Users to Microsoft: 'Just make Windows faster'

[bsobel]

This may be OK for your average joe, but as someone who maintains a fairly high degree of technical awareness and utilizes paths for a variety of things, it sucks to not be able to just navigate to a directory and copy and paste the path to/from the explorer

For some with a 'high degress of techinical awareness' it surprises me that you dont know if you click on the bread crumb box it becoms a path you can cut/paste from.

window directly. And removing the "up one level" button from explorer is, in my opinion, the worst thing about Vista. If you're going to do that, atleast show . and .. in the file/directory listings.

Its still there, click on the level up bread crumb.

 

[nerp]

Originally posted by: Zbox
http://pfeifferreport.com/trends/Vista_UIF_Rep.pdf

This study is flawed because it treats people like robots.

 

[Zbox]

Originally posted by: nerp

Originally posted by: Zbox
http://pfeifferreport.com/trends/Vista_UIF_Rep.pdf

This study is flawed because it treats people like robots.

I don't know about you, but I'm enjoying my bionic arms & hands.

 

[jinsaotomex4]

Originally posted by: Smilin

Yes, yes I "get" the new method of navigating and essentially I don't really need the "up one level" button. The problem lies when I click on the breadcrumbs/path at the top of explorer. It switches to text mode (so you can copy/paste) but won't switch back to breadcrumb mode until you click somewhere else. This means I have no "up" button and no substitute method available until I do that extra click somewhere. Being a fast user it's surprisingly tedious to pause my thought process and let my eyes locate some blank space to click.

I just press tab, works for me.

 

[HannibalX]

XP & Vista are both damn fast for me. I don't have any speed issues.

Microsoft can't do ANYTHING about speed when people load up 60-70 services on a five year old PC with 512MB of ram... Morons.

 

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: Pale Rider
XP & Vista are both damn fast for me. I don't have any speed issues.

Microsoft can't do ANYTHING about speed when OEM's like Dell load up 60-70 services on a new PC with 512MB of ram... Morons.

I think this is a little more accurate.

 

[13Gigatons]

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: 13Gigatons
The sad thing is a P4 running Windows XP is about as fast as Vista on a quad core.

Ouch. Your credibility just had a BSOD 13gig. You better reboot it with some proof.

A P4 with 2GB running Windows XP and Office 2003 vs. C2Q and 6GB running Vista and Office 2007 and the feeling is about the same doing basic office tasks.

The point being the hardware is getting faster but the software is becoming slower.

 

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: 13Gigatons

A P4 with 2GB running Windows XP and Office 2003 vs. C2Q and 6GB running Vista and Office 2007 and the feeling is about the same doing basic office tasks.

The point being the hardware is getting faster but the software is becoming slower.

Of course it is going to feel about the same doing office task. Most office task don't require a whole lot of power to run fast. A real comparison is to run the same game on both machines and benchmark the differences.

 

[VinDSL]

Originally posted by: soonerproud
Of course it is going to feel about the same doing office task. Most office task don't require a whole lot of power to run fast. A real comparison is to run the same game on both machines and benchmark the differences.

Heh! Thank you!

I was waiting for someone to say this...

 

[HannibalX]

Originally posted by: soonerproud

Originally posted by: Pale Rider
XP & Vista are both damn fast for me. I don't have any speed issues.

Microsoft can't do ANYTHING about speed when OEM's like Dell load up 60-70 services on a new PC with 512MB of ram... Morons.

I think this is a little more accurate.

OEMs do like to load up retail PCs however users are FAR worse when it comes to downloading and installing every single program they come across.

 

[QuixoticOne]

I've got no real major UI speed issues with Vista, that's because I run it on what is basically state of the art hardware (quad core, 8GB RAM, fast discs, high end GPU, etc.). Although that is definitely out of the mainstream cost / commonality, and WAY beyond the 'minimum system requirements' for the OS, the fact is that it works well for the OS.

IMHO it is WISE to design a FUTURE software product to run optimally on computers that are about 2x to 4x the capability of the highest end units you can commonly find for sale when you start developing, because in 2-4 years those sorts of capabilities will be mainstream in certain markets (e.g. desktop workstation type PCs).

Although Vista runs horribly badly on today's lowest end hardware, and pretty badly even on 2-3 year old mid-range hardware (e.g. single core CPU, 1-2GB RAM, etc.), at least we can be comforted to know that mainstream hardware next year will run it pretty well not because Vista is efficient / lean, but because the average new PC will be twice as fast by then.

They messed up by marketing it FOR use on the low end / midrange systems of 2006 and 2007. They should have just raised the system requirements to dual core CPU, 1.8GHz+, 200GBy+ hard disc, 2GB DDR2 RAM, DX9 GPU better than a 6200, et. al. and it'd have been reasonably decent at meeting expectations.

The PROBLEM I have with Vista even on HIGH END hardware (and it is getting to be a WORSE problem all the time as the hardware gets BETTER), is that I feel like I'm running a NERF OS that just doesn't give me the POWER and TOOLS to do the job of taking ADVANTAGE of my high end hardware. Especially the 1TB + disc drives we have today.

It just doesn't have the SEARCH, INDEXING, METADATA, BACKUP, COPY / SYNC, DISC UPGRADE / TRANSFER, RAID, IMPORT / EXPORT capacities we need for personal terabyte (or even much less!) level file / data management.

I know they've IMPROVED these things since XP, but really it is still a pathetic failure, nowhere NEAR enough seamless easy to use capability to do the job required of it even 5 years ago much less what is here and upcoming.

Windows Home server, Media center, file sharing, et. al. are just bad jokes in terms of data backup / sharing / access / management, etc. This is probably the most critical problem with Vista and Windows 7.

The PC is a complex "thing" you have to babysit, discs get corrupted, files lost, discs crash, you have to reinstall, you lose your programs / data, you can't find anything on your own hard disc, it is near impossible to switch from one PC to another or upgrade / transfer your hard disc effectively.

The PC should be an "appliance" where you can focus on getting the job done and just NEVER have to worry about backup, data organization, program installation, migration,etc.

To get there they'll have to radically change the way everything is done.

 

[Genx87]

I ran Vista Ultimate x64 RC2 on an A643000+ with 1.5GB of ram and it ran fine. I was unbelievably surprised. That was on hardware from 2004. Todays low end hardware blows that away.

 

[spikespiegal]

Working in a computer shop for several years, I get people in who don't know their ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to computers, yet they'll come in and swear up and down that Vista is the worst thing since Lucifer betrayed God.

I guess that mean all of us corporate types who've put Vista deployments on hold because our CIO can't justify a few million dollars in hardware upgrades to run the same damn frikken applications on a different OS aren't as smart as you.

Much of the blame for poor Vista adoption rates stem directly from hardware vendors, big box sellers, and OEMs, rather than Microsoft. On a properly configured computer, Vista is far, far faster than XP.

Every application benchmark I've seen, other than pitting 32-bit XP apps -vs- 64-bit ones on Vista shows a performance hit for Vista. Christ, even MS has published this.

Also, if your aren't aware of it, MS doesn't make computers, and bullying OEM's into installing PET OS's for the benefit of MS shareholders isn't exactly a good practice.

Yet, in the quest to provide every cheaper computers and save as much money as possible, OEMs will do stupid things like sell Vista Home Premium on a system with integrated graphics and 512mb RAM.

Maybe they should add a few hundred bucks for high powered video just to run the OS desktop GUI without crawling. Not sure what makes less sense. Home users need to concentrate more on running applications that operating systems, but as long as people like you try to avert their attention to the fancy OS.....well, then perhaps they should consider Apple. Oh wait...many of them are.

The fault behind the stygma that Vista is slow lies squarely with system builders and hardware manufacturers (nVidia, this one's on you).

Wow. I thought *I* was a Microsoft apologist.

I've installed Vista on legacy and new machines about 20 times now. One thing that is perfectly clear is that my Photoshop rig running on a single core 2.2 Athlon 64 with Windows 2000 Server is orders of magnitude more responsive than anything I've yet to install Vista on, including Intel quads. Getting into a command applet in even Win2k on that processor occurs in the blink of an eye while Vista slogs along doing something in the background.

I recall having to run Terminal Server in corporate branches on P3s with 512 meg of RAM, Win2K Server, and yet being able to support over a dozen users desktop sessions and applications simultaneously, and running quite fast. Fast enough that a lot of those same boxes are still deployed and running apps.

I wonder what those older Terminal boxes score on the WEI? I know this much - the people using those older platforms and not concerned about OS benchmarks are likely making more money than those that are.

 

[QuixoticOne]

True, that isn't a bad Vista system. Today's lowest end laptops and some of the desktops (if you really scrape for a very low end one) are still a bit less than that, but, yes, almost any reasonable system today is better.

 

[QuixoticOne]

Yes it is a pity they felt the need to nerf / bloat the OS. I mean really they intentionally slow things down with default options like 'animate window opening', 'animate dialog boxes', 'fade menus into view', 'show shadows under dialogs' et. al. Good heavens, I don't want to watch a *movie* of my dialog boxes and menus pirouetting, sliding, moon-walking, break dancing, shadow puppeting into view. I want the darn things to OPEN NOW so I can CLICK THEM and BE DONE. If I want animations, shadows, lighting effects, translucency, ripples, clouds, et. al. I'll run a video game that does that all very nicely thank you.

It is like these cell phones that make you watch a 10 second movie just to turn them ON or OFF.

Apparently there is a whole generation of user interface designer that thinks that wasting peoples' times with glitzy, redundant, useless, time wasting gloss that they can't easily get rid of is a good thing.

Maybe in windows 7 we'll get to watch commercials from the sponsors while we wait for dialog boxes or something. Actually I can't really joke about this possibility, it is serious considering the emphasis on integrating video playback into basic UI components in WPF applications and silverlight. Aieeee.


Eye candy as an OPTION (default = off) may be forgivable if it doesn't bloat the install much, but really it is misguided wasting all that design time on glitzy bloated fluff when they could have been using the development resources to make core features better, more responsive not less.

I've installed Vista on legacy and new machines about 20 times now. One thing that is perfectly clear is that my Photoshop rig running on a single core 2.2 Athlon 64 with Windows 2000 Server is orders of magnitude more responsive than anything I've yet to install Vista on, including Intel quads. Getting into a command applet in even Win2k on that processor occurs in the blink of an eye while Vista slogs along doing something in the background.

Of course, it is busy updating the weather forecast so the shade of cloudy gray it displays on the dialog boxes can match the sky or something to that effect.

 

[BehindEnemyLines]

You be surprised how many people like fancy animations. I personally turn them off, but a majority of my friends with Vista like it better with the fading and such. Forgive my ignorance, but what is a "command applet"? Is that the same as the command prompt?

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: jinsaotomex4

Originally posted by: Smilin

Yes, yes I "get" the new method of navigating and essentially I don't really need the "up one level" button. The problem lies when I click on the breadcrumbs/path at the top of explorer. It switches to text mode (so you can copy/paste) but won't switch back to breadcrumb mode until you click somewhere else. This means I have no "up" button and no substitute method available until I do that extra click somewhere. Being a fast user it's surprisingly tedious to pause my thought process and let my eyes locate some blank space to click.

I just press tab, works for me.

That helps immensely, thanks! I'm still pushing for the up button though.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: 13Gigatons

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: 13Gigatons
The sad thing is a P4 running Windows XP is about as fast as Vista on a quad core.

Ouch. Your credibility just had a BSOD 13gig. You better reboot it with some proof.

A P4 with 2GB running Windows XP and Office 2003 vs. C2Q and 6GB running Vista and Office 2007 and the feeling is about the same doing basic office tasks.

The point being the hardware is getting faster but the software is becoming slower.

Doing office tasks?? Why not benchmark with notepad?

 

[TheKub]

Originally posted by: QuixoticOne
Yes it is a pity they felt the need to nerf / bloat the OS. I mean really they intentionally slow things down with default options like 'animate window opening', 'animate dialog boxes', 'fade menus into view', 'show shadows under dialogs' et. al. Good heavens, I don't want to watch a *movie* of my dialog boxes and menus pirouetting, sliding, moon-walking, break dancing, shadow puppeting into view.

??? Learn to enjoy being a minority is all the advice I have for your then.

I prefer to do things myself and don't need to be tripping over wizards to do simple tasks but I know that there are far more people that need that hand holding than not. So it makes sense to set the DEFAULTS to match the wants\needs of the majority. I'm just glad that I have to option to disable things I do not like\need. To expect them to release a "QuixoticOne" edition with a few settings tweaked is pretty retarded.

 

[nerp]

Originally posted by: TheKub

Originally posted by: QuixoticOne
Yes it is a pity they felt the need to nerf / bloat the OS. I mean really they intentionally slow things down with default options like 'animate window opening', 'animate dialog boxes', 'fade menus into view', 'show shadows under dialogs' et. al. Good heavens, I don't want to watch a *movie* of my dialog boxes and menus pirouetting, sliding, moon-walking, break dancing, shadow puppeting into view.

??? Learn to enjoy being a minority is all the advice I have for your then.

I prefer to do things myself and don't need to be tripping over wizards to do simple tasks but I know that there are far more people that need that hand holding than not. So it makes sense to set the DEFAULTS to match the wants\needs of the majority. I'm just glad that I have to option to disable things I do not like\need. To expect them to release a "QuixoticOne" edition with a few settings tweaked is pretty retarded.

And it's not like the classic interface isn't available anymore.

 

[drebo]

Originally posted by: spikespiegal

Working in a computer shop for several years, I get people in who don't know their ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to computers, yet they'll come in and swear up and down that Vista is the worst thing since Lucifer betrayed God.

I guess that mean all of us corporate types who've put Vista deployments on hold because our CIO can't justify a few million dollars in hardware upgrades to run the same damn frikken applications on a different OS aren't as smart as you.

Much of the blame for poor Vista adoption rates stem directly from hardware vendors, big box sellers, and OEMs, rather than Microsoft. On a properly configured computer, Vista is far, far faster than XP.

Every application benchmark I've seen, other than pitting 32-bit XP apps -vs- 64-bit ones on Vista shows a performance hit for Vista. Christ, even MS has published this.

Also, if your aren't aware of it, MS doesn't make computers, and bullying OEM's into installing PET OS's for the benefit of MS shareholders isn't exactly a good practice.

Yet, in the quest to provide every cheaper computers and save as much money as possible, OEMs will do stupid things like sell Vista Home Premium on a system with integrated graphics and 512mb RAM.

Maybe they should add a few hundred bucks for high powered video just to run the OS desktop GUI without crawling. Not sure what makes less sense. Home users need to concentrate more on running applications that operating systems, but as long as people like you try to avert their attention to the fancy OS.....well, then perhaps they should consider Apple. Oh wait...many of them are.

The fault behind the stygma that Vista is slow lies squarely with system builders and hardware manufacturers (nVidia, this one's on you).

Wow. I thought *I* was a Microsoft apologist.

I've installed Vista on legacy and new machines about 20 times now. One thing that is perfectly clear is that my Photoshop rig running on a single core 2.2 Athlon 64 with Windows 2000 Server is orders of magnitude more responsive than anything I've yet to install Vista on, including Intel quads. Getting into a command applet in even Win2k on that processor occurs in the blink of an eye while Vista slogs along doing something in the background.

I recall having to run Terminal Server in corporate branches on P3s with 512 meg of RAM, Win2K Server, and yet being able to support over a dozen users desktop sessions and applications simultaneously, and running quite fast. Fast enough that a lot of those same boxes are still deployed and running apps.

I wonder what those older Terminal boxes score on the WEI? I know this much - the people using those older platforms and not concerned about OS benchmarks are likely making more money than those that are.

I call bullshit on your entire post. Sorry, 90% of this blather is not true. "dozens of users desktops" on a P3 with 512mb ram? Not going to happen. Unless, of course, they're not doing anything.

This is despite the fact that I was NOT talking about the corporate market place. Vista FUD is not evident in the corporate market place. The fact that 3-year-old hardware can run an 8-year-old OS, but not a 1-year-old OS is completely irrelevant. I was talking specifically about NEW PC sales.

XP adoptions in corporations were just as slow as Vista adoptions are. However, this is completely outside the scope of my post. Nowhere did I say one word about corporate environments. However, there are just as many corporations upgrading to Vista as are not. Gallo Winery, for instance, is currently deploying Vista throughout their entire organization. I guess the fact that your one corporation decided not to (for financial reasons, not technical ones, by your own admission) upgrade means that no one is...hrm.

This has been yet another useless post in reply to an even more useless post. Go Internet!

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: drebo
While I may not like many elements of Vista (breadcrumbs are so completely stupid, give me my damn file path and the "up one level" button back), the operating system itself is not terribly bad.

Amen!