Vista: Why all the bells and whistles? How about efficiency and speed?

GoHack

Gawd
Joined
Jul 14, 2002
Messages
824
Instead of putting in all kinds of bells and whistles into Vista, why can't M$ concentrate on a true, very efficient, w/little to no bugs at all in it, operating system. Remember the BEOS operating system?

No more memory wasting dead end code and other junk.

No more pre-loading drivers and programs that won't ever be used. Only load drivers that are supported on the system that it is loaded onto.

Just a very clean, very efficient, operating system.

As an operating system, I want performance. To be able to run software as fast and efficiently as possible.

To utililize my hardware potential as fully as possible.

Believe it or not, if software is written to utilized the full potental of the cpu, it can run at near supercomputer speeds. It has been done.

The GPU's of our graphics cards now-a-days can now be programmed, so they are another untapped source in order to unload the CPU. With Vista being even more graphic intensive than ever, why not fully tap the GPU, and take the load off the CPU?

Remember, M$ is going to target brand new, prebuilt systems, which will be up to date, technology wise, when Vista does comes out. Systems that should have dual cores by then, and graphics cards w/programmable GPU's, be it a Nvidia 7xxx or an ATI X1xxx. Also, if the stories are true, 2 gb of memory will be needed to even run Vista.

Again, an OS that utilizes todays technology as efficiently as possible. Utilizing the full potential of the cpu(s), dual and multicore; the memory, hard drive, and other hardware.

And I don't want anymore blue screens.

Is this wrong to ask for as a consumer. Would anyone tolerate a brand new automobile, or any other consume item, always breaking down? Yet the software industry is different. You expect that software will have problems, and it does, and that has got to stop, and stop now.

With Vista now having to have over 60% of it rewritten, and to have it done by January of next year, it's a guarantee that it will have problems and bugs, as well as lots and lots of dead end code. There won't be enough time to clean it up and fully test it.
 
I just woke up so this probably won't be coherent.

First, have you used any betas of Vista?

To utilize my hardware potential as fully as possible

Well, the 3D effects and Aero glass interface will utilize your graphics card more, so does that count? And I don't know where you got that 2GB requirement from, but it's false. I've been running the 5308 build on 1GB with no problems.

What "memory wasting dead end code and other junk" are you referring to?

At the risk of sounding like an ass, all you've basically said is that you don't like Vista. And you also said "M$," which lowers my opinion of you automatically.
 
I am just blown away that it sucks up 700mb of my RAM, idle. I am sure it will be a little more optimized later, but damn!
 
beanman101283 said:
I just woke up so this probably won't be coherent.

First, have you used any betas of Vista?



Well, the 3D effects and Aero glass interface will utilize your graphics card more, so does that count? And I don't know where you got that 2GB requirement from, but it's false. I've been running the 5308 build on 1GB with no problems.

What "memory wasting dead end code and other junk" are you referring to?

At the risk of sounding like an ass, all you've basically said is that you don't like Vista. And you also said "M$," which lowers my opinion of you automatically.

I signed up a long time ago for the Vista Beta. Still waiting.

As for the 2 gb issue, I got that from an article I read the other day, which stated that in order for Vista to run at it's full potental, 2 gb is highly recommended.

As for dead end code, it's software code that the software writers decide not to use, and don't remove. Thus taking up memory space. Other junk, software that is intially loaded on your hard drive, that will never be used. This includes drivers.

As for liking Vista, all I want is an OS that will fully utilize my hardware. Dual or multiprocessor CPU's, the GPU's of the video cards, the memory, etc, etc.

Our existing hardware, even taking into account the most obsolete, isn't being fully utilized. I remember in college when someone wrote a computer program that was written specifically for the i486, that ran at near supercomputer speeds. I realize that this can't been done commercially, due to all the different CPU's out there, but then again, with the only real differences being really processor speeds, at least at the moment, why couldn't a better job be done.

I also want something that works w/very little, or no bugs or crashing. It can be done, and is done. Alot of those aircraft that are flying over head are computer run, w/the next generation coming up being even more so. If their software crashes, so doesn't the aircraft. So they better work, and thus it can be done. Would you fly on an aircraft operated by Windows XP?

As for M$, I'm not a big lover of monopolies, and they are a monopoly. The only real competition M$ has is Linux, and that's really only in business. If they truly had a competitor, you can bet they would have a much better product(s) out there. They'd have to.

As a consumer, I'm pretty much stuck w/them. Shouldn't I get something that works when I buy it, and w/no problems. We all expect it from our automobiles, as well as other consumer products. Even our computer hardware itself is expected to work w/no problems. Yet I can't expect the same from my software? Why???
 
I agree with GoHack, but the 2GB of RAM its not true ive used vista with 512MB and it ran fine! i'm not sure if 64bit requires more? (i was running 32bit)

as for all the "bells and whistles" this is a computer forum people on here want something that just works good not so much looks. there are a surprising number of people who accually like what MS puts in there, alot of people i know that arnt very good with technology wouldnt know where to begin without all the fancy GUI stuff on windows.
 
Well the paging file probably took care of you. Also, keep in mind this is only the beta. Just imagine when you actually start installing apps. That will increase the demand for ram. At this point it runs very slow as is, but keep in mind it is only a beta. Plus the drivers and everything are really basic and half-assed. I ran vista on the specs in my sig, and it takes a long time to carry out commands. Even booting takes 5+ mins. Again, thats because the lack of driver support. I disabled some of my USB devices to compensate for lack of current USB support. On the upside, the devices that Vista does currently support installed like a charm. I love PnP! Its easier to use than XP IMO, and looks like it will evven work better. Vista also does an awesome job at solving problems. If a driver/IRQ fault occurs it will reboot with a message stating where the fault occured. Now it is not just a BSOD with a bunch of meaningless numbers. Itll be interesting to see what happens in the near-future.
 
Vista Build 5308 runs fine with 512MB - even with aero on and using a lowly Radeon 9600.

I even had Build 5308 running ok on a PIII733. Playing any current game is another story and really does require 1-2GB on Vista.
 
GoHack said:
I signed up a long time ago for the Vista Beta. Still waiting.

As for the 2 gb issue, I got that from an article I read the other day, which stated that in order for Vista to run at it's full potental, 2 gb is highly recommended.

As for dead end code, it's software code that the software writers decide not to use, and don't remove. Thus taking up memory space. Other junk, software that is intially loaded on your hard drive, that will never be used. This includes drivers.

As for liking Vista, all I want is an OS that will fully utilize my hardware. Dual or multiprocessor CPU's, the GPU's of the video cards, the memory, etc, etc.

Our existing hardware, even taking into account the most obsolete, isn't being fully utilized. I remember in college when someone wrote a computer program that was written specifically for the i486, that ran at near supercomputer speeds. I realize that this can't been done commercially, due to all the different CPU's out there, but then again, with the only real differences being really processor speeds, at least at the moment, why couldn't a better job be done.

I also want something that works w/very little, or no bugs or crashing. It can be done, and is done. Alot of those aircraft that are flying over head are computer run, w/the next generation coming up being even more so. If their software crashes, so doesn't the aircraft. So they better work, and thus it can be done. Would you fly on an aircraft operated by Windows XP?

As for M$, I'm not a big lover of monopolies, and they are a monopoly. The only real competition M$ has is Linux, and that's really only in business. If they truly had a competitor, you can bet they would have a much better product(s) out there. They'd have to.

As a consumer, I'm pretty much stuck w/them. Shouldn't I get something that works when I buy it, and w/no problems. We all expect it from our automobiles, as well as other consumer products. Even our computer hardware itself is expected to work w/no problems. Yet I can't expect the same from my software? Why???

It would be nice if you could pick and choose what drivers are loaded on your hard drive, and only install the ones that you need.

At the least, i believe Windows Movie Maker is multithreaded (correct me if i'm wrong) and Windows will divide tasks between multiple processors/cores. The 3D glass will utilize your video card. You say you want your memory utilized but you complain that it will supposedly take a lot of memory to run, so i'm not sure what you mean there.

You said that there was a program created specifically for the i486. That's why it was so fast, because it was specifically targeted at one piece of hardware. Microsoft doesn't have that luxury. There is an almost unlimited number of hardware configurations that they have to account for. CPUs, chipsets, peripherals, video cards, etc. Unless you want Microsoft to pull an Apple and start manufacturing all the hardware that goes with their operating system, you're not going to get an operating system tuned to that degree. That is why the Xbox or PS2 can pull off such great graphics on "dated" hardware. The developers only have to target that one machine.

I don't know how the aircraft industry works, but are those computer systems targeted to each specific model of aircraft? Of course nobody would want Windows to run their aircraft. Windows isn't designed for that kind of mission critical operation. That's why custom software is made for aircraft, spaceships, missiles, etc. Think about the market Windows is targetted towards. Yes, it would be nice to have that kind of stability, but with so many variables that have to be taken into account with disparate hardware, i think it's a lot harder than you think. I remember reading about the Windows 2000 source code when it leaked. Apparently several chunks of the code are compatibility hacks for different hardware and software. Maybe it's not like that now, but that still says a lot.

Windows XP is generally a very stable OS. It's very rare that I encounter BSODs or other error messages. Certainly, it's not as bad as the 9x days. From what i've read about Vista they've worked even harder to make is more stable, including things like moving drivers away from kernel mode, and being able to restart crashed processes without rebooting the entire operating system. I disagree that people buy cars expecting them to run perfectly. They hope, but they don't usually expect it, unless maybe they're buying a Mercedes or Bentley.
 
GoHack said:
With Vista now having to have over 60% of it rewritten, and to have it done by January of next year, it's a guarantee that it will have problems and bugs, as well as lots and lots of dead end code. There won't be enough time to clean it up and fully test it.
What is "dead end code"?
GoHack said:
And I don't want anymore blue screens.
Then maybe you should quit overclocking.
 
mikeblas said:
What is "dead end code"?
Then maybe you should quit overclocking.

When I get them by overclocking, then yes that's my fault, I take responsibilty for that, but when I'm not, and it has happened many times, then whose's fault is that, or it that still my fault?

My Dell 470 isn't overclocked, it's had the blue screen, my A64 4400+ x2 isn't overclocked, it too has had it happened. As for my others with and w/o overclocking, it too has happened.
 
:rolleyes:

GoHack said:
Instead of putting in all kinds of bells and whistles into Vista, why can't M$ concentrate on a true, very efficient, w/little to no bugs at all in it, operating system. Remember the BEOS operating system?

No more memory wasting dead end code and other junk.

No more pre-loading drivers and programs that won't ever be used. Only load drivers that are supported on the system that it is loaded onto.

Just a very clean, very efficient, operating system.

As an operating system, I want performance. To be able to run software as fast and efficiently as possible.

To utililize my hardware potential as fully as possible.

Believe it or not, if software is written to utilized the full potental of the cpu, it can run at near supercomputer speeds. It has been done.

The GPU's of our graphics cards now-a-days can now be programmed, so they are another untapped source in order to unload the CPU. With Vista being even more graphic intensive than ever, why not fully tap the GPU, and take the load off the CPU?

Remember, M$ is going to target brand new, prebuilt systems, which will be up to date, technology wise, when Vista does comes out. Systems that should have dual cores by then, and graphics cards w/programmable GPU's, be it a Nvidia 7xxx or an ATI X1xxx. Also, if the stories are true, 2 gb of memory will be needed to even run Vista.

Again, an OS that utilizes todays technology as efficiently as possible. Utilizing the full potential of the cpu(s), dual and multicore; the memory, hard drive, and other hardware.

And I don't want anymore blue screens.

Is this wrong to ask for as a consumer. Would anyone tolerate a brand new automobile, or any other consume item, always breaking down? Yet the software industry is different. You expect that software will have problems, and it does, and that has got to stop, and stop now.

With Vista now having to have over 60% of it rewritten, and to have it done by January of next year, it's a guarantee that it will have problems and bugs, as well as lots and lots of dead end code. There won't be enough time to clean it up and fully test it.
 
GoHack said:
When I get them by overclocking, then yes that's my fault, I take responsibilty for that, but when I'm not, and it has happened many times, then whose's fault is that, or it that still my fault?
Have you conclusively proven that they're not caused by overclocking? The vast majority of bluescreens are caused by either faulty hardware or overclocking.

GoHack said:
My Dell 470 isn't overclocked, it's had the blue screen, my A64 4400+ x2 isn't overclocked, it too has had it happened. As for my others with and w/o overclocking, it too has happened.
Are you using signed drivers on all those machines? If not, then you've got the next most likely cause of blue screens.

Are you using ECC RAM? If not, then you might have bit errors in your memory never know it because you've foregone any protection against them. The corrupted data ends up knocking something out of bounds, and ka-blammo, you get a blue screen.

Looks like you missed my question about "dead end code". I hope you have the time to answer it soon.
 
GoHack said:
When I get them by overclocking, then yes that's my fault, I take responsibilty for that, but when I'm not, and it has happened many times, then whose's fault is that, or it that still my fault?

My Dell 470 isn't overclocked, it's had the blue screen, my A64 4400+ x2 isn't overclocked, it too has had it happened. As for my others with and w/o overclocking, it too has happened.

Remember, when you're talking with Microsofties any kind of crashing or error in Windows is your fault. Unless they've experienced a problem it doesn't exist. Since it works for them it must work for absolutely everyone else, anyone who says otherwise is an evil troll who just wants to trash Microsoft.

On and by using "M$" you've immediatly destroyed any chance of convincing them of anything. It's all about style, not substance. Never mind that Microsoft is a convicted monopolist who earns more money in profit then any other software or technology and consistently jacks up software prices as soon as they've eliminated competition. (Eg. Wordperfect, Office)
 
mikeblas said:
Looks like you missed my question about "dead end code". I hope you have the time to answer it soon.

Looks like you missed his response to it:

gohack said:
As for dead end code, it's software code that the software writers decide not to use, and don't remove. Thus taking up memory space. Other junk, software that is intially loaded on your hard drive, that will never be used. This includes drivers.

It's simply a specific subtype under the general heading of Bloat. And take it easy, Microsoft didn't invent it, all software producers deal with bloat and dead-end code.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_bloat

Here's a nice article that's worth checking out.
 
beanman101283 said:
You said that there was a program created specifically for the i486. That's why it was so fast, because it was specifically targeted at one piece of hardware. Microsoft doesn't have that luxury. There is an almost unlimited number of hardware configurations that they have to account for. CPUs, chipsets, peripherals, video cards, etc. Unless you want Microsoft to pull an Apple and start manufacturing all the hardware that goes with their operating system, you're not going to get an operating system tuned to that degree. That is why the Xbox or PS2 can pull off such great graphics on "dated" hardware. The developers only have to target that one machine.


But are they really, at least when it comes to CPU's? You've only got two manufacturers of CPU's, w/each one sharing each other's basics, such as x86, SSE, SSE2, and x64. In general, and I don't know the numbers, but I would say that the oldest running, when it comes to Intel, being P3's, and w/AMD, their Athlons or Durons.



beanman101283 said:
I don't know how the aircraft industry works, but are those computer systems targeted to each specific model of aircraft? Of course nobody would want Windows to run their aircraft. Windows isn't designed for that kind of mission critical operation. That's why custom software is made for aircraft, spaceships, missiles, etc. Think about the market Windows is targetted towards. Yes, it would be nice to have that kind of stability, but with so many variables that have to be taken into account with disparate hardware, i think it's a lot harder than you think. I remember reading about the Windows 2000 source code when it leaked. Apparently several chunks of the code are compatibility hacks for different hardware and software. Maybe it's not like that now, but that still says a lot.


There are many variables that those aircraft go through, more than you could image.

As for Windows 2000, as well as XP I believe, both are based off the old NT Kernel. NT 3.0, 3.1, 4.0, 2000 Pro, and XP Pro.

I like Windows 2000 Pro, because it is both plain and simple. No bells and whistles. In some ways, I think it runs faster, but unfortuniately, XP supports newer technology, such as HT for example, where 2000 does not, NUMA, better multi-processor support, to name some.

I will say, I really like Server 2003. I ran the demo for a few months. Never a single problem. Noticeably faster. If I could afford it, I would buy it.

I run XP x64, which is suppose to be based off of the x64 version of Server 2003. It too runs great. The only problem of course are w/drivers, or driver, since the only one that I don't have for it is for my printer. I think I've only had one software program not work w/it, and that was for my camera.


beanman101283 said:
Windows XP is generally a very stable OS. It's very rare that I encounter BSODs or other error messages. Certainly, it's not as bad as the 9x days. From what i've read about Vista they've worked even harder to make is more stable, including things like moving drivers away from kernel mode, and being able to restart crashed processes without rebooting the entire operating system. I disagree that people buy cars expecting them to run perfectly. They hope, but they don't usually expect it, unless maybe they're buying a Mercedes or Bentley.


Let's say, if you bought a brand new vehicle, and suddenely have it break down, that wouldn't bother you? Same goes w/your computer hardware or any product you buy. Aagin, should software be the only consumer product to be excluded?

Hey, I'm just a consumer who wants a product that works, period. I shouldn't be marked as the bad guy. I'd be more than happy w/a plain vanilar OS like 2000 Pro, vs. XP or Vista. Look at all the loaded junk in your Task Manager than isn't even running. I didn't asked for all the bells and whistles that XP, or Vista has. When I load up a game, I want it to run at peak performance, w/the best possible speed and garphics that my hardware is capable of mustering.
 
GoHack said:
I also want something that works w/very little, or no bugs or crashing. It can be done, and is done. Alot of those aircraft that are flying over head are computer run, w/the next generation coming up being even more so. If their software crashes, so doesn't the aircraft. So they better work, and thus it can be done. Would you fly on an aircraft operated by Windows XP?

Real time life critical systems are A VERY DIFFERENT SUBJECT. You don't see people running games on those things do you? They are made and programmed to do nothing but control the plane. Don't bring that crap into this argument. Windows isn't made for flying a plane, if it was it would be very different product, and the only direct interaction would be threw sensors, buttons, switches, etc. in a cockpit. They are also highly shielded to keep any interference from causing problems, why don't you go build a Faraday cage to run your computer in, maybe you will have less BSOD (but don't forget to filter all your incoming power, and run fiber not UTP, as the UTP might introduce interference.)


BTW, the software writen to do all that, takes years, and all it does is fly the plane, and runs on extactly the hardware it was coded for, there are no drivers, no over head, no games, nothing, all it does is control the plane.
 
mikeblas said:
Have you conclusively proven that they're not caused by overclocking? The vast majority of bluescreens are caused by either faulty hardware or overclocking.

Are you using signed drivers on all those machines? If not, then you've got the next most likely cause of blue screens.

Are you using ECC RAM? If not, then you might have bit errors in your memory never know it because you've foregone any protection against them. The corrupted data ends up knocking something out of bounds, and ka-blammo, you get a blue screen.

Looks like you missed my question about "dead end code". I hope you have the time to answer it soon.

My Dell 470 Workstation has ECC DDR2 as well as signed drivers. It's running a Nvidia Quadro Video card w/a Windows certified driver.

As for my other hardware, no when it comes to the memory, and yes when it comes to the certified drivers.

The blue screens happen very seldom, but they have happened.

Dead End Code, program lines written either to test something or a program idea, which was decided not to use, but all never removed, or even something that was once used, but shut off, thus all taking up memory space.
 
One interesting thing I found with the install, was you cannot have 2 monitors installed. I had my Dell P780, and my Samsung SlimFit hooked up to my 6800 Ultra when I was installing Vista. It would always hit this certian point where it would BSOD and restart. I traced it back to the monitor. I unplugged the SlimFit and has not problem at all installing.

Not sure if anyone else ran into this type of problem or not.
 
DaRkF0g said:
One interesting thing I found with the install, was you cannot have 2 monitors installed. I had my Dell P780, and my Samsung SlimFit hooked up to my 6800 Ultra when I was installing Vista. It would always hit this certian point where it would BSOD and restart. I traced it back to the monitor. I unplugged the SlimFit and has not problem at all installing.

Not sure if anyone else ran into this type of problem or not.

No, I didn't have that problem so you must be lying. Or you didn't setup windows correctly. No way is there a bug in a Microsoft product.
 
Look if all you guys, as consumers, love all the bugs fine. If you love all those bells and whistles, then again fine. What can I say? :rolleyes:

I simply posted, as a consumer, what I'm looking for in Vista. I simply want performance, reliability, and efficiency.

We all have our opinions. It's a shame that some become more hot tempered about it than others, w/their remarks.
 
I still have random kernel panics using Linux. A consumer PC has bugs, its inherent to the design. I also have a linux machine with 4 months uptime (and about 99% of that has been at 1.0 load due to Folding)

It isn't really possible for Microsoft or any other developers coding for the gamer/enthusiast market, as well as the average home consumer, to make a perfect product. PC's end up with a hodgepodge of various hardware that is nearly impossible to predict. With the life critical real time market, you know exactly what hardware your software will be running on, so you can make those guarantees about stability. If you want to trade a completely lack of choice in what goes into your computer for the sake of stability, be my guest.
 
Xipher said:
Real time life critical systems are A VERY DIFFERENT SUBJECT. You don't see people running games on those things do you? They are made and programmed to do nothing but control the plane. Don't bring that crap into this argument. Windows isn't made for flying a plane, if it was it would be very different product, and the only direct interaction would be threw sensors, buttons, switches, etc. in a cockpit. They are also highly shielded to keep any interference from causing problems, why don't you go build a Faraday cage to run your computer in, maybe you will have less BSOD (but don't forget to filter all your incoming power, and run fiber not UTP, as the UTP might introduce interference.)


BTW, the software writen to do all that, takes years, and all it does is fly the plane, and runs on extactly the hardware it was coded for, there are no drivers, no over head, no games, nothing, all it does is control the plane.

The software runs pretty much everything on aircraft now-a-days, and w/backups. You've got the life support, engine controls, flight controls, fuel controls, APU, navigation, and auto-pilot, to name a few, and it has to work, period. We're also talking around three to four years from concept to flight.

Why people have to get so hot and tempered? :rolleyes: I wasn't meaning to start a war here.
 
Thats ALL it does though, and they now EXACTLY what hardware its running on. Unlike your average consumer PC, where the OS can't even be sure who wrote the drivers (hence the signing in Windows).

My point is your trying to argue a point with something that is in a completely different area, apples to elephants.
 
GoHack said:
There are many variables that those aircraft go through, more than you could image.
That's true (I guess; I don't know what it means to "go through" a variable). But all the software systems on a commercial aircraft still represent two or three orders of magnitude less code (counting by lines) than what's in Windows -- without counting drivers or applications, even those shipped with the OS.

GoHack said:
Hey, I'm just a consumer who wants a product that works, period.
This goal is incompatible with the practice of overclocking.

GoHack said:
Look at all the loaded junk in your Task Manager than isn't even running.
Task Manager is too coarse of a tool to see if any of those processes are not "running". It reports on intervals of seconds, while the processes could be doing very useful work and only taking tens of milliseconds of CPU time.

GoHack said:
The blue screens happen very seldom, but they have happened.
Well, if they happen again, per this thread, get me the dumps and I'll see if I can help you isolate a root cause.

GoHack said:
Dead End Code, program lines written either to test something or a program idea, which was decided not to use, but all never removed, or even something that was once used, but shut off, thus all taking up memory space.
Most in-process testing happens in conditionals that aren't exposed in builds that go public. The exceptions are internal test builds, checked builds (which you can get from an MSDN subscription) and betas, like all the builds of Vista you're seeing. The code exists to measure and to capture information about failures. But it falls away very simply, and that it did fall away is verified.

Windows is a very large project, and is mangaed in distinct source trees and branches. If someone has the green light to add some code, it is added in a branch that has to propogate though a few other branches (including gated acceptance at each step) before it ships.

At a smaller scope, tools are run over the executables that find unreferenced code and eliminate it. These range from simply removing functions which aren't called to folding code that is a binary duplicate of other code. There are tools which will aggresively prune unused ranges of data from executable images, and rearrange code based on feedback from measurements made in previous runs.

GoHack said:
We all have our opinions. It's a shame that some become more hot tempered about it than others, w/their remarks.
Yeah, it is a pity—it gets in the way of building an understanding and exchanging information pretty quickly.
 
Been running XP for the past three years on my machine and never had a BSOD. But I do agree with you, GoHack, with the ability to selectively start the drivers and services would be even better.

I take it that you run linux since you seem to like to bash MS so here we go. I personally view the incredible requirements (which still haven't been officially announced) as a good thing. If the requirements are so high, more powerful hardware will be forced to come out at a decent prince if companies have any hope of selling anything to the average Joe. This will allow us enthusiasts to buy hardware at a decent price and since we seem to know a bit more than most people, we can strip down the services, start-up items, and whatever and get the best performance out of the machine. Linux users will benefit from this so if you run Linux, DO NOT COMPLAIN about the new OS as your group will most likely get the best outcome out of the OS so stop harassing the MS users.

Please, if you don't wish to start a war then don't say things like: "Look if all you guys, as consumers, love all the bugs fine. If you love all those bells and whistles, then again fine. What can I say?" This seems like a way to start a flame war, very easily might I add.
 
Non-verbal queues get lost in this sea of text man. If you were standing right next to me talking, you would notice, I'm not hot-tempered at all, just ephisizing to get my point across. I have had 3 semesters experience with a professor that wrote that software for a living (at Rockwell Collins). He could tell you much better then I could exactly why what your saying is like comparing an apple to an elephant, the best way I can put it is it boils down to how much control the developers have over the hardware there software runs on. When your in the case of Microsoft, you don't have that luxury. Even Apple has more control over the hardware then MS.

clockworks said:
Been running XP for the past three years on my machine and never had a BSOD. But I do agree with you, GoHack, with the ability to selectively start the drivers and services would be even better.

I take it that you run linux since you seem to like to bash MS so here we go. I personally view the incredible requirements (which still haven't been officially announced) as a good thing. If the requirements are so high, more powerful hardware will be forced to come out at a decent prince if companies have any hope of selling anything to the average Joe. This will allow us enthusiasts to buy hardware at a decent price and since we seem to know a bit more than most people, we can strip down the services, start-up items, and whatever and get the best performance out of the machine. Linux users will benefit from this so if you run Linux, DO NOT COMPLAIN about the new OS as your group will most likely get the best outcome out of the OS so stop harassing the MS users.

I do agree, I really wish Microsoft would give the end user some more control, and also try and enforce privilage seperation a bit better (which I hear they are trying to do with Vista). Games requiring there users to be running as an administrator seems outragous to me, especially when I can run Quake 4 and the like in Linux as a regular user just fine.
 
GoHack said:
Look if all you guys, as consumers, love all the bugs fine. If you love all those bells and whistles, then again fine. What can I say? :rolleyes:

I simply posted, as a consumer, what I'm looking for in Vista. I simply want performance, reliability, and efficiency.

We all have our opinions. It's a shame that some become more hot tempered about it than others, w/their remarks.


No one loves bugs. And no one is faulting you for wanting a reliable, efficient and high performing OS. Heck we all want that. And if you had just simply posted that you wanted your next OS to be more reliable and efficient I don't think anyone would have flamed you. It's when you start flinging around baseless accusations, meaningless comparisons and in general lots of debunked FUD, that people start getting testy, you are on a hardware forum after all, we are not your regular run of the mill computing public who will fall for your conspiracy theories.

"airplanes have computers and they don't have software crashes, therefore my computer should never crash"

"20 years ago I saw a little piece of code run really fast on a 486, therefore MS must be involved in some conspiracy with Intel to force us to all buy faster computers because with the correct software my computer would run as fast as a supercomputer"

"I read that Vista will require 2 gigs of ram for peak performance" which is converted into "Vista will require 2 gigs of ram to run"

I realise those are not direct quotes, but in general thats the kind of crud you're throwing around and it's that kind of stuff that people get tired of hearing. If you have some legitimate criticisms that you can back up with some actual data and a somewhat reasonable understanding of what it is your talking about I think you'll find everyone here would be happy to discuss and debate them with you.
 
Oh yea, since I'm an engineer and I worked in the aerospace industry for a little while I will just briefly explain why aerospace computers "never crash"

For starters they do crash. An Airbus A320 crashed due to a bug which caused it to report a higher altitude then it was actually flying at. There are plenty of other examples that is just one.

But the reason they are generally so reliable is they are designed and tested to be that way. The software on a flight control computer is designed to do very specific tasks on that very specific piece of hardware. Then they test the hell out of it to be sure there are no bugs. Compare that to Windows which has to run on literally hundreds of thousands of different hardware configurations and hundreds of thousands of different software configurations.

On top of that critical computers are triple redundant. And the individual computers are made by different manufacturers. The reasoning being that if there does happen to be a bug in the processor made by Intel it will not affect the processor made by AMD.

Here is a description I found of Boeings' 777 flight control computers: "The aircraft has a triple redundant digital autopilot and flight director designed by Rockwell Collins. The BAE Systems (formerly Marconi Avionics) triple digital primary flight computers provide the control limits and flight envelope protection commands. Each of the three primary flight computers contains three different and separately programmed 32 bit microprocessors, a Motorola, Intel and AMD, to manage the fly-by-wire functions."

So that is why they are so reliable. If you were willing to give up the flexibility you now enjoy with your computer and were ok with only running a few programs, never changing your hardware, software or drivers, and never going on the internet, and if you were willing to pay $100,000 bucks for your computer, you could probably enjoy reliability in the same ballpark.
 
Hvatum said:
On and by using "M$" you've immediatly destroyed any chance of convincing them of anything. It's all about style, not substance. Never mind that Microsoft is a convicted monopolist who earns more money in profit then any other software or technology and consistently jacks up software prices as soon as they've eliminated competition. (Eg. Wordperfect, Office)

Its not illegal to be a monopoly and that was not what they were convicted of and no company has EVER been convicted of being a monopoly. They were convicted of using their monopoly to illegaly force other companies to use their product. If we want to talk about monopolies crushing their competition, we can talk about Apple sueing the clone makers out of business in the 90's. And FYI, wordperfect is still around, Dell ships it with every computer, and it is still the perfered software in the legal world.
 
clockworks said:
But I do agree with you, GoHack, with the ability to selectively start the drivers and services would be even better.
What do you want that the Device Manager and Services Manager don't offer now in XP?
 
ElBarto79 said:
No one loves bugs. And no one is faulting you for wanting a reliable, efficient and high performing OS. Heck we all want that. And if you had just simply posted that you wanted your next OS to be more reliable and efficient I don't think anyone would have flamed you. It's when you start flinging around baseless accusations, meaningless comparisons and in general lots of debunked FUD, that people start getting testy, you are on a hardware forum after all, we are not your regular run of the mill computing public who will fall for your conspiracy theories.

"airplanes have computers and they don't have software crashes, therefore my computer should never crash"

"20 years ago I saw a little piece of code run really fast on a 486, therefore MS must be involved in some conspiracy with Intel to force us to all buy faster computers because with the correct software my computer would run as fast as a supercomputer"

"I read that Vista will require 2 gigs of ram for peak performance" which is converted into "Vista will require 2 gigs of ram to run"

I realise those are not direct quotes, but in general thats the kind of crud you're throwing around and it's that kind of stuff that people get tired of hearing. If you have some legitimate criticisms that you can back up with some actual data and a somewhat reasonable understanding of what it is your talking about I think you'll find everyone here would be happy to discuss and debate them with you.

I wasn't pointing to any conspiracy and I'm really not trying to cause any trouble. I'm just trying to do a discussion of what I want as a consumer, and what I expect from the manufacturer, Microsoft. Also Vista's cost. Who knows what that will be. The retail version of Windows XP Pro is $299, w/the upgrade at $199, and the OEM's at around $135.

What I was pointing out w/the i486 was what could be done, if people really wanted to, even w/a i486. Just imagine what our existing technology can really do. We've got dual core and multiprocessors cpu's, w/quad core's coming, 64 bit cpu's, video cards w/256 mb memory, video cards w/programmable GPU's, dual and quad video cards, that upcoming physics graphics card. Just imagine what could be done w/that hardware, and isn't? I guess when you compare the two industries, hardware vs. software, the hardware is way ahead, technology wise. We keep buying new hardware in order to compensate for the software and OS.

With the OS, you can add more bells and whisles of course, but you could also design the OS system to be tuneable for your particular application, which is what I'd love to see, be it for games, wordprocessing, or for data analysis such with DC- Distributed Computing.
 
mikeblas said:
What do you want that the Device Manager and Services Manager don't offer now in XP?

Something a little more in-depth than a sentence about the given service. I've got no quarrels with device manager as I rarely had to work with it so I can't say too much about it.
 
corrosive23 said:
Its not illegal to be a monopoly and that was not what they were convicted of and no company has EVER been convicted of being a monopoly.

Fair enough. They were determined to be a monopoly and then convicted of openly and intentionally abusing that power.

And actually it is illegal to be a Monopoly, in some countries. US antitrust doesn't apply over the entire world.

corrosive23 said:
If we want to talk about monopolies crushing their competition, we can talk about Apple sueing the clone makers out of business in the 90's. And FYI, wordperfect is still around, Dell ships it with every computer, and it is still the perfered software in the legal world.

ah, yeah. Microsoft bought Corel to kill once and for all the most significant threat to their office software. Afterward the base price of Office went from sub $100 to over a hundred and a five hundred dollar MSRP for the Professional addition. A suspicious to say the least...

Also, I'm in no way saying that Microsoft invented the abuse of market power. So if you want to list every other abusive monopoly which ever existed feel free and go ahead, but it seems like a pointless exercise and in no way forgives Microsoft for their specific actions.
 
they arent concerened with efficiency and speed WITH features. its that simple. Coding like that would distract them from implementing Trusted Computing which is very much, the worst thing to ever happen to the personal computer.

honestly the best thing that could happen, and it could happen, is if they are forced into pushing vista back another 6 months to make it what it should be in the first place, and without trusted computing. xglx and compiz in linux very well could put enough spotlight on linux on the desktop (with the help of incredibly user friendly distros like ubuntu) to force them into doing so. as it stands, xgl is already, dispite being only 70ish percent completed better, faster, with more features and more eye candy using less resources than vista could ever hope to provide.

while not handing over your pc and your right to what you can or cant have on it over to a company via trusted computing.

competition is good, it pushes both windows, linux, and the mac os. im hoping linux and the macos features (although lets be honest, itll most likely be xgl that brings the heat onto microsoft and not the mac os) force the spotlight on how up to snuff vista ISNT so theyre forced to deliver the os that windows people really deserve to have in the first place.

not that i think itll happen, but im hopin for you guys.
 
clockworks said:
Something a little more in-depth than a sentence about the given service. I've got no quarrels with device manager as I rarely had to work with it so I can't say too much about it.
Heck, some easy to find and search, in depth online help about each service provided in the default install of Windows would be nice (maybe some dependency graphs as well).
 
Yep, and many systems, for aircraft or other such devices, also have the three digital systems further backed up by analog systems.

My favorite was his line about "supercomputer speed." If he knows so much about what processors are capable of maybe he should get a job here at one of the departments where I work and shut the place down and replace it with a dell dimension http://www.msi.umn.edu/
ElBarto79 said:
On top of that critical computers are triple redundant. And the individual computers are made by different manufacturers. The reasoning being that if there does happen to be a bug in the processor made by Intel it will not affect the processor made by AMD.
 
What irks me is Microsofts inability to put forth a really pretty user interface. All the people who work there and they cant make windows look like something other than fisher price material?

Vista appears to solve a lot of these issues, but man, XP is ass ugly in many ways, especially when you consider something like Media Player. What a horrible piece of crap this is. Ugly, bloated, buttons and sliders everywhere, useless things like options for skins you would never, ever use, an anchor for a particular mode (what the hell is that crap about?).

Its a user interface nightmare. They need to seperate their video and audio players and align them both into simple, pretty interfaces.

Then again, this is the same company that brought us MS Bob, the talking paperclip, and the search dog. I guess itll never happen.
 
It seems the vast majority of the people in here seem to equate increasing system requirements and adding more software and bloat to an OS is value. Just look and you will find these people defending every bit of it.

Windows has moved away from being a true operating system and instead an attempt to replace third party software from other companies.

I have yet to see anyone on here explain why Vista needs the resources it uses. The only thing anyone can say is that it won't matter because it pages things not needed to the hard drive. That's not an explanation of why it needs it in the first place. If it's not needed, why is it running? Why should something not in use be loaded in the first place and then paged? I don't allow software to put startups in my startup folder. You know, the Office startup crap, quicktime's startup stuff, along with Realplayer and many others. I don't use any of that software anymore but I know they still do the same thing on installation. Why should the OS be allowed to do the same thing. If paging was so great, why do Dell and other manufacturers' systems run slow as hell until you take off all the startup crap?

Someone give me an answer to these questions other than "it will page" or "it's okay because it's Vista and Microsoft."

Also, does anyone remember the Plus! pack for Windows? That was extra things for Win95 that didn't come with the OS. If you didn't want it, you didn't have to buy it. Why doesn't Microsoft do this now. There is no need for IE, Outlook, MovieMaker and the shitload of other stuff to be loaded with the OS if it's not required for the base OS to function. Put all that crap on a Plus! pack and let those that want it, buy it. That leaves a much leaner OS at a cheaper price for me, while others can pay the extra amount for the Plus! version.

I could continue with other questions and comments, but I'll leave these out there for now for answers. I doubt I will actually be given any true answers but I thought I would take another stab anyway.

Also, rabid resource hog defenders, I will take your silence or lack of actual answers as an admittance that you don't actually know what's going on with Vista. You proclaim that those of us that don't want bloatware do nothing but spread FUD. Until you can answer these questions I have proposed, I will have to assume you are the ones spreading FUD as you don't actually know what you are talking about.

 
GoHack said:
What I was pointing out w/the i486 was what could be done, if people really wanted to, even w/a i486. Just imagine what our existing technology can really do.

Ok, I'm no CS person. I took C++ in highschool 6 years ago, and even I know the differences between low-level and high-level code. That person wrote a great program for a 486, super. That to me says he wrote it in assembly, which means it will not work on any other type of cpu. You complain about the windows monopoly: imagine if every two years intel released a new cpu, and you had to buy it, and there were no other options. Then you can have that speed and stability.
 
Back
Top