[anfy]

Quote

If I have 4GB of RAM, I should have as close to 4GB of RAM available as possible. Not 2GB and change. In a few more years, if I have a terabyte of RAM, then when I boot the machine, I should see very nearly a terabyte free, not a few hundred gigabytes free as Windoze BloatZilla 2020 would clearly be. If I have 128MB, I should see quite a lot of that free, too. Just because there is memory available to consume does NOT mean the OS should consume it, or require some arbitrary minimum beyond what it needs to get running. Currently I'm looking at 538MB or ram and no swap used with tons of windows open and an excessively pretty desktop crammed full of buffered, real-time updated windows rendered onto 3D textures.

This is a quote from another forum... it explains better what I was trying to explain about superfetch. What most people who complain about the RAM usage (and I did too) don't know about is the way Vista uses your RAM. You can easily turn off windows search and superfetch and save a couple hunderd MB of RAM, but your system would actually run slower.

"On my notebook with 1 GB of RAM, it uses 512 MB, most people here report 1 GB usage with 2 GB of RAM, and on my rig with 4 GB it uses about 2 GB. The memory usage isn't all bloat, it's agressive caching to improve performance. It's why, for the first time in a while, we have a Windows release which is actually faster than the previous one on most modern hardware."

"The RAM usage you see is windows caching it, not actually using it. It may seem weird to someone only familiar with Windows boxes, but this has been standard practice for a while now on other OSes. If you're running 2 dimms, try removing one and starting Vista. You'll see that it really only "uses" half of whatever is available and scales depending on how that number varies."

Quote

Linux developers still tend to remain minimalist, which means even your oldest PCs can be very usable with the newest Linux-based applications. Nothing keeps you from using ANY distribution of Linux on any machine besides hardware compatibility... but the older the P.O.S. machine you have is, the more likely all of the Linux drivers will work. Very different from Microsoft demanding ever more astronomical system requirements, and refusing to license older versions of Windows for newer machines, and dropping support for older hardware. If you're going to give grandpa that older notebook on your shelf that you can't find the system recovery disks for so he can check his email, put Linux on it. It will run better than it ever did, and he won't notice the difference other than the fact that it doesn't quit working after six months due to a heavy malware infestation, or Windows bit rot.

But MS tries to put in new features that make the OS more easy to use (okay, UAC excluded) and include more features. If they wanted, they could just drop all the new features, and everyone will complain about how Vista has no new features... and nobody would complain about RAM usage!

Quote

Microsoft just keeps indiscriminately shoveling useless crap into their general purpose computer OS and calling them 'integral parts' , and every new OS release there has been more of it.

>
Superfetch?

I do know that Vista does have a few new features that may not seem that useful... and at that, MS should fix up their OS. However, a lot of the "bloat" that people complain about is really just... Superfetch.

Quote

Your computer should be able to boot WITHOUT Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player.

Why? I use these programs and like them a lot (I'm sure a lot of other users would agree too!) They're very basic parts of the OS.

Quote

If I wanted a media player to stream movies to my TV with, I'd order one of these silent, inexpensive appliances purpose built for the job for a tiny fraction of the cost of a PC, and it would work out of the box and connect to whatever server (even a NAS appliance) I had set up. The High-Definition digital image and sound are NOT blocked by anything like Vista's paranoid DRM. Vista could never fit in them. They're all Linux-based appliances, and probably very green compared to booting a desktop machine and cranking up your stereo volume to mask the noise of all of those fans and disk drives. Pretty much every cheap 'information appliance' you see that has an interface to configure it through a web browser is running some flavor of embedded Linux.
http://www.pixelmagi.../products/mediaplayers/hdmediabox.htm]

> [http://www.dlink.com/products/?pid=438]
> [http://www.mvix.net/780_OverView.html]
>
> With Linux, if you want a 3D spinning cube of desktops like ['Compiz' playing different videos on every facet, you can have that. If you only want a command line interface, you can have it that way, too, or anywhere between the extremes, or beyond them. Just pick your parts ala-carte, or find a distribution where someone already pieced them all together and tested them for you.

If you wanted to do something like that, you wouldn't get a PC, you would get another appliance.

[Expotanne]

My pc is less than one month old - my keyboard is about two years old. I'm beginning to think that it might not be the keyboard per se but the Intellitype software that came with it - because the standard keyboard issued with the pc didn't come with any software and works fine. Do you think I'll be able to uninstall the Intellitype and still use my keyboard?

[mphenterprises]

Hi Expotanne and welcome to PCWorld. :-)




The Discussion to which you have posted your concern is in relation to the open letter to Microsoft about Vista. In situations like yours, when you have a problem with your computer, it is best to start your own Discussion. The short answer to your question is yes, the keyboard itself will work fine if you uninstall the software. You will only lose the features of the keyboard like volume control, etc. If you require further information, it is best to start your own Discussion.

You can click on this hyperlink to start your Discussion. When creating your Discussion, please be as concise as possible and provide as much information as possible. Try to avoid just copying your initial post and pasting it in a new Discussion. The more you provide to us, the more effectively we can help you.

[Evildave]

Quote

If you wanted to do something like that, you wouldn't get a PC, you would get another appliance.

That's the point. I don't want 'something like that'. I want a machine to do WORK on. The paranoid "Look I can be a DVR and a movie channel" crap should be ala-carte, as well as the ugly infestation of bandwidth-robbing DRM.

They could provide a lean, mean OS that had the capability of doing all of that garbage. Instead they decided to follow up the abject Windows XP Media Center Edition failure with an OS that didn't give anybody a choice. Now they're going to cram that crap down our throats whether we want it or not because the market has already rejected it but THEY want it.

As for Media Player, I'm sure if you start a topic here called "Windows Media Player: Best Thing Ever", you'd get quite a lot of differing opinions about it. I personally don't like it. I rather liked the K-Lite Codec Pack and my own choice of MP3 player. Nice and lightweight.By necessity, I use Apple's Quicktime because Adobe Premiere wants it in order to edit MOV files, and that's what I get.

[anfy]

>Evildave wrote: That's the point. I don't want 'something like that'. I want a machine to do WORK on. The paranoid "Look I can be a DVR and a movie channel" crap should be ala-carte, as well as the ugly infestation of bandwidth-robbing DRM.
>They could provide a lean, mean OS that had the capability of doing all of that garbage. Instead they decided to follow up the abject Windows XP Media Center Edition failure with an OS that didn't give anybody a choice. Now they're going to cram that crap down our throats whether we want it or not because the market has already rejected it but THEY want it.

I'm sure if nobody wants it they would've stopped with the Media center thing already. The thing is, not everyone has the same needs. You might need 5 different machines to run one thing, and you might be happy with it, while some people might like the fact that their one machine can do it all. Apple does the same thing now with AppleTV and iTunes movie rentals... (if anyone is cramming something down your throat, it'd be apple REQUIRING you to use itunes to upload your music to iPod, and locking it there) and it shows that yes, the market is definitely there and it's moving there. You can't expect a large software designer to cater to only your own personal needs. Someone needs this, someone else needs that... you can't expect them to bundle nothing and then make you install or buy everything you need, or even MORE people will complain. The average computer user wants something easily accessible, and easy to use -- not something you buy and have to customize to your liking.

>As for Media Player, I'm sure if you start a topic here called "Windows Media Player: Best Thing Ever", you'd get quite a lot of differing opinions about it. I personally don't like it. I rather liked the K-Lite Codec Pack and my own choice of MP3 player. Nice and lightweight.By necessity, I use Apple's Quicktime because Adobe Premiere wants it in order to edit MOV files, and that's what I get.

I know that some people hate WMP, and I don't LOVE it to death or anything, but it hasn't ever given me any problems, easy to use, and just there. Why would the industry's biggest OS need 3rd party software to run media files? If they took out WMP and IE, a lot MORE people would complain because they have to download 3rd party apps to do such simple tasks, and they would be causing themselves a lot more trouble than they would fix.

That said, if you don't like it, MS lets you choose your own 3rd party app, and I know a couple of people who do that. To each their own.

[Evildave]

While what I am describing IS different machines for different purposes, they're different machines WELL SUITED to those purposes.
Microsoft tries to give you a 'Swiss Army Knife', with everything, except it ends up being one of those extremely FAT ones that doesn't fit in any of your pockets, is pretty much never useful, and the knife its self is dull the first time you actually try to use it.
1. A video appliance to play video. A DVD/Blue-Ray player. A wireless media player from a server. $50~$250 for a fully functional and VERY competent machine that will WORK out of the box, versus $2500.00 for a Multimedia PC running Vista to not do the job very well, probably black out the digital outputs, and runs in a PC clone that sounds like an airport flight line in the same room you're trying to watch your movie or listen to music while it draws as much power as a big-screen TV set and needs a UPS to protect it.
2. A video game console to play games. Consider a PS3 or XBOX 360 or Wii costs about the same as, or MUCH less than one 'deluxe' 3D video card for your desktop PC, and there is NEVER any doubt that when you buy a game for it and put the disk in the slot, that it will work. The PS3 even has a 'BlueRay' player in it. When you finish the game, you can trade it in. If you buy a new game for a PC, then it's ANYBODY'S GUESS whether your hardware will run it. When you get it home, if it doesn't run, you're stuck with it. No store will accept opened PC software for return or exchange, except for the identical title. There's virtually no PC software that allows two or more people to play in the same room, on the same TV, either. BTW, if you're an 'alpha geek', you can make a Linux PC out of any of the modern consoles with mass storage built in.
3. A computer to DO WORK. Unless I'm actively developing a game, I don't generally need 'gaming' functionality in my desktop, which saves me money for multiple hard drives and more RAM, which is a better boost in performance for the tools that I need. Since the last three or four games were Flash based, I didn't really need any special hardware acceleration to write them, and any sort of specialized acceleration would've hurt compatibility testing rather than helped. The same PC can actually function for professional software development for YEARS.
4. A Kindle. Yes, I probably will buy one of these as soon as the price drops, to read books and articles. A backlit display truly is hard on the eyes, while a 'Kindle' has its own wireless internet connection and a display like reading paper, and it can download current release books without connecting it to anything and go days between charges. I find that my ancient tablet PC has a long battery runtime, is generally cool to the touch and is excellent for browsing web pages and watching web cartoons in bed, but I'll replace it with a Kindle for my nocturnal reading habits. Sure, an 'all-in-one' desktop or notebook can read e-books, but I find my 17" workstation class dual-hard drive formerly-Vista notebook is a pain in the... lap to use anywhere but on a table or desk.
5. Wireless router/firewall. Sure, I COULD plug that EVDO card directly into my PC and boot it to 'share' its connection with other computers, but my Kyocera KR1 eats hardly anything. It has an adequate 'firewall' in it, and can be left on 24/7, consuming six watts, compared to a desktop PC that eats 200 watts. So whether I use the big notebook or the tablet (or share the connection with guests), it's always right there and ready to go, and it can operate off a 12 volt car lighter connection indefinitely when I travel.
6. iPod. I personally have no use for one. I'm sure you could lug around a 'portable' Vista machine, like my Vostro was meant to be, but obviously having something that runs for hours and fits in a shirt pocket has benefits. A Vista PC that plays MP3 files and videos won't replace it.
7. A dinky, cheap, notebook, like the EEEPC also has its place. If I just want to type on a few documents and browse the web, it's fine, and if I drop it under a bus wheel at the airport, I won't shed any tears.
8. Cellular phone. Another device whose functionality you COULD roll into your PC... but would you ever take a PC to places you take your cellular phone? Some of those 'smart phones' have additional PDA-like functionality that I honestly have never found a use for. I find that no matter what functionality the phone has, I use it for making and taking phone calls, and occasionally as a watch or a desperation 'flashlight'. They moved most of the functionality of a PC into some of them. This is in my opinion another arguing point against 'all in one'. In general, I want a cheap cell phone that I can drop in the pool and not be upset. If you put all your business contacts and personal information into a 'Smart Phone', or any portable PC for that matter, you'd be pretty miffed if someone ran off with it, or it got drowned.
9. A digital still/motion camera. Sure, I could lug that Vostro around and use the 'Webcam', or I could try to use the P.O.S. camera they stuck into my phone. However, the Panasonic DMC-FX30 I have is absolutely awesome, and shoots two hours of wide-aspect 480P video on a 16GB SDHC card, in an MJPEG Quicktime MOV format that's easy to edit (all keyframes). It does a better job than ANYTHING that gets bundled up in computers and cellular phones, and takes very nice wide-angle images. Actually, this camera is a working model of why the similar-to-PC mainstream marketing-driven demand for higher megapixels and bigger zoom numbers is wrong-headed. You very rarely need zoom, you very often need a wider angle to capture people in the same room with you, and anything above seven or so megapixels is pretty much a waste unless you have a BIG lens with a BIG chip behind it in a BIG camera, as the smaller, finer photo-receptors pick up more noise than signal, so you spend more memory to record an image that looks like you scaled it up from a lower resolution anyway. A 10x zoom is useless because you can't hold the camera still enough to take a good picture at that zoom level, and generally you can never get your close-up subjects into frame even when you back into a corner and get them all to scrunch together. Shop for wide angle lens first, then narrow down your features from there.
10. A dedicated DVR integrated into the cable/satellite box, or even integrated at the cable company headquarters where you don't have to hear it. Once again, this ultimately consumes less power than the PC would in its place, won't generally have any 'integration' or 'incompatibility' issues with your TV, cable box or other A/V equipment, and will generally record 100% digital quality, though there may be a monthly fee for it. It will record based on the program guide, using the same remote control as the cable box, and is reasonably easy to use. I don't watch much TV anymore and have no use for one.
Sure, carrying all ten of these things around with you would be awkward, but I don't even like carrying around a cellular phone, and besides, all ten of them would seldom be useful together. Until they make a lightweight, small, affordable simple device that took awesome pictures and records/plays video and audio, fits in my pocket AND was comfortable to read in bed, I'll stick to the specialized devices for my 'portable' needs.
The apple 'iTunes' and movie crap is also a very bad idea, and it's just pathetic that Microsoft would attempt to follow that road. Their own 'iPod-killer' device sucked and was booed out of the market. Especially since Amazon ALSO began selling DRM-free MP3 files, which competes directly against iTunes, and will win because EVERYONE hates Big Brother (unless they're a paid shill for Big Brother). Microsoft has chosen to copy a loser, and will be a loser, and every user of their DRM-infested Vista is by extension a loser. You just haven't had your turn inside the barrel, yet.

[anfy]

I stopped reading when you got to the part where you started talking about cell phones (which is actually quite a lot of reading). Some of your points are utterly ridiculous.
Seriously though, if you want to pay for a billion devices to do a billion things and have a PC just for work, use Linux, and don't complain about Vista, and nobody would care.
First of all, a media center desktop runs as low as $600~700, so don't give me the $2500 media center desktop crap. How many people who own media center desktops pay that much anyways?



Any hard core gamer would tell you that PC games are different from console games. So many PC titles and console titles are seperate and incompatible... a console does NOT replace a desktop PC for gaming. On that note, I've never owned a PC game incompatible with my computer. Unless you're illiterate and can't read the system requirements to play your game, you shouldn't have any compatibility issues.


Another huge point you're missing in your whole argument is that in the world today, technology is trying harder and harder to incorporate a lot of devices into one. Instead of carrying a cell phone, camera, and MP3 player and risk not being able to fit all of them into my pocket, I can now buy a camera phone that plays mp3s. Sure, you can argue all you want that your standalone camera and mp3 player have higher resolution and storage, but a multimedia phone is FAR more convenient.



Taking from that example, devices that incorporate multiple functions are now becoming more and more common, because people like the convenience and versatility of their devices. Why try to hook up 20 devices to your living room when one machine will do the job, plus a lot more?



You also can't characterize computers into ONE category. Obviously your 17" notebook isn't meant for bed-time reading, because it's meant to be a DESKTOP REPLACEMENT. Other notebooks with far smaller sizes and lighter weight serves that purpose well.



Obviously your huge laptop will not be a replacement MP3 player or camera... IT WASN'T MEANT TO BE ONE, but your cell phone can easily be. With the advances made in mobile technology, we will soon see lots of powerful mobile devices that can almost function as miniature computers, allowing these cell phones (or smartphones, as we have now) to surf the web, make phone calls, take pictures, play music, and much more.



The truth is, if you wanted all those different devices to do all those different things, you would still need a computer REGARDLESS. If you want to keep using your old P4 running Windows XP because that's all you need out of your pc, the rest of the world could care less.



@PCworld,

I apologize if this conversation is going off topic. I guess the relevence is that Vista has a lot of multimedia features that are... debatable :p

[Evildave]

My god, you ARE defensive about Vista. No, the rest of the world could care less about Vista.
I mean, having an on-line pissing contest about it pretty much demonstrates you're a Vista fan-boy and I'm a Linux fan-boy, and nothing else.
The problem with your assertions is, if you need a GOOD camera, you're NEVER going to get one built into a phone or attached to your PC.
If you need a GOOD digital media player for your big screen TV and stereo, a VISTA-based PC is not it, because its DRM prevents all current video cards from displaying 'premium' content out the digital channels. Sure, $700 for something with a tiny hard disk, not enough RAM (YOU SAID 2GB to make it run A-OK), a CPU that makes all the video 'hiccup', needs administration and on a warm day sounds like a jumbo jet, versus a silent $99 DVD player that you just stick a disk into. Knock yourself out. You can play your movie clip through your analog VGA output and get the audio through your analog audio out, but the digital outputs that YOU PAID FOR will be DEAD. Chances are good you'll see your desktop and a black rectangle where the video should be on any output marked for 'TV'. Even an analog composite that doesn't have 'macrovision' built into it, because you might plug it into a VCR.
If you need a GOOD device for reading e-books, it's NOT going to be your PC. Not at all.
If you want to talk on the phone, your PC is not going to be your first choice... unless you like saying things like "What?", "Huh?", and being heard to say "Fnorblewugga." Your 'Pocket PC' will run the battery flat PDQ if you dare to use it, and hell, some of them need to BOOT 'Windows CE' before you can even answer the phone!
I have made PC and console games professionally since the 1990s. The DOS days. I stood in line at GDC to get DirectX 1 CDs when they ADDED it to Win95 as an afterthought. Don't presume to lecture ME about PC game content. I personally don't buy PC games anymore. The 'Orange Box' ran perfectly on my XBOX 360, and it took three tries on two different XP PCs to get Supreme Commander to launch. Screw that B.S.
The whole of the difference between console and PC games is a mouse, a keyboard and a migraine.
You can buy a mouse and a keyboard for the PS3, and the PS3 costs less than a decent NVidia or ATI card for a PC, works with ALL televisions and plays Blue-Ray and DVD disks. There's your 'digital convergence' right there, and IT IS NOT A PC.
The XBOX 360 costs even less than a PS3. You can download and play video through it and it plays DVD and some of them play the (doomed, fat lady sang and already went to bed) HD-DVD. You could conceivably connect a keyboard and mouse to it. Wirelessly or through a USB plug. Too bad Microsoft didn't ask their XBOX division how to write an OS. It runs exactly the same games that give MONSTER PC GAMING MACHINES seizures just fine with half a gig of RAM, and NO install time. Except when they flash the 'ring of death', but hey, unlike UK keyboard boy above, Microsoft was forced to stand behind their consoles. For everything else (ESPECIALLY VISTA), they want to bill you large amounts of dollars per minute to listen to somebody in Pakistan with a lisp read the troubleshooting FAQ back to you in checklist form.

[anfy]

Evildave said:

My god, you ARE defensive about Vista. No, the rest of the world could care less about Vista.

I mean, having an on-line pissing contest about it pretty much demonstrates you're a Vista fan-boy and I'm a Linux fan-boy, and nothing else.

This must be a misunderstanding. I love every OS for different things, and because they have different strengths and weaknesses, I don't think that people should hate any OS (be it Vista, OS X, or Linux) for not doing what they want it to do. In fact, I am currently using OS X. Both OS's work just as well for me, I just like the slightly smoother feeling of OS X.
So far this has only shown that you could care less about Vista, but not the rest of the world. Neither of us have any say on what they think. As shown by previous posters, some people hate Vista with their guts, some don't mind it, some like it, some people love it.

Quote

The problem with your assertions is, if you need a GOOD camera, you're NEVER going to get one built into a phone or attached to your PC.

The PC camera is meant to be a webcam, not an actual camera.
If you wanted a professional camera you'd get a standalone camera, but you must think for an average consumer, which every product is geared toward.

As an average consumer who only prints 4x6 photos, maybe a simple phone camera is enough. There are phone cameras that go up to 5 MP with a xeon flash camera now, and the convenience of being able to just whip out your phone and take pictures whenever, wherever, instead of carrying around a bulky camera with all its accessories every day, sometimes not using it at all, is more than welcomed by a lot of people.

Quote

If you need a GOOD digital media player for your big screen TV and stereo, a VISTA-based PC is not it, because its DRM prevents all current video cards from displaying 'premium' content out the digital channels. Sure, $700 for something with a tiny hard disk, not enough RAM (YOU SAID 2GB to make it run A-OK), a CPU that makes all the video 'hiccup', needs administration and on a warm day sounds like a jumbo jet, versus a silent $99 DVD player that you just stick a disk into. Knock yourself out. You can play your movie clip through your analog VGA output and get the audio through your analog audio out, but the digital outputs that YOU PAID FOR will be DEAD. Chances are good you'll see your desktop and a black rectangle where the video should be on any output marked for 'TV'. Even an analog composite that doesn't have 'macrovision' built into it, because you might plug it into a VCR.

You describe PCs like some loud hot beast that doesn't do anything useful costs your house, and doesn't work. I don't know where you're shopping lol... $1000 or so today can get you a Quad-core with 400~500GB HD, 3-4GB of RAM, and many other features. That's more than enough for most people. If you don't want to go that route, nobody is shoving it down your throat, so don't complain about it. Some people out there do use their PC for this purpose, and that's why these media center pc's exist.

Quote

If you need a GOOD device for reading e-books, it's NOT going to be your PC. Not at all.

Then use your own device. Nobody is making you use a PC. It's an option if you have a 12" laptop anyways and you want to save money on a new ebook reader just for bed-time reading though. Is that not a blessing?

Quote

If you want to talk on the phone, your PC is not going to be your first choice... unless you like saying things like "What?", "Huh?", and being heard to say "Fnorblewugga." Your 'Pocket PC' will run the battery flat PDQ if you dare to use it, and hell, some of them need to BOOT 'Windows CE' before you can even answer the phone!

When did I say PC's are out to replace phones? However, I use skype and my call quality is good. I live away from home and skype is probably the most cost-convenient solution for me. With unlimited calling across north america for $30/year, I can call up any friends and family whenever I want, as long as I have my laptop and internet. I can make a conference call with 4 other people, and their cell phones would start lagging up before my skype connection.

Battery life is continually increasing. I was talking more about smart phones though, and I know some poeple who do use smart phones and pocket PCs (hell, one guy I know uses both), and just because you don't use it, doesn't mean nobody else does. Nobody is making you use them either, so you shouldn't complain.

I personally don't buy PC games anymore.

Developing games is not the same as actually playing them. There are hundreds of games you can play exclusively on consoles, and even more exclusively on the PC. Online gaming is also much more common on PCs. Why don't you stick with your XBox360 and play WoW or Half Life? Wait, you don't buy PC games. Other people do though (I don't, but at least I know tons of other people who do), and you should try to appreciate that everyone has different needs for their PCs.


The whole of the difference between console and PC games is a mouse, a keyboard and a migraine.

And a whole different selection of games, and online gameplay for most games as well (not all console games play online..)

You can buy a mouse and a keyboard for the PS3, and the PS3 costs less than a decent NVidia or ATI card for a PC, works with ALL televisions and plays Blue-Ray and DVD disks. There's your 'digital convergence' right there, and IT IS NOT A PC.

What if I'm getting a new PC anyways and I don't game much? Someone is ought to be in that situation. Just because you or I aren't, doesn't mean nobody is.

The XBOX 360 costs even less than a PS3. You can download and play video through it and it plays DVD and some of them play the (doomed, fat lady sang and already went to bed) HD-DVD. You could conceivably connect a keyboard and mouse to it. Wirelessly or through a USB plug. Too bad Microsoft didn't ask their XBOX division how to write an OS. It runs exactly the same games that give MONSTER PC GAMING MACHINES seizures just fine with half a gig of RAM, and NO install time. Except when they flash the 'ring of death', but hey, unlike UK keyboard boy above, Microsoft was forced to stand behind their consoles. For everything else (ESPECIALLY VISTA), they want to bill you large amounts of dollars per minute to listen to somebody in Pakistan with a lisp read the troubleshooting FAQ back to you in checklist form.

For the last time, PCs and consoles run different games. Try playing WoW, Half Life, or Starcraft on your XBOX or PS3. Try playing them online. People who game buy different boxes for different reasons.

I'm not defending PC's (or Vista) just because I love it and swear by it, but because I SEE that different people have different needs, and as a software company MS has to try to cater to everyone. It's not an easy job, but I think they did a reasonable job at it. Just because they included features you find useless, you shouldn't complain, because if they took it out, rest assured, more people will complain about it.

I enjoy using Vista, and I enjoy using XP, OS X. I've tried Ubuntu for a little bit, and I see why some people like it better than Windows or Mac, but personally it doesn't satisfy my needs, so therefore it's not for me. I don't bash it just because it's not for me though, because I know that it has its own advantages and lots of people find use in it. To each their own.

[mphenterprises]

Hi EvilDave and Anfy. Okay, even though both of you provide good points, let's try and keep this discussion to the topic at hand. PCWorld is looking for feedback and input on one's feeling on Vista. What you like, dislike, would change, or improve. The feedback you provide may be used in a letter that will be sent to Microsoft.

[anfy]

sorry mphenterprises! :(



To sum up what I originally said about Vista:

What I like about Vista:
# Friendly user interface with gadgets, aero, lots of folder view options... etc
# Superfetch, Readyboost, Search, etc, that adds functionality and power to the OS
What I think needs improvement:
# Less RAM usage (w/ OEM-ware, it should still run comfortably with 1GB of RAM) Some lower end laptops and old systems only have this much, and it gives Vista a REALLY bad impression when your new laptop (or just upgraded system) lags so extremely bad even with the recommended system requirements.
# Sidebar takes too much RAM and sometimes crashes a lot.
# Startup times are a bit slow, and the time from login to actual usability is long (waiting for a lot of background services and programs to start)
# Shutdown often hangs! On the "Logging off" or "Shutting down" screens, it takes forever and is a deal-breaker for laptops that need to go right away. I'm not sure if it's a system setting fault or program or whatever, but it sometimes never shuts off and need to be forced off. Windows should try to keep shutdown minimalistic and just terminate all services/programs (After confirmation of course) and power off like some other OS's.
# Disk Defragmenter improved in interface but now tells the user absolutely no detail about what is going on. Please add an advanced view for us power users that want to know how fragmented our HD is and how it's being fixed.
# Integration of 32-bit with 64-bit. Nowadays a lot of computers are capped at 3GB of memory because they can't run any more than that on a 32 bit system.. However, because 64 bit systems are still not mainstream, and even more compatibility issues are there, people can't just yell "switch!" to their OS. Mac OS X does this well by integrating 32 bit into a 64 bit OS that will run applications of both perfectly.
# Something should be done about the registry. More often than not, it slows down the computer after some use, and it's a hassle to have to try and rid it of unused/missing/remaining/broken registry problems. I understand that it's impossible to just take it out of Windows, and some 3rd party software cleans it... but Windows should be capable of this basic self-maintenance task... to make sure that systems runnning for 2 years with a billion programs installed/uninstalled will run just as "fresh" as a newly installed system
# More powerful tools a modern OS should have that stands out, and that the user can see (with things like superfetch, you can't really "see" it) and use. OS X has the Time Machine and other features, and Vista should have it's own powerful tools that drastically affects the user experience (in a good way of course). Currently there isn't enough difference between Vista and XP on the Software side for people to NEED to get Vista (lots of people can live without fast searching and sidebars that lag, crash, and take up RAM). Until something like that appears, people will wait. This is why XP is the largest competitor to Vista.
The rest of this is just nit-picky
# The taskbar should be a bit more customizable -- with aero off, the grey shade is a bit odd to look at IMO. I mean, I can change window border colors, but not the task bar? In XP I could choose between like 4 or 5 different themes! (in media center edition w/ Royale)
# Updates come way too often and it really annoys the end user. Maybe updates, instead of coming every day, could come in small packs (not large service packs that take a year to come out) every week or two, with ciritical updates being an exception. This lets the user concentrate more on their work than updating their system
I can't think of much more but I'll come back when I feel the need to!

Thank you PCWorld again!

[Evildave]

Why don't I stick with your XBox360 and play WoW or Half Life?
What do you think the 'Orange Box' is? Or do you mean the ORIGINAL PC Half-Life that needs to be patched before it will even run, and has a minute long 'loading' screen every time you turn a corner? Oh yay, what fun. BTW, 'XBOX Live!' has a growing number of those classic old PC games. Even 'Doom'. As for WoW, it's not my kind of game. You'll also note there are various games on different consoles that won't play on YOUR console. There are MMOs developed for the PS3, but you're going to find mostly shooters on an XBOX 360, and the Wii has all kinds of kid-games. Choose your poison.
I do agree there's a big difference between developing games and playing them, but there pretty much is no such thing as a game developer who isn't a gamer. The nitpicky horrors of choosing and patching up a PC game (or your own hardware) to play is as nothing compared to developing and testing one to run on a wide variety of PC hardware. Just because you have 'DirectX' doesn't mean you can get away with not testing it (and getting bug reports back for) 1001 permutations of PC, and still you'll miss some major segment because there are millions of permutations of 'PC'. This expense is a major and compelling reason why you go to a Best Buy store and the 'New Releases' section for PC games is a bit skimpy compared to the console releases, and as a developer you have a high support cost and return rate with your pissed off users because their brand new, noisy $700 PC clones won't run the game, because Vista consumed all the resources, so they needed to upgrade it to a $2500 PC clone ('silent' case, lots of memory, faster CPU, hard drive, big video card with a leaf blower attached, bigger power supply, etc.) in order for it to play a newly released game. All the while the people with the $250 XBOX 360 run the same game without a problem.
...
Since the 'topic police' are here, I guess I'll try not to digress and get back on topic.
The major thing that Vista is MISSING and will NEVER have would be the reliability and dependability of a gaming console or other dedicated device or 'appliance', and this is what a CONSUMER really needs. Microsoft is guilty of every 'sin' that Linux is when it comes to the department of making a computer 'just work'.
The platform will never make a secure (or even usable) DVD player or DVR, and it never will be no matter how many users they piss off trying to make it into one. There are too many variables in PC hardware to deal with, and too many expectations of 'compatibility'. It won't even play certain kinds of CD media right.
If you bought a DVR or DVD player that worked just as well as Vista-based PC for playing movies in your living room, you'd take it right back to the store and angrily demand your money back... unless you like expensive, useless noisy bricks taking up connections to your TV and Amplifier and warming the whole house up with its power requirements. There would in short order be a mountain of the returned devices in a warehouse waiting to be auctioned for scrap.
Instead, some people give Vista a free pass because it's an OS, and M$ can blame all of your troubles on your own (ill informed consumer) choices and Microsoft has trained you to accept colorful garbage as if it were treasure. The PC manufacturers like it that way too, because they can in turn blame buggy hardware symptoms on Microsoft's buggy OS and drivers and promise a there will be a fix 'soon' (but long after the return period has expired).
An XBOX 360 boots right up, and plays games as soon as you put a disk in. So add the extended OS features to the XBOX 360 and slap a bigger hard drive into it and include a wireless or USB keyboard and mouse, as well as an emulation layer to run older Windows apps, just as they use one to run original XBOX games. Problem solved. Microsoft's platform will finally be CLOSED exactly like they want it, they'll control all the hardware, software and content delivery paths and their own 'unique' presentation of the 'internet', just like the XBOX 360, and it will be under Microsoft's absolute control. Since the software will only be 'Microsoft Certified', signed and encrypted in order to run, much as the XBOX 360 games are, it will be nigh impossible to install malware unless you're Microsoft... but let's face it, Vista is already malware, and this is exactly what Microsoft is trying to do to your PC today.

[anfy]

Quote

What do you think the 'Orange Box' is? Or do you mean the ORIGINAL PC Half-Life that needs to be patched before it will even run, and has a minute long 'loading' screen every time you turn a corner? Oh yay, what fun.

Wow you must have had a pretty bad computer playing the game... I play it on my friends' computers now and then (and nobody I know spends $2500 on a gaming rig), and they run perfectly fine.

>BTW, 'XBOX Live!' has a growing number of those classic old PC games. Even 'Doom'.
What if I wanted to play something newer?
>As for WoW, it's not my kind of game.
Exactly my point. Just because you don't play it, doesn't mean nobody else does. Just because you don't use a feature, doesn't mean millions of other people don't need it.
>You'll also note there are various games on different consoles that won't play on YOUR console. There are MMOs developed for the PS3, but you're going to find mostly shooters on an XBOX 360, and the Wii has all kinds of kid-games. Choose your poison.
So what if someone wants to choose a PC? lots of people do.
And you shouldn't stereotype games consoles like that. Playing Resident Evil on Wii is a lot more fun than similar games on other consoles.

Quote

I do agree there's a big difference between developing games and playing them, but there pretty much is no such thing as a game developer who isn't a gamer. The nitpicky horrors of choosing and patching up a PC game (or your own hardware) to play is as nothing compared to developing and testing one to run on a wide variety of PC hardware. Just because you have 'DirectX' doesn't mean you can get away with not testing it (and getting bug reports back for) 1001 permutations of PC, and still you'll miss some major segment because there are millions of permutations of 'PC'. This expense is a major and compelling reason why you go to a Best Buy store and the 'New Releases' section for PC games is a bit skimpy compared to the console releases, and as a developer you have a high support cost and return rate with your pissed off users because their brand new, noisy $700 PC clones won't run the game, because Vista consumed all the resources, so they needed to upgrade it to a $2500 PC clone ('silent' case, lots of memory, faster CPU, hard drive, big video card with a leaf blower attached, bigger power supply, etc.) in order for it to play a newly released game. All the while the people with the $250 XBOX 360 run the same game without a problem.

Wow, I don't really know where to start. The only two conconsions I can draw are:

1. You have had REALLY bad computers to play games with, in which case you shouldn't complain because it's neither the game nor the platform's fault. It's like putting a PS3 disc into your PS2 and screaming at it wondering why it's not compatible. Or, possibly, you had one game that was poorly designed with compatibility problems and you assumed that all PC games have this issue. As I said before, a measily $800 (if you know where to shop, which most PC gamers do) can get you a Quad-core with 4GB of RAM, 500GB hard drive, and a decent video card. If you wanted a top of the line video card, it could run you well under $2000. I don't know where you keep getting that $2500 number from... you don't need to pay ANYWHERE close to that much to have a great functional PC.

2. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of games you can only play on the PC. Even whole genres. Does real time strategy (take command and conquer or starcraft) or MMORPG (try WoW or Lineage 2) ring a bell in your head? I guess not because all you play is FPS! There are millions of PC gamers out there who play these games, but just because you don't, doesn't mean PCs shouldn't support them. At that, PCs support them quite well.

Quote

...

Since the 'topic police' are here, I guess I'll try not to digress and get back on topic.

And following this sentence you went back to describing how PCs suck. Great job.

Quote

The major thing that Vista is MISSING and will NEVER have would be the reliability and dependability of a gaming console or other dedicated device or 'appliance', and this is what a CONSUMER really needs. Microsoft is guilty of every 'sin' that Linux is when it comes to the department of making a computer 'just work'.

So Vista comes with no internet browser, no media player, nothing. You are happy, and the rest of the world wants to shoot you. Should that be how it is? I'll keep playing my music, movies, and games, thank you very much.

Quote

The platform will never make a secure (or even usable) DVD player or DVR, and it never will be no matter how many users they piss off trying to make it into one. There are too many variables in PC hardware to deal with, and too many expectations of 'compatibility'. It won't even play certain kinds of CD media right.

I don't have a CLUE what you are talking about. I stick my DVD into my computer and it just plays. Is that not usable? How secure do I need my DVD player to be? OH SH*T someone is going to attack my "online" DVD player and take all my movies! =O

WOW.

On the other hand, my DVD players have had a few compatibility problems... some discs wont play on other players, region restrictions (easily bypassed on a PC) is a pain in the @ss, and I can't record TV shows and send them to friends. How very nice?

A DVD recorder costs you a couple hundred dollars... and a DVD-RW drive runs you $30. AND you can burn any type of DVD you want!

I don't see your argument here.. it seems like you hate computers or something.

If you bought a DVR or DVD player that worked just as well as Vista-based PC for playing movies in your living room, you'd take it right back to the store and angrily demand your money back... unless you like expensive, useless noisy bricks taking up connections to your TV and Amplifier and warming the whole house up with its power requirements. There would in short order be a mountain of the returned devices in a warehouse waiting to be auctioned for scrap.
First of all, no computer I ever owned gave me any heat problems. I don't have a CLUE what you're talking about. In fact, when my power supply blew (after using a stock one for 4 years... it didn't take anything with it), I got a new one with a BIGGER fan, but it was FAR more silent. If you hooked your computer up to your TV, you would need 2 plugs -- one for your computer, and one for your screen should you get one. That's not far off from 1 plug on your DVD player.

Instead, some people give Vista a free pass because it's an OS, and M$ can blame all of your troubles on your own (ill informed consumer) choices and Microsoft has trained you to accept colorful garbage as if it were treasure. The PC manufacturers like it that way too, because they can in turn blame buggy hardware symptoms on Microsoft's buggy OS and drivers and promise a there will be a fix 'soon' (but long after the return period has expired).
You just hate PCs and would lie to make yourself sound right. My PC works fine, and so does most people I know. It's not some piece of garbage, and it definitely "works"

An XBOX 360 boots right up, and plays games as soon as you put a disk in. So add the extended OS features to the XBOX 360 and slap a bigger hard drive into it and include a wireless or USB keyboard and mouse, as well as an emulation layer to run older Windows apps, just as they use one to run original XBOX games. Problem solved. Microsoft's platform will finally be CLOSED exactly like they want it, they'll control all the hardware, software and content delivery paths and their own 'unique' presentation of the 'internet', just like the XBOX 360, and it will be under Microsoft's absolute control. Since the software will only be 'Microsoft Certified', signed and encrypted in order to run, much as the XBOX 360 games are, it will be nigh impossible to install malware unless you're Microsoft... but let's face it, Vista is already malware, and this is exactly what Microsoft is trying to do to your PC today.
How is Vista malware? It makes my computer pretty and do a million different things -- play music, movies, games, check email, communicate with friends and relatives far away, keep updated on what's happening around the world, and let me post things like this on PCWorld! It doesn't spy on me... after activating Vista it's never bugged me about genuine advantage (the only time it would bother you is if you're running pirated software and it stops you.. which is exactly why they designed it in the first place. if nobody pirated their software they wouldn't need to defend it like that)

I don't understand why you talk about PCs like some piece of trash. It lets you do so many different things, and does them well. You make it sound like PCs try to do everything but can't do anything, when in reality they work just fine. If you hate modern PC's so much, go back to your windows 98 machine with the CD drive... you dont need to play any DVDs, connect it to a TV, or do any gaming on it anyways.

[Evildave]

How can you claim that my gaming PC's 'suck' and in the same post claim that PCs aren't 'TRASH'?

After all, if you have to throw away your whole system every six months to play the most recent games, I think that pretty much describes trash. My old XBOX and PS2 still run XBOX and PS2 games perfectly, but then again they didn't bother to

And you KNOW what I mean about the different consoles. There are MORE shooters on the XBOX 360. There are MORE Japanese button-masher-slashers on the PS3. There are MORE kiddy games on the Wii. More half-baked gimicky ones, too. It's not that you can't get an MMO or RTS game on the XBOX 360 or Wii, or that you can't have a shooter on a Wii or PS3. You just have less of a selection. You currently can't play Halo3 on the PC, either. You most likely won't get GTA IV on the PC any time soon, but neither will console gamers.

I do play 'RTS' games, but hey, the most recent offering I got for a PC, 'Supreme Commander', was a perfect example of why the PC sucks as a gaming platform. I had a one year old PC that apparently met the requirements on the box, but as it turns out, except for a requirement for an obscure bit of DirextX shading hardware. Goody. So I shelved the game until I went through the next round of buying hardware that turned out to be 'good enough'. The game sort of sucked, too. AI was the culprit there. The visual effects, while pretty, did not rescue the experience, which was more chore than play. Interestingly, it runs in Linux under WINE.

I guess according to you, one year old PCs are 'junk', ergo 'trash'? The sad fact is that my PC machines become 'hand-me-downs' at a distressingly high rate. I'd rather use the same machine for years than have it 'obsolete' as soon as I pull the staples out of the box it was shipped in. On average they last two years before they need replacement. That's some awesomely high turn-over compared to most PC owners.

And a Vista machine does not, strictly speaking, have quite so many 'thousands' of games to run. Unless you're counting all the 'Type Tutor' and Flash games that any machine runs. It's not THAT backwards compatible with the heyday of PC gaming, which pretty much died out with the advent of better console gaming systems.

When you do a search for 'Vista and games', you will find little besides COMPLAINTS about it. You're uniquely the only person I've ever heard glowing praise of its gaming performance from. Maybe everybody has 'suck machines', except for you? Mostly they seem to have newer, faster Vista machines that play the games worse than their older, slower machines. If the hardware is faster and the games don't play as well... I wonder what the common factor could possibly be? Oh, yeah. Vista. It sucks.

[rgreen4]

[color="#ff0000"]Enough.[/color]
The venom dripping out of your posts has completely destroyed the original intent of this thread. Take a chill pill and go back and read what you have posted and see how it is relavent to the original question.

None of it is.

The discussion was supposed to be about what improvements we wanted to see in Vista, not a rant on how bad Vista was, and how loud a certain PC is.

If you feel that Vista is beyond redemption, then say that in one line and be done with it.

[Evildave]

Oh, well, okie-dokey then: Vista is beyond redemption. Only a M$ shill could claim it's otherwise. :D

[coastie65]

I know that there are people that are happy with Vi$ta, my Brother-in-Law for one, but there are a lot more that are unhappy with it. I spent several hours on his Vi$ta machine at his invitation. I was not real impressed with it to say the least. It is slow and resource hungry. After wading through all the posts, I think Aurora expressed it best. That thing, in my opinion wasn't even ready for Beta testing, let alone release to market. I don't need the bells and whistles, and all the other resource eating "extras". I am running XP MCE and it suits my needs just fine. I don't appreciate the fact, that at some point, Micro$oft will quit selling and supporting XP and take away our choice. Unfortunately, it may take a class action law suit to keep Micro$oft in line. They should always have a choice between Two different OSs ie: XP & Vi$ta. By eliminating XP and leaving only Vi$ta, is, in my opinion, extortion of a sort and not good business. Those kind of business practices should not allowed nor condoned. In my opinion Micro$oft has way too much control of the market and some controls need to be placed on them to bring them in line, as they do not operate in the best interest of the consumer. My appologies to all those who are using Vi$ta and like it, but as far as I'm concerned M$ can take Vi$ta and stick it where the sun don't shine, or leave us with XP for a second choice. coastie65

[anfy]

My response will be short because I know people don't want to read this constant back and forth, and I have better things to do, such as study so I have a good job in the future instead of go on forums and flame about technology.

Evildave said:

How can you claim that my gaming PC's 'suck' and in the same post claim that PCs aren't 'TRASH'?

When did I say that? please quote the whole sentence.
> After all, if you have to throw away your whole system every six months to play the most recent games, I think that pretty much describes trash. My old XBOX and PS2 still run XBOX and PS2 games perfectly, but then again they didn't bother to
[/quote]
I don't know ANYONE who does that. Maybe you have a lot of money to spare on your hands to play PC games at highest resolution and quality every 6 months (and the quality improves, not like Xbox and PS3 games, where graphics quality is constant). If a newer game comes out with graphics your card can't run at full, run it lower?
> And you KNOW what I mean about the different consoles. There are MORE shooters on the XBOX 360. There are MORE Japanese button-masher-slashers on the PS3. There are MORE kiddy games on the Wii. More half-baked gimicky ones, too. It's not that you can't get an MMO or RTS game on the XBOX 360 or Wii, or that you can't have a shooter on a Wii or PS3. You just have less of a selection. You currently can't play Halo3 on the PC, either. You most likely won't get GTA IV on the PC any time soon, but neither will console gamers.
[/quote]
I'm not saying don't buy consoles because PCs plays all, I'm saying different consoles and PCs play different games... so there's still merit in playing PC games.
> I do play 'RTS' games, but hey, the most recent offering I got for a PC, 'Supreme Commander', was a perfect example of why the PC sucks as a gaming platform. I had a one year old PC that apparently met the requirements on the box, but as it turns out, except for a requirement for an obscure bit of DirextX shading hardware. Goody. So I shelved the game until I went through the next round of buying hardware that turned out to be 'good enough'. The game sort of sucked, too. AI was the culprit there. The visual effects, while pretty, did not rescue the experience, which was more chore than play. Interestingly, it runs in Linux under WINE.
[/quote]
So you start saying how a game is a perfect example, then start describing how the game sucks. Maybe the game sucks, and not the PC?
> I guess according to you, one year old PCs are 'junk', ergo 'trash'? The sad fact is that my PC machines become 'hand-me-downs' at a distressingly high rate. I'd rather use the same machine for years than have it 'obsolete' as soon as I pull the staples out of the box it was shipped in. On average they last two years before they need replacement. That's some awesomely high turn-over compared to most PC owners.
[/quote]
Depends on how you plan to use your PCs.. my last one lasted me 5 full years with very minor upgrades before I had to buy a laptop for university, which I intend to use for another 4. If I can't play a game on full graphics, I can reduce the graphics settings and play anything fine.
> And a Vista machine does not, strictly speaking, have quite so many 'thousands' of games to run. Unless you're counting all the 'Type Tutor' and Flash games that any machine runs. It's not THAT backwards compatible with the heyday of PC gaming, which pretty much died out with the advent of better console gaming systems.
[/quote]
AFAIK, Vista is compatible with most recent games. At that, there are at least hundreds of them, ranging from crappy games like "Supreme Commander" to great games like Half Life 2, WoW, Unreal Tournament, Command and Conquer, Crisis, etc.
> When you do a search for 'Vista and games', you will find little besides COMPLAINTS about it. You're uniquely the only person I've ever heard glowing praise of its gaming performance from. Maybe everybody has 'suck machines', except for you? Mostly they seem to have newer, faster Vista machines that play the games worse than their older, slower machines. If the hardware is faster and the games don't play as well... I wonder what the common factor could possibly be? Oh, yeah. Vista. It sucks.
[/quote]
Why don't you do a search for "PC and games"? That's what you're complaining about anyways.
Anyways I'm glad that we've dropped the DVD player, cell phone, and camera argument which were totally nonsense to begin with :p
This will likely be my last post trying to answer your responses, because I feel that I have already answered your unreasonable complaints (in some cases twice or thrice), and I've already answered the original question with my opinion.
To the person who posted saying we should sue MS for not having 2 OS's at once... I have to say something quickly:
I know that a lot of people hate Vista, but you don't have to buy it if you don't like it. Try a Mac. If MS doesn't want to sell XP anymore, it's their choice, it's their loss. There's nothing illegal about that. MS could stop selling OS's all together and you can't sue them for not selling something you need when they are not obliged to. Just like how some people (me included) think that the new generation wide, fat iPod nanos look fugly, we can't sue Apple for not selling the old ones anymore. But we have alternatives like Creative and Sony. Unfortunately, a lot of people will complain, but what's the use? Fact is fact. =/

[Evildave]

Nope, I think you only miss the point that a computer OS shouldn't try to be "Everything to Everyone", and while it can try to be, it will at best be a jack of all trades, and at worst, it will be... VISTA.

[Yert]

Something you see a bit here and there: "Blank is garbage, and has no redeeming qualities. Defending it's merits is equivalent to calling my mother a #$%&."

Its the same everywhere.

Oh... and here is me defending Vista. I must be either a) a fanboy, or b) implying that you mother is something horrible.

Vista has problems, but it also has qualities. Good qualities.