Vista bug free?

Newegg... Sometimes Frys.
Why not buy a 2GB kit? 3GB total is even better- and not all that much more money.
 
I was doing some research... DDR1 is most cases going to cost 2x the amount for DDR2. I wonder if I should sell the proc/mobo/ram/video card [Intel P4 3.2ghz Northwood 478 / Asus P4P800SE / Xerox 1024mb (512x2) DDR1 PC3200 / 9800 Pro 128mb] in my signature on the sellers forum here? What do you think my asking price should be, if so? I'd love to be able to get into the new standards without the major budget strain, get a 4gig DDR pack for a mobo with deep upgrade options, and perhaps run on a low end intel proc/pci-express card or integrated until I have real money to upgrade.

Edit:
Ugh. It all hit me at once. UAC + Defender on by default. OS in a Nanny State. Ugh. It shouldn't take 2 minutes to move files from one folder to the next if they're on the same drive. The OS does so much hard coded stuff that it feels like I'm loaded up with viruses. I just don't see anything to gain in Vista, for me, at all, until maybe industry support turns its back entirely on XP. A virus couldn't get into Vista, but neither could I.

Still planning on upgrading of course. My questions still stand. Windows 7 really could hit the spot for me with the new UI changes in store, and that's definitely my #1 gripe (the only thing I can't hack back to my happy state of nature) Any advice on what that combo I'm running would sell for would be appreciated.
 
Wow you guys are funny. I buy, setup and support computers for normal people and businesses. I had to deal with a DOS based app called TeleMagic today! Vista hasn't been welcomed by any of the hundreds of normal users I deal with. I have people bring me new computers with Vista asking to wipe it out and install XP. These are people that just want to use their applications and be happy. Once upon a time the OS was in the background, the apps being run the focus of attention. Vista wants to be front and center. People used to upgrade the computer because of an application that required more umph (my first computer was a 386 with 2mb of RAM that I upgraded to 4mb so Xeen would run better!). Now people are being told they need to upgrade just to run the OS at an acceptable speed. Over 200,000 people have signed the Save XP Petition for a reason. If someone made a TV commercial saying XP was being dropped next month unless people signed the petition you would see that number double right away. Not that MS is going to listen to what the little people want...

Don't be so elite. I waited for and tested the beta along with all the other techies. I thought it was very pretty. I played with Vista a number of times between then and now. Every time I wonder "Why should I side-grade to Vista?" when the computing experience isn't better, just different? I don't need the UAC to save me from myself and most normal people wouldn't bother thinking about it after the umptingth time it ask for confirmation. I've stopped putting any kind of firewall app on clients computers because people don't like reading things that pop-up all the time, defeating the purpose of the program by clicking whatever button allows them to do what they were trying to do in the first place. Nod32 or whatever antivirus you use will catch most the junk that people find in their in-box or while searching for good free p0rn. People want their new computer to work faster then their old computer doing the same task. Normal people (who buy $400 Dell's instead of $1500 custom built rigs) want ease of use and speed, an upgrade from the clogged up old XP machine (which could run twice as fast as it does if it didn't have all that crap on it!).

Of course the [H]ard|Forum isn't populated by normal people... ;)
 
If you want to disable UAC, do it with the script in MSCONFIG.

Start -> run -> msconfig -> tools -> disable UAC
 
I know how to disable UAC. I shouldn't have to disable it. It should actually be implemented so a veteran user would enjoy the extra security, but it isn't. UAC is one of Vista's core features, as others have pointed out earlier in this thread criticizing me for even considering turning it off (which I normally do right off the bat after I saw how badly it works). It may improve come Windows 7, because who knows, they may have WinFS out which could be designed with privilege escalation security in mind. The very designer of UAC admitted it was designed to annoy users to get programmers to change their ways. That's why I was saying Vista is a stepping stone to Windows 7. They released half of Vista because releasing all of it would've caused whiplash to support.

My approach to security is system hardening. Disable all services and shell extensions that you don't use; uninstall all software you don't use; reduce processes on an all user basis. The more system level processes you run the more likely you're running processes with vulnerability and exploits. (i.e. why run terminal services as automatic if you never use it.) Most users don't know how to do this, because when you change your use of the computer you sometimes have to reenable a service or shell extension (so you have to know what all of it does). So instead we run as many umbrellas over the mess as possible (antivirus, antitrojan, user account control) rather than actually assessing right off which functions the users needs on OS install. For instance, if you tell Vista that this computer will never touch the internet and is exclusively used by one person, bitlocker = ultimate security, everything else can just be disabled automatically. They took a step backwards in trusting their OS users with Vista. I'm sure grandma is safer in knowing that, if she actually used something other than a mac.
 
Vista, like most modern desktop OSes, has to be designed to tailor to the lowest common denominator meaning your average Joe - not me, I assure you. But to the average Joe walking into Best Buy or Circuit City, even Wal-Mart these days and wanting to buy a computer that's ready to roll outta the box when he (or maybe average Jody, she) gets it home and wants it to work right then and there.

I'm amazed this thread has gone this long, truly.

The whole debate about "<xxx> should not be enabled by default" is moot - the OS has to be engineered by default to run on the widest possible variety of hardware and for as many people as it can. That means the defaults went through a lot of research, testing, and a bunch of other crap dealing with usability and purpose and what we get is what Vista is installed clean "out of the box." If you don't like it, that's fine, that's perfectly acceptable as 94.999% of the shit we see posted here is personal opinion anyway.

It crosses a line of simple common sense when the bashing goes on and on and on for no apparently good reason. I mean really, how many fucking times can you keep posting about UAC and how much you can't stand it, think it's useless, think it should be off by default, etc etc I could go on fucking forever with this... hopefully you get the point. It's a dead end, stop beating the dead horse.

For all the "system hardening" talk you keep spewing out, my god man, go run Linux and lock it up so tight it requires three logins and a different password on each before you get access to "The Gibson" and actually do something useful with the machine. All I keep seeing is "Vista sucks, I think <insert random opinion here> and that's the way it should be."

Go build a Linux kernel and develop your own OS if that's what you want. But enough with the Vista bashing, will ya. Or better yet, as I suggested before, go use Windows Server 2003 or 2008 where almost everything is disabled by default and then you can "build" it into whatever you want.

Somehow, I think you'd find ample reasons to complain about those OSes also, not designed for the desktop, designed with customization in mind because the servers get tailored for whatever task they're purposed for.

Most users don't need to tamper with the defaults of the OS - most users need an OS that works, and Vista works. You can't seem to see this because you're of the mind that unless you have absolute totalitarian God-like SUDO-wannabe power over Windows then it sucks, simple.

Sorry, I hate to break this to you, but Windows doesn't belong to you, not even when you put cash out for it. You're just paying for the right to use it, not really to abuse it. If you want an OS that you own and can do whatever you want with, go to Linux.

Or better yet: stop bashing Vista and write the OS that could put Microsoft out of business. Put up or shut up, I'd say. Fat chance of that, but hey, had to make the suggestion.

I'm getting to the point where I'd almost pony up the cash to buy you one of these:

vtechuw7.jpg


but then you'd find reasons to bash it too.

If you want more from an OS, then you need to write it yourself, or take a Linux kernel and build it to your specifications and be "happy" with it to whatever degree you can. And don't go the "we're free to discuss Vista here" direction because you're not discussing anything, you stopped that a few pages back. It's turned into your dump-thread for whatever comes to mind when you think of something else to prattle on about.
 
Wait, how exactly am I "abusing" Vista again by tweaking it? You're going to have to explain this one to me. The license doesn't say I can't change the behavior of the operating system, anywhere. Maybe a service contract might, but not the license. Sorry, you're so wrong on this one that you should be bleeding tears.

I don't want to use Linux. I don't enjoy compiling other people's code every 5 steps, and XP is open and functional to do all that I stated. Why don't you get a mac, if you so love having your OS masquerade as one?

By defaults you mean what MARKETING decided should be best to have on by default. It's pretty easy to make a profile scheme that allows for computer roles. They sort of did that but stopped short.

I'd say that post is officially trolling. Did I "bash" it? No, I stated obvious problems that could be fixed without changing how the marketing functions. Yes, good one, Vtech, is it? I bow to your cleverness. Your retort to the fact that some of Vista's core features are a marketing blunder are to tell me to use Linux and get a Vtech computer. Thank you. I will make note.

Just because you cope with the idiocy in Vista doesn't mean the world should stay mum on it. It's a legitimate topic to explore.

I'm amazed this thread has gone this long, truly.
Click to expand...
Yeah, really? Why are you still posting then? If you were so amazed, why did you write 657 words of ad hominem meaninglessness? Is it because you love being so wrong and you want to keep the thread going? Did you want to bury the good points people should consider before upgrading to Vista? I think you did.
 
infornographer said:
I know how to disable UAC. I shouldn't have to disable it. It should actually be implemented so a veteran user would enjoy the extra security, but it isn't. UAC is one of Vista's core features, as others have pointed out earlier in this thread criticizing me for even considering turning it off (which I normally do right off the bat after I saw how badly it works). It may improve come Windows 7, because who knows, they may have WinFS out which could be designed with privilege escalation security in mind. The very designer of UAC admitted it was designed to annoy users to get programmers to change their ways. That's why I was saying Vista is a stepping stone to Windows 7. They released half of Vista because releasing all of it would've caused whiplash to support.
Click to expand...

For shits n' giggles just before I was going to do a reformat of my drive I went to a couple sites I knew contained Virus's (just for futher shits n' giggles I actually did it in safari). Safari download manager pops up and shows "setup.exe" downloaded to my downloads files. Simulatenously, AVG, a fake AVG look-alike, and UAC all pop up asking what to do. I said "cancel" in UAC, "ignore" in AVG and closed the fake avg window. Restarted, ran HT-tach and a couple other benchmarks, performance was un-effected. Perhalps the spam-bot or whatever it was needed an extra couple restarts to kick in, but that virus was sucessfully thwarted.

Can you show me "how bad it works" by linking me to something?

"The very designer of UAC admitted it was designed to annoy users to get programmers to change their ways". Thats taken slightly out of context. Yeah, the idea is to curb everyones habbits, users and programmers alike. Multiple programs start running scripts that acess low level system files for some whim of a reason simply because XP allowed them to.

Vista is the current microsoft OS. It is not any more of a stepping stone to Windows 7 than XP was to vista.

infornographer said:
My approach to security is system hardening. Disable all services and shell extensions that you don't use; uninstall all software you don't use; reduce processes on an all user basis. The more system level processes you run the more likely you're running processes with vulnerability and exploits. (i.e. why run terminal services as automatic if you never use it.) Most users don't know how to do this, because when you change your use of the computer you sometimes have to reenable a service or shell extension (so you have to know what all of it does). So instead we run as many umbrellas over the mess as possible (antivirus, antitrojan, user account control) rather than actually assessing right off which functions the users needs on OS install. For instance, if you tell Vista that this computer will never touch the internet and is exclusively used by one person, bitlocker = ultimate security, everything else can just be disabled automatically. They took a step backwards in trusting their OS users with Vista. I'm sure grandma is safer in knowing that, if she actually used something other than a mac.
Click to expand...

Those are sound security principles, a little harder to impliment when your users want Bit-comet and msn messenger. I think you skipped over the worst. "Universal Plug n' Play" on routers. What a terrible Idea. Hey lets develop a strong hardware firewall and give everyone control over it. Fantastic idea.

The problem with quotes like these is that its like saying "Given that the breakaway has happened". Those are all sound principles given your being attacked by a Virus. I'm simply suggesting, dont get attacked in the first place. Security on line is 90% behaviour, 10% hardware/software security. Once your on a malicious site, its out of your hands, its a crap shoot. Will the virus take hold of your system? Maybe, maybe not. On a system thats running a compltly un-holed firewall with all sorts of good hardware and software secutiry solutions, perhalps the chance of an attack being sucessful is reduced by a factor of 4. Still a crap shoot only now the dice are a little friendlier. Avoid throwing them all together. Dont open links in attachments, disable auto-picture viewing by your e-mail client, buy your software legally, dont use P2P clients, dont accept files over IMs.
 
I can see what Microsoft was trying to do, but it may be that keeping Windows backwards compatible and making it more secure, all while trying to keep the OS stable may be an impossible task. I don't know if Vista will be improved with the next service pack, but the problems I found seem to stem not from flaws in code, but flaws in design.
Click to expand...
- [H] Consumer ---Managing Editor--- Source: http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1176125

I revisited Vista for SP1 only to find some of the flaws in code to be resolved, but all of the flaws in the design were still there. This coming from a managing editor of this web site makes this topic fair game, especially if my position is being voiced by the editing staff less than 2 months ago!

and if you ---really--- think this thread is long, look at that one. It's 24 pages!
 
tec805 said:
I don't need the UAC to save me from myself
Click to expand...

That's not the purpose of UAC; Windows already has prompts if you do something you might regret (like delete an executable), and UAC isn't going to stop anyone damaging their system, they can just click 'Continue'. This does seem to be the biggest misconception about it. The advantage of UAC is that most programs run with limited user privileges which means they can't be easily used as attack vectors to seriously damage the PC. The UAC prompts are necessary to make running as a limited user tolerable, because some programs need admin privileges, but if they automatically elevated then the malware could do the same thing.

The prompts don't say "Are you sure?", they ask if you initiated an action or if you trust a program.

You can argue that the inconvenience of having to click Continue when you do an admin action is greater than you're willing to accept for the security, or that many users just click 'Continue' on everything, but I do wish people wouldn't think it was about preventing users doing stupid things.
 
MrWizard6600 said:
Can you show me "how bad it works" by linking me to something?
Click to expand...

I never said it doesn't function to increase security. It doesn't work only because it's half way done. It exists in the state in Vista because current generation code isn't used to lower user rights. They use UAC to change the coding habits of third party software. However, if -I- run windows update, it shouldn't trigger UAC. Windows Update itself shouldn't trigger UAC. In what remote alien world does that make sense? Windows doesn't trust... itself??

Some of the places where UAC triggers don't actually make any sense from a security perspective, which reduces the functionality of the entire security scheme. Some of it they didn't have a choice about, and I know why they did UAC like they did. Like I implied earlier, it may reach full maturity in Windows 7. We'll see.
 
infornographer said:
However, if -I- run windows update, it shouldn't trigger UAC. Windows Update itself shouldn't trigger UAC. In what remote alien world does that make sense? Windows doesn't trust... itself??
Click to expand...

Kind of; if you just hit the 'Install Updates' button with the default choices, it doesn't cause a UAC prompt. If you want to change options then it requires UAC. I guess that's possibly more of an administrative thing than a security one per se (customising what you install is an administrator's task, rather than a limited user's).
 
infornographer said:
I never said it doesn't function to increase security. It doesn't work only because it's half way done. It exists in the state in Vista because current generation code isn't used to lower user rights. They use UAC to change the coding habits of third party software. However, if -I- run windows update, it shouldn't trigger UAC. Windows Update itself shouldn't trigger UAC. In what remote alien world does that make sense? Windows doesn't trust... itself??

Some of the places where UAC triggers don't actually make any sense from a security perspective, which reduces the functionality of the entire security scheme. Some of it they didn't have a choice about, and I know why they did UAC like they did. Like I implied earlier, it may reach full maturity in Windows 7. We'll see.
Click to expand...

Is this any different than Synaptics Package Manager in Ubuntu? Why shouldn't it trigger a UAC? Windows Update can make significant changes to your system, why should it be treated different from anything else?
 
infornographer said:
The license doesn't say I can't change the behavior of the operating system, anywhere.
Click to expand...
Sorry- read the EULA.

infornographer said:
By defaults you mean what MARKETING decided should be best to have on by default. It's pretty easy to make a profile scheme that allows for computer roles. They sort of did that but stopped short.
Click to expand...
No- they have an entire department devoted to this.
And need I remind you- surveyed over 100,000 PEOPLE to figure this stuff out: what to make default, what to make easier, what to change, whatever... It didn't come out of the blue.
 
Yeah, because 100,000 people really know what's best. After all, the mob so loved the Roman coliseum, and WWE is really popular in the modern world... and certainly our voting system has produced such amazing leaders as well... Why not do the same with an operating system? /sarcasm

I don't want 100,000 people analyzed in a marketing department to design a poor slow UI. I want a team of computer scientists to design a UI, otherwise you might end up with the trash of Vista explorer.

Disabling a system service is not abusing Vista. A senior editor of ZDNet wouldn't devote an article to teaching people how to violate the EULA. It isn't a violation of the EULA to disable Windows Search (Google Desktop Search, anyone?). Also, if there is anything in the EULA that actually says you can't administrate your own internals, I say bullocks to that part of the EULA. Let's see them hold that up in court. "Your honor, he disabled Windows Search. We want $50,000 in damages." Reply: "Get this idiot out of my courtroom!"

If that's actually true that you can't disable services without violating the EULA, that's your antitrust anti-competition right there to say you can't completely disable their bundled software feature in favor of another. You're a sheep, and shrink-wrap license clauses of that nature would never stand in a test in court.
 
How exactly is your point proven? You think marketing is better at designing computer interfaces than people with degrees in which Human Computer Interaction is taught? You're naive. Marketing is about maximizing profit, not producing quality software, and in Microsoft's case, if it weren't for all the antitrust litigation that's been ongoing since before 1993, it would be about how much they can rape the industry.

While people in marketing and business are busy reading Art of War, computer scientists are taking courses like CS376: Research Topics in Human-Computer Interaction.
 
calebb said:
If you want to disable UAC, do it with the script in MSCONFIG.

Start -> run -> msconfig -> tools -> disable UAC
Click to expand...


infornographer said:
I know how to disable UAC. I shouldn't have to disable it. It should actually be implemented so a veteran user would enjoy the extra security, but it isn't. UAC is one of Vista's core features
Click to expand...

As a self-proclaimed computer tweaker and veteran computer users, you will be A-OK without UAC. Go ahead and disable it.

You can still enjoy the other core features. (and believe me, there are TONS!
 
infornographer said:
I know how to disable UAC. I shouldn't have to disable it. It should actually be implemented so a veteran user would enjoy the extra security, but it isn't. UAC is one of Vista's core features, as others have pointed out earlier in this thread criticizing me for even considering turning it off (which I normally do right off the bat
Click to expand...

and besides, wouldn't techiesooner say that's violating the EULA?

You're right. What's not to love? I mean, who wouldn't want more UI inconsistency? With that job posting, Microsoft is saying that Windows 7 is going to fill out the UI to what it should have been in Vista. I do like the core features, don't get me wrong, but until the UI is finished (breadcrumbs optional, anyone?), I'm stickin with XP.

2514900417_bcd3aaa331_o.jpg
Not so fast, Ballmer. ; )
 
Consistent UI isn't something that Microsoft are good at, no. There are the Windows Vista User Experience Guidelines:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa511258.aspx

but Microsoft teams don't necessarily pay any attention to them. Apple are pretty good (though not perfect) at getting their guidelines held to, but I would think that their Human Interface Guidelines are also written by human interface professionals rather than programmers. The problem with computer scientists writing UI is that it they can be perfectly logical, provided that you understand how their program works, but can be somewhat.. daunting and offer options that new users don't understand at all:
http://www.jensroesner.de/wgetgui/wgetgui.png

So, I can check a button that will stop clobber, eh? I could use the program, but it's not the easiest thing around (even the 'simple' UI looks rather complex at first glance, and now asks whether I want to be 'polite' or 'aggressive'). It's a common problem with open source apps, which are written by programmers for programmers; I have a MIDI program where, although you can configure many things in the program, most of which I don't understand, you have to custom-write a config file to actually make it load soundfonts. The window is full of perplexing controls like 'DOC' and 'WRD', one of which opens an empty white window and the other an empty black window. Why? I don't know. I guess one of them would print the lyrics, except it doesn't read any lyrics from anything I have. If that's what WRD does, what about DOC?

That's not to say that computer scientists can't write a decent UI, but a complex UI which exposes a gargantuan list of options isn't very accessible to people outside that area of expertise. I like the fact that my web browser (SeaMonkey/Mozilla Suite) exposes more options than Firefox, a browser spun off from Mozilla to be easier to use and drop bundled features. But I find the MIDI program really annoying, because all I want it to do is open a soundfont and play MIDIs, something that was unreasoanbly difficult to set up.

calebb said:
As a self-proclaimed computer tweaker and veteran computer users, you will be A-OK without UAC.
Click to expand...

My reply is the same as I made several posts back. Sure, there are reasons you might want to turn it off, but "because I know what I'm doing" isn't one of them. It doesn't exist to save stupid users from themselves - it doesn't mean "are you sure?". I'm not denying you might be A-OK without it, but you're turning off a security feature, and the only way that being a veteran computer user is going to help is allowing you to assess whether you think the added security is worth the small inconvenience.
 
http://www.jensroesner.de/wgetgui/wgetgui.png
Click to expand...
That's a terrible example. That's just an arguments wrapper for a shell command. Shell commands are supposed to look like that. (Have you even seen PowerShell?)

Human Interface Professionals? That's just a hat for a software engineer. Advanced interface design for quality human interaction and ease of use is PART of computer science. That particular dedicated position is just a subset of the job with which programmers are tasked. Point is you shouldn't have people designing UIs who don't know how software is developed in the first place, which is why polling 100,000 people for Vista is a bad idea.

You can't whip out a screenshot to a kludged front end for a command and say that's what real programmers make for UIs. That UI can be tossed together in 15 minutes in delphi. Note: I'm talking about UI design, not the event code.

There is also such a thing as a bad programmer. If a programmer can't blend functionality with presentation, time to find a new software engineer and put the previous one right where (s)he belongs: code monkey.
 
can`t be better explanation for that.;)
In my opinión, the blend between UI and the system in vista is not much
impressive because is a copy of mac and linux stuff.

Vista is not the best work done by microsoft engineers..
 
jamsblast said:
can`t be better explanation for that.;)
In my opinión, the blend between UI and the system in vista is not much
impressive because is a copy of mac and linux stuff.

Vista is not the best work done by microsoft engineers..
Click to expand...

We're you around for the launch of XP?

I would say Vista is the best (OS) work the software engies at MSFT have released so far!
 
Were you around for the launch of ME? I consider Windows 7 to be the XP worthy analogy, but it isn't even out yet. Whether Vista should be compared to XP or ME will be determined by how much better Windows 7 is and whether people keep using Vista after Windows 7 comes out. Windows 7 will fix the UI, provide a modular and role-based install, and include powershell by default. Most people skipped ME. They went from 98SE or 2000 to XP. Whether you agree with me or not, you have to admit a large number of people are planning to skip Vista and go to 7 when Bill Gates puts out a press release of a 2009/2010 launch for Windows 7.

Vista = Windows 7 Alpha : D
 
Seeing your response, I laughed... and then I laughed again when I realize you're the OP, and this is your third post, the first two of which are on the first page.
 
Wow, infornographer. I can't believe you've continued to push the merits of Windows 7 again and again in this thread. Your speculation is not a good argument, and I think you should drop it. If anything, you should focus on what exists, not on what you think is promised.

Also, from this thread, and other threads involving operating systems, you're not quite a troll (you're better than that), but you're also not quite the person just giving honest criticism. You seem to me like you're an evangelist for something that's not Vista. I think we can all agree that you have no love for it, and wish to continuously tell people about it. Is that good enough? That's my honest assessment, since you seem to be very proactive in trying to find faults, even ones that have been discussed.
 
While I respect infornographer's opinions I do think that like most people he simply dismisses Vista because it is different from XP and somehow that gets translated as XP is better than Vista, and I just don't see that.

Vista works, and when you have the drivers and no legacy software or compatibility issues and the proper hardware to run it on, there's simply no reason to not use it if you're a Windows user. XP has no advantage under these circumstances.
 
I would happily praise Vista if they had allowed breadcrumbs to be disabled in folder options (Classic Address Bar option), and beyond that, allowed virtually all of the new UI changes -default- but with options, which are woefully missing. Only way to remove breadcrumbs is to find third party software to -hook- into Vista, which I'm not willing to f with. They really did start fresh with the UI, which I can respect and consider with honest criticism. When I look at Windows 7 Milestone 1, I ask myself, why didn't they add the resizable search box to Vista SP1? Is that really how they plan to support Vista's UI?

I'm sure I would have a much happier time in Vista if I had a QX9650 and 4 gb of DDR3 ram, but I'd still be frustrated about the forced UI changes. That's all I really care about. I want interface flexibility and for it to be fleshed out, which they seem to have started to address in Windows 7 Milestone 1... but I don't see why UI updates should go into a new Windows version rather than giving it directly to all of the people who just started using Vista SP1. That approach makes me think they are -treating- Vista as being Windows 7 alpha. Most of the meager changes in Windows 7 that I saw should've been in SP1.
 
My suggestion is go build your own copy of Linux and leave the rest of us the hell alone. No OS will ever be just perfect for everyone.
 
Yes, because any time there's a problem with Vista design, no one should tell anyone that it might be a problem. Everyone should switch to Linux. : p While no OS will be perfect for everyone, I can tell you Linux is the most far from perfect for my uses. I'd rather use Vista beta than have to deal with compiling every 5 steps. Try again, troll.
 
infornographer said:
but I don't see why UI updates should go into a new Windows version rather than giving it directly to all of the people who just started using Vista SP1.
Click to expand...
...because 99% of users consider an interface change the most obvious symptom of a new Operating System and because Microsoft wants to sell said operating system?
 
Arainach said:
...because 99% of users consider an interface change the most obvious symptom of a new Operating System and because Microsoft wants to sell said operating system?
Click to expand...

The ability to resize the search box doesn't strike me as wow 7.0 worthy. 99%? Really? In this case, did you know 80% of people are idiots and 19% are sheep?
 
And 25% of most forum posters are trolls? Wow... amazing what statistics can show, ain't it?

Regardless, Linux is the OS for you. You can enable or disable any freakin' thing your little heart desires, and you can even rewrite the OS to that same little heart's content. The issues you've posted on endlessly in this thread aren't problems - they're how the OS was designed to work. The problems come from people that simply want to complain and aren't happy with anything at all, of which group you seem to be a member.

You mentioned and continue to mention Windows 7 and for all my intelligence, I can't honestly figure out why. As others have noted, it's almost like you're shilling for it 2 years in advance of the release, if they actually make the release date - whatever that may actually be. Windows 7 at this stage of development isn't even something to be discussed really - it looks nothing like it will when it reaches the final stages of development and becomes feature complete - and the only logical reasoning I can come up with to explain your constant mentioning of it is that you can't stand Vista one iota so you're pouncing on the next big thing.

Vista isn't perfect - and we can obviously see by your constant need to reiterate your position - that it is simply not the OS for you. That's perfectly acceptable, really, we get it.

Only problem so far that really matters is: do you?
 
Joe Average said:
And 25% of most forum posters are trolls? Wow... amazing what statistics can show, ain't it?
Click to expand...

I was making fun of statistics. You missed my point.


Joe Average said:
Regardless, Linux is the OS for you. You can enable or disable any freakin' thing your little heart desires, and you can even rewrite the OS to that same little heart's content. The issues you've posted on endlessly in this thread aren't problems - they're how the OS was designed to work. The problems come from people that simply want to complain and aren't happy with anything at all, of which group you seem to be a member.
Click to expand...

Microsoft has allowed customization for a long time, and they continue to. I don't want to rewrite an OS. I like Windows. I just want the same level of options implemented for Vista as they implemented for XP.


Joe Average said:
You mentioned and continue to mention Windows 7 and for all my intelligence, I can't honestly figure out why. As others have noted, it's almost like you're shilling for it 2 years in advance of the release, if they actually make the release date - whatever that may actually be. Windows 7 at this stage of development isn't even something to be discussed really - it looks nothing like it will when it reaches the final stages of development and becomes feature complete - and the only logical reasoning I can come up with to explain your constant mentioning of it is that you can't stand Vista one iota so you're pouncing on the next big thing.
Click to expand...

Maybe because you don't have much intelligence to figure out why?


Joe Average said:
Vista isn't perfect - and we can obviously see by your constant need to reiterate your position - that it is simply not the OS for you. That's perfectly acceptable, really, we get it.

Only problem so far that really matters is: do you?
Click to expand...

To the contrary, Windows 6.0 is for me. It just needs to be finished.
 
infornographer said:
Microsoft has allowed customization for a long time, and they continue to. I don't want to rewrite an OS. I like Windows. I just want the same level of options implemented for Vista as they implemented for XP.
Click to expand...

This is where you UTTERLY FAIL...
Microsoft didn't even have some of these features back in XP.

Please, to still keep that 1 gram of respectability you have left, provide an example of something you could customize in XP that you cannot in Vista.
 
TechieSooner said:
This is where you UTTERLY FAIL...
Microsoft didn't even have some of these features back in XP.

Please, to still keep that 1 gram of respectability you have left, provide an example of something you could customize in XP that you cannot in Vista.
Click to expand...

If I have no respect for you, why should I care if you respect me? I'm not posting to this thread for YOU.

You can't follow an analogy AT ALL, can you? XP added a whole ton of features upon Windows 2000/98SE. You can however revert to the old UI, completely. They also littered the configuration dialogs, toolbar context menus, and registry with settings to change every little aspect of all the new features.

They kept that paticular philosophy with Vista as well, but only because they didn't completely delete all the good work they did in XP. They didn't bother doing the work to make the UI customizable like they did in XP. You can -sort of- revert, but only to 2000/98SE, not to XP. You can revert the start menu, completely, back to 2000/98SE, but not to XP. There is no good reason for this. They did it in XP, but not in Vista. The UI approach in Vista was HALF-ASSED. There is no other way to put it. They reskinned it, added features (which I would argue aren't ADDED until they can be customized, rather, forced down our throats), but tossed out a bunch of useful ones that they're SLOWLY READDING. You really like that baby blue diarrhea that stands in for the nonaero nonclassic?

You fail.
 
XP was a skinned classic interface. You either get classic or XP.
Vista is more than that now (Aero). You either get classic or Vista.

I highly doubt they'll EVER had back-versions of Windows. You'll always get the current version (Vista) and a classic version.


I just don't understand why this is a big deal though... Black (And better performance) vs. Green images.......

?????????????????????

I guess they *could've* added in the XP theme, but then people would be bitching how much more bloated Vista is adding that crap in.
And where on earth do you see they are adding the XP theme back in?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top