Sign In
Register
Help
Assuming your PC manufacturer gave you install media, it has MANY good qualities....
1. The CD it comes on makes a good coaster.
2. It can be used as a frisbee.
3. You can spin it with a dremel tool and make it disintegrate or shoot it at walls for entertainment.
4. You can get a $2 analog clock movement and make a wall clock out of it.
5. You can sabotage your business competitiors by sending the FUD filled Microsoft peddler over there to convince them to install it.
6. Maybe the Iranians or North Koreans will use Vista in their nuclear program and get slowed down for years! Perhaps it'll even contribute to a meltdown.
7. Nail them on top of your doghouse as shingles.
8. Make a crib mobile for infants you want to grow up retarded.
9. Make a 'serious gaming PC' into an expensive doorstop.
10. Backwards malware compatibility if you need a 'bot net to send spam and coordinate denial of service attacks..
11. Wind chimes. Well, not very good wind chimes, but it wouldn't make that nice a mobile, either.
12. Stack them a hundred deep and use it as a bullet stop while sighting in a rifle.
13. Aquarium decoration
14. Weed barrier lining under gravel
15. Various other artsy-craftsy uses. See similar lists for what to do with AOL CDs.
I'm sure there are many more such excellent qualities in Vista.
Your Feedback: An Open Letter to Microsoft About Vista
MultiQuote
#42
Cosmo 
- Expert
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1,990
- Joined: 27-July 06
- Location:Someplace Evil
Posted 11 February 2008 - 01:07 AM
Stop
A Moderator has already stated that this thread is for comments pertaining to the original post. Any further "back and forth" posts will be removed and the poster warned.
If you want to argue about Vista, you are more than welcome to start your own thread where you can.
A Moderator has already stated that this thread is for comments pertaining to the original post. Any further "back and forth" posts will be removed and the poster warned.
If you want to argue about Vista, you are more than welcome to start your own thread where you can.
#43
mcbarker
- Expert
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1,078
- Joined: 10-August 06
- Location:Connecticut, USA
Posted 11 February 2008 - 06:42 AM
I'm in the process of researching/buying a new desktop to replace my 8 year old Dell. I have thousands of dollars invested in image editing and other software, all of which works perfectly with Windows XP. Unfortunately, much of it ( about 80%) is more than 2 years old, and isn't compatible with Vista, so my new system will be running XP. The company I work for, which is a very large corporation employing more that 50,000 people, has already decided not to install Vista on any of its systems any time in the foreseeable future.
There needs to be more backward compatibility for both software and hardware when designing a new OS. Microsoft seems to have forgotten that owning a computer system isn't about having a pretty GUI... It's a productivity tool which is differently customized for each individual user. The OS should efficiently launch programs, and be as unobtrusive as possible. Apparently the decision makers at MS don't understand this, but instead, think that the whole computing experience is all about the OS and a flashy interface, and that all other computing tasks are secondary.
In my opinion, Vista is the new Microsoft ME. I predict that we'll see a new, more efficient system within the next three years. If not, Linux may become a major competitor, especially among business users.
There needs to be more backward compatibility for both software and hardware when designing a new OS. Microsoft seems to have forgotten that owning a computer system isn't about having a pretty GUI... It's a productivity tool which is differently customized for each individual user. The OS should efficiently launch programs, and be as unobtrusive as possible. Apparently the decision makers at MS don't understand this, but instead, think that the whole computing experience is all about the OS and a flashy interface, and that all other computing tasks are secondary.
In my opinion, Vista is the new Microsoft ME. I predict that we'll see a new, more efficient system within the next three years. If not, Linux may become a major competitor, especially among business users.
#44
anfy
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 43
- Joined: 07-February 08
Posted 11 February 2008 - 08:56 AM
On McBarker's thought, I would just like to add that although I do like Vista (maybe not as much as XP, but I still like it), I do acknowledge that it has quite a few flaws, as I have listed extensively twice before. (and therefore does not classify me as a fanboy)
I really hope that MS will take it's users' opinions into consideration, and if they can't fix Vista, at least be able to address these issues in the next version of Windows, Windows 7, due late 2009 or early 2010. Until then, a lot of people are waiting.
I really hope that MS will take it's users' opinions into consideration, and if they can't fix Vista, at least be able to address these issues in the next version of Windows, Windows 7, due late 2009 or early 2010. Until then, a lot of people are waiting.
#45
Evildave
- Expert
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1,547
- Joined: 24-January 08
Posted 11 February 2008 - 12:13 PM
Another major problem with 'backwards compatibility' is that some of the things they actually (gasp!) fixed have to be un-fixed to get it.
For instance, one simple rule might be that under normal circumstances, no application or DLL should be able to modify ANY file in the Windows or Program Files tree. Outside of these trees, no program or DLL should be allowed to run, EVER. This breaks quite a lot of badly behaved software, and quite a lot of it is made by other major software companies. They have that 'execute' permission set everywhere (unlike Linux where it's cleared everywhere unless set)... but it's just too many bits and too complex a ruleset for most people to deal with, and most scripting software written for Windows don't even look at the bits.
Many programs rely on the old (and unsafe) default DLL search behavior, which will search in the application directory, current directory, then PATH for DLL files. The new search behavior isn't much better, either. The classic exploit of dumping a customized 'system' DLL (or even application DLL when the application is prevalent enough, like Adobe's PDF bloatware) in the same folder as an application or anywhere in PATH that has permission, including the current working directory, in order to have it run whatever you want still works. This can not be fixed AND maintain even half-baked backwards compatibility.
You should not be allowed to run 'elevated' (i.e. Administrator/ROOT) programs (besides 'setup' or system tools( without jumping through significant hoops. Vista pops up a cryptic (to most users) message that says "Unless you click this button, you can't do what you want." They just push the button.
Brand new applications, like Taxcut 2007 kick the door down 'for you' by modifying the permissions in Program Files so IT can run. You gave its setup permission to do so as soon as you dismissed the 'Security' prompt. So lots of Vista machines that unwisely installed software that does things like this will have normal user permission to modify everything in Program Files, making them once again very viable malware targets. They cover their butts by claiming any damages to your system (like other user accounts on the same machine not being able to install or run software) in that 'User Agreement' that nobody reads, either.
www.google.com/search?q=taxcut[i2007[/i]overwrite+permissions]
Other applications (like 'TurboTax') are still allowed to do nasty things to your partition table that corrupt non-NTFS file systems, and install spyware of its own.
Step-by-step online instructions that tell the users how to disable all those 'annoying' UAC pop-ups for 'backwards compatibility' or 'convenience' exist, and users blindly follow the instructions because they don't even know what they're doing. They're such faithful creatures. Granted, disabling UAC is no worse than having it for most users, as they would click away a UAC prompt in the middle of opening a PDF, image or document file without even looking at why it's prompting. I repeat: Users do not understand why they are being prompted, so they ALWAYS allow. Many of these pages that tell 'how to' do not discuss the severe security side-effects of continuing to run with your Administrator-enabled user account with no permission prompts for modifying system resources... either because they think it's over the heads of their intended audience (normal users), or they don't understand it themselves. Too bad what's "Over your head" is the fact you've allowed ANYTHING to silently modify your system while you're logged in with your Administrator level user account, so you're effectively back to a Windows NT/2000/XP machine logged in with an Administrator account (only fatter and slower).
[http://www.google.com/search?q=Disable+UAC]
A fine example is this 'Modify Users Access Control' thing is the instructions on this web site to allow a BAT file run by the user to 'conveniently' modify the HOSTS file, re-enabling web site hijacking that Microsoft actually correctly disabled. Ultra-stupid, especially if they bank online, but most people don't understand that and just do it anyway.
[http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hostsvista.htm]
So another little something Vista needs is a bit more scrutiny over what you are 'allowing' a setup program to do.
1. Enforce strict compatibility and security against a setup with IRON CLAD LAWS
2. Enforce moderate, more trusted security that lets some extra things be done like install new 'tasks'
3. Allow setup to continue, but prompt for everything 'elevated' or otherwise 'suspicious'.
4. Let a supremely trusted application blindly 'have its way' with the OS. (Usually a bad idea, but what the user currently agrees to with UAC.)
You should definitely get a list of disclaimers and an optional and clearly-worded and illustrated tutorial about security for the more 'permissive' installations and an optional of blow-by-blow mode to allow/disallow setup actions. So if you install what should be a 'simple application' and it suddenly wants to modify HOSTS, add 'Startup' items, and patch things in unrelated directories, you can cancel/undo or 'just say no'.
Similar to IE's 'Internet Zones', I suppose.
Also allow Administrators to set the level so their users have limited setup privileges to make a mess of their machines. Right on the User Manager where everybody can find it.
Another possibility, make a dedicated 'Software Install' login, that again has a maximum permission level preset by the Administrator. Force the user to drop everything and 'switch to' the 'Installer' account to run ANY setup, especially one that does 'special' things to the file system or Windows tree. A bit inconvenient, but so is having a machine whose main purpose is to be a Nigerian user's BOT for sending spam, phishing and attacking servers, or serving as a proxy for other illegal activities... with some small allowances made to present a desktop so you can pretend it belongs to you.
Also, the user account should NOT have 'administrator' privileges by default after a fresh install of Vista (and only supplemented by those security pop-ups that people blindly dismiss or disable all together). Yuck. Keep user/Administrator separate and make them give different passwords for each.
While thinking about setup, it would be NICE if I was ALWAYS allowed to establish a 'category' to dump Start Menu commands into. (Oops, no start menu to look at, running Linux). I always tended to group applications into folders, according to their purpose. Art, Productivity, Development, Internet, Games, and of course a 'Catch All' one I named 'Gadgets' for all the crap that I either seldom used or only used indirectly through file associations, like PDF or ZIP files. It would be NICE if the 'setup' always prompted for what kinds of desktop/quick launch/start menu shortcuts I wanted, rather than always doing as it pleased and dumping everything into the root of the Start menu as if it owns the system, to be 'scrolled'. It really annoys me when I sit down at somebody's computer only to see hundreds of things to pick through as soon as I click on 'Start'.
Even better, add a 'Start Menu Manager' to move the Start menu things around and still have setup/uninstall work right afterwards. I suppose it would just let the various application setups dump Start folder items wherever they liked in that tree, and a database of where I want the items to appear dictates the layout of the Start menu, as presented by the GUI. The database could be 'refreshed' whenever a Setup/Uninstall happens. The 'manager' would need only ONE elevation prompt to gain access to the database and let me define application categories and move things around between them.
Finally, the big problem with DX10 is that not many developers will be making new DX10 games any time soon, since it will not be available for XP, the biggest installed base of PC users to actually sell games to. Some developers will probably make skews of their games that run under DX10, but that goes back to my already enumerated game dev and compatibility problems compared to consoles. The vast majority of the testing and development will focus on DX9.x for the foreseeable future, other than the games that were shipped with DX10 banking on Vista's success. Many of these will most likely get backported to DX9, except for the ones that don't have any budget left to do so after they went under trying to sell games to Vista users, or games shipped by Microsoft and its partners with that 'Vista Uber Alles' policy.
For instance, one simple rule might be that under normal circumstances, no application or DLL should be able to modify ANY file in the Windows or Program Files tree. Outside of these trees, no program or DLL should be allowed to run, EVER. This breaks quite a lot of badly behaved software, and quite a lot of it is made by other major software companies. They have that 'execute' permission set everywhere (unlike Linux where it's cleared everywhere unless set)... but it's just too many bits and too complex a ruleset for most people to deal with, and most scripting software written for Windows don't even look at the bits.
Many programs rely on the old (and unsafe) default DLL search behavior, which will search in the application directory, current directory, then PATH for DLL files. The new search behavior isn't much better, either. The classic exploit of dumping a customized 'system' DLL (or even application DLL when the application is prevalent enough, like Adobe's PDF bloatware) in the same folder as an application or anywhere in PATH that has permission, including the current working directory, in order to have it run whatever you want still works. This can not be fixed AND maintain even half-baked backwards compatibility.
You should not be allowed to run 'elevated' (i.e. Administrator/ROOT) programs (besides 'setup' or system tools( without jumping through significant hoops. Vista pops up a cryptic (to most users) message that says "Unless you click this button, you can't do what you want." They just push the button.
Brand new applications, like Taxcut 2007 kick the door down 'for you' by modifying the permissions in Program Files so IT can run. You gave its setup permission to do so as soon as you dismissed the 'Security' prompt. So lots of Vista machines that unwisely installed software that does things like this will have normal user permission to modify everything in Program Files, making them once again very viable malware targets. They cover their butts by claiming any damages to your system (like other user accounts on the same machine not being able to install or run software) in that 'User Agreement' that nobody reads, either.
www.google.com/search?q=taxcut[i2007[/i]overwrite+permissions]
Other applications (like 'TurboTax') are still allowed to do nasty things to your partition table that corrupt non-NTFS file systems, and install spyware of its own.
Step-by-step online instructions that tell the users how to disable all those 'annoying' UAC pop-ups for 'backwards compatibility' or 'convenience' exist, and users blindly follow the instructions because they don't even know what they're doing. They're such faithful creatures. Granted, disabling UAC is no worse than having it for most users, as they would click away a UAC prompt in the middle of opening a PDF, image or document file without even looking at why it's prompting. I repeat: Users do not understand why they are being prompted, so they ALWAYS allow. Many of these pages that tell 'how to' do not discuss the severe security side-effects of continuing to run with your Administrator-enabled user account with no permission prompts for modifying system resources... either because they think it's over the heads of their intended audience (normal users), or they don't understand it themselves. Too bad what's "Over your head" is the fact you've allowed ANYTHING to silently modify your system while you're logged in with your Administrator level user account, so you're effectively back to a Windows NT/2000/XP machine logged in with an Administrator account (only fatter and slower).
[http://www.google.com/search?q=Disable+UAC]
A fine example is this 'Modify Users Access Control' thing is the instructions on this web site to allow a BAT file run by the user to 'conveniently' modify the HOSTS file, re-enabling web site hijacking that Microsoft actually correctly disabled. Ultra-stupid, especially if they bank online, but most people don't understand that and just do it anyway.
[http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hostsvista.htm]
So another little something Vista needs is a bit more scrutiny over what you are 'allowing' a setup program to do.
1. Enforce strict compatibility and security against a setup with IRON CLAD LAWS
2. Enforce moderate, more trusted security that lets some extra things be done like install new 'tasks'
3. Allow setup to continue, but prompt for everything 'elevated' or otherwise 'suspicious'.
4. Let a supremely trusted application blindly 'have its way' with the OS. (Usually a bad idea, but what the user currently agrees to with UAC.)
You should definitely get a list of disclaimers and an optional and clearly-worded and illustrated tutorial about security for the more 'permissive' installations and an optional of blow-by-blow mode to allow/disallow setup actions. So if you install what should be a 'simple application' and it suddenly wants to modify HOSTS, add 'Startup' items, and patch things in unrelated directories, you can cancel/undo or 'just say no'.
Similar to IE's 'Internet Zones', I suppose.
Also allow Administrators to set the level so their users have limited setup privileges to make a mess of their machines. Right on the User Manager where everybody can find it.
Another possibility, make a dedicated 'Software Install' login, that again has a maximum permission level preset by the Administrator. Force the user to drop everything and 'switch to' the 'Installer' account to run ANY setup, especially one that does 'special' things to the file system or Windows tree. A bit inconvenient, but so is having a machine whose main purpose is to be a Nigerian user's BOT for sending spam, phishing and attacking servers, or serving as a proxy for other illegal activities... with some small allowances made to present a desktop so you can pretend it belongs to you.
Also, the user account should NOT have 'administrator' privileges by default after a fresh install of Vista (and only supplemented by those security pop-ups that people blindly dismiss or disable all together). Yuck. Keep user/Administrator separate and make them give different passwords for each.
While thinking about setup, it would be NICE if I was ALWAYS allowed to establish a 'category' to dump Start Menu commands into. (Oops, no start menu to look at, running Linux). I always tended to group applications into folders, according to their purpose. Art, Productivity, Development, Internet, Games, and of course a 'Catch All' one I named 'Gadgets' for all the crap that I either seldom used or only used indirectly through file associations, like PDF or ZIP files. It would be NICE if the 'setup' always prompted for what kinds of desktop/quick launch/start menu shortcuts I wanted, rather than always doing as it pleased and dumping everything into the root of the Start menu as if it owns the system, to be 'scrolled'. It really annoys me when I sit down at somebody's computer only to see hundreds of things to pick through as soon as I click on 'Start'.
Even better, add a 'Start Menu Manager' to move the Start menu things around and still have setup/uninstall work right afterwards. I suppose it would just let the various application setups dump Start folder items wherever they liked in that tree, and a database of where I want the items to appear dictates the layout of the Start menu, as presented by the GUI. The database could be 'refreshed' whenever a Setup/Uninstall happens. The 'manager' would need only ONE elevation prompt to gain access to the database and let me define application categories and move things around between them.
Finally, the big problem with DX10 is that not many developers will be making new DX10 games any time soon, since it will not be available for XP, the biggest installed base of PC users to actually sell games to. Some developers will probably make skews of their games that run under DX10, but that goes back to my already enumerated game dev and compatibility problems compared to consoles. The vast majority of the testing and development will focus on DX9.x for the foreseeable future, other than the games that were shipped with DX10 banking on Vista's success. Many of these will most likely get backported to DX9, except for the ones that don't have any budget left to do so after they went under trying to sell games to Vista users, or games shipped by Microsoft and its partners with that 'Vista Uber Alles' policy.
#46
scoutconnor
- Newbie
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 6
- Joined: 06-March 07
Posted 11 February 2008 - 12:39 PM
I think that the worst thing about Vista is it's speed (or lack thereof)
#47
Evildave
- Expert
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1,547
- Joined: 24-January 08
Posted 11 February 2008 - 02:38 PM
PowerToys! Why isn't there a 'TweakUI' for Vista? Lots of very useful settings in there for XP end up being 'registry tweaks', instead. Even if these settings are still around in Vista and you can grope around nine dialogs deep to get them, TweakUI brought lots of settings into a convenient little package.
Last I checked, none of the existing PowerToys for XP will install in Vista, and there is not a Microsoft PowerToys page for Vista.
Last I checked, none of the existing PowerToys for XP will install in Vista, and there is not a Microsoft PowerToys page for Vista.
#48
mphenterprises
- Moderator
-
- Group: Moderators
- Posts: 12,259
- Joined: 19-February 07
- Location:Philadelphia, PA
Posted 11 February 2008 - 02:54 PM
Evildave said:
>
>
Quote
PowerToys! Why isn't there a 'TweakUI' for Vista? Lots of very useful settings in there for XP end up being 'registry tweaks', instead. Even if these settings > are still around in Vista and you can grope around nine dialogs deep to get them, TweakUI brought lots of settings into a convenient little package.
Last I checked, none of the existing PowerToys for XP will install in Vista, and there is not a Microsoft PowerToys page for Vista.
Last I checked, none of the existing PowerToys for XP will install in Vista, and there is not a Microsoft PowerToys page for Vista.
>
>
Hi EvilDave. There is a version of TweakUI for Vista. It's called TweakVI. I use it and I am very impressed with the way my Dual-Boot System operates. I have not had one issue with Vista at all since installing it back in late December. The hyperlink will take you right to the TweakVI page.
#49
Evildave
- Expert
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1,547
- Joined: 24-January 08
Posted 11 February 2008 - 03:01 PM
Hmm, I'll grab that.
I don't think Microsoft would cease support of popular tools just because some other vendor made a better one, though.
Usually they make a lousy clone of popular tools and destroy other vendors.
Added...
HAHAHAHA!!! It prompts to disable UAC as soon I installed it! Priceless! Oh yes PLEASE make my system (OK virtual machine) just as 'secure' as XP! Yee-haw!
I'm kidding. Annoying as they are, those prompts are there for a reason, and I'm not gonna remove them. Oh, no.
Added...
Wonderful! It prompted a SECOND time to disable UAC when I ran it! Do you know how FEW users will still have UAC enabled after that many friendly recommendations? Maybe one in ten? Maybe not even that many.... One of MANY little Vista tools that will do the same thing 'for you'.
Vista ain't secure if you disable all the security, and here we have a nifty little tool that makes disabling the biggest component of that security (so you can run as Administrator and modify any file at any time without prompting) both JOB #1 and JOB #2. There are a LOT of steps to lock down a system without UAC, and Vista doesn't do any of it conveniently.
All in all a cute little app, but not really the same as TweakUI. It tries to do too much.
After restarting the virtual machine, the settings applet needed UAC permission to run in order to make its changes and put up its tray icon. That's probably all the reason they needed to strip UAC protection from the system 'for me'. So I uninstalled it. Having stacks of tray icons bugs me, too. A few of the tweaks were persistent without the startup gadget, so it at least accomplished some small part of its mission. I didn't see the 'menu delay' slider like there was in the TweakUI applets, either.
I don't think Microsoft would cease support of popular tools just because some other vendor made a better one, though.
Usually they make a lousy clone of popular tools and destroy other vendors.
Added...
HAHAHAHA!!! It prompts to disable UAC as soon I installed it! Priceless! Oh yes PLEASE make my system (OK virtual machine) just as 'secure' as XP! Yee-haw!
I'm kidding. Annoying as they are, those prompts are there for a reason, and I'm not gonna remove them. Oh, no.
Added...
Wonderful! It prompted a SECOND time to disable UAC when I ran it! Do you know how FEW users will still have UAC enabled after that many friendly recommendations? Maybe one in ten? Maybe not even that many.... One of MANY little Vista tools that will do the same thing 'for you'.
Vista ain't secure if you disable all the security, and here we have a nifty little tool that makes disabling the biggest component of that security (so you can run as Administrator and modify any file at any time without prompting) both JOB #1 and JOB #2. There are a LOT of steps to lock down a system without UAC, and Vista doesn't do any of it conveniently.
All in all a cute little app, but not really the same as TweakUI. It tries to do too much.
After restarting the virtual machine, the settings applet needed UAC permission to run in order to make its changes and put up its tray icon. That's probably all the reason they needed to strip UAC protection from the system 'for me'. So I uninstalled it. Having stacks of tray icons bugs me, too. A few of the tweaks were persistent without the startup gadget, so it at least accomplished some small part of its mission. I didn't see the 'menu delay' slider like there was in the TweakUI applets, either.
#50
mphenterprises
- Moderator
-
- Group: Moderators
- Posts: 12,259
- Joined: 19-February 07
- Location:Philadelphia, PA
Posted 11 February 2008 - 04:16 PM
Well, I think that may be the difference. I have long since silenced my UAC using TweakUAC. UAC is still technically active but I do not get any pop up messages or prompts. Also, I do not use a virtual machine anymore so I cannot experiment to see what you see.
Since we are still within the Open Letter to Microsoft Discussion, if you have any specific concerns about this application, open up another Discussion so those concerns can be addressed.
Since we are still within the Open Letter to Microsoft Discussion, if you have any specific concerns about this application, open up another Discussion so those concerns can be addressed.
#51
Car54
- Senior Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 651
- Joined: 16-November 06
- Location:Witness Protection Program
Posted 15 February 2008 - 04:39 PM
What do I like about Vista:
* That when you open Documents, it's just the Document Folder, same with Pictures, etc. To me it's just a cleaner, less uncluttered, "feel".
* I like all the options on the Toolbar, and the many ways to access previously opened files,and locations you've been to by the forward, back, up, down, options in the Address bar.
What I'm not real hip on:
* All Programs which opens in the small Start box (yet I know you can elongate it to help, by adding more programs to the Start menu) which can be a little hard to get used to cp. to XPs that was almost to big......complain, complain...am I ever happy...:-)
* The fact that you have to buy 2 expensive versions of Vista, either Business or Ultimate, to run Remote Desktop, again cp. to XP where you just needed the one being Home and the other being XP Professional. You probably would want Ultimate (which is the most money), as Business doesn't have Media Center, DVD Maker, Games, Movie Maker .
* That when screen saver kicks in, it stops all running back ground processes, at least, when your doing a AV scan it stops it, unless you add more time to screen saver to allow a full scan. See link, the stopped scan, and stopped CPU and RAM in the Sidebar Gadget.
I have to correct myself on the above critique, as a scan is running underneath the supposed stopped scan and processes . I guess I never noticed that before as all my XP screen savers are opaque, and I could never see that it too might have shown "everything stopped", even though the scan was still running and would complete.
* That when you open Documents, it's just the Document Folder, same with Pictures, etc. To me it's just a cleaner, less uncluttered, "feel".
* I like all the options on the Toolbar, and the many ways to access previously opened files,and locations you've been to by the forward, back, up, down, options in the Address bar.
What I'm not real hip on:
* All Programs which opens in the small Start box (yet I know you can elongate it to help, by adding more programs to the Start menu) which can be a little hard to get used to cp. to XPs that was almost to big......complain, complain...am I ever happy...:-)
* The fact that you have to buy 2 expensive versions of Vista, either Business or Ultimate, to run Remote Desktop, again cp. to XP where you just needed the one being Home and the other being XP Professional. You probably would want Ultimate (which is the most money), as Business doesn't have Media Center, DVD Maker, Games, Movie Maker .
* That when screen saver kicks in, it stops all running back ground processes, at least, when your doing a AV scan it stops it, unless you add more time to screen saver to allow a full scan. See link, the stopped scan, and stopped CPU and RAM in the Sidebar Gadget.
I have to correct myself on the above critique, as a scan is running underneath the supposed stopped scan and processes . I guess I never noticed that before as all my XP screen savers are opaque, and I could never see that it too might have shown "everything stopped", even though the scan was still running and would complete.
#52
myspacemedia
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 14
- Joined: 13-January 08
- Location:Seattle, WA
Posted 17 February 2008 - 02:22 PM
I will be happy to participate in your information gathereing. Be sure to make it count and be included in your submission though.
What is the most annoying thing about Windows Vista?
Nothing
What do you hope Vista SP1 will fix, streamline, and improve upon?
Nothing
Do you love or hate Windows Vista?
Love the Vista!
Now for my rehtoric:
I have been using Windows Vista since September 19, 2007. Prior to that, I had Windows XP. I purchased my XP system back in March 2002 after XP had been available for one year. I recently upgraded to Windows Vista after using the same system for five years, and after Vista, the new OS had been around for a year. I have success with this pattern of upgrade as I have not experienced any issues with XP, and now Windows Vista.
My system is a 32 bit Vista OS. I think people that experience problems are running the 64 bit, and what compunds the issue of peoples problems with Vista, is that they upgrade only Vista on their 2,3,and 5 year old machines. Vista is an awesome OS and there is nothing wrong with it. There is something wrong with people. People not getting with the tech program and expect a new OS to fully function on their antiquated PC's. Hardward, drivers and software vendors who, in the beginning, have not provided new code are the cause of Vista not performing correctly. Of course Vista will not run smoothly under these conditions.
Vista is fine, people are not...
What is the most annoying thing about Windows Vista?
Nothing
What do you hope Vista SP1 will fix, streamline, and improve upon?
Nothing
Do you love or hate Windows Vista?
Love the Vista!
Now for my rehtoric:
I have been using Windows Vista since September 19, 2007. Prior to that, I had Windows XP. I purchased my XP system back in March 2002 after XP had been available for one year. I recently upgraded to Windows Vista after using the same system for five years, and after Vista, the new OS had been around for a year. I have success with this pattern of upgrade as I have not experienced any issues with XP, and now Windows Vista.
My system is a 32 bit Vista OS. I think people that experience problems are running the 64 bit, and what compunds the issue of peoples problems with Vista, is that they upgrade only Vista on their 2,3,and 5 year old machines. Vista is an awesome OS and there is nothing wrong with it. There is something wrong with people. People not getting with the tech program and expect a new OS to fully function on their antiquated PC's. Hardward, drivers and software vendors who, in the beginning, have not provided new code are the cause of Vista not performing correctly. Of course Vista will not run smoothly under these conditions.
Vista is fine, people are not...
#53
myspacemedia
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 14
- Joined: 13-January 08
- Location:Seattle, WA
Posted 17 February 2008 - 02:31 PM
Disable the Genuine Advantage feature. Do not download MS products. Get aLinux OS if it really bothers you that much. You have choices. Nobody is pointing a gun to your head and forcing you to use Windows Vista. Again...you do have choices, don't be a moron.
Vista is NOT bloated. Diable all of the programs and services you do not need, do not want, are not using. Simple. Vista is rich with services, many of which most common computer users will never use or ever need for their simple computing.
Microsoft does not want to force upgrades. Vista is an advanced OS. 3.1, 95, 98, 2000. XP, Vista. And so it goes. Why don't you just use 3.1, and try to access a flash website. Get my point?
Vista, for a Windows user is advanced technology able to handle many if not all up coming new technologies, many that we do not even know about yet and that will be revealed later this yer, and perhaps the next. Get with the tachnology bandwagon, or get off of it.
Again, we have choices. Use Linux or Leapord, etc...
Vista is NOT bloated. Diable all of the programs and services you do not need, do not want, are not using. Simple. Vista is rich with services, many of which most common computer users will never use or ever need for their simple computing.
Microsoft does not want to force upgrades. Vista is an advanced OS. 3.1, 95, 98, 2000. XP, Vista. And so it goes. Why don't you just use 3.1, and try to access a flash website. Get my point?
Vista, for a Windows user is advanced technology able to handle many if not all up coming new technologies, many that we do not even know about yet and that will be revealed later this yer, and perhaps the next. Get with the tachnology bandwagon, or get off of it.
Again, we have choices. Use Linux or Leapord, etc...
#54
myspacemedia
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 14
- Joined: 13-January 08
- Location:Seattle, WA
Posted 17 February 2008 - 02:43 PM
Vista is a huge slow POS
I think your computer is a pos - upgrade your hardware fool. Vista runs perfectly on my box, and it runs perfectly on many other peoples computers. You few with issues are the minority, and this "letter" thing is cracking me up. what a joke...lol.
It has no advantages over XP
If you're a gamer, you will not be able to play any games in the near future without having DX10. Just one example.
The menus are rearranged for no reason
It's all in the settings. Click around a little. Change your settings so the documents look and behave the way you want. You are not stuck with one particular setting. It's different is all it is. Explore your new OS and if you don't like Vista, go back to the dinosour age - XP.
Eye candy, shmy candy who cares
I don't care for eye candy either. That is why I opted fo Vista Basic.
I have to make four clicks for everything
You're clicking too much. Learn more about Vista, and use it's features.
The start menu is crap, again more clicks for the same thing
More features with the start menu out way your complaint
May I suggest that you do not use Vista, ever again? And what are you doing using it anyway? Didn't you do your research prior to buying it? Do you always go into every purchase blind? I have a bridge in the Saharah desert that I need you to invest in. Please send check to...
...Wait, that's right...sorry, while you were at the store, online ready to buy Vista or whatever...someone had a gun pointed at your head, had your family kidnnapped and held for ransom. Someone forced you buy Windows Vista - right? Sorry, my bad.
I think your computer is a pos - upgrade your hardware fool. Vista runs perfectly on my box, and it runs perfectly on many other peoples computers. You few with issues are the minority, and this "letter" thing is cracking me up. what a joke...lol.
It has no advantages over XP
If you're a gamer, you will not be able to play any games in the near future without having DX10. Just one example.
The menus are rearranged for no reason
It's all in the settings. Click around a little. Change your settings so the documents look and behave the way you want. You are not stuck with one particular setting. It's different is all it is. Explore your new OS and if you don't like Vista, go back to the dinosour age - XP.
Eye candy, shmy candy who cares
I don't care for eye candy either. That is why I opted fo Vista Basic.
I have to make four clicks for everything
You're clicking too much. Learn more about Vista, and use it's features.
The start menu is crap, again more clicks for the same thing
More features with the start menu out way your complaint
May I suggest that you do not use Vista, ever again? And what are you doing using it anyway? Didn't you do your research prior to buying it? Do you always go into every purchase blind? I have a bridge in the Saharah desert that I need you to invest in. Please send check to...
...Wait, that's right...sorry, while you were at the store, online ready to buy Vista or whatever...someone had a gun pointed at your head, had your family kidnnapped and held for ransom. Someone forced you buy Windows Vista - right? Sorry, my bad.
#55
myspacemedia
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 14
- Joined: 13-January 08
- Location:Seattle, WA
Posted 17 February 2008 - 02:54 PM
I think that the worst thing about Vista is it's speed (or lack thereof)
Your statement right there solidifies the moronic comments in this blog. It also explains the brainless comments around the internet bashing Vista.
Read this: Vista, is an OS (Operating System) and has 0 speed on it's own. What gives any OS or software program "speed" is the harware associated with the machine on the whole like the CPU, Memory, Motherboard, Graphics Cards, CDRW/DVD type, internet connection, etc. These things are what makes a computer have any speed. your PC is a POS isn't it? Upgrade your PC and your Vista OS will run just fine. Mine runs perfectly. I did not "upgrade Vista to my XP machine. I purchased a complete ststem because it was time. I used XP on my old system for five years. There's no way in the world I would even consider upgrading to Vista on that old rig. Buy a new computer or go back to XP when you can. Simple.
Your statement right there solidifies the moronic comments in this blog. It also explains the brainless comments around the internet bashing Vista.
Read this: Vista, is an OS (Operating System) and has 0 speed on it's own. What gives any OS or software program "speed" is the harware associated with the machine on the whole like the CPU, Memory, Motherboard, Graphics Cards, CDRW/DVD type, internet connection, etc. These things are what makes a computer have any speed. your PC is a POS isn't it? Upgrade your PC and your Vista OS will run just fine. Mine runs perfectly. I did not "upgrade Vista to my XP machine. I purchased a complete ststem because it was time. I used XP on my old system for five years. There's no way in the world I would even consider upgrading to Vista on that old rig. Buy a new computer or go back to XP when you can. Simple.
#56
myspacemedia
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 14
- Joined: 13-January 08
- Location:Seattle, WA
Posted 17 February 2008 - 03:04 PM
I am going to stop correcting people because all of these seeming Vista "problems" are what is known as user error. You have to have new hardware to run Vista. Period. If you don't want to get a newer computer, for whatever reason, then do not get Vista until you can do so.
My system runs Vista perfectly because it is a newer computer. Simple...
Windows Vista Basic / Dell Inspirion 531
AMD Athlon Dual Core 64 4000+
4GB DDR2-800MHz RAM (memory for you novices)
8GB Flash memory with 4GB dedicated to Vista Ready Boost (does anyone here even know what this is...lol)
NVIDIA GeForce 8800GT 512MB
Dell 22" DVI/VGA LCD
All of these ignorant comments make me sick. Do your research people. Use your heads. I know you are intelligent beings and it saddens me to read such worthless crap coming from people wh I know are a lot smarter that what they are sharing here. Shame on you for being so lazy, not doing your research and blaming an OS for your own lack of knowledge. Horrible!
My system runs Vista perfectly because it is a newer computer. Simple...
Windows Vista Basic / Dell Inspirion 531
AMD Athlon Dual Core 64 4000+
4GB DDR2-800MHz RAM (memory for you novices)
8GB Flash memory with 4GB dedicated to Vista Ready Boost (does anyone here even know what this is...lol)
NVIDIA GeForce 8800GT 512MB
Dell 22" DVI/VGA LCD
All of these ignorant comments make me sick. Do your research people. Use your heads. I know you are intelligent beings and it saddens me to read such worthless crap coming from people wh I know are a lot smarter that what they are sharing here. Shame on you for being so lazy, not doing your research and blaming an OS for your own lack of knowledge. Horrible!
#57
mphenterprises
- Moderator
-
- Group: Moderators
- Posts: 12,259
- Joined: 19-February 07
- Location:Philadelphia, PA
Posted 17 February 2008 - 06:05 PM
NOTE:
This Discussion is regarding an Open Letter to Microsoft About Windows Vista. Please keep all posts in line with this topic. If you would like to voice your opinion as to whether Windows XP is better or worse than Windows Vista, please click on the hyperlink to go to the newly created Discussion.
http://forums.pcworld.com/thread/27603
This Discussion is regarding an Open Letter to Microsoft About Windows Vista. Please keep all posts in line with this topic. If you would like to voice your opinion as to whether Windows XP is better or worse than Windows Vista, please click on the hyperlink to go to the newly created Discussion.
http://forums.pcworld.com/thread/27603
#58
Evildave
- Expert
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1,547
- Joined: 24-January 08
Posted 17 February 2008 - 08:53 PM
I think I can (charitably) sum up what Vista is lacking like this:
Microsoft loves to chase Moore's Law. The capacity of hardware doubles every two years, but Microsoft always overshoots the target by a wide margin, hoping hardware will catch up during the life-cycle of their newly released product.
If Microsoft tested their 'latest, greatest' software on the average machines available at the time they began development, then when they were FINISHED, they would have a lean, mean little OS.
Microsoft instead tests their 'latest, greatest' software on the best machines they PREDICT will be available in the future, and when they get finished, it ends up like VISTA. All of the early adopters (or innocent bystanders who order a PC at the wrong moment) get shafted.
If Vista were better and faster RIGHT NOW, there would be no controversy. We'd all agree Vista is better and faster. There wouldn't be people ringing the ears off of call-center operators demanding 'downgrades' to XP. The word 'downgrade', relating to Vista would not be in the top ten Google hits.
http://www.google.co...rch?q=downgrade
It won't be the 'service packs' that fix Vista.
Computers of the future will run it just fine.
Computers of the present, in general, will not.
Microsoft loves to chase Moore's Law. The capacity of hardware doubles every two years, but Microsoft always overshoots the target by a wide margin, hoping hardware will catch up during the life-cycle of their newly released product.
If Microsoft tested their 'latest, greatest' software on the average machines available at the time they began development, then when they were FINISHED, they would have a lean, mean little OS.
Microsoft instead tests their 'latest, greatest' software on the best machines they PREDICT will be available in the future, and when they get finished, it ends up like VISTA. All of the early adopters (or innocent bystanders who order a PC at the wrong moment) get shafted.
If Vista were better and faster RIGHT NOW, there would be no controversy. We'd all agree Vista is better and faster. There wouldn't be people ringing the ears off of call-center operators demanding 'downgrades' to XP. The word 'downgrade', relating to Vista would not be in the top ten Google hits.
http://www.google.co...rch?q=downgrade
It won't be the 'service packs' that fix Vista.
Computers of the future will run it just fine.
Computers of the present, in general, will not.
#59
myspacemedia
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 14
- Joined: 13-January 08
- Location:Seattle, WA
Posted 17 February 2008 - 10:13 PM
Wow. That is one kick ass summary! I couldn't agree any more with it. I especially like the part when you stated: "If Microsoft tested their 'latest, greatest' software on the average machines available at the time they began development, then when they were FINISHED, they would have a lean, mean little OS."
I thnk Microsoft is certainly out in front with their OS, which pushes along computer products as a whole. I think they intentionally do that so their OS with remain bleeding edge for a while, and relevant a lot longer. Wouldn't you agree?
I have already mentioned here in this blog that I waited a year for XP, and this go around a little over a year for Vista to ensure I avoided any pitfalls of incombatability. I have succeded both times. So yeah, I am one of the not lucky, but SMART one's. No one should have to try and go survivor when it comes to choosing an OS - Windows OS in this case. I say go survivor meaning: outwit outsmart outplay. I just made that "go survivor" comparison up...lol. Sad, but it is true.
So the problem I have with Vista is not the OS but peoples misconception that there is something wrong with it. I need for people to accurately describe the issue. It's not Vista by itself as being the issue, it is the hardware and software not being compatible. i suppose in 6 monthsto another year all of this will be a distant memory. (a bad memory for many I guess) until the next Windows OS comes along. Maybe then people will have wised up and played a little MS survivor...lol.
I do plan to upgrade my system in the future. I enjoyed my last system, XP for five years. I'll think about upgrading again in three to seven IF the new OS warrants me to upgrade computers. I like Vista, everything about it, but I will not be quick to jump on any bleeding edge OS that comes along. Vista, Ubuntu, Fedora, whatever. If i get bored with Vista there's always Fedore over on my E:/ drive. I could always install Ubuntu along side as well...
Anyway, well done with that summary Evildave, well done!
I thnk Microsoft is certainly out in front with their OS, which pushes along computer products as a whole. I think they intentionally do that so their OS with remain bleeding edge for a while, and relevant a lot longer. Wouldn't you agree?
I have already mentioned here in this blog that I waited a year for XP, and this go around a little over a year for Vista to ensure I avoided any pitfalls of incombatability. I have succeded both times. So yeah, I am one of the not lucky, but SMART one's. No one should have to try and go survivor when it comes to choosing an OS - Windows OS in this case. I say go survivor meaning: outwit outsmart outplay. I just made that "go survivor" comparison up...lol. Sad, but it is true.
So the problem I have with Vista is not the OS but peoples misconception that there is something wrong with it. I need for people to accurately describe the issue. It's not Vista by itself as being the issue, it is the hardware and software not being compatible. i suppose in 6 monthsto another year all of this will be a distant memory. (a bad memory for many I guess) until the next Windows OS comes along. Maybe then people will have wised up and played a little MS survivor...lol.
I do plan to upgrade my system in the future. I enjoyed my last system, XP for five years. I'll think about upgrading again in three to seven IF the new OS warrants me to upgrade computers. I like Vista, everything about it, but I will not be quick to jump on any bleeding edge OS that comes along. Vista, Ubuntu, Fedora, whatever. If i get bored with Vista there's always Fedore over on my E:/ drive. I could always install Ubuntu along side as well...
Anyway, well done with that summary Evildave, well done!
#60
Evildave
- Expert
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1,547
- Joined: 24-January 08
Posted 17 February 2008 - 11:28 PM
The OS shouldn't 'lead' anything. Its job is to sit on top of system resources and manage them. Nothing more.
Something on a par with Windows 2000, maybe even NT4 with Administrator vs User accounts, and actually paying attention to 'Execute' privileges would have worked fine in 1999, and would still work fine today with a prettier desktop and the latest DirectX. Oh, and a few million bug-fixes, naturally.
There's not a whole lot new in the NT skew of the Win32 SDK now that wasn't in there 10 years ago, except now they call it the 'Platform SDK', obfuscate the references for OS calls with MFC junk. and slapped in that whole ''.NET" thing, which is little more than a Microsoft's own custom interpretation of a bloated Java Runtime Environment with native OS hooks.
Vista should've built directly on XP, and instead they reinvented wheels, with sad, predictable results for backwards compatibility, both hardware and software.
Another MAJOR malfunction Microsoft has is pouncing every little fad and trying to make it 'part of the OS'. Internet Explorer was never part of the OS, even though Microsoft wanted everyone to THINK it was, because they wanted to "OWN" the internet. A nice, prolonged anti-trust suit followed from Netscape and others. As it turns out, neither of them owned it. M$ wanted to OWN 'Java', too. They want to "OWN" everything Adobe does. Now they want to "OWN" multimedia content delivered directly through the PC and have mangled the guts of their OS to accommodate this wish. They just keep adding warts and limbs to the hideous abomination they call an "OS" that should never have been. It makes their OS large, complex, unmanageable and helps make every Windows PC a nice, easy homogeneous target for malware, because the same buggy 'hooks' into all kinds of untestable OS guts to make things Microsoft's Very Own are in every Windows PC.
Something on a par with Windows 2000, maybe even NT4 with Administrator vs User accounts, and actually paying attention to 'Execute' privileges would have worked fine in 1999, and would still work fine today with a prettier desktop and the latest DirectX. Oh, and a few million bug-fixes, naturally.
There's not a whole lot new in the NT skew of the Win32 SDK now that wasn't in there 10 years ago, except now they call it the 'Platform SDK', obfuscate the references for OS calls with MFC junk. and slapped in that whole ''.NET" thing, which is little more than a Microsoft's own custom interpretation of a bloated Java Runtime Environment with native OS hooks.
Vista should've built directly on XP, and instead they reinvented wheels, with sad, predictable results for backwards compatibility, both hardware and software.
Another MAJOR malfunction Microsoft has is pouncing every little fad and trying to make it 'part of the OS'. Internet Explorer was never part of the OS, even though Microsoft wanted everyone to THINK it was, because they wanted to "OWN" the internet. A nice, prolonged anti-trust suit followed from Netscape and others. As it turns out, neither of them owned it. M$ wanted to OWN 'Java', too. They want to "OWN" everything Adobe does. Now they want to "OWN" multimedia content delivered directly through the PC and have mangled the guts of their OS to accommodate this wish. They just keep adding warts and limbs to the hideous abomination they call an "OS" that should never have been. It makes their OS large, complex, unmanageable and helps make every Windows PC a nice, easy homogeneous target for malware, because the same buggy 'hooks' into all kinds of untestable OS guts to make things Microsoft's Very Own are in every Windows PC.
