Why do people hate Vista?

[bsobel]

Many people on here including myself are talking about every day mondane use of the computer such as web browsing and file searching.

Which is working great here.

Should Vista be renamed "Vista - the Gamers choice"?

:roll: The stupidity of that statement given the general 'Vista isn't ready for gaming sentiment from many people' is astounding. You never fail to miss the point do you Dave?

Dave, you want the truth? Here goes, and I'm sure you'll find ways to complain about this. The 2k/XP architecture is a decade old, it's having problems scaling to the new breed of hardware that is becoming available and will be commodity hardware in a very short period of time (read you'll be running this stuff at home). Vista includes a number of core architectural changes to help allow the platform to scale to this new hardware. Is it the end all and be all, no. Is it a big step in the right direction, yes.

Honestly, XP doesnt' work well on my box, the box is too powerfull for it. It was never designed for this kind of hardware. Low to mid range systems running XP today aren't gonna be great Vista boxes (lets be honest, those boxes probably run best using Linux then XP then Vista). So be it, I want my OS to scale from my current 8 cores to 16, 32 (and more) that we will see coming over the next few years.

Look at my posts. I typically have said if you have 512meg and dont plan on upgrading stay with XP. If you have 1gig and will go to 2gig (and only 2gig) go with Vista 32. If you have a 64 bit ready machine and have 2 gig (or plan to get there very soon, and plan to go to MORE than 2 gig) run with Vista 64.

Does Vista have bugs, sure, as does XP (some of those bugs will be the same, as happens with evolutionary systems). But at this point in its release, with current drivers, its overall as stable as XP (gasp, I know, how dare someone say that!).

No one is going to force you to run it. And if you are running it on underpowered hardware, I can see why you wont like it. But at some point when you run it on hardware it designed for, I think your point of view may change.

 

[scttgrd]

Vista is the next big step in taking the control you have of your content. If the content providers and microsoft have there way you will be using the pay per play method and a subscription fee for you O/S, stop paying or do anything your not supposed to and you have a nice paper weight. http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~...1/pubs/vista_cost.html

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: scttgrd
Vista is the next big step in taking the control you have of your content. If the content providers and microsoft have there way you will be using the pay per play method and a subscription fee for you O/S, stop paying or do anything your not supposed to and you have a nice paper weight. http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~...1/pubs/vista_cost.html

Vista does nothing in the way of controlling YOUR content. It does have mechanisms to help people offer the content THEY own to you safely. If you don't like that, simple, don't use any of that content.

(Oh and your link appears to be down..)

 

[scttgrd]

The point is if I legally purchase software I don't want to have them validate it every time I go to use it. It's not that they will do these things, it's that purchasing Vista will give them the ability to. We all know if they can, they eventually will. These DRM and HDCP bits were not included for our benefit or protection.

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: scttgrd
The point is if I legally purchase software I don't want to have them validate it every time I go to use it. It's not that they will do these things, it's that purchasing Vista will give them the ability to. We all know if they can, they eventually will. These DRM and HDCP bits were not included for our benefit or protection.

Again, it's there so you have the option of using controlled content. If you dont like the restrictions, don't buy the content. Some of the studios finally figured this out (aka no DRM on some iTunes tracks) so hopefully the others will figure it out as well. But it wasn't MS driving this, it was the content owners.

 

[scttgrd]

And you are pefectly right in that I don't have to purchase the O/S OR the content. The question was asked why people are hating on Vista and these are my reasons. I am taking a wait and see attitude on all this. I hope it all works out that im full of FUD and just overeacting but till we see a bit more of how this all plays out im not making the leap and alot of people seem to agree.

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: scttgrd
And you are pefectly right in that I don't have to purchase the O/S OR the content. The question was asked why people are hating on Vista and these are my reasons. I am taking a wait and see attitude on all this. I hope it all works out that im full of FUD and just overeacting but till we see a bit more of how this all plays out im not making the leap and alot of people seem to agree.

Nothing wrong with that

 

[spherrod]

Originally posted by: bsobel

Originally posted by: scttgrd
The point is if I legally purchase software I don't want to have them validate it every time I go to use it. It's not that they will do these things, it's that purchasing Vista will give them the ability to. We all know if they can, they eventually will. These DRM and HDCP bits were not included for our benefit or protection.

Again, it's there so you have the option of using controlled content. If you dont like the restrictions, don't buy the content. Some of the studios finally figured this out (aka no DRM on some iTunes tracks) so hopefully the others will figure it out as well. But it wasn't MS driving this, it was the content owners.

many people seem to overlook this, it's content owners who have insisted on this, not Microsoft but it's they who are getting all the flak.

:beer:

 

[scttgrd]

It's really got me grouchy, I could not wait to get an XP machine. I would love for Vista to be as much happiness and sunshine as some make it out to be. But with the reading i've been doing on the DRM, direct sound being removed and the HDCP among a dozen or more other things I am thinking a little patience is in order.

 

[n7]

Originally posted by: scttgrd
It's really got me grouchy, I could not wait to get an XP machine. I would love for Vista to be as much happiness and sunshine as some make it out to be. But with the reading i've been doing on the DRM, direct sound being removed and the HDCP among a dozen or more other things I am thinking a little patience is in order.

Honestly, when i first start reading about the HDCP & DRM crap being built in, i was pretty upset too.

But then i read around a bit more, & i realized, really, MS didn't have much of a choice.
Not saying they couldn't have refused, but when you're a huge company being pressured by huge companies to ensure the content utilized on systems is legal, i don't blame them.

And here's the reality.

In absolutely no way whatsoever has this affected me.

Now i'm not going to go stating what i mean exactly by that, but let's just say that Vista works just gloriously w/ all kinds of illegal content
The other thing that needs to be kept in mind is that no software designed to "protect content" ever works, since people will always develop workarounds.

I mean, look at how well it worked w/ HDDVD/Blu-Ray

Basically, the fears surrounding Vista are largely unfounded IMHO.

HDCP/DRM are non-issues, legally, or otherwise.
The only real problems i've seen thus far are occasional old applications not working, or select games (usually older).

Sadly, these issues aren't something MS can control, as nV/ATi have done poorly with drivers (particularly nV).
As for old programs, either they will get updated for Vista (if they haven't already), or alternatives will have to be found).

If i might make a suggestion though, for anyone waiting for SP1, you're waiting for nothing.

There's not much that needs fixing w/ Vista itself.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: bsobel

Many people on here including myself are talking about every day mondane use of the computer such as web browsing and file searching.

Which is working great here.

Should Vista be renamed "Vista - the Gamers choice"?

:roll: The stupidity of that statement given the general 'Vista isn't ready for gaming sentiment from many people' is astounding. You never fail to miss the point do you Dave?

Dave, you want the truth? Here goes, and I'm sure you'll find ways to complain about this. The 2k/XP architecture is a decade old, it's having problems scaling to the new breed of hardware that is becoming available and will be commodity hardware in a very short period of time (read you'll be running this stuff at home). Vista includes a number of core architectural changes to help allow the platform to scale to this new hardware. Is it the end all and be all, no. Is it a big step in the right direction, yes.

Honestly, XP doesnt' work well on my box, the box is too powerfull for it. It was never designed for this kind of hardware. Low to mid range systems running XP today aren't gonna be great Vista boxes (lets be honest, those boxes probably run best using Linux then XP then Vista). So be it, I want my OS to scale from my current 8 cores to 16, 32 (and more) that we will see coming over the next few years.

Look at my posts. I typically have said if you have 512meg and dont plan on upgrading stay with XP. If you have 1gig and will go to 2gig (and only 2gig) go with Vista 32. If you have a 64 bit ready machine and have 2 gig (or plan to get there very soon, and plan to go to MORE than 2 gig) run with Vista 64.

Does Vista have bugs, sure, as does XP (some of those bugs will be the same, as happens with evolutionary systems). But at this point in its release, with current drivers, its overall as stable as XP (gasp, I know, how dare someone say that!).

No one is going to force you to run it. And if you are running it on underpowered hardware, I can see why you wont like it. But at some point when you run it on hardware it designed for, I think your point of view may change.

I appreciate your in depth post, I really do.

It shows what I have been saying all along, thank you.

Vista is great for the new multi-core and 64 bit machines but for a single core everyday laptop it's bloatware.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Bottom line is that the OS is slow.

I bought two Toshiba laptops and the one with Vista is a dog.

I also brought up how file searching is slow and the MS pundits in here said it was my imagination.

Well today the proof is in black & white:

6-20-2007 Bowing to pressure from Google Inc. and antitrust regulators, Microsoft Corp. will make it easier for Windows Vista users to pick a non-Microsoft program to search their hard drives.

Microsoft will let PC users and manufacturers like Dell Inc. set a different program such as Google Desktop as the default instead of Vista's "Instant Search," according to a U.S. Justice Department report released late Tuesday. Microsoft will also add a link to that alternate program in the Windows Start menu.

Currently, when Vista users browse through their documents, access the control panel, or do other system-related tasks, a Vista search box appears in the upper-right corner of the window. That box will remain, and it will continue to use the Microsoft search engine, but Microsoft will also add a link to the default desktop search program.

Tuesday's regularly scheduled status report on Microsoft's post-antitrust business practices comes after Google filed a 49-page document with the Justice Department in April, claiming that Vista's desktop search tool slowed down competing programs, including Google's own free offering. Google also said it's too difficult for users to figure out how to turn off the Microsoft program.

In response to claims that Vista's "Instant Search" slows competing products, Microsoft agreed to give competitors technical information to help optimize performance.

Microsoft said it expects the changes to be implemented in its first service pack for Vista, putting to rest speculation among Microsoft watchers that the company would do away with its practice of catchall software upgrades.

The software maker plans to release an early version of Service Pack 1 by the end of the year.
=============================================
Looks like a new code stripped of search bloatware will be out at the end of the year.

6 more months of suffering.

Looks like my original thread was deleted on all this. Hmmmmm

WTF kind of backwards P&N flamewar logic is this?

You run ANY two indexers at the same time, of course it's going to reduce performance. Vista's is enabled by default, therefore unless you manually turn it off (which is easy), you're going to index everything twice, and thats obviously going to "slow" the competing product.

Vista's indexed search is lightning fast, and my search results come up immediately. I dunno what you could possibly find slow about it, unless of course, you're running on borderline hardware.

What, did you think running an indexer wasnt going to cost you resources? Vista has more "stuff" going on, and more stuff requires more resources - it's as simple as that, and anyone with half a brain knows that. Whether or not that stuff is useful to you, you'll have to decide for yourself...just about anything new in vista that requires more resources can be turned off.

The only way you are going to make Vista as lean and fast as XP is to literally cut everything out until it basically IS XP...and in that case, its obviously easier to just use XP. Again, this is COMMON SENSE.

I appreciate your in depth post, I really do.

It shows what I have been saying all along, thank you.

Vista is great for the new multi-core and 64 bit machines but for a single core everyday laptop it's bloatware.

If you meet the recommended requirements:

1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor
1 GB of system memory
40 GB hard drive with at least 15 GB of available space
Support for DirectX 9 graphics with:
WDDM Driver
128 MB of graphics memory (minimum)
Pixel Shader 2.0 in hardware
32 bits per pixel

Then it will run just lovely. Which is why it's RECOMMENDED. Anything less than that, you're better off with XP, and I know this from experience.


Vista is a great OS. When the next windows comes out, everyone is going to go "OMG, ITS BLOATED, GAMES RUN SLOWER, DRIVERS SUCK, BLAH BLAH BLAH, I'M STICKING WITH VISTA", just like they did with every other release of windows, ever. The ONLY time that BS was ever really warranted was with Windows ME, and Vista is certainly no WinME.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Bottom line is that the OS is slow.

I bought two Toshiba laptops and the one with Vista is a dog.

I also brought up how file searching is slow and the MS pundits in here said it was my imagination.

Well today the proof is in black & white:

6-20-2007 Bowing to pressure from Google Inc. and antitrust regulators, Microsoft Corp. will make it easier for Windows Vista users to pick a non-Microsoft program to search their hard drives.

Microsoft will let PC users and manufacturers like Dell Inc. set a different program such as Google Desktop as the default instead of Vista's "Instant Search," according to a U.S. Justice Department report released late Tuesday. Microsoft will also add a link to that alternate program in the Windows Start menu.

Currently, when Vista users browse through their documents, access the control panel, or do other system-related tasks, a Vista search box appears in the upper-right corner of the window. That box will remain, and it will continue to use the Microsoft search engine, but Microsoft will also add a link to the default desktop search program.

Tuesday's regularly scheduled status report on Microsoft's post-antitrust business practices comes after Google filed a 49-page document with the Justice Department in April, claiming that Vista's desktop search tool slowed down competing programs, including Google's own free offering. Google also said it's too difficult for users to figure out how to turn off the Microsoft program.

In response to claims that Vista's "Instant Search" slows competing products, Microsoft agreed to give competitors technical information to help optimize performance.

Microsoft said it expects the changes to be implemented in its first service pack for Vista, putting to rest speculation among Microsoft watchers that the company would do away with its practice of catchall software upgrades.

The software maker plans to release an early version of Service Pack 1 by the end of the year.
=============================================
Looks like a new code stripped of search bloatware will be out at the end of the year.

6 more months of suffering.

Looks like my original thread was deleted on all this. Hmmmmm

WTF kind of backwards P&N flamewar logic is this?

You run ANY two indexers at the same time, of course it's going to reduce performance. Vista's is enabled by default, therefore unless you manually turn it off (which is easy), you're going to index everything twice, and thats obviously going to "slow" the competing product.

Vista's indexed search is lightning fast, and my search results come up immediately. I dunno what you could possibly find slow about it, unless of course, you're running on borderline hardware.

What, did you think running an indexer wasnt going to cost you resources? Vista has more "stuff" going on, and more stuff requires more resources - it's as simple as that, and anyone with half a brain knows that. Whether or not that stuff is useful to you, you'll have to decide for yourself...just about anything new in vista that requires more resources can be turned off.

The only way you are going to make Vista as lean and fast as XP is to literally cut everything out until it basically IS XP...and in that case, its obviously easier to just use XP. Again, this is COMMON SENSE.

I appreciate your in depth post, I really do.

It shows what I have been saying all along, thank you.

Vista is great for the new multi-core and 64 bit machines but for a single core everyday laptop it's bloatware.

If you meet the recommended requirements:

1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor
1 GB of system memory
40 GB hard drive with at least 15 GB of available space
Support for DirectX 9 graphics with:
WDDM Driver
128 MB of graphics memory (minimum)
Pixel Shader 2.0 in hardware
32 bits per pixel

Then it will run just lovely. Which is why it's RECOMMENDED. Anything less than that, you're better off with XP, and I know this from experience.


Vista is a great OS. When the next windows comes out, everyone is going to go "OMG, ITS BLOATED, GAMES RUN SLOWER, DRIVERS SUCK, BLAH BLAH BLAH, I'M STICKING WITH VISTA", just like they did with every other release of windows, ever. The ONLY time that BS was ever really warranted was with Windows ME, and Vista is certainly no WinME.

Thank you as well.

My point was that XP should be available for such machines as laptops.

Microsoft bullied the market by yanking XP off store shelves and only having new machines with Vista on them including laptops.

Make a version of XP that will be available for laptops that is not going to "dissapear".

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Bottom line is that the OS is slow.

I bought two Toshiba laptops and the one with Vista is a dog.

I also brought up how file searching is slow and the MS pundits in here said it was my imagination.

Well today the proof is in black & white:

6-20-2007 Bowing to pressure from Google Inc. and antitrust regulators, Microsoft Corp. will make it easier for Windows Vista users to pick a non-Microsoft program to search their hard drives.

Microsoft will let PC users and manufacturers like Dell Inc. set a different program such as Google Desktop as the default instead of Vista's "Instant Search," according to a U.S. Justice Department report released late Tuesday. Microsoft will also add a link to that alternate program in the Windows Start menu.

Currently, when Vista users browse through their documents, access the control panel, or do other system-related tasks, a Vista search box appears in the upper-right corner of the window. That box will remain, and it will continue to use the Microsoft search engine, but Microsoft will also add a link to the default desktop search program.

Tuesday's regularly scheduled status report on Microsoft's post-antitrust business practices comes after Google filed a 49-page document with the Justice Department in April, claiming that Vista's desktop search tool slowed down competing programs, including Google's own free offering. Google also said it's too difficult for users to figure out how to turn off the Microsoft program.

In response to claims that Vista's "Instant Search" slows competing products, Microsoft agreed to give competitors technical information to help optimize performance.

Microsoft said it expects the changes to be implemented in its first service pack for Vista, putting to rest speculation among Microsoft watchers that the company would do away with its practice of catchall software upgrades.

The software maker plans to release an early version of Service Pack 1 by the end of the year.
=============================================
Looks like a new code stripped of search bloatware will be out at the end of the year.

6 more months of suffering.

Looks like my original thread was deleted on all this. Hmmmmm

WTF kind of backwards P&N flamewar logic is this?

You run ANY two indexers at the same time, of course it's going to reduce performance. Vista's is enabled by default, therefore unless you manually turn it off (which is easy), you're going to index everything twice, and thats obviously going to "slow" the competing product.

Vista's indexed search is lightning fast, and my search results come up immediately. I dunno what you could possibly find slow about it, unless of course, you're running on borderline hardware.

What, did you think running an indexer wasnt going to cost you resources? Vista has more "stuff" going on, and more stuff requires more resources - it's as simple as that, and anyone with half a brain knows that. Whether or not that stuff is useful to you, you'll have to decide for yourself...just about anything new in vista that requires more resources can be turned off.

The only way you are going to make Vista as lean and fast as XP is to literally cut everything out until it basically IS XP...and in that case, its obviously easier to just use XP. Again, this is COMMON SENSE.

I appreciate your in depth post, I really do.

It shows what I have been saying all along, thank you.

Vista is great for the new multi-core and 64 bit machines but for a single core everyday laptop it's bloatware.

If you meet the recommended requirements:

1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor
1 GB of system memory
40 GB hard drive with at least 15 GB of available space
Support for DirectX 9 graphics with:
WDDM Driver
128 MB of graphics memory (minimum)
Pixel Shader 2.0 in hardware
32 bits per pixel

Then it will run just lovely. Which is why it's RECOMMENDED. Anything less than that, you're better off with XP, and I know this from experience.


Vista is a great OS. When the next windows comes out, everyone is going to go "OMG, ITS BLOATED, GAMES RUN SLOWER, DRIVERS SUCK, BLAH BLAH BLAH, I'M STICKING WITH VISTA", just like they did with every other release of windows, ever. The ONLY time that BS was ever really warranted was with Windows ME, and Vista is certainly no WinME.

Thank you as well.

My point was that XP should be available for such machines as laptops.

Microsoft bullied the market by yanking XP off store shelves and only having new machines with Vista on them including laptops.

Make a version of XP that will be available for laptops that is not going to "dissapear".

You're kidding, right?

http://www.dell.com/content/to...&l=en&s=dhs&~ck=anavml

Laptops are coming preloaded with Vista because people want the latest OS. XP has not been pulled from the shelves or from OEM machines...I dunno what the hell you're smoking.

 

[bsobel]

Make a version of XP that will be available for laptops that is not going to "dissapear".

Dave, what I think you are getting at is that the major vendors shouldn't be selling Vista along with a bunch of additional software on 512meg devices knowing darn well the user experience will be bad. Those same machines at 1gig (and ideally 1.5gig or more) would be fine.

Someone here posted about a Dell Vista rig that came with 512meg. Given the cost of memory vs the cost of memory when XP was released, a 1gig (or more) box should be the standard from these vendors. It would alleviate 99.9% of what your concerned with (IMHO).

Bill

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: bsobel

Make a version of XP that will be available for laptops that is not going to "dissapear".

Dave, what I think you are getting at is that the major vendors shouldn't be selling Vista along with a bunch of additional software on 512meg devices knowing darn well the user experience will be bad. Those same machines at 1gig (and ideally 1.5gig or more) would be fine.

Someone here posted about a Dell Vista rig that came with 512meg. Given the cost of memory vs the cost of memory when XP was released, a 1gig (or more) box should be the standard from these vendors. It would alleviate 99.9% of what your concerned with (IMHO).

Bill

Thats certainly the solution, but its fairly obvious thats NOT what he's getting at, otherwise he wouldnt go so far out of his way to demonize MS by making up FUD.

 

[bsobel]

Thats certainly the solution, but its fairly obvious thats NOT what he's getting at, otherwise he wouldnt go so far out of his way to demonize MS by making up FUD.

It's not just MS, he makes everything up or blows everything out of proportions. Sometimes there is a kernel of truth to the argument, but god forbid he ever state it rationally.

 

[randym431]

Well I got vista home p and it sat on the shelf a month cause I was afraid to install it. Then last week i did and it went without one hitch. I was shocked how well it installed. But I also had upgraded my mb to a dual core and had 4 gig mem and made sure the on board video was vista friendly. In fact all of my hardware and software, except nero cd burner, said it worked with vista. So I guess thats why my install went flawless.

And right away, I fell in love with this new os. Win98 was like driving a ford. XP was like driving a caddie and vista is like flying the star ship enterprise. I have spent hours just playing with the features in vista, and loving it. But..... do the hardware upgrade if needed before vista. That way, you may miss out on the reported nightmares. I had only sweet dreams. And the security prompts are much less a hassle than reported.

I was a beta vista user and this final product is mint!!!

Now I wonder why so many others gripe about vista. What are they doing??? What hardware are they trying to install it on??? Do they just like bad mouthing ms??? And how could anyone go "back" to xp???? My xp disc is now on the shelf with win95, 98, and me, never to see the light of day again.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: bsobel

You obviously don't know what FUD is, since I simply stated a proven fact.

No Larry you didn't. You came into the middle of a conversation where person A said that 'processor intensive apps' (e.g. codecs ects based on the links he provided) are slower on Vista than XP. He was NOT discussing games which are known to be slower with some of the current drivers. You, trying to prove a point no-one made jumped on it and are now claiming he meant games when he said processor intensive programs.

I know you rarely get this technical stuff, but he's claiming the kernel scheduler isn't as effecient under Vista than as XP. If you want to have that debate, fine, otherwise don't troll and don't try to move the goal posts.

No, I got your point just fine, actually. But I think that it is you that is attempting to claim (by implication) that the kernel scheduler is (or rather, is not) the issue.

I make a different point, that MS re-did DirectSound/DS3D using a completely emulated software stack, and thus the code-paths are much longer now, thus greater overhead.
Both games and codecs use DirectX (DirectSound, therefore), and thus BOTH types of apps will now run slower (because they are running more code in total).

Originally posted by: bsobel
The game issue is a seperate isse which is resolving itself as new drivers came out. I did like how you said games will never be as fast due to video and audio and Mem pointed out direct conflicting statements from actual experts

It's not a seperate issue, and unless drivers can somehow re-enable hardware-accelerated DirectSound/DS3D under Vista, then they will always be slower than XP.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: bsobel
Dave, you want the truth? Here goes, and I'm sure you'll find ways to complain about this. The 2k/XP architecture is a decade old, it's having problems scaling to the new breed of hardware that is becoming available and will be commodity hardware in a very short period of time (read you'll be running this stuff at home).

Funny you should say that. I guess you forgot about the server flavors of NT-derived OSes, which scale quite well to higher-end hardware. The 2K/XP architecture has no problems scaling that I'm aware of. It runs faster on the same newer hardware than Vista does, in my personal experience. Vista is OS bloatware. Some people like that, I don't.

Originally posted by: bsobel
Honestly, XP doesnt' work well on my box, the box is too powerfull for it. It was never designed for this kind of hardware.

And you accuse me of FUD. LOL. You make lots of sweeping generalizations without any supporting evidence.

Originally posted by: bsobel
Low to mid range systems running XP today aren't gonna be great Vista boxes (lets be honest, those boxes probably run best using Linux then XP then Vista).
No one is going to force you to run it. And if you are running it on underpowered hardware, I can see why you wont like it. But at some point when you run it on hardware it designed for, I think your point of view may change.

Vista is bloatware, of course it is going to require greater hardware power. But that same hardware power can be utilized more efficiently, using a more efficient (even if older) OS.

 

[Hyperblaze]

Originally posted by: JonnyBlaze

Originally posted by: Hyperblaze
As mentioned above, the UAC, although that can be disabled.

There is also DRM.

Other then that, don't really care much about the operating system.

I will say however, that their tab browsing feature is pretty damn cool.

I'm pretty much back to my non-caring mood. Use whatever fits your requirements and fvck the rest.

DRM is not bad. if it wasnt there people who purchase drm protected content wouldnt be able to use it.

otherwise you never ever see anything about drm in vista.

apparantly I bought a drm protected DVD the other day.

Not impressed at all with DRM.

But hey, whatever. Like I said, back in the non-caring mood. If you want to use Windows, go ahead. I'll use Windows for what I need and use Linux for the rest. Anyone got a problem with that? They can go screw themselves.

 

[bsobel]

Funny you should say that. I guess you forgot about the server flavors of NT-derived OSes, which scale quite well to higher-end hardware. The 2K/XP architecture has no problems scaling that I'm aware of.

:roll: More VirtualLarry misinformation (doesn't it get old always being wrong?). 2k/XP certainaly scales to higher hardware than the 9x line (heck you couldn't even scale 9x past one core). That said, they are NOT optimized for many core architectures, one of the design goals for Vista. The fact that you don't know this (or understand it) comes as no great surprise to those of us who've read your post.

And you accuse me of FUD. LOL. You make lots of sweeping generalizations without any supporting evidence.

This machine is an octo-core 32gig memory system. XP32 simply can not use it's full potential. XP64 is orphaned and has a kernel scheduler (like XP32) that was really never designed for more than 4 cores. Vists64 works excellent on this box, and it's an example of the type of hardware that is transitioning from high end to mainstream. Here is some backup literature AMD GDC Multicore Intro See the comments about the Vista scheduler being NUMA aware (warning, the pdf contains big words you don't understand or would never have made your post). More technical information on Vista's kernel changes (warning, more big words...)

From Arstechnica: "Windows Vista has a much-improved, NUMA-aware scheduler, and there's already evidence that this will have an impact on QuadFX. An Italian site actually benchmarked QuadFX under Windows Vista RC2, and the system saw a real boost on high-bandwidth/highly-threaded benchmarks versus XP-based runs of those same benches."

From Hothardware: "For example, Windows XP doesn't properly support NUMA due to the way its scheduler loads execution cores in a multi-processor system. With XP a single thread could bounce from core to core. Windows Vista does properly support NUMA, however, and Vista's scheduler shouldn't shift single tasks between individual cores. As you'll see later (on our SANDRA and PCMark05 pages specifically), there is a large difference in available memory bandwidth when the OS has native NUMA support. "

Don't ever accuse me of not having supporting evidence, you'll get owned everytime (haven't you learned yet?)

Vista is bloatware, of course it is going to require greater hardware power. But that same hardware power can be utilized more efficiently, using a more efficient (even if older) OS.

Really? What OS should I be running on my box to best take advantage of it? Oh thats right Vista 64 (if we are talking about the Windows family at least). It would be nice if you'd stop trolliing for once. Two days ago I'm explaning to you that you've overclocked your machine too much and thats why it's crashing (you thought it was a virus) yet today your an expert on Windows internals? Please....

 

[bsobel]

I make a different point, that MS re-did DirectSound/DS3D using a completely emulated software stack, and thus the code-paths are much longer now, thus greater overhead.
Both games and codecs use DirectX (DirectSound, therefore), and thus BOTH types of apps will now run slower (because they are running more code in total).

Sigh. Don't jump into a converstation and change what two people are discussing, start a new one, mkay? The claim made was given the SAME code stack Vista was slower. Stop trying to save face by moving the goalposts...

 

[bsobel]

Not impressed at all with DRM. But hey, whatever. Like I said, back in the non-caring mood. If you want to use Windows, go ahead. I'll use Windows for what I need and use Linux for the rest. Anyone got a problem with that? They can go screw themselves.

You should use whatever works best for you. The only comment I have is the DRM issue isn't an MS one. If your going to want to play that content on Linux (or MAC) your going to have the same issues come up.

 

[Seeruk]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
Operating systems should be invisible. They should do only what is necessary, and get out of the way otherwise.

Vista runs contrary to this basic principle. It does unncessary things, and it gets "in your face" far too often.

Vista is the anti-OS.

You have a very specific view of an operating system. One I might share if I was talking about one of our webservers or db boxes.

What you fail to comprehend is that Windows is a consumer operating system. They want the EXACT OPPOSITE of you.
They want it to include all the features they use every day. i.e. email clients, address books, media players that dont need codecs installed for playing their mp3's and DVD's, a browser, basic photo editing, basic video editing, basic security apps such as defender, backup software, to manage all security updates for them, for it to maintain itself, the list goes on.

And in that respect Vista delivers on all counts.

Would I use it in my server room... hell no because that is exactly what it isnt designed for.