Vista bug free?

KillaChaos said:
If Microsoft was limited to using the same amount of RAM it used in the previous OS, we would still be using Windows 3.1.
Click to expand...
Same goes true for OS X as well. Same goes true for Linux distros... more features they pack into it- the more RAM it needs.

It's a fact of life...

Mithent said:
I didn't spot the mention of the Secure Desktop before, but, that's correct - it has nothing to do with DRM, and it makes perfect sense - it would be pointless if programs could automate the UAC prompts. You can get them to appear on the standard desktop if you want, but I don't see much reason to do so. The login and Windows Security (Ctrl+Alt+Del) screens also run under the Secure Desktop.

If what you're worried about is protected processes, they're not related to the Secure Desktop.
Click to expand...
Back on page 1 I told him to look into what it was. Obviously didn't do that. No mention of Secure Desktop in the article linked to- and for some reason he thinks it has something to do with DRM.

That said- yes, you can make UAC prompts appear on the standard desktop. Takes a big chunk out of security though. One of the unique things about UAC is applications can't bypass it themselves... and disabling the Secure Desktop disables that feature (Which can, with the right malware, make UAC useless- no better than shutting it off outright).
 
my stupid ass manager at work is always dogging vista...i think its great. fast, attractive, no bugs with my periphs. the windows weekly podcast says it best. people cried about the same shit when they switched from 98 to xp and people are unwilling to upgrade their hardware. if uac is annoying turn it off and shut the hell up. if anything its keeping you from turning your machine into the same pile of dogshit you're xp machine became.
 
I've been using Vista for about 3 weeks now and I like it.
I am on a newer rig, so I can't credit Vista for the snappiness of my machine, but it's not a resource hog.
I'm not even bothered by UAC at all and I'm constantly adding/deleting foobar components and WoW add-ons. A couple of extra clicks is no big fuss for me.

The one thing that took me a while was how to quickly navigate to the parent folder of the folder I was in. I kept looking for an up arrow, but eventually realized that functionality is built into the folder address bar now. It makes sense too, but I'll be damned if I didn't feel like a fool trying to figure out how to navigate my folders.
 
What can I say but what a group of fanboys you guys are. : ) Enjoy Vista. I feel no inclination to write technical reports to help the unenlightened. Leaving this thread now. Bye Bye.
 
infornographer said:
What can I say but what a group of fanboys you guys are. : ) Enjoy Vista. I feel no inclination to write technical reports to help the unenlightened. Leaving this thread now. Bye Bye.
Click to expand...

IOW: I can't back up the shit coming out of my "mouth".
 
Good day, sir! I said good day! = I'm not your bleepin google.

Enjoy my primary computer's hardware specs.
 
infornographer said:
Good day, sir! I said good day! = I'm not your bleepin google.
Click to expand...

That's the thing- nowhere on Google has this nonsense you are claiming. And not knowing the difference between Secure Desktop, DRM, and UAC isn't a thing about anyone here at all- that is just ignorance on your part.



And... no wonder Vista doesn't run well for you:
Intel P4 3.2ghz
Xerox 1024mb (512x2) DDR1 PC3200
Click to expand...
 
Vista ran fine with a gig of ram once I told it to stop caching everything and its brother. I went back to XP because I was tired of the interface changes to explorer (why why why remove the UP folder button? WHY?) and the incomplete third party support. I'm sure in a year or two from now enough people will hit it that I'll be able to hack it just the way I want it to operate, but currently that's not possible right now. The hardcoded interface behaviors would have me using XP over Vista even with some of the hardcore specs on this forum, until 3rd parties produce more patches.

I'm well aware of what Secure Desktop, UAC, and DRM are. They haven't thrown the lock down with DRM yet, but to make a computer completely secure from malware will require levels of security that can also in turn be leveraged by DRM schemes. Secure Desktop itself isn't DRM. I knew that. You want to pick apart what I say at any angle possible with the assumption that somehow I don't know what I'm talking about.

I thought you'd have the presence of mind to notice the term "Trusted Computing" in the article I linked to.
 
I was gonna point that DDR thing out myself but but but... 1GB... oh yeah, that's a Vista screamer box... not.

I'm still stuck on his comment on page 1 about Vista being anticompetitive.

Sorry, but what competition is there for Microsoft Windows? Apple doesn't sell their OS to be licensed for non-Apple hardware use, so that's absolutely null competition as Microsoft doesn't sell computers.

Linux? How can you be competitive with a free product, that's always been free, and will always be free, and it still can't make a dent in the "market" for personal computer operating systems?

So, exactly, how is Vista anti-competitive - which by definition would mean doing things that are designed primarily to hurt competition? Who's getting hurt here, and in what way, since I just pointed out the two most commonly cited sources of "competition" for Microsoft Windows simply aren't competition at all?

Eh? What say you now...

Besides, if you're fucking Vista up to get it to "run fine" and then bitching about it, you're the one that's fucked up. You're not supposed to be disabling all the native components of the OS just to make it work better for you - that's where all the damned problems come from: people fucking around with the defaults of the OS which means it runs in a non-default non-standard configuration.

You fuck it up, you deal with the fuckups you cause. Don't blame Vista for that, blame yourself.
 
infornographer said:
Vista ran fine with a gig of ram once I told it to stop caching everything and its brother.
Click to expand...
Your argument fails for one reason: it can (And does) only cache what it has room for. The OS uses XXXMB of RAM for itself. Anything above that is for apps and caching. If there is no room to cache- it doesn't do it.

infornographer said:
why why why remove the UP folder button? WHY?
Click to expand...
It's still there. It's even dynamic now- and changes to reflect the upper-folder's name.

infornographer said:
Secure Desktop itself isn't DRM. I knew that.
Click to expand...
Then what is it?
Even with that comment- you still suggest it's RELATED somehow...

Joe Average said:
Linux? How can you be competitive with a free product, that's always been free, and will always be free, and it still can't make a dent in the "market" for personal computer operating systems?
Click to expand...
That- and it's been around LONGER.
 
SuperFetch is an enabled default of the OS and ties into precisely why Vista is a more efficient OS over previous versions of Windows. Your admittance that you disabled it translates essentially to "I fucked it up by turning off a major reason why it's a fast OS in the first place." Sorry you can't understand it that way, but there it is.

And, if all you're going to do is a Google/Wiki search for stuff to back up your claims, move along, son, most of us already know this stuff by heart and have been dealing with it since long before Vista hit store shelves. So far you haven't said one thing vaguely interesting or even honestly worth the posting time you've put into it, sadly.
 
no, disabling those two services makes sense. I don't like extended prefetch schemes. I hate tons of idle processing. I disabled indexing as well for good reason, JOE.
 
Joe Average said:
And, if all you're going to do is a Google/Wiki search for stuff to back up your claims, move along, son, most of us already know this stuff by heart and have been dealing with it since long before Vista hit store shelves. So far you haven't said one thing vaguely interesting or even honestly worth the posting time you've put into it, sadly.
Click to expand...

QFT... And I admit- I visited both links and he still neglects to address many of the original FUD he posted about.

inforno- If you can't come up with any argument on your side of this (And I am starting to think you are incapable of it), for the love of GOD... GO AWAY. All you do is link to other people's stuff... Methinks you are just a parrot of what others have told you.

Everyone around here loves to discuss shortfalls/workarounds/whatever of Windows. But when some of the claims are based on nothing, have been disproven, or trolls keep repeating it with zero support- is when people stop listening to anything you say.

infornographer said:
no, disabling those two services makes sense. I don't like extended prefetch schemes. I hate tons of idle processing. I disabled indexing as well for good reason, JOE.
Click to expand...

What two services? I must've missed something.

Idle processing is a good thing. Why have the OS doing this stuff while you are using it? Why not have it do its work when you aren't using it? Makes tons more sense.

And, FWIW, nothing else out there is like Superfetch... It isn't a prefetch. (Once more- I don't think you have any idea how Vista actually works)
 
What about my statements were disproven? What proof is necessary for what I said? Superfetch and Readyboost are extending caching schemes that work in idle time, and I'd rather the computer only do things when I tell it to. This OS philosophy actually creates a more stable consistent environment in the long run.
 
infornographer said:
no, disabling those two services makes sense. I don't like extended prefetch schemes. I hate tons of idle processing. I disabled indexing as well for good reason, JOE.
Click to expand...

In other words, you fucked up the OS. You changed the basic configuration of it, ruining its own ability to do its job the way it was designed to do and now you're whining about it.

You fail.
 
SuperFetch

Windows SuperFetch enables programs and files to load much faster than they would on Windows XP–based PCs.

When you're not actively using your computer, background tasks—including automatic backup programs and antivirus scans—run when they will least disturb you. These background tasks can take up system memory space that your programs had been using. On Windows XP–based PCs, this can slow progress to a crawl when you attempt to resume work.

SuperFetch monitors which applications you use the most and preloads these into your system memory so they'll be ready when you need them. Windows Vista also runs background programs, like disk defragmenting and Windows Defender, at low priority so that they can do their job but your work always comes first.
Click to expand...
Source: Microsoft

How is that not like prefetching exactly? Having it monitor my app use and having it preload apps?

"Prefetching generally means loading something ahead of time."
 
Joe Average said:
In other words, you fucked up the OS. You changed the basic configuration of it, ruining its own ability to do its job the way it was designed to do and now you're whining about it.

You fail.
Click to expand...

What I said has nothing to do with service tweaking, otherwise the incomplete fixes from SP1 wouldn't exist.
 
SuperFetch is a system service, and as such, if you disabled it, you disabled the service, aka you committed "service tweaking" and as such, you still fail. Again.

What now, brown cow?
 
If you think disabling a service is destroying the system, you are more noob than I could have possibly imagined.
 
And you dig the hole deeper...

But, alas, you said you were done with this thread many posts ago, so, why are you still around? You said one thing, got rebutted 100%. You said another, got rebutted yet again, 100%. You said you didn't do any service tweaking and were rebutted yet once more, 100%.

What's next?

"noob" - how quaint.
 
Where did I say I didn't do any service tweaking? You need to learn to read. Your argument is a straw man. It has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.
 
infornographer said:
Superfetch and Readyboost are extending caching schemes that work in idle time, and I'd rather the computer only do things when I tell it to. This OS philosophy actually creates a more stable consistent environment in the long run.
Click to expand...

Wastes time, resources, electricity, hardware, etc.
 
I see that list as in favor of what I'm saying. Idle processing does all of that. Idle processing screws up all the time. I shouldn't see disk activity unless I know why.
 
infornographer said:
What about my statements were disproven? What proof is necessary for what I said?
Click to expand...

To start with- your claim that viruses can get past UAC.
Your claim even after SP1 file transfer speeds are slower.
Vendor lockout claims (actually no "proof" needed here- I just asked for an example).
Your claim Superfetch does nothing- yet the very article you linked to doesn't even support that claim.
Your claims about DRM- which I still haven't the faintest idea what the hell you're talking about.


infornographer said:
I see that list as in favor of what I'm saying. Idle processing does all of that. Idle processing screws up all the time. I shouldn't see disk activity unless I know why.
Click to expand...
You really have no idea how machines work, do you?
The RAM is always being utilized. Doesn't matter if it's at 2% or 100%, it's still pulling power, and the system is still using it.
Your processor is always being utilized as well. Only argument here is it may create more heat (which, for what Vista does when idle, uses VERY little CPU).
Your HDD is always being used- always pulling power, the OS is always using it.

That said- why not put it to use instead of letting it sit there, slowly dying and pulling electricity, and doing NOTHING?



Now, I would like you to the follow the advise you left, but didn't follow, previously:
infornographer said:
Leaving this thread now. Bye Bye.
Click to expand...
 
I didn't sign a leave thread contract or make any handshake promises so shaddap.

You honestly believe that a hard drive idling is being hit just as hard as a hard drive being defragmented blindly as an idle process as priorities are shifted around? All you people with quad cores and 16 gigs of ram. It's such a shame that you go and waste them trivially. I'd rather go the route of Cool and Quiet than put everything on load even when I'm not using my computer.
 
My quad core with 4GB of RAM is currently: crunching for Folding@HOME a few hours a day, rendering some Maya CG for me in the background and... well, whatever I want it to do.

Your argument about "I shouldn't see disk activity unless I know why" proves to me you're clueless as anyone that spends that much time being concerned with every instruction the OS is processing at any given time simply needs to turn off the 'puter and go take a walk.

You can't seriously think that anyone reading this thread believes you're that much of a process hound, can you? Maybe you do, if that's the case that's even more sad.

If you want that much control over your OS, go build a custom Linux distro based on the most up to date and stable kernel. Aside from that, move on, we've had enough Vista bashing the past 1.5 years or more.

You're just another in a long line of people that bitch moan and whine about Vista and spout off countless URLs to back up their silly claims and then end up fading into the background noise.

Nothing for us to see here...
 
and you're another Vista fanboy, obviously! : D I'm talking about known issues in Vista, and you would rather turn it into a flame match. The purpose of this thread was specifically to discuss issues with Vista vs XP.
 
And all you're really done is bash Vista. You don't even run it, so... maybe you're the one that should just "shaddup" as you put it. Vista works fine for those that choose to run it as its designed to be run meaning hands off. Install it and go.

It's the people that try to fuck it up and make it "more like XP" that end up having problems because they're effectively tampering with the basic design of the OS when they do so.

Besides, this thread was started to discuss possible rumors and bullshit about Vista - neither the topic nor the OP says one damned thing about XP.

You fail yet again.
 
You just think anyone who likes Vista is a fanboy. You NEVER mentioned what DRM you where talking about after you said that the secure desktop was related.
Besides you where the one who stared this.. You could have just said "I don't think it is and these bugs bother me for these reasons" because after all it is your experience and your opinion and other people, such as myself, haven't had any slowdown or problem with Vista.
 
Joe: I ran it for 6 months. I also used it on work computers sporting 8 gigs of ram. The OP did say something about XP. He said he was considering upgrading FROM XP. Learn to read.

No, anyone who won't admit to any problems with Vista at all is a fanboy. I even said I would eventually switch to it when development wrings out more of the issues.

----

Another common criticism concerns the integration of new forms of digital rights management into the operating system, specifically the introduction of the Protected Video Path. This architecture is designed such that "premium content" from HD DVD or Blu-ray Disc may mandate that the connections between PC components be encrypted. Devices such as graphic cards must be approved by Microsoft. Depending on what the content demands, the devices may not pass premium content over non-encrypted outputs, or they must artificially degrade the quality of the signal on such outputs or not display it all. There is also a revocation mechanism that allows Microsoft to disable drivers of compromised devices in end-user PCs over the Internet.[81] Peter Gutmann, security researcher and author of the open source cryptlib library, claims that these mechanisms violate fundamental rights of the user (such as fair use), unnecessarily increase the cost of hardware, and make systems less reliable (the "tilt bit" is a particular worry; if triggered, the entire graphic subsystem performs a reset) and vulnerable to denial-of-service attacks.[82] Proponents have claimed that Microsoft had no choice but to follow the demands of the movie studios, and that the technology will not actually be enabled until after 2010;[83][84] Microsoft also noted that content protection mechanisms have existed in Windows as far back as Windows Me, and that the new protections will not apply to any existing content (only future content).[85]
Click to expand...

and the future model: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_Computing which may never occur.

Note: The secure desktop was a tangent. Secure desktop itself isn't DRM. I'm aware.
 
Infornographer, you’re starting to flame and your points are obscure to say the least. Call me a Vista fan boy if you want. I’ve got Ultimate on four rigs, 3 x86 (one tablet pc) and one x64, and they work just fine. Drivers at this point in time are not an issue for the great majority devices from top level hardware makers for x86 and x64 systems. Is it perfect? No, but then name any OS that doesn’t have some driver issues. The number is zero by the way. Most of the gamers here with modern hardware are on Vista x64 and its working fine for them. Vista works well for a lot of people, not everyone is having a disastrous time with it.

You don’t like Vista like a bazillion other people and that’s fine. You have your obscure reasons that most people don’t really care about and you’re just flame throwing now.

For the people who made the time to research the issues, work through the problems and get their systems running well, you just have nothing new to say or anything of relevance to offer, and for those who are new to Vista you are only offering FUD.
 
infornographer said:
No, anyone who won't admit to any problems with Vista at all is a fanboy. I even said I would eventually switch to it when development wrings out more of the issues.
Click to expand...
One question: Who said there were no problems? We're simply calling you on the BS problems you claim.

One issue I have: UI can be tedious at times. No short way to get to Network Connections anymore. That's just ONE. I can name you many others, but I won't needlessly complain about every single thing just because there are a few inconveniences.

I also love how you totally ignored everything I called you on in my last post, as well.

heatlesssun said:
Vista works well for a lot of people, not everyone is having a disastrous time with it.
Click to expand...

Actually, there was a thread awhile back, a poll.

When allowed to vote anonymously, with no risk of getting flamed, the results were surprising. The VAST majority that used Vista were happy of it. And the VAST majority of folks that SWITCHED to Vista were happy with it.
 
If you look at the first page of the thread, I was the first person who actually attempted to address the OP question, and rather than others continuing to contribute to the pros and cons between xp and vista (note: no one even asked the OP what his specs were), Everything I said was picked apart.

I'm not a huge proponent of FUD, but I'm also not one to spread blind allegiance.
 
TechieSooner said:
One question: Who said there were no problems? We're simply calling you on the BS problems you claim.

One issue I have: UI can be tedious at times. No short way to get to Network Connections anymore. That's just ONE. I can name you many others, but I won't needlessly complain about every single thing just because there are a few inconveniences.

I also love how you totally ignored everything I called you on in my last post, as well.
Click to expand...

I'm getting called on so many things that I don't even have time to bother going point for point. I'm getting ganged up on here. You're the first one otherwise to admit to any possible annoyance in Vista, and it isn't needlessly complaining.
 
infornographer said:
Joe: I ran it for 6 months. I also used it on work computers sporting 8 gigs of ram. The OP did say something about XP. He said he was considering upgrading FROM XP. Learn to read.
Click to expand...

Let's see here... where's that original post... oh, there it is:

dennisjai said:
Hey guys, I've been out of the computer loop for a while. I've only used Vista about 2-3 times but I heard it has a lot of bugs/glitches..

Has MS been releasing enough updates to fix problems? I want to upgrade to vista.
Click to expand...

I don't see anything that states specifically which OS he's running. He does say in a later post that his school provides XP for free to the students there, but he still didn't say that's what he was actually running.

See, I don't miss the little details, and I sure as hell don't automagically make assumptions when the information isn't present like so many others.

I'm not a bad guy, really, I - like so many others here - am simply sick to fucking death and back twice over of the same old god damned tired repetitive threads that do nothing but point out the issues that some people have with Vista. The most amazing statistic of all?

The incredibly small minority of those people with issues tend to be THE LOUDEST BITCHING WHINING MOANING CRYING BABIES you'll ever encounter. There are more people using Vista without issues than people with issues - by a huge overwhelming majority.

But it seems more often than not that it only takes one person to bitch whine cry or moan about it that brings out those of us that are sick of seeing the bitching whining crying and moaning.

Simple fact: if you don't like it, don't run it. Case closed.
 
That's funny, because the loudest whining moaning person in this thread has been you (giant extended caps much?), regarding what you perceive as whining rather than stating OS differences.

XP was implied. You think he's upgrading from 95?
 
Thanks for making my point for me. I'll stop feeding you now, as I fully expect this thread to get locked like almost all the others that degrade into this state. Oh, silly me, that would mean I'm making an assumption based on past history with Vista topics at this forum. Go figure...
 
Well he could be, and yes, no network connections is extremely annoying.
EDIT: Just in case, I was joking about he could be
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top