Why do people hate Vista?

[nerp]

DRM? What's that?

(goes back to listening to a great radio stream as a CD is ripping and an XviD is encoding)

 

[ielmox]

Originally posted by: Smilin
If you would like to focus on additional aspects of your system restore conversation we can do that. Honestly I find you a bit tiresome though. Do you really want to go into how much of a drain system restore is on your system when it spins for 2 seconds once every 24 hours? Is that **really** an argument you want to have?

You add nothing new to the argument, you're simply repeating the same crap you were hand-waving about before when you got in a tiff following an emotional reaction to minor comment pertaining to your dear MS SR. I already explained and clarified my position, and I have backed up all my claims with relevant cites. If you have something new and of substance to add, go right ahead. Otherwise consider my original point not only intact but reinforced: system restore is a resource hog for all the reasons already stated and with the weight of authority already provided.

 

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: hooflung
The idea behind Vista is grand. The DRM shows pretty conclusively that trusted computing is misrepresenting the core ideals of what trusted computing actually is. It should be 'mis'trusting computing.

Microsoft cares more for its partners than it does the back of the people who put their products on the map.

Number one. Trusted computing has other uses besides DRM. Bitlocker encryption depends on TPM to work.

Number two. Many Motherboards (especially desktop motherboards) do not even have a TPM chip. The DRM in Vista still works without it.

Number three. How has DRM actually affected your ability to play back your legally purchased multimedia? I have problems with DRM because of fair use violations. However, it has never stopped me from playing my legally purchased multimedia.

 

[gsellis]

Originally posted by: bsobel

Originally posted by: hooflung
The idea behind Vista is grand. The DRM shows pretty conclusively that trusted computing is misrepresenting the core ideals of what trusted computing actually is. It should be 'mis'trusting computing.

Microsoft cares more for its partners than it does the back of the people who put their products on the map.

Perhaps you can explain exactly how DRM has inconveinced you or stopped you from doing anything other than stealing content?

OT rant.... sorry
Yes, please enlighten us. I am working on a video production that will be offered through Unbox. Pay per view or order disc as options. The Pay per view will have DRM to enforce it. About $2 to 'rent' the content (just like Netflix or Blockbuster - will D/L to Tivo). I need the money to pay for doing more projects in the series. You can bet I will be very aggressive about making sure it is not shared for free. Giving it away means no more cash for the next one. I am doing music REALLY cheap on this one and that will be about $200 - normal royalty free music is $50-100 a track, I am using Revostock at $10 a track, but will not have much of a new selection for the next DVD. Yep, I have to pay for music as they too must eat. Not all money goes to the record companies. For video, you must pay Syncronization rights that go to the song writer through his/her/their publishing company. Then you also need to pay Master Use rights for the track itself. Example, Ice Road Truckers had a Bon Jovi song. It was added after edit by the production company. The production company could not afford the 6 digit price tag, but the History Channel could (or was it Discovery and Deadliest Catch? - the same production company did those and Lobster Wars; attended a editing session with them by Avid).

//end rant - sorry

And for the record, quoting Black Viper here is a way to show that you do not know as much about operating systems that many of the participants in the forum do. There are some serious flaws with his logic that experienced OS developers spot a mile away. If you really want to get into it, check out a David Solomon class.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: ielmox

Originally posted by: Smilin
If you would like to focus on additional aspects of your system restore conversation we can do that. Honestly I find you a bit tiresome though. Do you really want to go into how much of a drain system restore is on your system when it spins for 2 seconds once every 24 hours? Is that **really** an argument you want to have?

You add nothing new to the argument, you're simply repeating the same crap you were hand-waving about before when you got in a tiff following an emotional reaction to minor comment pertaining to your dear MS SR. I already explained and clarified my position, and I have backed up all my claims with relevant cites. If you have something new and of substance to add, go right ahead. Otherwise consider my original point not only intact but reinforced: system restore is a resource hog for all the reasons already stated and with the weight of authority already provided.

You live in a special, special world where reality bends around and ignorance turns into pure sunshine. Since I'm not "out there" with you why don't you remind me again where you proved system restore is a resource hog? Perhaps you'll explain:

How much cpu does it eat?
How much memory?
How much disk space?
What other "resource" are youreferring to?

The only thing it even remotely consumes is disk space. That argument has been beat to death. Move the slider or stand back while SR automatically reduces it's footprint as needed.

How much CPU and memory does it consume? If you run something resource intensive like say video editing or a game for 24 hours straight (insane!) what percentage of frames do you think will fail to render because of this "hog"?

c'mon don't give up. You're on the threshold of proving your point and stopping my laughter. I can just feel it!!

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: lxskllr

Originally posted by: Smilin

You should like call and talk to one of the guys that has supported system restore at Microsoft. I bet those guys have seen every SR case known to man and know the ins-and-outs and limitations. They might know what works, what doesn't and even have access to the SR source code. Heck I bet they've even seen dozens of cases where people claim performance issues but when troubleshot down to root cause it turns out to be something else. (someone here knows where I'm going with this... )

Do you have his number? :Q

I'm not giving out my number here

 

[Brazen]

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: ielmox

Originally posted by: Smilin
If you would like to focus on additional aspects of your system restore conversation we can do that. Honestly I find you a bit tiresome though. Do you really want to go into how much of a drain system restore is on your system when it spins for 2 seconds once every 24 hours? Is that **really** an argument you want to have?

You add nothing new to the argument, you're simply repeating the same crap you were hand-waving about before when you got in a tiff following an emotional reaction to minor comment pertaining to your dear MS SR. I already explained and clarified my position, and I have backed up all my claims with relevant cites. If you have something new and of substance to add, go right ahead. Otherwise consider my original point not only intact but reinforced: system restore is a resource hog for all the reasons already stated and with the weight of authority already provided.

You live in a special, special world where reality bends around and ignorance turns into pure sunshine. Since I'm not "out there" with you why don't you remind me again where you proved system restore is a resource hog? Perhaps you'll explain:

How much cpu does it eat?
How much memory?
How much disk space?
What other "resource" are youreferring to?

The only thing it even remotely consumes is disk space. That argument has been beat to death. Move the slider or stand back while SR automatically reduces it's footprint as needed.

How much CPU and memory does it consume? If you run something resource intensive like say video editing or a game for 24 hours straight (insane!) what percentage of frames do you think will fail to render because of this "hog"?

c'mon don't give up. You're on the threshold of proving your point and stopping my laughter. I can just feel it!!

Ok, here's an idea that just might be crazy enough to work: Smilin, how about you leave System Restore enabled on your computer, and ielmox, how about you disable System Restore on your computer. I know it sounds crazy, but it's worth a shot. Then maybe both of you can be happy.

 

[Smilin]

I reserve the right to laught at dumb crap.

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: ielmox

Originally posted by: Smilin
If you would like to focus on additional aspects of your system restore conversation we can do that. Honestly I find you a bit tiresome though. Do you really want to go into how much of a drain system restore is on your system when it spins for 2 seconds once every 24 hours? Is that **really** an argument you want to have?

You add nothing new to the argument, you're simply repeating the same crap you were hand-waving about before when you got in a tiff following an emotional reaction to minor comment pertaining to your dear MS SR. I already explained and clarified my position, and I have backed up all my claims with relevant cites. If you have something new and of substance to add, go right ahead. Otherwise consider my original point not only intact but reinforced: system restore is a resource hog for all the reasons already stated and with the weight of authority already provided.

Actually you haven't proven anything, you've made ubsubstantiated claims. At this point your close to simply trolling so advise you to let it drop.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: bsobel

Originally posted by: ielmox

Originally posted by: Smilin
If you would like to focus on additional aspects of your system restore conversation we can do that. Honestly I find you a bit tiresome though. Do you really want to go into how much of a drain system restore is on your system when it spins for 2 seconds once every 24 hours? Is that **really** an argument you want to have?

You add nothing new to the argument, you're simply repeating the same crap you were hand-waving about before when you got in a tiff following an emotional reaction to minor comment pertaining to your dear MS SR. I already explained and clarified my position, and I have backed up all my claims with relevant cites. If you have something new and of substance to add, go right ahead. Otherwise consider my original point not only intact but reinforced: system restore is a resource hog for all the reasons already stated and with the weight of authority already provided.

Actually you haven't proven anything, you've made ubsubstantiated claims. At this point your close to simply trolling so advise you to let it drop.

I'm not helping matters. I'll drop my end of it.

This whole thread is starting to attract flies these days.

 

[themisfit610]

Those benchmarks were taking near the release of Vista, using early drivers. When SP1 comes out and the drivers have matured, I doubt there will be a performance difference. The same was true when Windows XP was release. Most programs ran faster in Windows 98.

That's a very good point. At SP1, I will definitely give Vista another look. The fact remains however that XP is still faster. Not by much though, and having the "it's slower, why switch" attitude is what keeps people running Windows 2k (and even 98 for some scenarios) to this day.

Personally, I don't like the new organizational concepts. The new Start menu is confusing to me, and the idea that an OS should be built around facilitating user search seems backwards. It's definitely the popular thing to do (look at Mac OS X and all the Google stuff), but I know where my stuff is, thank you very much. I can't remember the last time I had to search for something.

That in and of itself is the main reason why I have yet to switch to Vista (driver issues, overall speed vs XP, and cost issues set aside). It has a lot of potential, and I'm sure I will run it eventually.

~Misfit

 

[n7]

I have SP1 beta on my notebook.

I should really test it on my desktop, but i don't see any point.

I don't understand what you guys think is going to be magically better in SP1...

Yes, there will be some changes under the skin, but thus far, i've noticed nothing really different.

The whole concept of waiting for a Service Pack is silliness these days IMO, since there's not much to change.

 

[n7]

Okay, i decided to double check on my statement about not waiting in case there's something truely magical about SP1 i haven't noticed yet since installing it.

Sure enough, nope.

Some reading for those who still think waiting for SP1 is going to drastically change the way things run in Vista:
http://www.winsupersite.com/faq/vista_sp1.asp
http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_sp1.asp

It's pretty much all minor changes that at least will not affect how we use the OS. At All.

Seriously, what is there to wait for?

 

[themisfit610]

Well, I was hoping for some memory usage improvements, maybe a bit of general speedup?

Maybe I ask for too much.

One other thing that drives me absolutely bonkers with Vista is its constant prompting for your admin password if you need to do anything. It's a very annoying system. I don't quite get why you have to do it so often.

I understand the issue at hand, but I think that (for example) Mac OS X handles things better. It's almost easier to use a limited user on XP, and do a run-as for admin level tasks (almost).

This is one thing that needs to be rethought IMO. I know it wasn't on the books for SP1.

~MiSfit

 

[BehindEnemyLines]

There are times I wonder why UAC prompt appears when it doesn't really make sense. For example (these are my opinions), the button that opens up Resource Monitor - it only monitor, right? I just want to see what process is accessing which file.

And moving shortcuts from within the Start Menu like we could with XP (the drag and drop method - click on an item and try to drag that item into another folder inside the Start Menu - some work, most don't as you will get a "no" icon). I have to use Explorer and answer to at least two UAC prompts before I can move a folder.

Those annoys the hell out of me. Otherwise, it's much better than XP. I haven't boot into XP for at least two months already.

 

[ShawnD1]

Originally posted by: themisfit610
One other thing that drives me absolutely bonkers with Vista is its constant prompting for your admin password if you need to do anything.

UAC takes 5 seconds to disable.

 

[Canterwood]

Originally posted by: n7
I have SP1 beta on my notebook.

I should really test it on my desktop, but i don't see any point.

I don't understand what you guys think is going to be magically better in SP1...

Yes, there will be some changes under the skin, but thus far, i've noticed nothing really different.

The whole concept of waiting for a Service Pack is silliness these days IMO, since there's not much to change.

I think it basically comes down to this.

1) A lot of people don't like to use a brand new unproven OS, which in general will have a lot of bugs and need a lot of fixes, when they have a perfectly good and reliable OS to use already.
Let the early adopters find the bugs and workarounds.

2) Many people are more comfortable having all the current fixes and patches amalgamated into one single service pack or slipstreamed into the install disc.
There's a lot of fixes that go into service packs that aren't always available on Windows Update.

3) The year or so gap between Gold and SP1 will hopefully give people like Nvidia and Creative time to get their drivers up to scratch.
Personally I want all the features which I have in XP drivers included in Vista ones. Thats not always the case with immature drivers on a new OS. (See Creative and Nvidia again)
This also applies to vendors who need to release updated applications to work properly with Vista.

As a home user, I'll upgrade when I finally get a DX10 card and have some decent DX10 games to play. That wont be before SP1 however.

In the workplace, we have no need to switch to Vista yet.
Once SP1 is out, we'll probably start testing in earnest and begin a roll-out sometime later next year.

Either way, I think waiting for SP1 for Vista is the sensible thing to do.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: ShawnD1

Originally posted by: themisfit610
One other thing that drives me absolutely bonkers with Vista is its constant prompting for your admin password if you need to do anything.

UAC takes 5 seconds to disable.

If you are being prompted for an admin password then you are either not running as an admin or you have fooled with the default UAC settings.

Run as an admin and all you should get is a 'click a button' prompt when elevating.

I wouldn't suggest disabling UAC. It's annoying when first getting "moved in" but you shouldn't be prompted often at all for day to day use.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: BehindEnemyLines
There are times I wonder why UAC prompt appears when it doesn't really make sense. For example (these are my opinions), the button that opens up Resource Monitor - it only monitor, right? I just want to see what process is accessing which file.

You are viewing processes from users other than your own. It takes admin rights to do that. Resource monitor isn't exactly a "grandma level" application either.

 

[ielmox]

Originally posted by: Smilin
You live in a special, special world where reality bends around and ignorance turns into pure sunshine. Since I'm not "out there" with you why don't you remind me again where you proved system restore is a resource hog? Perhaps you'll explain:

Once again I invite you to address the existing arguments instead of engaging in this foolish posturing. SR consumes resources - this is not simply my position, I've also provided relevant citations, something that has been incredibly scarce from your end. In terms of specific resources used, the primary one that all sources seems to agree on is the significant chunk of hard disk space used by default, which impacts performance by increasing rate and percentage of fragmentation, requiring more indexing, taking longer to search etc. So what if you can reduce the disk quota? You can also turn the whole service off. Both methods work, the difference is turning SR off works to a greater degree, especially if you don't need restore.

Besides, you're automatically assuming that System Restore works perfectly - not a safe assumption, particularly not when you consider that different components and functions can end up compounding system problems. I refer to cases such as this one, in which a user's System Restore took up massive disk space even after the SR quota was reduced:

http://techrepublic.com.com/52...hreadID=216768&start=0

An admin who answered advised switching off System Restore too - and he cast a lot more doubt than I have on the usefulness of restore. Lack of further replies suggests the problem was happily solved with this simple fix.

Originally posted by: bsobel
Actually you haven't proven anything, you've made ubsubstantiated claims. At this point your close to simply trolling so advise you to let it drop.

Please review the actual posts and arguments and materials provided (i.e., the very definition of "substantiation"). What trolling results from is unsupported statements that are blatantly untrue - such as yours. Besides, I have no intention of getting a reaction out of anyone - exercise your reading skills and you'll see I was the one childishly attacked over an incidental remark.

I'm perfectly happy with my 4-5 year old XP installation as it is presently configured, which runs extremely fast and is, as I said, a lot snappier than my Vista box in spite of the much older hardware. It even benches strongly for a system its age and configuration (we're talking AGPx4, slow DDR1, no HT, etc.). I'm certainly not going to start making changes and increasing bloat just because a Microsoft employee feels everyone should use restore.

And regarding Black Viper (and those like him): I have no problem with gsellis's statement that there are serious flaws with his logic. Nor do I claim to know very much about operating systems. I do know that implementing a select number of viper's changes resulted in a snappy, fast, stable, and totally crash-free system that is on 24/7 for weeks at a time with no problems. So it may be true as you say that viper's theory is dodgy, but in practice (some of) his recommendations just plain work... and since that's all I want my systems to do, that's good enough for me and millions like me.

 

[lxskllr]

Originally posted by: ielmox


Besides, you're automatically assuming that System Restore works perfectly - not a safe assumption, particularly not when you consider that different components and functions can end up compounding system problems. I refer to cases such as this one, in which a user's System Restore took up massive disk space even after the SR quota was reduced:

http://techrepublic.com.com/52...hreadID=216768&start=0

An admin who answered advised switching off System Restore too - and he cast a lot more doubt than I have on the usefulness of restore. Lack of further replies suggests the problem was happily solved with this simple fix.

That link is meaningless. He's saying system restore is accounting for 70% of the used space. 70% of what? Without knowing how much space is used in total, 70% means nothing.

I would suggest you carefully read Smilin's signature, then even more carefully read all of his posts in this thread.

System restore is great. It doesn't always work perfectly in fixing a machine, but in the 3 times or so that I've used it, it's worked fine.

 

[ielmox]

Originally posted by: lxskllr
That link is meaningless. He's saying system restore is accounting for 70% of the used space. 70% of what? Without knowing how much space is used in total, 70% means nothing.

percentage of space is a standard indicator in disk applications, including the native Windows display, the System Restore quota manager, as well as Disk Keeper and similar software, all of which provide indications and recommendations based primarily on percentages. Percentage used would thus most definitely appear not to be meaningless.

Also, the guy does comment on the size of the disk, you seem to have missed that. But disk size simply isn't that relevant here, it was an instance showing how System Restore can get it totally wrong - first by seriously exceeding default disk quota (by percentage), then by exceeding the minimum disk quota (by percentage) after the user turned it down to the lowest setting (by percentage).

I would suggest you carefully read Smilin's signature, then even more carefully read all of his posts in this thread.

I'd like to return the invitation to careful reading, and further comment that I'm certainly not the one who's displayed a problem addressing the posts in this thread. That honour goes out to some of the respondents to my original innocuous message, including the main complainer you seem to revere so highly.

System restore is great. It doesn't always work perfectly in fixing a machine, but in the 3 times or so that I've used it, it's worked fine.

Good for you, I don't doubt you've had success with it. I hope you will likewise do me the favour of believing that I've never had a problem since I turned mine off, along with a bunch of other stuff that I concluded I did not need.

 

[lxskllr]

Originally posted by: ielmox


percentage of space is a standard indicator in disk applications, including the native Windows display, the System Restore quota manager, as well as Disk Keeper and similar software, all of which provide indications and recommendations based primarily on percentages. Percentage used would thus most definitely appear not to be meaningless.

Also, the guy does comment on the size of the disk, you seem to have missed that. But disk size simply isn't that relevant here, it was an instance showing how System Restore can get it totally wrong - first by seriously exceeding default disk quota (by percentage), then by exceeding the minimum disk quota (by percentage) after the user turned it down to the lowest setting (by percentage).

I understand percentages just fine. He said system restore was using 70% of the used space. The size of the drive doesn't matter in that statement. if he's using 10mb of space system restore is using 7mb. If he's using 10gb of space then system restore is using 7gb. Which is it? You can't tell from his post.

 

[ielmox]

I see what you mean, he doesn't specify how much space was used but says that "very little" was left free - a problem regardless of the precise GB actually used. Especially since the quota slider operates on a percentage, which in this case we see was hardly a limiting factor to the gobbling of resources.

 

[Smilin]

The guy never called into MS and had someone troubleshoot it down to root cause. His whole article is pure speculation.

You realize that the systemvolumeinformation folder that system restore leverages is used by more than just restore points right? VSS uses that space as well and all it takes is a misbehaving 3rd party backup app and you've got bloat everywhere and It has nothing to do with system restore. You can also flip off system restore and reclaim the space giving the illusion that SR had something to do with it.

A little something about software: it's fixed code. It does the same thing every time. If it does something different then something different is at play. If system restore ignores the disk slider it would *always* ignore the disk slider.

Look we're going round and round for nothing now. You're not even making a dent in the disk space argument and you're in utter denial regarding other resources being "hogged" like memory and cpu.


Face it, you really don't know much about system restore (did you know about the VSS thing??). I'm glad you're happy because you turned it off. It would be my experienced advice to turn it back on but it's your computer and you can do what you want. I haven't once busted your balls about turning it back on and I won't.

The reason you've been feeling the wrath is because you're trying to pass on unsubstantiated claims as facts to other users here on the board. I'll clown people all day long trying to do that. I spent a long time supporting SR so this isn't an argument you're going to win. I'd recommend you just leave it off, go forth and be happy.


(and don't forget to backup your registry hives by hand)