vista is crap
-
disabling UAC opens up a whole new can of worms, as I recall.
Christian Graus No longer a Microsoft MVP, but still happy to answer your questions.
how retarded is it that disabling UAC disables OS functionality without any warnings??!! :wtf:
"mostly watching the human race is like watching dogs watch tv ... they see the pictures move but the meaning escapes them"
-
l a u r e n wrote:
please tell me how (as admin) to rename a fricking start menu item???
I am not a fanboy, but then if you use it at all I guess the Vista Critics call you a fanboy. If you don't hate it, then obviously you must be a fan. Anyhow... I right clicked, chose rename, typed in the name, hit enter.... no fuss, no mess, no UAC warnings (and UAC is not disabled). It was no different than under XP. Vista Ultimate 64bit, full out, 4 cores, UAC defaults, no special patches or disabled features.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb) John Andrew Holmes "It is well to remember that the entire universe, with one trifling exception, is composed of others."
can i have your copy of vista?? i do the same thing and either get a bunch of prompts popping up from UAC, or (with UAC disabled) a prompt then fail with no explanation
"mostly watching the human race is like watching dogs watch tv ... they see the pictures move but the meaning escapes them"
-
can i have your copy of vista?? i do the same thing and either get a bunch of prompts popping up from UAC, or (with UAC disabled) a prompt then fail with no explanation
"mostly watching the human race is like watching dogs watch tv ... they see the pictures move but the meaning escapes them"
l a u r e n wrote:
can i have your copy of vista??
Newegg purchased OEM Vista Ultimate 64. Built my own, installed my own. I wish I knew what else to tell you. Unfortunately it is being used. I installed Upgrade of Vista U64 over Home32, which was "interesting" as in the mythical Chinese curse. However, again, once done, it is done. I renamed on it too. Now renaming something that is in use... that may be the problem as someone said? I don't know. In the case of things being used, I boot into safe-mode or other modes to rename. :)
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb) John Andrew Holmes "It is well to remember that the entire universe, with one trifling exception, is composed of others."
-
how retarded is it that disabling UAC disables OS functionality without any warnings??!! :wtf:
"mostly watching the human race is like watching dogs watch tv ... they see the pictures move but the meaning escapes them"
Think of it as in removing internet explorer from XP. It is so well integrated that shutting it off causes further problems. Those can be solved, but again, it will over complicate your life.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb) John Andrew Holmes "It is well to remember that the entire universe, with one trifling exception, is composed of others."
-
Apparently, if the item you are trying to rename is in the All Users's Start Menu, you need administrator rights. If it lives in the user's Start Menu, you can do it without special priviledges. If you need admin rights, then you'll get a UAC prompt. Otherwise, you won't. However, when I installed Office, I wanted to rename "Microsoft Office Excel 2007" to simply "Excel" and I found out that turning UAC off, restarting, doing all the renames, turning UAC on and restaring again was faster than renaming each item and going through several UAC prompts. In my experience, when I want to do some configuration, I always turn UAC off. But for everyday use, having it on rarely produces a prompt.
Luis Alonso Ramos Intelectix Chihuahua, Mexico My Blog!
This can cause a whole lot of pain due to registry and filesystem virtualisation and the difference between full and partial administrative tokens. If you install a legacy app that writes to registry or FS locations, that should be virtualised, while UAC is turned off the files are not written to the virtualised path. If you then turn UAC back on the app has problems accessing these files because the location should be virtualised.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
I was just too badly burned by Vista previously to take the time to try using it with SP1, I would just prefer to stick with stuff I know works.
I fully understand the reasoning, and it is logical per se. However, what I do know is we have all been through this before. XP was crap before SP1, therefor we would never have had XP to be happy with it if we followed this logic before. We might think we would have Windows 2000 except it was crap before too. 98 was crap when it was released, 95a was crap until 95b was released, no matter how far back you go there have been fixes. You might as well pull out an abacus, except I am sure the first of those were crap too. you say customer machines, what did you do tell your customer Vista is crap and install XP to fix a problem? how is that fixing it per se? sure the logic seems sound, except we would have no computers today if we followed this logic. What happened to us? When did we get burned out and tell our customers how to solve problems by backtracking? If we NEVER work out the problems the problems never get worked out! I had Vista before SP1, and I fixed half the copy problems that everyone complained about. The other half I found a tool that worked well without installing XP again. Drives I harassed the hardware provider rather than Microsoft. Since when does MS control Texas Instruments? I beta tested Vista and thus my work hardware was fully supported by the time I got it at home. Unfortunately I hadn't tested it at home except in virtual machines, so virtual machines were more stable than my home hardware. But if none of us ever test it, none of it gets supported. If none of us reports the hell out of the errors nothing ever gets fixed. If none of us ever do anything about the problems, the problems still remain! I fully understand your frustration, I just don't understand how we would ever have XP that you love now if we followed this logic in the past. I beta tested XP, I beta tested 2000, I beta tested Vista. I reported the hell out of errors in 2000, XP, and Vista. I have been through this so many times it all looks the same, because it is all the same. We would always have crap unless we use it, test it, report it and someone fixes it. We can complain to MS about the latter WHEN it is their problem.... When it is 3rd party software, 3rd party drivers or our own software we complain to the respective parties... including ourselves. If my customers want Vista, I don't tell th
El Corazon wrote:
XP was crap before SP1, therefor we would never have had XP to be happy with it if we followed this logic before. We might think we would have Windows 2000 except it was crap before too. 98 was crap when it was released, 95a was crap until 95b was released, no matter how far back you go there have been fixes.
Wow! Thats quite a testament to Microsoft initial quality...
-
El Corazon wrote:
XP was crap before SP1, therefor we would never have had XP to be happy with it if we followed this logic before. We might think we would have Windows 2000 except it was crap before too. 98 was crap when it was released, 95a was crap until 95b was released, no matter how far back you go there have been fixes.
Wow! Thats quite a testament to Microsoft initial quality...
of course of course.... pretty obvious right? ever wonder why? no of course not.... Apple OS's rarely have this problem, occasionally, but it is kept to a minimum, but ever wonder why? Linux releases are crap until they have been out for a long time... ever wonder why? Of course you can determine from this equation that Apple is better than MS right? or "M$ is crap" as some folks say.... but why? has anyone asked why? what is the common factor here? Hardware variety. Microsoft and Linux OS's are crap during launch because of lack of variety during beta testing. Apple is better because they restrict hardware, you are not allowed to use non-apple hardware, therefore all hardware is known. Ah hah! now we are getting somewhere. We use bundled releases at work because tested and known hardware is easier to support than mass hardware support. Linux often never gets mass use (hardware variety) therefore it never seems to rise beyond crap. Unless you find out the hardware that is known and supported, then amazingly it gets better. Not surprisingly the same works with Microsoft. Microsoft OS's are crap until they obtain mass market information in order to attempt to support it. So why is Vista so different? it isn't, no different at all. As soon as Vista receives mass market appeal and has time to "see" and support a wider variety of hardware. Of course it will not because Vista is hated. Therefore Vista will be the exception, although it is not. Windows 7 will be released, get mass market attention, survive the growing pains, and become better. Why? Because it is not Vista? too true, but it will have the Vista kernel, it will have Vista drivers, it will be all Vista is and more. It will be different not for its differences, but because Vista is already considered crap and few want to use it. When it gets used it gets better. Windows 7 will get used more, therefore it will be better. It is called self-fulfilling prophecy.
-
of course of course.... pretty obvious right? ever wonder why? no of course not.... Apple OS's rarely have this problem, occasionally, but it is kept to a minimum, but ever wonder why? Linux releases are crap until they have been out for a long time... ever wonder why? Of course you can determine from this equation that Apple is better than MS right? or "M$ is crap" as some folks say.... but why? has anyone asked why? what is the common factor here? Hardware variety. Microsoft and Linux OS's are crap during launch because of lack of variety during beta testing. Apple is better because they restrict hardware, you are not allowed to use non-apple hardware, therefore all hardware is known. Ah hah! now we are getting somewhere. We use bundled releases at work because tested and known hardware is easier to support than mass hardware support. Linux often never gets mass use (hardware variety) therefore it never seems to rise beyond crap. Unless you find out the hardware that is known and supported, then amazingly it gets better. Not surprisingly the same works with Microsoft. Microsoft OS's are crap until they obtain mass market information in order to attempt to support it. So why is Vista so different? it isn't, no different at all. As soon as Vista receives mass market appeal and has time to "see" and support a wider variety of hardware. Of course it will not because Vista is hated. Therefore Vista will be the exception, although it is not. Windows 7 will be released, get mass market attention, survive the growing pains, and become better. Why? Because it is not Vista? too true, but it will have the Vista kernel, it will have Vista drivers, it will be all Vista is and more. It will be different not for its differences, but because Vista is already considered crap and few want to use it. When it gets used it gets better. Windows 7 will get used more, therefore it will be better. It is called self-fulfilling prophecy.
How is a large variety of hardware choices to blame for the file deletion / renaming problems? How is a large variety of hardware choices to blame for the pitiful network copy speed? How is a large variety of hardware to blame for the poor implementation of UAC? How is a large variety of hardware to blame for the poor VPN implementation? How is a large variety of hardware to blame for the restrictive DRM implementation? How is a large variety of hardware to blame for the confusing assortment of SKUs? I generally give Microsoft the benefit of the doubt when it comes to drivers simply due to the plethora of hardware but EVERYTHING else lies squarely on their shoulders.
-
How is a large variety of hardware choices to blame for the file deletion / renaming problems? How is a large variety of hardware choices to blame for the pitiful network copy speed? How is a large variety of hardware to blame for the poor implementation of UAC? How is a large variety of hardware to blame for the poor VPN implementation? How is a large variety of hardware to blame for the restrictive DRM implementation? How is a large variety of hardware to blame for the confusing assortment of SKUs? I generally give Microsoft the benefit of the doubt when it comes to drivers simply due to the plethora of hardware but EVERYTHING else lies squarely on their shoulders.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
How is a large variety of hardware to blame for the poor implementation of UAC?
**US** the programming population.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
How is a large variety of hardware choices to blame for the pitiful network copy speed?
fixed, half with a driver to ***XP*** and the other with a change to Vista. Vista to Vista worked fine, and Vista to XP patched worked decently... just NO ONE PATCHED XP except me obviously! Most of these were fixed pretty fast, they have been echoed over and over and over and over and over and over and over ad absurdem. How much variety? obviously as much as required to repeat the same things over and over again! but hey, there is always Linux or Apple. :-D
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
How is a large variety of hardware to blame for the poor implementation of UAC?
**US** the programming population.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
How is a large variety of hardware choices to blame for the pitiful network copy speed?
fixed, half with a driver to ***XP*** and the other with a change to Vista. Vista to Vista worked fine, and Vista to XP patched worked decently... just NO ONE PATCHED XP except me obviously! Most of these were fixed pretty fast, they have been echoed over and over and over and over and over and over and over ad absurdem. How much variety? obviously as much as required to repeat the same things over and over again! but hey, there is always Linux or Apple. :-D
-
El Corazon wrote:
Most of these were fixed pretty fast
And some have not yet been addressed. Either way, my initial statement is still valid. Microsoft's initial quality has been (and still is) rather poor.
but of course, that is because Microsoft is poor quality, not that this was the first time in the history of an OS release that 95% of the beta testers tested in Virtual machines reducing the hardware "seen" during beta to the lowest variety in the history of beta testing... of course not... this is all Microsoft's fault. Does no one ask "why?" anymore? is there no postmortem even among my peers? are all programmers this quick to jump to conclusions? We deserve India programmers if this is true.
-
but of course, that is because Microsoft is poor quality, not that this was the first time in the history of an OS release that 95% of the beta testers tested in Virtual machines reducing the hardware "seen" during beta to the lowest variety in the history of beta testing... of course not... this is all Microsoft's fault. Does no one ask "why?" anymore? is there no postmortem even among my peers? are all programmers this quick to jump to conclusions? We deserve India programmers if this is true.
Relax and drink some more Kool-Aid! Sheesh! Did I make any assertions about "why"? Did I claim that the driver issues were all on MS? Did I even mention any other OS? In the end, while programmers may ask "why", the great unwashed masses that account for the VAST majority of Microsoft's OS and application sales shouldn't need to ask "why". They paid the price and expect a quality OS or application. Anything else is an excuse.
-
Relax and drink some more Kool-Aid! Sheesh! Did I make any assertions about "why"? Did I claim that the driver issues were all on MS? Did I even mention any other OS? In the end, while programmers may ask "why", the great unwashed masses that account for the VAST majority of Microsoft's OS and application sales shouldn't need to ask "why". They paid the price and expect a quality OS or application. Anything else is an excuse.
the great unwashed masses rely on programmers at large to supply software. the UAC is a problem because of us and poor programming practices. drivers were not ready because development groups and programmers refused to support vista until after SP1. by and large the vast majority of problems rested on the development sphere. but we are the worst next to microsoft for blaming someone else... perhaps because MS employs a large number of us. still there is more than enough blame to go around. we tease the india programmer who thinks divide by zero errors are the compiler's fault. but we cheer and support the programmer who disables the UAC because of poor programming practices. that was why the example. this is our karma, if we don't like it then maybe we should treat the next OS as something we have to prepare for to make our customers and the unwashed masses experience easier?
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb) John Andrew Holmes "It is well to remember that the entire universe, with one trifling exception, is composed of others."