In Defense of Vista

[Flea77]

1) If taxing the CPU and HDD 24/7 is somehow superior to the rewritten superfetch on Win7, then please do explain how it is superior. Win7 performs a hell of a lot better on my laptop than did Vista.

And you ASSume that all that CPU and hard drive activity was due to superfetch? You mean none of it was your antivirus? None of it was trying desperately to defrag a partition that was too small? (remember XP would not even allow you to defrag once the drive was that full, at least Vista tried!) None of it was indexing?

2) Don't tell me about reading the min specs, I installed Win7 Ultimate on a 10GB partition and it worked perfectly and ran faster than Vista did on a 20GB partition. That's besides the point. There's absolutely no reason what-so-ever that an operating system needs 10GBs much less 20GBs of space. None. Zip. Zilch. And all your fanboism isn't going to change that.

Just because 7 worked when you did something you were clearly told not to do does not mean it was right. Just because Vista did something wrong when you clearly did something you were not supposed to do does not make Vista bad.

Fanboism? LOL! First, what is a fanbo? Lets see:

I follow the directions from the manufacturer and exceed not only the minimums but the recommended as well, and it works fine. I say it works fine.

You ignore not only the recommended, but the minimums as well, and it does not work well. You blame your failure on Vista.

So exactly who is the fan boY here?

And lastly, no, and operating system does not need 10GB, but everyone keep wanting features so it keeps getting bigger and bigger. We could cut most of that out by removing the Aero interface (and you would gripe), the GUI (and you would gripe), Media Center (and you would gripe), backwards program compatibility (and you would gripe), built in driver support for thousands of devices (and you would gripe), built in BD/DVD/CD buring (and you would gripe), built in networking (and you would gripe), and the list goes on and on and on.

Keep in mind, even Ubuntu suggests a minimum of 8GB.

Allan

 

[devil22]

I don't buy the tweak-uac explanation. While Windows prompts you when you first run a program from the internet, such a program does not automatically get admin rights because you allow it. Second how can they possibly leave protected mode on in IE without prompts? If a program you trust needs to run out of protected mode and malware needs not to run out of protected mode, the user has to make that decision, no software is smart enough to do so. Tweak-uac's explanation is lacking and non-technical, so I would stay away from it as snake-oil unless someone can show me something more pertinent about it.

 

[Unknown-One]

I like Vista and 7 both, but I'd like to see Microsoft pull a Snow Leopard, Apple shrunk the installation size with SL.

Apple also ripped out support for an entire platform with Snow Leopard. It no-longer runs on PowerPC hardware. I'm not sure Windows has anything as large as a secondary architecture to remove.

That said, they could make Windows 8 64bit-only and rip out absolutely everything related to backwards compatibility, then provide a tightly integrated virtual machine to replace all the compatibility layers.

In theory, this should result in a smaller OS install if you're running applications that all work without the help of compatibility layers, as well as 100% perfect backwards compatibility once you install the necessary virtual machine(s) for your older software. Hardware virtualization on modern hardware, combined with advancements in future virtualization software, should make any performance hit from this form of backwards compatibility minimal.

Such a tightly integrated virtual system could also be used to enhance security. Applications could be run in a "sandbox mode" that loads them into a background virtual machine instead of on the host OS itself. You can interact with the application as you normally would, but it has no access to the host operating system or other running applications (unless you've allowed communication outside of its sandbox).

Indeed, future versions of Windows may run everything in micro-virtual-machines once the performance hit for doing so has been reduced to a minimal level. Applications never become incompatible (because they just boot using the older system they require), security is vastly improved, and even uninstalling applications becomes simpler (as apps can't get their hooks into the host OS). We're already seeing the beginnings of this with "Windows XP Mode" for Windows 7, though it's not as tightly integrated as I'm sure it will be in future versions of Windows.

 

[hedron]

You do realize the whole point of UAC is notification, right?

The reason we put UAC into the [Vista] platform was to annoy users — I’m serious.”

This makes sense, because there is no shortage of computer illiterate people out there who will screw with anything and everything and then blame Microsoft for their own idiocy. So, they make this UAC to ensure that those who are computer illiterate will think twice about changing a setting. Therefor, reducing the amount of PEBKAC issues.

 

[TechieSooner]

2) Don't tell me about reading the min specs, I installed Win7 Ultimate on a 10GB partition and it worked perfectly and ran faster than Vista did on a 20GB partition. That's besides the point. There's absolutely no reason what-so-ever that an operating system needs 10GBs much less 20GBs of space. None. Zip. Zilch. And all your fanboism isn't going to change that.

20GB was the minimum.

I have ZERO sympathy for you not following the people that freaking CREATED THE SOFTWARE'S recommendations.

Please note that I had used the word, "partition" which is not the same as, "hard drive."

All the more reason the blame is squarely on your shoulders for partitioning it so small. Again- zero sympathy you had issues with it.

http://tweak-uac.com/uac-quiet-mode/

Is the "quiet" mode of UAC less secure?

Please go read the rest of the article.

Funny you tell ME to read it when you obviously didn't. Or at least you did, but you didn't apply critical thinking to it.

#1. You CAN NOT get around this: if malware wants to access C:\Windows, with UAC left alone the user will get notified. Using TweakUAC, they will not and the malware will proceed. Sorry, but that is an UTTER FAILURE in the entire argument. However since I had used that example before and you seem to not be pleased with it, I move on to the next problem.

#2. Their argument is that "you still get notified". What they don't tell you is you'll only get notified on files you downloaded from within IE. If it's outside of IE, no prompts. Use Firefox? You're still wide open. Opera? Wide open. Flash drive? Wide open. CD/DVD? Wide open.
It’s relying opon IE’s warning mechanisms to warn the user. NOT UAC! The same freaking feature existed in XP (remember-XP didn’t have UAC… That should tell you something right there… How can a system that doesn’t have UAC and one that has UAC provide the same warnings? How about because UAC is shut off!!!!)
They even acknowledge that fact as well, though not in such disclaimed language as I’ve used. They’re vague enough to make ignorant users think this is somehow just as secure.

Again: TweakUAC is the same thing as shutting UAC off. Period.

As as the above mentioned link states: The entire purpose of UAC is to notify the user. TweakUAC shuts off notifications, rendering the entire purpose of UAC, and therefore UAC itself, useless. This didn’t click in your head???

Do what you want on YOUR system, but for the love of God, don’t spread this nonsense around to other users.

I like Vista and 7 both, but I'd like to see Microsoft pull a Snow Leopard, Apple shrunk the installation size with SL, it's a good thing, since that would mean less disk space wasted on OS partition. Of course this might just be personal preference, but more free space means better performance especially non-SSD.

The Snow Leopard "space gain" was an absolute joke.
In basic terms, they gained it back because APPLE RECORDED DISK SPACE INCORRECTLY IN LEOPARD. Period. They're correcting a problem that never should've been there in the first place. Sure, Apple lightened the code a bit, but nobody actually gained 10GB back.

If you want the more technical answer... Leopard calculated drives in base2 format. This is why many HDDs that are "250 GB" would only show as "232 GB".
In Snow Leopard, they switched to base10 which more accurately reports the space. So 232 becomes 250. Same space on the disk. The main reason for doing this is because (in all honesty) Apple knows the people that buy its products are idiots, so when someone buys a “250GB hard drive”, they want to see “250GB “ installed, not 232.
All the Apple zealots saw this and thought Apple had defied all computer logic and was GOD of the computer realm, but reality is totally different. They totally glaze over the fact that Apple has been doing it incorrectly for years and has just now “fixed” the problem.

Or to put it in other terms, it’s just an accounting error. Instead of counting whole beans, the accountant is half blind so only sees half beans. He counts beans, but his number arrives at half of what it “should” be. His count of the beans is accurate, it’s just the numbers aren’t quite accurate (they’re HALF beans and not WHOLE beans). So we go and replace the accountant with another one that sees the whole beans. He notices the problems and updates the amount of beans. The count of the beans remains the same, but this time they’re WHOLE beans and not HALF beans. Make sense? All the data (the beans) are the exact same as what’s been there, they’re just reported more correctly.

 

[hedron]

All the more reason the blame is squarely on your shoulders for partitioning it so small. Again- zero sympathy you had issues with it.

I never asked for your sympathy. The min specs say 20GBs so I should be able to install a service pack on a system with a 20GB partition. So, no. The blame is not on me because my system exceeded the minimum requirements.

But I relent, I guess I'll just never understand fanboi-ism.

 

[Aaron11]

I think Vista was just troublesome at launch. After SP1, and especially now, it's a decent OS. But you can't really tell that to some one who hates Windows. People are so technologically illiterate. 80% of the people that said that Vista sucked had no idea why and just listened to what other people said.

 

[heatlesssun]

I never asked for your sympathy. The min specs say 20GBs so I should be able to install a service pack on a system with a 20GB partition. So, no. The blame is not on me because my system exceeded the minimum requirements.

But I relent, I guess I'll just never understand fanboi-ism.

For me Windows just does so much pretty well these days. Windows Media Center is fantastic and with the release of standalone CableCard ready tuners, life is just going to be that much better. The my pen and multi-touch enabled Windows 7 tx2 tablet is a nifty device. And boy, the performance boost I just got from going to i7, wow. This rig just runs MUCH smoother than even my old QX9650 3.67Ghz system. Windows 7 does seem to be well tuned for new hardware.

And Vista was the path to much of this. I liked Vista ok, but it just seems a bit heavy when compared to Windows 7 on the same hardware. I know benchmarks show that Windows 7 & Vista are very close performance wise but yet 7 just feels so much more responsive in actual use. And the Core i7 takes that to another level yet it would seem.

 

[Udo]

Funny you tell ME to read it when you obviously didn't. Or at least you did, but you didn't apply critical thinking to it.

Obviously you didn't read enough. The only nonsense here is your abrasive and hostile attitude.

http://vista.blorge.com/2008/02/25/how-to-fix-three-broken-features-of-vista/

This disables all those annoying “elevate permissions” dialogs but leaves the virtualization mode in place. Some programs may still require admin level access and to give it that you will need to right click on the program and select “Run as administrator.”

UAC Quiet mode still requires you to have an Administrator account, it will only work on those types of accounts. Standard users, even with Tweak UAC installed, will not be able to perform admin level tasks.

Note, that Security Center will tell you UAC is off when the quiet mode is enabled. To make sure that it is working, see if Virtualization is listed as enabled in the Task Manager for some or most of your running tasks. To check, start the Task Manager, select View then Columns and check the Virtualization option. You may have to restart for UAC quiet mode to be properly enabled.

Jonathan Schlaffer:
February 26th, 2008

@”Bill Gates”
1. It’s not less secure. UAC is still enabled for anyone without an admin account. It is pointless for the administrator to have UAC operating in its normal mode. The virtualization feature of UAC is still operating, that is more important than its authorization dialogs.

 

[Arainach]

It is pointless for the administrator to have UAC operating in its normal mode.

No, it's not. The point of UAC is so that you're aware when programs try to do things that require admin access.

 

[hedron]

And lastly, no, and operating system does not need 10GB, but everyone keep wanting features so it keeps getting bigger and bigger.

I really doubt it's the features that make it so bloated.

We could cut most of that out by removing the Aero interface (and you would gripe)

Actually, the Aero interface is completely useless and looks tacky. Give me a streamlined theme like what dumbassjones made.

the GUI (and you would gripe)

You're being redundant.

Media Center (and you would gripe)

I don't use the media center. I suppose it's nice for those who like WMP. But I don't think it needs anything close to a GB hard drive space.

backwards program compatibility (and you would gripe)

Well, it's debatable whether a change of kernel was even necessary. Multithreading was the main functionality that XPs lacked. I'm sure there are more features, but I'm fairly certain a new kernel was made just because Microsoft could do it and not for any practical or technical reason.

built in driver support for thousands of devices (and you would gripe)

Well, OK. You found one thing that sort of justifies the bloat. But Linux does that too with a 340MB footprint on disk.

built in BD/DVD/CD buring (and you would gripe)

I use 3rd party software. At any rate, those apps only take like 5MBs so they're not really a space hog.

built in networking (and you would gripe)

That isn't something that justifies the bloat.

and the list goes on and on and on.

No, it doesn't.

Keep in mind, even Ubuntu suggests a minimum of 8GB.

Allan

I use Slackware, which is a 4.5GB install. That's not really comparable anyway. Linux distros come with all kinds of applications that Windows does not. It would be like if you bought a copy of Windows and it came with MS Office and Photoshop and a few games and whatever. If Windows did that it would be a 50+GB install.

 

[pigwalk]

IMO if it wasn't for all the idiot OEMs slapping Vista on these bottom rung Celeron/512mb budget machines the general publics perception of Vista would be much better. People don't want to have a brand new machine, regardless of how cheap, run like shitballs out the box.

 

[TechieSooner]

I never asked for your sympathy. The min specs say 20GBs so I should be able to install a service pack on a system with a 20GB partition. So, no. The blame is not on me because my system exceeded the minimum requirements.

But I relent, I guess I'll just never understand fanboi-ism.

I have had no issues of Vista (even Ultimate) taking 20+ GB on an install.

Microsoft isn't responsible for you installing a bunch of shit and wondering why you run out of space.

Obviously you didn't read enough. The only nonsense here is your abrasive and hostile attitude.

http://vista.blorge.com/2008/02/25/how-to-fix-three-broken-features-of-vista/

This disables all those annoying “elevate permissions” dialogs but leaves the virtualization mode in place. Some programs may still require admin level access and to give it that you will need to right click on the program and select “Run as administrator.”

UAC Quiet mode still requires you to have an Administrator account, it will only work on those types of accounts. Standard users, even with Tweak UAC installed, will not be able to perform admin level tasks.

I 100% understand what you're saying, and you're still 100% wrong. I really have no idea how else to explain this, I've simplified it to the extent a junior higher could understand it.
Did you even read the two reasons I gave why this is still a bad idea? Because you didn't even touch or address them. (And BTW- you can't touch or address them because there's no way around it... TweakUAC is effectively the same as shutting UAC off).

IActually, the Aero interface is completely useless and looks tacky. Give me a streamlined theme like what dumbassjones made.

Aero is far more than just a theme. If you don't like the looks, that's personal preference. But offloading the visual effects to the GPU makes sense. It frees your CPU to do other things, IE, it makes it run more efficiently. Only mindless Vista bashing leads to folks wanting their OS to run less efficiently.
It's a huge step up from the XP image-based themes that required the CPU to do all the work.

Well, it's debatable whether a change of kernel was even necessary. Multithreading was the main functionality that XPs lacked. I'm sure there are more features, but I'm fairly certain a new kernel was made just because Microsoft could do it and not for any practical or technical reason.

You and all XP fanboys and Vista/7 bashers ALWAYS fail to realize Microsoft is still a business out to make money.
You simply don't put all your new features in your old products for free. It's stupid business sense.

Well, OK. You found one thing that sort of justifies the bloat. But Linux does that too with a 340MB footprint on disk.

Surely you didn't just compare Linux driver support to Windows driver support... It's only 9AM here and if you did just compare those two, that's quite possible the dumbest thing I'm going to hear today.

 

[Flea77]

I really doubt it's the features that make it so bloated.

then you REALLY need to look around. Try installing just Windows with absolutely no features at all, it is much smaller.

Actually, the Aero interface is completely useless and looks tacky. Give me a streamlined theme like what dumbassjones made.

Perfect example of what I am talking about, I like Aero, you do not, both are included, this takes lots of code, yet more "bloat" as you call it.

You're being redundant.

Surely you do not think that the GUI and Aero are the same thing? You do realize that you can uninstall/disable Aero and still have a mouse with menus etc? They are completely different things, just Aero helps improve the experience with the GUI but is by no means required.

I don't use the media center. I suppose it's nice for those who like WMP. But I don't think it needs anything close to a GB hard drive space.

I did not say it did, I did say it uses disk space which contributes to the 15GB required installation footprint

Well, OK. You found one thing that sort of justifies the bloat. But Linux does that too with a 340MB footprint on disk.

You are kidding right? Do you really believe that Linux has even 10% of the hardware support that Windows has right out of the box? And does it in 340MB?

I use 3rd party software. At any rate, those apps only take like 5MBs so they're not really a space hog.

5MB eh? That may seem correct considering you are probably not including all the code spread all over the place to help support those features. I personally would love to see all of 7's burning abilities condensed into 5MB. Can you find me a integrated burning solution for Windows 2000 that is only 5MB? I would love to see it.

That isn't something that justifies the bloat.

Sure it is, any idea how big the TCP/IP stack is? All the networking utilities (Ping, nslookup, etc)? How about the DNS resolver and DHCP client? Server and client services?

No, it doesn't.

Sure it does! How about image backup software(In Business/Ultimate, used to have to buy it), auto-defragmenters (remember having to buy these?), file and folder encryption, Internet Explorer (was never included in 3.1!), Windows Fax and Scan (remember having to buy Winfax?), Remote Desktop Connection (remember having to buy PC Anywhere?), speech recognition (remember having to buy Dragon?), tablet functionality, Sticky Notes (that was never in 3.1!), etc etc.

Just because you do not see all the features that take up the space does not mean they are not there. Personally, I think it is a fair trade, 20GB of hard drive space in exchange for all that functionality built right in, all integrated. Heck, Windows has not substantially increased in price, ever, and the number of third party apps I have to install to do what I need has dropped dramatically, so I think it is a great deal!

Allan

 

[Flea77]

You and all XP fanboys and Vista/7 bashers ALWAYS fail to realize Microsoft is still a business out to make money.

WHAT?!?!?!?!? You mean they are not there to serve me personally?!?! They should be my slave and provide everything for free! Their families don't need food or clothing! I need the money for beer!

Allan

 

[TechieSooner]

WHAT?!?!?!?!? You mean they are not there to serve me personally?!?! They should be my slave and provide everything for free! Their families don't need food or clothing! I need the money for beer!

Allan

If only people realized the expenses...
Thousands of programmers
Thousands of servers
Crap ton of electricity being used
Cooling systems for all the servers
Healthcare
Taxes
Legal division fighting stupid lawsuits

I mean, if anyone here were running such a business there's no way in hell you'd produce products for free.

 

[Udo]

No, it's not. The point of UAC is so that you're aware when programs try to do things that require admin access.

As someone else has already directed you to an article that states that UAC was there to annoy you andn not much else. With UAC in quiet mode on Vista using TweakUAC you still had to provide admin permission to apps/games that needed it. The benefit of TweakUAC is still having some security without being nagged every 2 minutes from doing trivial tasks. Anyway, we are discussing Vista and not Win7 and on Win7 I leave UAC at one notch below default setting. Also, on Vista I used a secondary more secure account for when on the internet so had very little to be concered about by hacking UAC. Is that OK with you guys or do I need your permission first to do things like that? All I said here was that Vista was not annoying using TweakUAC in quiet mode and certainly never told anyone to do as I do.

 

[Udo]

I 100% understand what you're saying, and you're still 100% wrong. I really have no idea how else to explain this, I've simplified it to the extent a junior higher could understand it.

Then take it up with the author of TweakUAC because obviously he thinks what you say is wrong and explains why on his website. I guess he only has a junior high education too though.

BTW, I don't use TweakUAC on my current Vista install but that is because I mostly use Win7 now and have UAC set one below default. I suppose now you are going to say I should use it at default and no other setting.

 

[TechieSooner]

Dude, his article does not address either point I have made, and neither do you.
My points actually fit perfectly in-line with his article: because he excludes them completely for OBVIOUS reasons.

And also, anything other than fully on, even in Windows 7- is broken. It's already been exploited. So no, I won't recommend the default (broken) level, I'd recommend setting it to fully on.
You start poking holes in any dam, and you'll have exploits.

UAC on Vista has never been exploited (Gee, I wonder why... NO HOLES).
UAC on Windows 7 was exploited before release, at the default setting at least. The fully on setting works like Vista.

 

[GreenMonkey]

2) Don't tell me about reading the min specs, I installed Win7 Ultimate on a 10GB partition and it worked perfectly and ran faster than Vista did on a 20GB partition. That's besides the point. There's absolutely no reason what-so-ever that an operating system needs 10GBs much less 20GBs of space. None. Zip. Zilch. And all your fanboism isn't going to change that.

A 2009 OS is going to use plenty of space, because it has it. Remember XP before the service packs, and win98? Digging for a Windows CD when you tinkered with the system programs / settings / etc all of the time because it had to install files from the CD? Needing a driver for almost every single piece of hardware? Etc?

They stuff all of that stuff into the O.S. by default now. There's a reason I can install it without digging for a SATA diskette, digging for a network drivers, a video driver, a sound driver, etc. The price of rolling all of those drivers and files and such in is space.

Win7 is around ~15GB BTW. Not 10GB, unless you're stripping things out of it with vlite or rthe like.

 

[hedron]

Perfect example of what I am talking about, I like Aero, you do not, both are included, this takes lots of code, yet more "bloat" as you call it.

I just think it looks ugly. Check out this theme:

http://i.imgur.com/Ed7S5.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/Oqaxi.jpg

Way better looking than Aero. I guess you're also talking about the functionality, I was mainly referring to its aesthetics. It's just way too cartoony for me.

You are kidding right? Do you really believe that Linux has even 10% of the hardware support that Windows has right out of the box? And does it in 340MB?

Uncompressed the latest kernel source code is 340MBs. And the Linux kernel supports more hardware than Windows does.

http://imgur.com/puD6D.jpg

5MB eh? That may seem correct considering you are probably not including all the code spread all over the place to help support those features. I personally would love to see all of 7's burning abilities condensed into 5MB. Can you find me a integrated burning solution for Windows 2000 that is only 5MB? I would love to see it.

I'm quite sure Alcohol has more features than the dinky windows burner.

http://imgur.com/F9Y7J.jpg

OK, 9MBs and not 5 but close enough.

Sure it is, any idea how big the TCP/IP stack is? All the networking utilities (Ping, nslookup, etc)? How about the DNS resolver and DHCP client? Server and client services?

I'm quite sure it doesn't need multiple GBs to function properly.

Just because you do not see all the features that take up the space does not mean they are not there. Personally, I think it is a fair trade, 20GB of hard drive space in exchange for all that functionality built right in, all integrated. Heck, Windows has not substantially increased in price, ever, and the number of third party apps I have to install to do what I need has dropped dramatically, so I think it is a great deal!

Allan

I like Win7 fine. I just don't see where all that space is going. What was that 3D game that took up like 100K but looked pretty decent? I forget, but I really think most of the development community uses the extra space and power because they can and not because it's optimal. Also, to give people an excuse to spend $$$ upgrading. It would be ridiculous to go back to the days of one line coded programs, but it's getting out of hand.

To the other guy who says Win7 takes 15GBs. When I right clicked > properties the windows folder it said it was taking up 13GBs of space even though I know I allocated a 10GB partition. I don't know how that happened, but it worked somehow.

 

[Udo]

Dude, his article does not address either point I have made, and neither do you.
My points actually fit perfectly in-line with his article: because he excludes them completely for OBVIOUS reasons.

And also, anything other than fully on, even in Windows 7- is broken. It's already been exploited. So no, I won't recommend the default (broken) level, I'd recommend setting it to fully on.
You start poking holes in any dam, and you'll have exploits.

UAC on Vista has never been exploited (Gee, I wonder why... NO HOLES).
UAC on Windows 7 was exploited before release, at the default setting at least. The fully on setting works like Vista.

I will rethink my practices but I really don't think I need to because I have never had my PC exploited due to how I run my PC. Your settings may well be best for Joe Average but they are too annoying and anal for me. Still, I am not going to thank you because even if you are correct it doesn't lessen the fact you come across like a complete douche.

 

[Arainach]

What was that 3D game that took up like 100K but looked pretty decent?

That "game" relied on textures being already on the system. Saying it fit in 100K is a gross misstatement.

 

[Unknown-One]

That "game" relied on textures being already on the system. Saying it fit in 100K is a gross misstatement.

Sorry, not even close.

The game in question is called kkrieger, which is a First person Shooter with graphics comparable to Doom 3 that fits in just under 100KB of space.

The game uses math equations to generate resources in real time. Everything from textures to 3D models are created in a method similar to fractals, all based on small strings of math. Kkrieger hammers your CPU running all this math, generating over 800MB of resources that it loads directly into RAM (this can take some time depending upon the speed of your system). After all the resources have been generated, the game itself runs.

I think you might be confused by the fact that such programs still require additional libraries such as DirectX to be installed, though that has nothing to do with actual resources such as textures.

 

[TechieSooner]

I just think it looks ugly. Check out this theme:

http://i.imgur.com/Ed7S5.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/Oqaxi.jpg

Way better looking than Aero. I guess you're also talking about the functionality, I was mainly referring to its aesthetics. It's just way too cartoony for me.

1) Looks are subjective
2) I know of nobody that would run a theme like that, other than high school aged kids
3) Again- Aero actually provides functionality that crap like that won't provide you.
4) Don't like the look? You can actually adjust the colors, transparency level, and lots of other little settings.

Uncompressed the latest kernel source code is 340MBs. And the Linux kernel supports more hardware than Windows does.

By what measurement? Take your choice of manufacturer (NVidia, ATI, Creative, HP, Dell, etc, etc) and they ALL provide VASTLY better Windows support.

The second part of your statement is pure bullshit. The only reason I'm going to let that slide a little bit is the fact it's open source. Theoretically, anyone could write a driver for it. However, any device manufacturer could do the same for Windows, so it might even be a moot point.

I'm quite sure it doesn't need multiple GBs to function properly.

Where, exactly, do you see the protocol stack using "multiple GBs"?

I will rethink my practices but I really don't think I need to because I have never had my PC exploited due to how I run my PC.

I've never been in a car accident, either. Guess that means I can stop wearing my seatbelt?
Not only that, I can spread the news around that EVERYONE can stop using their seatbelt!

 

[Moogle Stiltzkin]

Windows 7 has been out for a couple months now, and many of us were playing around with the beta and RC long before that. It has recieved widespread praise as being a step in the right direction; in contrast Vista recieved quite harsh, negative reviews upon initial release.

But is Vista really that bad? I think I speak for most when I say that UAC is annoying, and while you can turn it off, it shouldn't have been a problem in the first place. Vista was called lots of nasty names, especially in regards to it's memory demands, which were substantial. Plenty of people were even more flustered when SP1 came out, claiming that Vista should have been like that to begin with.

I, for one, never had a problem with Vista. Not that Vista doesn't have problems - it certainly has it's fair share. But I never felt like it was inferior to other OSes. It's our job to pick at new software, and point out all it's flaws, and complain about missing features, but I think we were too hard on Vista. It had plenty of important new features, not the least of which being DX10, which was a massive step forward above DX9.

Windows 7 is a nice, shiny new OS, and lots of people like it. It's their personal choice, of course. But I don't really see it as too much of a step away from Vista. It's got a couple new features, but most of them are just GUI 'improvements'. Are these truly so important that they make 7 massively more popular than Vista? I, personally, have learned to navigate computers fast enough that the new features in 7 only save me a fraction of a second for most tasks.

I have grown fond of Vista. It's not perfect, of course, but I like it. It suits my needs better than anything I've encountered. For those of you who prefer other OSes, what don't you like about it? I feel like most of the complaints about Vista were superficial. Do you feel differently?

I'm trying to develop a complete picture of how people feel/felt about Vista, and if they consider Windows 7 significantly different. Just tossing in my 2 cents - let's hear yours.

Try telling that to the Vista Ultimate users that have to pay the full price to upgrade to Windows 7, when other users with cheaper versions can pay a cheaper price for upgrade.

Vista and Microsoft don't need to be defended imho x_x;

Anyway i was compensated with a free Windows 7 Ultimate heh

 

[hedron]

1) Looks are subjective
2) I know of nobody that would run a theme like that, other than high school aged kids
3) Again- Aero actually provides functionality that crap like that won't provide you.
4) Don't like the look? You can actually adjust the colors, transparency level, and lots of other little settings.

The Aero theme looks like something a kindergartner would draw. It's cartoony and childish. Seriously. Dumbassjones made sleek no bullshit, stripped down themes that looked a hell of a lot better than the default. That was only one of the 20 some odd themes I had. You're just jealous cause you had been stuck with the crappy default blue/silver/puke Luna theme all these years, then I come out and show you what you had been missing had you bothered to tinker with XP.

Also, maybe Aero provides more functionality, but that's only because dumbassjones isn't going to rewrite the entire user interface just to make a theme. I just hope someone makes a stripped down theme for 7, cause this cartoony smurfed out theme is crap.

By what measurement? Take your choice of manufacturer (NVidia, ATI, Creative, HP, Dell, etc, etc) and they ALL provide VASTLY better Windows support.

The second part of your statement is pure bullshit. The only reason I'm going to let that slide a little bit is the fact it's open source. Theoretically, anyone could write a driver for it. However, any device manufacturer could do the same for Windows, so it might even be a moot point.

It's not bullshit. The Linux kernel supports more hardware "out of the box" than Windows does. I am not including third party drivers, just stuff that comes with it. ie: When you install Linux and nothing else you get more drivers than if you install Windows and nothing else.

Where, exactly, do you see the protocol stack using "multiple GBs"?

I don't know. You're the one who claimed that Vista used 20GBs of space because of the protocol stack, not me.

 

[Tantrix]

In Defense of Vista

Please, don't try to defend Vista.

 

[Udo]

1)
I've never been in a car accident, either. Guess that means I can stop wearing my seatbelt?
Not only that, I can spread the news around that EVERYONE can stop using their seatbelt!

One is life threatening and the other isn't so that is a very bad analogy. I don't keep sensitive data on my PCs and backup to external HDDs what I do need. BTW, I forgot to mention that when I used TweakUAC on Vista I had a secondary account with limited access so was more secure when online than people using the default Vista account because nothing could get admin level access without my explicit consent. When you enable TweakUAC quiet mode and need admin access in a limited account you are prompted for the admin password, just like in Ubuntu. I've always used secondary limited access accounts since XP and Win7 is the first time I haven't. I bet that makes you think twice about my education level.

 

[QwertyJuan]

The Aero theme looks like something a kindergartner would draw. It's cartoony and childish. Seriously. Dumbassjones made sleek no bullshit, stripped down themes that looked a hell of a lot better than the default. That was only one of the 20 some odd themes I had. You're just jealous cause you had been stuck with the crappy default blue/silver/puke Luna theme all these years, then I come out and show you what you had been missing had you bothered to tinker with XP.

Also, maybe Aero provides more functionality, but that's only because dumbassjones isn't going to rewrite the entire user interface just to make a theme. I just hope someone makes a stripped down theme for 7, cause this cartoony smurfed out theme is crap.



It's not bullshit. The Linux kernel supports more hardware "out of the box" than Windows does. I am not including third party drivers, just stuff that comes with it. ie: When you install Linux and nothing else you get more drivers than if you install Windows and nothing else.



I don't know. You're the one who claimed that Vista used 20GBs of space because of the protocol stack, not me.

How old are you? 16? 17? Your themes look like something a teenager(some??) would enjoy, not ANY business professional that I have ever worked with. Most people on this forum(especially in this sub-forum) are older(older than their teens) individuals that work in business and aren't all that interested in running Linux because it's COOL or changing our desktop themes 18 times a week, to the latest game that we played.

 

[TechieSooner]

The Aero theme looks like something a kindergartner would draw. It's cartoony and childish. Seriously. Dumbassjones made sleek no bullshit, stripped down themes that looked a hell of a lot better than the default. That was only one of the 20 some odd themes I had. You're just jealous cause you had been stuck with the crappy default blue/silver/puke Luna theme all these years, then I come out and show you what you had been missing had you bothered to tinker with XP.

One thing: The look is subjective. There's lots of people that like it. No point in arguing that.

Again- do what you want, but Aero has huge functional advantages over your custom theme.

It's not bullshit. The Linux kernel supports more hardware "out of the box" than Windows does. I am not including third party drivers, just stuff that comes with it. ie: When you install Linux and nothing else you get more drivers than if you install Windows and nothing else.

Yea, a whole 9 pages of stuff in the Ubuntu HCL:

Yep, that doesn't compare at all to the millions of configurations Windows supports.
.

I don't know. You're the one who claimed that Vista used 20GBs of space because of the protocol stack, not me.

Did I? Please, link me. Else, this is a strawman argument and you're full of shit.

One is life threatening and the other isn't so that is a very bad analogy.

No it's not.
"If I haven't had anything happen, then by all means I should be safe in the future".
It's the same running your computer with auto-elevating prompts versus not wearing a seatbelt- it's the same mentality.

Plan for the worst, hope for the best.

 

[Flea77]

I just think it looks ugly. Check out this theme:

http://i.imgur.com/Ed7S5.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/Oqaxi.jpg

Way better looking than Aero. I guess you're also talking about the functionality, I was mainly referring to its aesthetics. It's just way too cartoony for me.

And I think those look like the tired and dated themes I was using with Object Desktop in the Windows 98 days, lame. But to each their own.

Uncompressed the latest kernel source code is 340MBs. And the Linux kernel supports more hardware than Windows does.

You are serious aren't you? I have a Ubuntu installation right beside me, and it did not have drivers for my TV tuner card (7 did), refused to do both hardware effect acceleration and widescreen at the same time (7 works fine), has no drivers for my Wacom Grafire Bluetooth tablet (7 does) and did not like my Sound Blaster X-FI (although 7 didn't either).

I'm quite sure Alcohol has more features than the dinky windows burner.

Check again! First off I said it needed to be integrated, Alcohol is not. Second, you said it was 9MB, the compressed download is 12MB. Third, in 7, I can make video DVDs and slideshow DVDs complete with menus, I just downloaded and installed Alcohol 1.9.8.7612 and those features are not there.

I'm quite sure it doesn't need multiple GBs to function properly.

I never said it did, I said it CONTRIBUTED to the total of 15GB. One single bit is a contribution, which I assure you the entire network platform is substantially larger than that.

I like Win7 fine. I just don't see where all that space is going. What was that 3D game that took up like 100K but looked pretty decent? I forget, but I really think most of the development community uses the extra space and power because they can and not because it's optimal. Also, to give people an excuse to spend $$$ upgrading. It would be ridiculous to go back to the days of one line coded programs, but it's getting out of hand.

I have showed you where large pieces are going. Now I am not about to sit here and say there is no bloat, or that it could not be streamlined. But once you take the features it includes and plop that on top of a reasonable OS, you can not fit all of that into a couple of hundred megabytes any more.

Heck, I remember running my first BBS, message boards, file downloads, one door game, all on a single 720k floppy disk! Now to run a single website you need at least Apache server, version 2.2.14 is 5.1MB! And Apache has no file upload/download capability, no modem communications, no user authentication, no message boards, no games. Sure it can be programmed to do that, but all that was built in by default to my BBS.

Allan

 

[XOR != OR]

Yea, a whole 9 pages of stuff in the Ubuntu HCL:

Yep, that doesn't compare at all to the millions of configurations Windows supports.

The rest of the debate is beyond my caring, but this statement piqued my interest. First up, ubuntu does not equal linux. Second, that list is user contributed. Hardly comprehensive. Third, it is a well known fact that linux has far more available drivers than windows could ever have. Considering how drivers operate in linux, just about everything from kernel 2.0 forward still works in the latest branch. Vista/7 doesn't approach that.

Third, drivers and configurations are different. Even given the list you linked, Ubuntu supports at least hundreds of thousands different configurations ( wild ass guess, I don't feel like running the math ).

 

[Malakai]

I find vista to be a dead topic since 7 is everything vista was supposed to be, but better and more polished.

I use 7 on all my machines now, including netbook, and no other MS OS even holds a candle to it. I still like certain linux flavors on my lappys and netbooks, but 7 is the best ms has done in a loong time.

 

[TechieSooner]

First up, ubuntu does not equal linux. Second, that list is user contributed. Hardly comprehensive. Third, it is a well known fact that linux has far more available drivers than windows could ever have. Considering how drivers operate in linux, just about everything from kernel 2.0 forward still works in the latest branch. Vista/7 doesn't approach that.

I guess prove it. I've never installed any varation of BSD or Linux or anything else that's ever required me to NOT install a driver.

Windows works out of the box.

I'd also counter that Windows, not Linux, has more avaiable drivers than Linux would ever have.

Since you complained about "user-contributed" list I linked to (Isn't that one of the big pluses of *nix, user-contributed? Now it's crap???) I mean, I can go over to RedHat's website and see under 1200 supported devices.

 

[XOR != OR]

I guess prove it. I've never installed any varation of BSD or Linux or anything else that's ever required me to NOT install a driver.

I think the point we're getting stuck up on is the "out of the box" statement. With linux, there is no box. Yes, different distros provide support for different devices and such. But taken as a whole, there are more devices supported under linux than under windows.

Windows works out of the box.

I'll accept that, it's far easier to get windows up and running on random hardware than it is linux.

Since you complained about "user-contributed" list I linked to (Isn't that one of the big pluses of *nix, user-contributed? Now it's crap???)

No, I said it's hardly comprehensive.

I mean, I can go over to RedHat's website and see under 1200 supported devices.

Again, redhat does not equal linux.

I'll drop this here as you are obviously pretty wound up about this topic. I believe my point was made.

 

[TechieSooner]

Red Hat isn't Linux? What the hell are you smoking? It's even right in the name of (some of) their products. It's the only really "official" source I could find of any distro listing out what they support.

I'll accept that, it's far easier to get windows up and running on random hardware than it is linux.

That's more or less my point.

The hardware support under Windows is superior (and not to mention easier) to get running than under Linux.

Like I said before, I'll admit theoretically under Linux, you could have an infinite amount of drivers just due to the open and user contributed nature. However the real world and practical use just sucks... Windows hardware support is far better.

 

[XOR != OR]

Red Hat isn't Linux? What the hell are you smoking? It's even right in the name of (some of) their products. It's the only really "official" source I could find of any distro listing out what they support.

Again, not what I said.

Try again.

 

[TechieSooner]

Again, not what I said.

Try again.

Oh, I'm trying:

redhat does not equal linux

 

[phide]

You're being pedantic, Techie. You understand what he meant by "redhat does not equal linux". RedHat is a particular distribution of Linux, not Linux itself.