldn't even need to benchmark to realize how slow that operation is
Did it. When I copied all my old WCIII files to my new computer. Worked like a charm.
. I know I didn't. That UAC stuff isn't going to stop viruses all the time or even most times either. They'd have to pay ME to use Vista at this point
Actually, that UAC stuff can be disabled, as you said, and can inform you when something you didn't start up is trying to run. That can be helpful.
Try installing something more than a video game. Such as Pro Tools. Vista is absolute shit.
I did. GIMP is an image manipulator, and Firefox is an internet browser. I also recently installed Anima8or, a 3d image creator, and Python. Worked fine.

Vista's alright I had some problems with it in the beggining, but once I sorted them out I like it a lot better than XP. That may be because I hated XP.

alot of programs I use for XP doesn't work on Vista.
add to that the fact that once a program craps out, Vista sticks it's nose in and fiddles with it, affecting it's later performance.
I've had more programs go "Not Responding" with Vista in one day than I had with XP for one year (and this is counting this week, not months or years ago)
I've had NO unwanted viruses or programs infect my XP machine. I have the same level of security with XP as their Vista but without the annoying "will you allow" question.
My 3 yr old Computer with XP boots up faster than my lastest computer with Vista.
Too many Bells and Whistles.

if I was on that "Mojave Project" my response would've been "It sucks, too much like Vista" and I wonder HOW many of those users were alone in that room with the laptop and how many had someone in there with them... they never say.

I have a laptop that came with Vista on it. I absolutely hated it, mostly because Firefox would freeze every half-hour or so, but also partly because of the four or five programs that started at startup, none of which I wanted. I've duel-booted Ubuntu 8.10 on it and it's working fine now. Granted, it was really annoying to set it up so it worked right (a whole bunch of arcane crap that involved downloading drivers off the internet in order to be able to access the internet), but once I did it it worked fine. Oh, and the folder system is a good bit less intuitive than Windows'. Going off all that I'd say Ubuntu is worse than XP but better than Vista.

I've got vista on my new laptop. What I don't like is that it won't let me mess around with files in the Program Files directory. I tried everything to get vista to let me mess around with Program Files, but all the options to let me do it are greyed out, even if I take "the back door" in. So that's the only part about vista I don't like.

I have it too. Nothing bad has ever happened or anything. I don't get the big "OH MY GOD!" deal.

I'm probably the target user for vista, in that I like shiny things, but have little to no understanding/interest in the inner workings/any but very minor customisation/etc. I've got in on a laptop and I love it. Loads quickly, haven't had any trouble/crashes/etc with it. Everything's easy to find, intuitive, etc.

Now that I've got my new computer, my NSG activities will return to normal speed. And, I can't see why everyone dislikes Vista. It really is a nice OS, my only problem is that it asks you if you want to open every file you click on. I like the quicker start-up, the one-click open, and the easier file system in "All Programs" in the start menu.

So why does everyone hate Vista? And do you hate Vista?

You got it after it had been out for a while.


You got it after it had been patched. You got it AFTER it was buggy as shit.

I can't really comment on Vista, I've never had the need to use it. Actually the last time I used Windows in any form was in high school long before Vista. My parents indoctrinated me and only ever had Macs in my home growing up, so Apple is all I know, woe is me...

I can't really comment on Vista, I've never had the need to use it. Actually the last time I used Windows in any form was in high school long before Vista. My parents indoctrinated me and only ever had Macs in my home growing up, so Apple is all I know, woe is me...

Better the crap you know than the crap you don't?

You got it after it had been out for a while.


You got it after it had been patched. You got it AFTER it was buggy as shit.

I ALWAYS get things late, after everything's been worked out. It's because I'm smart, and has nothing to do with me being cheap. Or lazy.

>.>


<.<

I ALWAYS get things late, after everything's been worked out. It's because I'm smart, and has nothing to do with me being cheap. Or lazy.

>.>


<.<

It's one of those times all three coincide. Celebrate it.

Better the crap you know than the crap you don't?

Pretty much, don't have too many complaints about OS X at the moment though. Besides my crap comes in a sexy aluminum case.

You can disable that thing, but I like it: Once, an unknown program wanted access, and I didn't give it permission, and it turned out to be a virus! My computer is saved. Long live Vista! :hail:

A halfway decent firewall will do the same thing, and unlike Vista you can tell it that the file in question has PERMANENT permission to access your computer and not have to deal with it asking every time. With Vista (unless it's changed) it's either off or ask every time.


Upgrading to XP? How dare you? You mean: downgrading! :mad:

It's not a downgrade if it works better.

Pretty much, don't have too many complaints about OS X at the moment though. Besides my crap comes in a sexy aluminum case.

As does mine...
Your point?

Did it. When I copied all my old WCIII files to my new computer. Worked like a charm.

Did I say it didn't work? Of course it works, it's just slow as hell. If you didn't think it was either you're used to slow charms or didn't perform a similar action to what I'm talking about. I am talking about a massive amount of small files, for instance, some source code to some large things.

And Macs, overrated and overpriced. Sure, if they cost the same as PCs it would be no contest between a Mac and a Windows PC, but it's not even close.

I ALWAYS get things late, after everything's been worked out. It's because I'm smart, and has nothing to do with me being cheap. Or lazy.

>.>


<.<

My dad is one of those people who has to buy the new tech toys right when they come out so he can play with them ASAP. And for some reason, my computer got to be the guine pig (this was back when I still lived at hom....jr year of high school?).


I was most displeased.

Did I say it didn't work? Of course it works, it's just slow as hell. If you didn't think it was either you're used to slow charms or didn't perform a similar action to what I'm talking about. I am talking about a massive amount of small files, for instance, some source code to some large things.

And Macs, overrated and overpriced. Sure, if they cost the same as PCs it would be no contest between a Mac and a Windows PC, but it's not even close.

76 warcraft maps. Two minutes.

And Macs, overrated and overpriced. Sure, if they cost the same as PCs it would be no contest between a Mac and a Windows PC, but it's not even close.

That and outside of video and music software they are inferior. And a PC is catching up in music software.


The speed and graphic capabilites of a PC make a mac look foolish.

As does mine...
Your point?

I like my crap all prettied up, with a pink bow, ready for a night on the town

That and outside of video and music software they are inferior. And a PC is catching up in music software.


The speed and graphic capabilites of a PC make a mac look foolish.

Make a mac LOOK foolish? No matter how you look at it, a mac IS foolish. They used to be the best, now they're reduced to just pointing and shouting "ZOMG!!!1! MICROSOFT R TYRANTZ!1"

I like my crap all prettied up, with a pink bow, ready for a night on the town

lol

Make a mac LOOK foolish? No matter how you look at it, a mac IS foolish. They used to be the best, now they're reduced to just pointing and shouting "ZOMG!!!1! MICROSOFT R TYRANTZ!1"

True. Nothing needs to make macs look foolish. They do it themselves.

That and outside of video and music software they are inferior. And a PC is catching up in music software.


The speed and graphic capabilites of a PC make a mac look foolish.

In all fairness Macs aren't any slower than Vista, while lacking security problems and overbearing content protection vehicles. As far as power and fancy software, the Mac seems to have just as many, equally overpriced software as well. The only real problem I have with them is the price of the actual machines. Macbooks start at around 1000 bucks, I can get some ordinary PC laptops with similar specs at about half that price.

At the point I am now I don't really have any real need for Windows PC other than a few games that I hardly play anymore. I sort of float around between Linux for ordinary stuff, and WindowsXP for whatever other crap like playing around with games. Vista, god no. And I don't have any hope of the post-Vista hype from MS being worth anything either. They have to resort to some sad TV commercials that make no sense. That says it all. No more unquestioning masses using whatever comes along from Microsoft no matter the amount of suck. I mean, it won't die overnight, but it's in decline.

Linux is an inferior OS, used by those who want to feel like a rebel, fighting against the all-powerful Microsoft corporation. I've had a Mac, completely unimpressed. I've tried Linux, it just isn't as good as Windows.

I've made countless mods, and a few small games using Python on Windows. Windows is just BETTER!

Oh, and any computer that refuses to run windows 2k needs to be looked at, or put in a museum.

No, on any technical measure, Linux is quite simply better than Windows.
For flexibility, Linux is quite simply superior to Windows.

The Win2K thing was slight exaggeration. However, not much of one. My machines, for example, are the Eee, which is a 650MHz Celeron with512MB of RAM, and my box, which is a 1.5GHz P4 with 512MB of RAM.

Both run Enlightenment flawlessly and without any lag, if I want eye candy, and E17 quite handily competes with Vista on that front, along with being a damn sight more configurable.

And whoop-de-do, you can script in python on Windows. Try writing real code in C, without installing something like Cygwin (which is basically a port of all the Unixy tools to Windows).

Or just try using a dynamic tiling window manager, or not wasting all your screen space on taskbars and titlebars. There is one way to do things on Windows --- Microsoft's way. If you would actually like focus follows mouse, or proper tiling, or virtual desktops, then you're screwed.

Linux can't really be called an 'inferior OS'. Various distros have their pros and cons, but it's a little bit of a broad brush stroke to just lump them all into a single category and call them 'inferior'. You may well have 'tried Linux', and it may well be that it's not as good as Windows for you, but it's a 'horses for courses' situation, that's all, and it may be that some people prefer it for what they are doing. I'll skip your attempted characterisation of Linux users as wannabe rebels, because it's no more than tired and clichéd - an uninformed playground jibe.

Windows is loved and hated for the same reasons by different people. One of Microsoft's stated goals for the Windows series was that it should allow PCs to work, out of the box, with a minimum amount of fuss for the end user. To a certain extent they've succeeded, but the flip-side is that it boots up with all guns blazing, as it were, with a vast range of services running to offer whatever functionality might possibly be required by the average user who's just switched on their PC. Some people don't like that... they like to have a bit more control over the configuration of their PC; like to know exactly what's going on with it and on it, at all times; dislike having services and apps running on their machines that provide no benefit to the tasks that they want to perform. These people won't be using Windows or, if they are, they'll have monkeyed about with it to get it running exactly the way they want it.

It's worth noting that there are Linux distros which do similar things. Ubuntu, or a full desktop install of most modern distros, will come up running basically every service you'll need. Meaning they'll be doing more than XP/Vista, and in less memory and CPU use.

Of course, there are also things like Debian and LFS and Gentoo, where you have incredibly precise control over what happens and what is run, so that you get a very focused system. It's using a computer like a scalpel, not a sledgehammer.

I know quite a few people who run home networks without any Windows installations and I agree that there're very few things that just can't be done without it. However, with the best will in the world, you're not doing any gaming on any contemporary titles on a machine that would balk at running Win2k.

Indeed. As mentioned above, that wasn't strictly true. However, neither of my machines would handle Vista, and XP could prove problematic for the Eee.

What gaming I do is generally on the Mac, or old stuff through Dosbox. Both work acceptably well.

As I said, it's 'horses for courses', but if someone is going to use Windows, and their machine is reasonably quick and has plenty of RAM to spare, then there's really no reason not to use Vista now that it's had a load of its initial issues resolved. I'm not suggesting that everyone (or, indeed, anyone) should rush out and buy it, or upgrade their current machine with it, but there's really no need for people to avoid it, either.

That is probably true.

I ALWAYS get things late, after everything's been worked out. It's because I'm smart, and has nothing to do with me being cheap. Or lazy.

>.>


<.<

Ah, see, my friend got his new computer when Vista was brand new. It was so full of bugs and unworkable that I think he might have even had a good court case, lol.

I did. GIMP is an image manipulator, and Firefox is an internet browser. I also recently installed Anima8or, a 3d image creator, and Python. Worked fine.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha

No, on any technical measure, Linux is quite simply better than Windows.
For flexibility, Linux is quite simply superior to Windows.

The Win2K thing was slight exaggeration. However, not much of one. My machines, for example, are the Eee, which is a 650MHz Celeron with512MB of RAM, and my box, which is a 1.5GHz P4 with 512MB of RAM.

Both run Enlightenment flawlessly and without any lag, if I want eye candy, and E17 quite handily competes with Vista on that front, along with being a damn sight more configurable.

And whoop-de-do, you can script in python on Windows. Try writing real code in C, without installing something like Cygwin (which is basically a port of all the Unixy tools to Windows).

Y'know, there is a reason I switched from C++ to Python, and it's not just because I like the name. It's easier to use, it's quicker, and it's just downright better.

And you need better computers.

Or just try using a dynamic tiling window manager, or not wasting all your screen space on taskbars and titlebars. There is one way to do things on Windows --- Microsoft's way. If you would actually like focus follows mouse, or proper tiling, or virtual desktops, then you're screwed.

Waste all your space on titlebars and taskbars? Have you even USED Vista? Or are you just one of the many naysayers who are afraid to try it, feeding off the negativity of others who also haven't tried, clinging to their inferior Linux and Mac systems in despair?

Ha ha ha ha ha ha
It usually helps to explain why you're laughing.

I've used Vista a bit on my friends' laptops. I'm in no rush to get it, but if the next computer I buy has it installed by default I won't complain. Well, I won't complain much. I have to keep some credibility among my peers and distrust anything with a windows logo on it.

I've used Vista a bit on my friends' laptops. I'm in no rush to get it, but if the next computer I buy has it installed by default I won't complain. Well, I won't complain much. I have to keep some credibility among my peers and distrust anything with a windows logo on it.

Vista made me decide not to buy Microsoft products again if I can possibly avoid it.

Y'know, there is a reason I switched from C++ to Python, and it's not just because I like the name. It's easier to use, it's quicker, and it's just downright better.

Oh? So what's your browser written in? Hell, what's your operating system written in?

I'm a schemer myself. But when people need to do real work, and make complex software run fast enough to be reasonably usable, there's a reason they still tend to turn to C or C++.

And yes, I am opposed to writing such apps in languages like python, or ruby, or java. Too big, too much running underneath it, too slow.

And you need better computers.

To quote The Register: "Linux runs in 512MB like XP in 1GB and Vista in 2GB". What I save in hardware and OSes can be spent on other things that I want. Why should I buy bigger hardware just to use it running the operating system?

As it stands, I've spent under £300 on machines, and have two reliable boxen that can do everything I need of them, and do it acceptably fast. Beat that, punk.

Waste all your space on titlebars and taskbars? Have you even USED Vista? Or are you just one of the many naysayers who are afraid to try it, feeding off the negativity of others who also haven't tried, clinging to their inferior Linux and Mac systems in despair?

I've seen it. You lose a few hundred pixels off one side to that desktop bar. Another couple dozen off the base of the screen to the taskbar. More around each window. There's only one window management model, and it demands mouse use. There are no virtual desktops.

Those are facts, thank you very much. And if inferior means I don't have any of those, then I'll stick with 'inferior'. Linux is cheaper, faster, and more flexible. Sounds good to me.

People offten dislike change, thats's all it is really. I Work in IT and I have seen the same thing going on for the last 20 years. Each time something is updated, initially people are quite dismisive of it, and they are so purly because it means changing how they presently do things.

Once they have gotten used to it though it's all, ohh I don't know how I ever worked with the old one.

*shrug* people huh!

I would agree in some areas this is often the case but I have seen both with Vista and Server2008 some rather major issues (specially with UAC) causing problems with installs of things like MSSQL (both express and the full version)

And some other apps
More to the point is why?
I am really really quick in my current XP/2003/Debian environment, the performance is good the tools are there and things are where I know them.

I have spent months with vista and when I am forced to make the transition I will but at this point it is simply ... why?

You can disable that thing, but I like it: Once, an unknown program wanted access, and I didn't give it permission, and it turned out to be a virus! My computer is saved. Long live Vista! :hail:





Memory hog? You want an OS that isn't a memory hog? Switch back to 95.



No wonder, guess you're 'friend' was lying! I have vista and the Command prompt works perfectly. I won't have people libeling my favorite operating system! :mad:
How, you ask? Here:



That's how!



Upgrading to XP? How dare you? You mean: downgrading! :mad:



There's run: (in fact it's better than run)


Besides:



Have you guys ever heard about the Mojave experiment? Microsoft demonstrated a new operating system called Mojave to XP users (That's right, they betrayed themselves!). 90% of the XP users said they liked it! It turns out that the operatign system was VISTA. Microsoft made a website about this! They recorded people's reactions on video! On the website, they show it. http://www.mojaveexperiment.com/html/?fbid=Pi4IDsg0him

I have seen that ... they got a bunch of idiots that had been listening to what higher end users had been saying and just made assumptions
People do that

Now you get some power users down in front of it and realize how annoying the little things can be

Did it. When I copied all my old WCIII files to my new computer. Worked like a charm.

Snip.

Now try something of real size ...

For home use not a big issue but if they want to market workstation use in an IT field they have to bring the overhead down. Mostly it seems to be the built in TCP Chimney functionality that caused so many problems in server2003 when you dont have a TOL capable card.

Im sure they will figure out a work around soon enough

Y'know, there is a reason I switched from C++ to Python, and it's not just because I like the name. It's easier to use, it's quicker, and it's just downright better.

Better in what sense? the two are completely different in philosophy, style, performance. One can not be used as a replacement for the other in many situations

Sure you are writing a program to parse data or such python is quick as hell and I like it but lets say you are going to write a network card driver, TCP engine, Cluster focused software. Or any low level piece of software

There is no way in hell you would use python for that C or in some cases C++ would be the choice

To the people who keep whinging about Vista being a "memory hog": you're idiots. Vista manages memory differently from all previous incarnations of Windows. You cannot compare XP and Vista's memory footprints because they are not the same.

Vista loads more components into memory because memory is faster than accessing the hard drive. Memory in vista is treated as a cache. It is reserved ahead of time to make programs open faster.

Stop blindly hating on something you don't understand.

To the people who keep whinging about Vista being a "memory hog": you're idiots. Vista manages memory differently from all previous incarnations of Windows. You cannot compare XP and Vista's memory footprints because they are not the same.

Vista loads more components into memory because memory is faster than accessing the hard drive. Memory in vista is treated as a cache. It is reserved ahead of time to make programs open faster.

Stop blindly hating on something you don't understand.

So how much memory does Vista need to properly function then? Go on, quote me a figure.

I have seen that ... they got a bunch of idiots that had been listening to what higher end users had been saying and just made assumptions
People do that

Now you get some power users down in front of it and realize how annoying the little things can be

I wonder if they had someone there to 'demo' the vista for those people. to me that's cheating. when Joe Average gets his computer from the store, is there a vista person to show Joe how Vista works?

To the people who keep whinging about Vista being a "memory hog": you're idiots. Vista manages memory differently from all previous incarnations of Windows. You cannot compare XP and Vista's memory footprints because they are not the same. Oh reallly?

Vista loads more components into memory because memory is faster than accessing the hard drive. Memory in vista is treated as a cache. It is reserved ahead of time to make programs open faster. that makes it a memory hog. the more memory used by Vista, the less there is for other programs to use.

and, according to you, with vista reserving the memory, and loading MORE COMPONENTS into memory, other programs cannot access it for their needs which bellies other's complaints about VISTA hogging memory.

all programs use memory. all programs use the memory to open and all programs load components into memory for easier access and faster response. IF VISTA is actually doing what you say it's doing, then VISTA is a MEMORY HOG.

I've seen it. You lose a few hundred pixels off one side to that desktop bar. Another couple dozen off the base of the screen to the taskbar.


Psst, you can get rid of those with all of a couple of mouse clicks.

*wanders off away from techies*

Psst, you can get rid of those with all of a couple of mouse clicks.

*wanders off away from techies*

Not quite to the same level as you can simply mod your interface with GTK themes.

You can get rid of some of the things with vista but you are practically handicapped when it comes to really modding the interface easily

Psst, you can get rid of those with all of a couple of mouse clicks.

*wanders off away from techies*

And you're still left with excessive window borders and a brain dead window management philosophy. Doesn't sound like much of an improvement, really.

Edit: GTK themes are just about as bad. You want to see really themeable? Enlightenment or Sawfish can go anywhere from flashy eye candy to scaled back and minimalist, with a few mouse clicks. GTK is still basically changing the colour of the widgets.

I prefer tiling and keyboard driven window managers. Very fast, very easy, very space efficient. Such an improvement over the floating window model.

To the people who keep whinging about Vista being a "memory hog": you're idiots. Vista manages memory differently from all previous incarnations of Windows. You cannot compare XP and Vista's memory footprints because they are not the same.

Vista loads more components into memory because memory is faster than accessing the hard drive. Memory in vista is treated as a cache. It is reserved ahead of time to make programs open faster.

Stop blindly hating on something you don't understand.

Um the problem is that vista loads more components into memory, that's what I mean about vista being a memory hog.

That and it having more components to load into memory ...

I like a trim fast operating system, vista is not that. For that matter neither is much of the non server class line of windows products. But I archive some benefit to using them so I continue to do so, partially anyways.

And you're still left with excessive window borders and a brain dead window management philosophy. Doesn't sound like much of an improvement, really.

Edit: GTK themes are just about as bad. You want to see really themeable? Enlightenment or Sawfish can go anywhere from flashy eye candy to scaled back and minimalist, with a few mouse clicks. GTK is still basically changing the colour of the widgets.

I prefer tiling and keyboard driven window managers. Very fast, very easy, very space efficient. Such an improvement over the floating window model.

I should have specified but I agree, but combine thoes themes with a minamalist (or in my case a semi minimalist) WM (I tend to use XFCE) and you can get a pretty trimmed down and good for what I use it for

that makes it a memory hog. the more memory used by Vista, the less there is for other programs to use.

Hell no, the memory use of Windows caching schemes is dynamic: The more an application needs memory the less Windows uses memory.

I've tested this in XP I can hardly fathom how the mechanic wouldn't exist in Vista.

Really: Using memory is GOOD, as long as you have the memory to spare, because that means you have less to read-on-demand.

I should have specified but I agree, but combine thoes themes with a minamalist (or in my case a semi minimalist) WM (I tend to use XFCE) and you can get a pretty trimmed down and good for what I use it for

Yes, to a degree. I still consider Qt and GTK themes to really be fairly cosmetic changes, but that's because I've seen what the E guys are doing.

I live in a UXterm and a Conkeror session anyway, so themes affect me very little. Hence I use a really minimalist wm, as my display is small enough already.

Well for those that don't know, regarding the memory management:

Vista uses a new thing called "Superfetch" which basically pulls 70-90% of your available memory to the side just for pre-fetching("loading") applications.

It's really useless for anyone that doesn't have more than 4 gigs of ram, and that pretty much knocks out the entire Vista x32 platforms, since the max possible ram is 3-3.5 gig on 32bit operating systems.

Also note that Once an application is pre-fetch and that pre-fetched data is removed from memory, it will slowly pre-fetch more data in the memory since it actively monitors the amount of free ram available for pre-fetching.

For people with laptops, especially older ones or ones that lack proper cooling, this can be disastrous. Why you might ask? Because in order to pre-fetch this data, Vista's superfetch creates a pre-fetch file that never stops being updated. The term hard drive thrashing comes to mind on this note.

If you don't believe me, just search up information about Vista's superfetch. I'm sure you'll not like what you here if your not a super power user that does everything at the same time every day with a 64bit OS and over 4gigs of ram.

I'm defenitely not one of those users.

Not quite to the same level as you can simply mod your interface with GTK themes.

You can get rid of some of the things with vista but you are practically handicapped when it comes to really modding the interface easily

Ah, no you see, I have no idea what you're talking about. I was just boosting my post count with a minimal bit of info I knew.

Like I said, I'm probably the target user for vista, I don't know an interface from a floating window with snake in it. I like Vista because I can get around it easily, quickly and fairly intuitively, and I don't have to install anything to do what I want, or at least install very little. A guy who just wants to drive the car, not optimise the engine and put in speakers.

*wanders off in blissful ignorance*
The embarrassing thing is both my parents taught computing, and at home there are bookcases filled with things on C++ etc. But I know nothing about how the magic box works

Ah, no you see, I have no idea what you're talking about. I was just boosting my post count with a minimal bit of info I knew.

Like I said, I'm probably the target user for vista, I don't know an interface from a floating window with snake in it. I like Vista because I can get around it easily, quickly and fairly intuitively, and I don't have to install anything to do what I want, or at least install very little. A guy who just wants to drive the car, not optimise the engine and put in speakers.

*wanders off in blissful ignorance*
The embarrassing thing is both my parents taught computing, and at home there are bookcases filled with things on C++ etc. But I know nothing about how the magic box works

Hehe.

But seriously, give *nix a try sometime. Ubuntu or the like are incredibly simple to install, simple to use, fast, secure, and very prettyful. They get everything set up automagically, software just works*, and you never even need to see a command line. All the software you'll need is there, and if you want more, you can install it (and uninstall it) at the click of a mouse.

But they also have that down there if you ever do get curious. You can dig down into the internals and change nearly everything. You can configure it to your wishes, from just changing the colours and fonts, to tweaking how things run and how windows behave, to wholly changing the user interface or rebuilding core system components. But you never need to do that, it's just there if you want to.

People have this perception that Linux is like an airplane you build from a kit. It isn't. It can be, if you want it to, and you can go and change the very fundamentals if you so wish, but you really don't need to. It's perfectly possible for a Linux user to be much like a Windows user. You point and click on the pretty icons, browse the web, chat to your friends, write letters, etc. But when you think "No, I don't really like $x", you can change it. Whether $x is just the font, or whether it's the specifics of your kernel's acpi modules**.

That's why it's superior for almost all purposes. As it stands, the only edge Windows still can really claim to hold is on gaming, and the importance of that varies by user.

*This needs qualification. Installing a random executable off the net will not just work. Installing something through their own systems, which are very powerful and contain nearly everything you will ever need, will just work. All the essential programs will be pulled in and set up, everything will be automatically configured, it'll appear in a logical place in the menus.

**For an example of this: I went to a technical conference recently. Of the Linux/unix systems there, I saw seven or eight different flavours, several window managers, dozens of editors, etc. Each person had a configuration that reflected exactly what they wanted to be able to do with it and their preferred ways of interfacing with a computer.

As a heavy computer user I have a thing with doing my research on things before I buy it. Which means. That I actually try everything software wise. I have personally tried many forms of Operating system. Every windows release that has ever been released to the public, Every form of Mac OS (this includes 1-9 and then the modern flavors of OS X, even apple DOS) I even work with Linux quite often. Now when it comes to Windows I look at the steps they made from each versions requirements. When Windows 95 was launched it could run on any computer that could run the previous version. which for most people was windows 3.11 for workgroups. the same almost applied for windows 98 except it said that it required 32 mb of ram (it ran in less with no modification.) but the idea was that everyone that had a computer at those times could run the OS. now when windows 2000 was launched it required 64 mb of ram, sure that seems like a pretty big jump, but most of the computers that people were buying before it's launch had 128 mb or Ram in them anyway. (yeah I skipped ME because it was trash anyway it took lots of modifications to make it stable) For XP when launched it was the first one that required a p2 processor minimum. but by that time everyone had pIII or P4. and the Ram Requirement was 128 mb (at launch before any service packs) where once again most people had 256 or better. the interface scared some people but with a few clicks it could be put back to the classic look (as with Vista from what I have seen but that's immaterial) But then when Vista was Launched most people had maybe 512mb of ram and integrated video which saps some from the system ram to do graphic processing. Now looking at the requirements of Vista I was appalled to see that all the computers that were even close wouldn't run it because the minimum Ram was 1 gb which is quite the jump from 128mb of the previous launch. not to mention that you had to have a at least a 1ghz processor now these requirements may seem lean because they are... you try running vista on what they recommend and you will quickly find that it is terribly slow even with it set to classic mode (windows 2000/server 2003) you needed an even faster processor than that (or a multi core hint hint) and more Ram to even come close to the usable speeds of previous versions. Not to mention all the Trusted computing stuff they snuck in there. Now I am not a software pirate but when it comes to what programs I want to run I don't want my computer to be able to tell me no just because the TPM (trusted platform Module or something like that Which is part of nearly every modern computers motherboard) has that program blacklisted. Many people call it treacherous computing because the software and hardware Giants are taking the side of big business. (MPAA, RIAA, etc.) instead of making the customer happy.

So take this however you see fit. if you want more information on trusted computing, google it. They will say it is to keep "Malicious code" from running but at what cost? It didn't stop Securom from Running which is a very Malicious code. But here's a bit of info that may scare you. your computer is calling home... even when it isn't on as long as it is on an "Always on" internet source the TPM on the motherboard calls home and updates it's "Blacklist" to be able to block new code.

Okay so I got a little off subject... my point is that With Vista, Microsoft catered to the ones with the most money... big business. not the main focus of their money source... "the Users" Me personally I don't even use windows XP, I use a modified windows 2000. no "Window Genuine advantage" for me because I have had that eat a windows XP install before... plus them constantly wanting to upgrade it to make sure you "Paid" for your software. Yes I pay for software, but I shouldn't have to prove it every time I want to get an update.

On a side note... Ever notice how the performance of XP has been slowly getting worse with each update? It's because Microsoft is doing their trick of sending out what I like to call "Kill patches" these Patches say they fix a security hole... but it actually eats away at the performance with each update. It's all a ploy for them to get more people to switch to Vista by making them think "Oh no my computer is dying, I need to get a new one". And they have done if for every Internet enabled version of windows.(95, 98, nt4, me, 2000, XP) Eventually when Windows 7 is launched (even higher requirements guaranteed ) Vista will get these bum patches as well.

Hell no, the memory use of Windows caching schemes is dynamic: The more an application needs memory the less Windows uses memory.

I've tested this in XP I can hardly fathom how the mechanic wouldn't exist in Vista.

Really: Using memory is GOOD, as long as you have the memory to spare, because that means you have less to read-on-demand.

Ahem...
Really: Using memory is GOOD, as long as you have the memory to spare, because that means you have less to read-on-demand.
in other words. MEMORY HOG!

and I note you didn't answer UNIverseVERSE question as to how much Memory Vista uses.

Yes, to a degree. I still consider Qt and GTK themes to really be fairly cosmetic changes, but that's because I've seen what the E guys are doing.

I live in a UXterm and a Conkeror session anyway, so themes affect me very little. Hence I use a really minimalist wm, as my display is small enough already.

Ahhh I alternate mostly I just kind of found a home in XFCE is the best balance with how I do things

Thats what I love about the ability to customize ... someone that finds a home in a more graphical interface like Gnome or KDE have that option ... thoes of us who are middle ground have that and minimalists have theirs

Snip
That's why it's superior for almost all purposes. As it stands, the only edge Windows still can really claim to hold is on gaming, and the importance of that varies by user.

Snip

While I agree overall as I am a fan myself I would qualify this, while we are primarily discussing home machines windows does have some powerful technologies behind it for the server/business settings that have yet to be truly matched by a rival.

May not be a big deal but it is one of the big motivators for the continual use in the work place, which often has an impact on what people choose for their home environment

Hell no, the memory use of Windows caching schemes is dynamic: The more an application needs memory the less Windows uses memory.

I've tested this in XP I can hardly fathom how the mechanic wouldn't exist in Vista.

Really: Using memory is GOOD, as long as you have the memory to spare, because that means you have less to read-on-demand.

Not for me where my memory usage changes drastically, plus I do some heavy test environment virtualization that even if it was a viable option on vista it tends to compete for memory as the virtual's ram vary widely

Ahem...

in other words. MEMORY HOG!
You misinterpreted my point: If you have FREE memory then why shouldn't the OS use it for caching, etc.. purposes?

Let's say you have 2 gigs, to my mind the most optimal use for OS with minimal application load would be around 1.5 to 1.8 gigs. With one gig it would be 750-800 megs. The problem arises if the OS would try to use that 1.5 gigs on a 1 gig machine or would be incapable of freeing memory fast enough for a bigger application like a modern game.

...and I note you didn't answer UNIverseVERSE question as to how much Memory Vista uses.
No idea, I don't have Vista. :tongue:

You misinterpreted my point: If you have FREE memory then why shouldn't the OS use it for caching, etc.. purposes?

Let's say you have 2 gigs, to my mind the most optimal use for OS with minimal application load would be around 1.5 to 1.8 gigs. With one gig it would be 750-800 megs. The problem arises if the OS would try to use that 1.5 gigs on a 1 gig machine or would be incapable of freeing memory fast enough for a bigger application like a modern game.

except, if we take your example. you have 2 Gigs. normally, the OS would use what it needs to use. say... 1 gig. that leaves 1 gig for other programs to use. as the OS needs more, then it will use more AS NEEDED.

what you said Vista does is it takes and reserves memory for all the apps it launches so that the OS can run faster. bascially, instead of using only the 1gig, it will then take 1.5 gigs leaving .5 gigs (half of what's supposed to be left) for other programs to use.

FREE Memory SHOULD be used by other programs you are using and NOT reserved by your OS for your OS. that is BAD memory management.

I loaded NERO7 on a family member's vista machine. I clicked to open it and 5 minutes later, I'm still staring at the desktop. so I click on it again and wait another 5 minutes. after the forth time, I opened up the Task manager and lo and behold, the processes show 4 instances of Nero attempting to open up but unable to because Vista is hogging all the memory. nothing else is opened yet because of all the bells and whistles that vista has opened by default is eating up the memory.

sorry but Vista Sucks!

except, if we take your example. you have 2 Gigs. normally, the OS would use what it needs to use. say... 1 gig. that leaves 1 gig for other programs to use. as the OS needs more, then it will use more AS NEEDED.
My idea is that despite using 75-80% of memory - 1.5 gigs out of 2 gigs - the OS would leave ~75% - 1.5 gigs out of 2 gigs - free for application use, either by not really requiring the memory - ie. it's disposable cache - or using swap file as an alternative source for non-critical allocations. In any case, by having that 75% almost instantly reallocatable if an application requires the memory.

I'm uncertain how big the physical memory footprint - the absolutely required physical memory - for Vista is but I seriously doubt it's northward of 200 megs, even with the fancy window manager, Aero or whatsamacallit, turned on.

I loaded NERO7 on a family member's vista machine. I clicked to open it and 5 minutes later, I'm still staring at the desktop. so I click on it again and wait another 5 minutes. after the forth time, I opened up the Task manager and lo and behold, the processes show 4 instances of Nero attempting to open up but unable to because Vista is hogging all the memory. nothing else is opened yet because of all the bells and whistles that vista has opened by default is eating up the memory.

sorry but Vista Sucks!
I've had mixed usability experiences with it.

On a laptop with shared GPU/System memory of 1 gig it is horribly laggy, albeit the laptop's default installation has garbage like active virus scanners et al running.

On a desktop with 2 gigs of ram it's otherwise smooth but the HDD access is painfully slow - I'mma thinking it's the same virus software or indexing that's the culprit here.

Neither is my machine so I haven't really tweaked or tested 'em.

My idea is that despite using 75-80% of memory - 1.5 gigs out of 2 gigs - the OS would leave ~75% - 1.5 gigs out of 2 gigs - free for application use, either by not really requiring the memory - ie. it's disposable cache - or using swap file as an alternative source for non-critical allocations. In any case, by having that 75% almost instantly reallocatable if an application requires the memory. except that it's leaving less memory available for other programs. so Vista is hogging memory for it's use. you did say it's loading all sorts of things into memory.

I'm uncertain how big the physical memory footprint - the absolutely required physical memory - for Vista is but I seriously doubt it's northward of 200 megs, even with the fancy window manager, Aero or whatsamacallit, turned on. just building on your example. which said it uses 1.5 gigs. add to that MMORPGS and other high memory use applications and you got a RAM problem.


I've had mixed usability experiences with it.

On a laptop with shared GPU/System memory of 1 gig it is horribly laggy, albeit the laptop's default installation has garbage like active virus scanners et al running.

On a desktop with 2 gigs of ram it's otherwise smooth but the HDD access is painfully slow - I'mma thinking it's the same virus software or indexing that's the culprit here.

Neither is my machine so I haven't really tweaked or tested 'em.
so... on a 1 gig, it's laggy...

and on a 2 Gig... it's... guess what... laggy.

yet you think it's the virus scanner. is this VISTA's Virus Scanner?
(yes, I understand it's not your computer/laptop. ;))

just building on your example. which said it uses 1.5 gigs. add to that MMORPGS and other high memory use applications and you got a RAM problem.
I said that using 1.5 gigs isn't a problem because the actual requirement is a lot less, ie. out of 2 gig memory with 1.5 gigs used the actual amount of free physical memory should be ~1.5 gigs and 1.8 if absolutely necessary.

Most current applications fit well within 200-250 megabytes which is why I think that should be a "reasonable" limit on a 1 gig machine ie. OS reserves 750-800 megs until memory is actually required by an application. In case you start an application - most often a modern game - that requires more than quarter of a gig, maximum of few second lag while extra space is cleared still shouldn't be a big problem.

IF Vista's memory use scheme is too agressive or doesn't take advantage of swap THEN it might be a problem. I haven't seen evidence pointing to that though.
yet you think it's the virus scanner. is this VISTA's Virus Scanner?
(yes, I understand it's not your computer/laptop. ;))
No, it's N-something, not Norton though. Was it Norman? I wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole myself anyways.

I loaded NERO7 on a family member's vista machine. I clicked to open it and 5 minutes later, I'm still staring at the desktop. so I click on it again and wait another 5 minutes. after the forth time, I opened up the Task manager and lo and behold, the processes show 4 instances of Nero attempting to open up but unable to because Vista is hogging all the memory. nothing else is opened yet because of all the bells and whistles that vista has opened by default is eating up the memory.

sorry but Vista Sucks!

I quite simply refuse to believe that this is true.

except, if we take your example. you have 2 Gigs. normally, the OS would use what it needs to use. say... 1 gig. that leaves 1 gig for other programs to use. as the OS needs more, then it will use more AS NEEDED.

what you said Vista does is it takes and reserves memory for all the apps it launches so that the OS can run faster. bascially, instead of using only the 1gig, it will then take 1.5 gigs leaving .5 gigs (half of what's supposed to be left) for other programs to use.

FREE Memory SHOULD be used by other programs you are using and NOT reserved by your OS for your OS. that is BAD memory management.

I loaded NERO7 on a family member's vista machine. I clicked to open it and 5 minutes later, I'm still staring at the desktop. so I click on it again and wait another 5 minutes. after the forth time, I opened up the Task manager and lo and behold, the processes show 4 instances of Nero attempting to open up but unable to because Vista is hogging all the memory. nothing else is opened yet because of all the bells and whistles that vista has opened by default is eating up the memory.

sorry but Vista Sucks!
Vista only sucks until you customize it not to suck so much. Hubby turned off all the bullshit clogging stuff.....and it's fine now.

Not great, I mean, not Ubuntu, but adequate. I had to go back to an XP machine for a week while my computer was being repaired and bleh, there are definatly things on Vista that I have become addicted to (like independently controlling volume on different programs) and things on XP that I miss (like being able to mass upload pics).......but Vista is better and crashes less....it just takes some customization. (hubby reminded me that he had to customize the shit out of XP before I quit hating it too when I first got it)

I said that using 1.5 gigs isn't a problem because the actual requirement is a lot less, ie. out of 2 gig memory with 1.5 gigs used the actual amount of free physical memory should be ~1.5 gigs and 1.8 if absolutely necessary. yet you said it reseves 1.5 Gigs for it's [OS] use. that mean's that leave .5 gigs for the other programs. When people say lag, it's not just the OS but everything. including other programs.

Here, take three gallons of water. remove 2.5 gallons and set it aside. that's what Vista is using. you use the rest for everything else. including washing dishes, drinking and bathing. see how much you can get done.

Most current applications fit well within 200-250 megabytes which is why I think that should be a "reasonable" limit on a 1 gig machine ie. OS reserves 750-800 megs until memory is actually required by an application. In case you start an application - most often a modern game - that requires more than quarter of a gig, maximum of few second lag while extra space is cleared still shouldn't be a big problem. ever heard of multitasking?

at work I have 10 programs MINIMUM open (Not counting the OS.) add to that other programs not work related like I.E. (for NSG) :tongue:.

so how much Memory am I using NOT counting the OS? more than what you estimate Vista leaves.

IF Vista's memory use scheme is too agressive or doesn't take advantage of swap THEN it might be a problem. I haven't seen evidence pointing to that though. well, it does sound like you're not really using the vista machine. only hopping on from time to time.

I quite simply refuse to believe that this is true. it happening right now on my father's pc.
remember, I said Processes. not Tasks. ;)

Vista only sucks until you customize it not to suck so much. Hubby turned off all the bullshit clogging stuff.....and it's fine now.

Not great, I mean, not Ubuntu, but adequate. I had to go back to an XP machine for a week while my computer was being repaired and bleh, there are definatly things on Vista that I have become addicted to (like independently controlling volume on different programs) and things on XP that I miss (like being able to mass upload pics).......but Vista is better and crashes less....it just takes some customization. (hubby reminded me that he had to customize the shit out of XP before I quit hating it too when I first got it)

Point. alot of OS need Customization. and Alot of Vista's... pains... are needed because my Father isn't the most... let's just say Newbies would call him a n00b. (his last pc crashed due to the sheer weight of viruses, adware and general crap that was on it because he just has to click on download for almost everything.) he needs all that headaches active. so I really can't customize it to my preferences. :(

edit: BTW. XP had minimal customization for me. I could load it then use it effectively. same with 98, 95 and 3.1 the fact that VISTA is going to need customization for it to get to the point of usuablility is a minus in my book.

I like it. It just hog memory, esp aero, but I just got the uxtheme hack for vista and got memory reduced interfaces (Y)

My cheap desktop computer only has 798 or so RAM and runs Vista Home Premium quite nicely though it uses about 60% total with Comodo, Avira, and Firefox running :/

I guess the memory hog argument can be used dependent on the type of user running certain programs.

XP still works quite nicely for me, that's the main reason why I don't use Vista. In the future it's entirely possible that I'll try out a newer Windows version, but by that time there's probably also the Google OS.

I quite simply refuse to believe that this is true.

I dont know ... I am not saying it is necessarily memory but i have seen this sort of behavior out of both vista and Server08

Though I attributed the 08 problem to a low resource virtual (it was only a domain controller)

I wonder if they had someone there to 'demo' the vista for those people. to me that's cheating. when Joe Average gets his computer from the store, is there a vista person to show Joe how Vista works?

Eh, I've met Joe, he just downloads porn.

While I agree overall as I am a fan myself I would qualify this, while we are primarily discussing home machines windows does have some powerful technologies behind it for the server/business settings that have yet to be truly matched by a rival.

May not be a big deal but it is one of the big motivators for the continual use in the work place, which often has an impact on what people choose for their home environment

Maybe. OTOH, the *n?x systems also have some technologies behind them that Windows has yet to truly rival, so we can broadly call it a draw there.

There's a reason you don't do remote administration of hundreds of Windows servers, after all. Not if you can help it, anyway.

My idea is that despite using 75-80% of memory - 1.5 gigs out of 2 gigs - the OS would leave ~75% - 1.5 gigs out of 2 gigs - free for application use, either by not really requiring the memory - ie. it's disposable cache - or using swap file as an alternative source for non-critical allocations. In any case, by having that 75% almost instantly reallocatable if an application requires the memory.

I'm uncertain how big the physical memory footprint - the absolutely required physical memory - for Vista is but I seriously doubt it's northward of 200 megs, even with the fancy window manager, Aero or whatsamacallit, turned on.

That I very much doubt. Microsoft (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/919183) consider the absolute minimum to be 448MB for Home Basic. And Microsoft (along with all commercial software vendors) have a well known habit of setting minimum requirements incredibly low. XP is claimed (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314865/en-us) to run on a Pentium 233 with 64MB of RAM, but it's well known that you really want a much better system.

I've had mixed usability experiences with it.

On a laptop with shared GPU/System memory of 1 gig it is horribly laggy, albeit the laptop's default installation has garbage like active virus scanners et al running.

On a desktop with 2 gigs of ram it's otherwise smooth but the HDD access is painfully slow - I'mma thinking it's the same virus software or indexing that's the culprit here.

Neither is my machine so I haven't really tweaked or tested 'em.

I case my rest. 1 to 2 gigs of ram, and you're starting to get to usability. As El Reg said "Linux runs in 512MB like XP in 1GB and Vista in 2GB".

For comparison, on a netbook with 512MB of memory my system runs perfectly fast and snappily. It loads rapidly, suspends and resumes on command, can compile and run software, change WMs on the fly, typesets documents, and doesn't lag from all of those.

Even critics who like it say it's a memory hog, which it is.

Ah, shades of the comments people said about that stupid Windows XP verses their trusted Windows 98.

Ah, shades of the comments people said about that stupid Windows XP verses their trusted Windows 98.

Look. According to MS's own figures, which I linked to in my previous post, Vista Home Basic demands 8 times the minimum RAM of XP Home. The general consensus is more generous --- it only requires about twice, but that's because of how much MS push down minimum system requirements from those needed for practical use.

Compared to practically every other modern operating system, and to XP besides, it is excessive in its memory use.

Linux is an inferior OS, used by those who want to feel like a rebel, fighting against the all-powerful Microsoft corporation. I've had a Mac, completely unimpressed. I've tried Linux, it just isn't as good as Windows.

I've made countless mods, and a few small games using Python on Windows. Windows is just BETTER!

Oh, and any computer that refuses to run windows 2k needs to be looked at, or put in a museum.

*sigh*

Fanbois are everywhere. I'll be honest, I'm a windows man through and through but even I don't sink to this level of stupidity.

Linux isn't an inferior OS. In fact it's equal or superior in many ways to windows. The problem is marketing of linux to the general public, microsoft's entrenched reputation, and the fact that linux does not have a 'killer app' like windows had with "Lotus 123".

Oh, any computer that refuses to run Windows 2k could be perfect for a headless router/gateway/firewall or even a media server. I run an AMD K6 2-500 with 2GBs of ram as an MP3 server (+90,000 MP3s)...it runs WIN NT 4.0 just fine. Same with the P2-300 with 512MB of RAM running as a configurable linux firewall.

There are true power users and Techs, and then there are the fanbois and gamers. You can always tell the two apart because the fanbois and gamers toss out any hardware that isn't top specced or is 'old and useless'. The true geeks never toss any hardware out unless it is truely damaged beyond repair. Also true geeks explore all options and try everything they can.

Fanbois and gamers are like the Ford/Chevy/Dodge crowd....pointless and they blow a lot of smoke.

Look. According to MS's own figures, which I linked to in my previous post, Vista Home Basic demands 8 times the minimum RAM of XP Home. The general consensus is more generous --- it only requires about twice, but that's because of how much MS push down minimum system requirements from those needed for practical use.

Compared to practically every other modern operating system, and to XP besides, it is excessive in its memory use.

Yes, an OS released in 2007/2008 verse an OS released in 2000/2001. Surely they wouldn't up any memory requirements or have new features. Surely some of the features wouldn't have larger memory requirements than features in a nearly 10 year old OS.

I'll just point to previous posts by others that discribe the memory features.

Maybe. OTOH, the *n?x systems also have some technologies behind them that Windows has yet to truly rival, so we can broadly call it a draw there.

There's a reason you don't do remote administration of hundreds of Windows servers, after all. Not if you can help it, anyway.

The technologies i was eluding to were not necessarily residing on the machines themselves, things like exchange, true remote resource redirection (think terminal servers or citrix), blackbery/exchange integration

As workstations I think they are fine, heck I use it myself but in the end the only way I get by doing so is because I have a windows terminal server that allows me to use outlook and interface with the rest of the organization

As for remote administration thats what we do ... we have over 500 (actually I think we just rolled out 523) servers that we remote administer, all various flavors of 2000,2003 (primary) (Both STD and Enterprise) and 2008 and they are plenty easy to administer large scale.

In fact I would say when you integrate them into the right domain trust architecture they are about as easy as it gets

Ah, shades of the comments people said about that stupid Windows XP verses their trusted Windows 98.

except to upgrade my system to run XP resonably well only required me to add memory.

not buy a whole new system like Vista requires. ;)