Do I even want to ask...
-
What is everyones problem with Vista? I have had one feature(bug) bite me in the rear since I started to use in (RC1). Yes it is bloated but when you want backward compatibility on a system that was not designed for it there will always be bloat. WinXP compared to Win2K there was bloat, 2k to NT4/98 there was bloat. It is what happens when you build on bad code and dont replace the bad code entirely. Vista was supposed to end it but then had to have XP support (at the customers request) so I have never held any grudge against MS for it. Weven is what Vista should have been, no XP support unless you intentionally cripple yourself with the XPM. Fast, reliable and unbloated.
-
I am sick and tired of menus, windows, caption, or basically anything with a Windows Handle rendering in all black at random intervals. How hard is it to do a screen refresh? Sometimes I have to restart an application because Vista decides it no longer wants to draw a Window. I use Vista everyday for development so at least I have the perspective to complain.
Need custom software developed? I do C# development and consulting all over the United States. A man said to the universe: "Sir I exist!" "However," replied the universe, "The fact has not created in me A sense of obligation." --Stephen Crane
I'd accept this from an user, not from a programmer. It's not "Vista decides it no longer wants to draw a Window", as it's the application that is in charge of drawing a window. If the application, for some reason (bug, bad design, feature) decides to refuse to draw anything on a window, what can Vista or any other OS do? Specifically, if an application refuses to answer a WM_PAINT request, what would you do? Show an outdated bitmap? Black window? Grayed window bitmap? Suggest to kill the application after a few seconds? Well, Vista does it all.
I see dead pixels
-
I'd accept this from an user, not from a programmer. It's not "Vista decides it no longer wants to draw a Window", as it's the application that is in charge of drawing a window. If the application, for some reason (bug, bad design, feature) decides to refuse to draw anything on a window, what can Vista or any other OS do? Specifically, if an application refuses to answer a WM_PAINT request, what would you do? Show an outdated bitmap? Black window? Grayed window bitmap? Suggest to kill the application after a few seconds? Well, Vista does it all.
I see dead pixels
You must be right, I mean when the Start Menu refused to draw, or Windows Vista Wireless Connection Windows refuse to draw. We are not talking about applications not handling the WM_PAINT event we are talking about the Desktop Window Manager being a POS.
Need custom software developed? I do C# development and consulting all over the United States. A man said to the universe: "Sir I exist!" "However," replied the universe, "The fact has not created in me A sense of obligation." --Stephen Crane
-
What is everyones problem with Vista? I have had one feature(bug) bite me in the rear since I started to use in (RC1). Yes it is bloated but when you want backward compatibility on a system that was not designed for it there will always be bloat. WinXP compared to Win2K there was bloat, 2k to NT4/98 there was bloat. It is what happens when you build on bad code and dont replace the bad code entirely. Vista was supposed to end it but then had to have XP support (at the customers request) so I have never held any grudge against MS for it. Weven is what Vista should have been, no XP support unless you intentionally cripple yourself with the XPM. Fast, reliable and unbloated.
I think if everyone had started with a 64-bit Vista, there would have been a lot less mud-slinging and complaining. I've had 4 blue-screens in the last year, all due to a VM. My frame rate is great, no bogging down. Trick is to get a machine that is capable, with the proper drivers. I never tried Vista on my old Pc because I knew the hardware wasn't compatible. I also never tried hauling a trailer with my Civic, or attaching wings. At some point MS has to abandon the backwards compatibility for security reasons. Let them use a VM in quarantine mode, but the host should be sacred.
Cheetah. Ferret. Gonads. What more can I say? - Pete O'Hanlon
-
Xiangyang Liu ??? wrote:
where is "Add or Remove Programs"?
Programs and Features applet in Control Panel
Yes, I found that already. My point is, there doesn't appear to be a need for the change in Vista, this is just one example.
My .NET Business Application Framework My Home Page My Younger Son & His "PET"
-
I'd accept this from an user, not from a programmer. It's not "Vista decides it no longer wants to draw a Window", as it's the application that is in charge of drawing a window. If the application, for some reason (bug, bad design, feature) decides to refuse to draw anything on a window, what can Vista or any other OS do? Specifically, if an application refuses to answer a WM_PAINT request, what would you do? Show an outdated bitmap? Black window? Grayed window bitmap? Suggest to kill the application after a few seconds? Well, Vista does it all.
I see dead pixels
You might have this the wrong way around. Re-paint under XP - no problem Re-paint under Vista - no work Same program, so where 'could' the problem be? If the OS isn't asking the app to refresh or assumes that cached iimage doesn't need refreshing then where is the problem?
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done.
-
What is everyones problem with Vista? I have had one feature(bug) bite me in the rear since I started to use in (RC1). Yes it is bloated but when you want backward compatibility on a system that was not designed for it there will always be bloat. WinXP compared to Win2K there was bloat, 2k to NT4/98 there was bloat. It is what happens when you build on bad code and dont replace the bad code entirely. Vista was supposed to end it but then had to have XP support (at the customers request) so I have never held any grudge against MS for it. Weven is what Vista should have been, no XP support unless you intentionally cripple yourself with the XPM. Fast, reliable and unbloated.
You won are one in a million.
Todd Smith
-
What is everyones problem with Vista? I have had one feature(bug) bite me in the rear since I started to use in (RC1). Yes it is bloated but when you want backward compatibility on a system that was not designed for it there will always be bloat. WinXP compared to Win2K there was bloat, 2k to NT4/98 there was bloat. It is what happens when you build on bad code and dont replace the bad code entirely. Vista was supposed to end it but then had to have XP support (at the customers request) so I have never held any grudge against MS for it. Weven is what Vista should have been, no XP support unless you intentionally cripple yourself with the XPM. Fast, reliable and unbloated.
Stuart Jeffery wrote:
What is everyones problem with Vista?
I have good experienence with Vista on the home machine. At office, I used it until recently on my laptop, but it started to get a bit slow after a year - maybe it has something to do with all the crapware that our IT installs without ever asking me :) Anyway, I switched to Win 7 and now it works like a charm. On development desktops I use Windows Server 2008 and am very happy with it. I have XP on my personal netbook only and it is OK, except that I really miss Windows Search integration with the Shell.
-
What is everyones problem with Vista? I have had one feature(bug) bite me in the rear since I started to use in (RC1). Yes it is bloated but when you want backward compatibility on a system that was not designed for it there will always be bloat. WinXP compared to Win2K there was bloat, 2k to NT4/98 there was bloat. It is what happens when you build on bad code and dont replace the bad code entirely. Vista was supposed to end it but then had to have XP support (at the customers request) so I have never held any grudge against MS for it. Weven is what Vista should have been, no XP support unless you intentionally cripple yourself with the XPM. Fast, reliable and unbloated.
Agreed. I've run Vista 64 bit for 2 months, and so far have had exactly 2 issues. Both 3rd party driver related and very quickly fixed by updating to the latest drivers. Vista runs much faster on my new machine then XP did on my old.
10110011001111101010101000001000001101001010001010100000100000101000001000111100010110001011001011
-
What is everyones problem with Vista? I have had one feature(bug) bite me in the rear since I started to use in (RC1). Yes it is bloated but when you want backward compatibility on a system that was not designed for it there will always be bloat. WinXP compared to Win2K there was bloat, 2k to NT4/98 there was bloat. It is what happens when you build on bad code and dont replace the bad code entirely. Vista was supposed to end it but then had to have XP support (at the customers request) so I have never held any grudge against MS for it. Weven is what Vista should have been, no XP support unless you intentionally cripple yourself with the XPM. Fast, reliable and unbloated.
The wife's laptop has Vista and the only complaint I have is that it will reboot out from under her after an update and she has no way to stop it. At any rate, I see no compelling reason to go to Vista (or Win7); I'll be using XP for a while longer, as long as it meets my needs.
-
I am sick and tired of menus, windows, caption, or basically anything with a Windows Handle rendering in all black at random intervals. How hard is it to do a screen refresh? Sometimes I have to restart an application because Vista decides it no longer wants to draw a Window. I use Vista everyday for development so at least I have the perspective to complain.
Need custom software developed? I do C# development and consulting all over the United States. A man said to the universe: "Sir I exist!" "However," replied the universe, "The fact has not created in me A sense of obligation." --Stephen Crane
i'd blame the video driver.
-
What is everyones problem with Vista? I have had one feature(bug) bite me in the rear since I started to use in (RC1). Yes it is bloated but when you want backward compatibility on a system that was not designed for it there will always be bloat. WinXP compared to Win2K there was bloat, 2k to NT4/98 there was bloat. It is what happens when you build on bad code and dont replace the bad code entirely. Vista was supposed to end it but then had to have XP support (at the customers request) so I have never held any grudge against MS for it. Weven is what Vista should have been, no XP support unless you intentionally cripple yourself with the XPM. Fast, reliable and unbloated.
XP is faster. Vista User UI is a pain in the a$$. (Yes I know if can be dialed back now, but it is still a pain). Vista's hardware requirements kill any upgrades of older hardware. Networking is a pain. Keeps dropping client connections. GF had Vista in a brand new top of the line HP. Constant crashes, hangup, etc. Switched to XP & not a single crash or hang in 6 months. Plus you can see the speed difference when running app's. But more than anything, there is no truely compelling reason to accept a slower, fatter OS.
Melting Away www.deals-house.com www.innovative--concepts.com
-
What is everyones problem with Vista? I have had one feature(bug) bite me in the rear since I started to use in (RC1). Yes it is bloated but when you want backward compatibility on a system that was not designed for it there will always be bloat. WinXP compared to Win2K there was bloat, 2k to NT4/98 there was bloat. It is what happens when you build on bad code and dont replace the bad code entirely. Vista was supposed to end it but then had to have XP support (at the customers request) so I have never held any grudge against MS for it. Weven is what Vista should have been, no XP support unless you intentionally cripple yourself with the XPM. Fast, reliable and unbloated.
i like Vista just fine. i like it much better than XP, even.
-
What is everyones problem with Vista? I have had one feature(bug) bite me in the rear since I started to use in (RC1). Yes it is bloated but when you want backward compatibility on a system that was not designed for it there will always be bloat. WinXP compared to Win2K there was bloat, 2k to NT4/98 there was bloat. It is what happens when you build on bad code and dont replace the bad code entirely. Vista was supposed to end it but then had to have XP support (at the customers request) so I have never held any grudge against MS for it. Weven is what Vista should have been, no XP support unless you intentionally cripple yourself with the XPM. Fast, reliable and unbloated.
I don't have any particular axe to grind with Vista, but after completing a project that required it, I eventually took it off my machine and still run XP exclusively on my network. Why? I don't count driver issues as a Vista specific negative because that happens with every new OS in the beginning (although I had no driver problems). UAC was (intentionally, by MS's own admission) massively annoying, but I immediately turned it off since I'm the only one using the machine. Even so, there were occasional adventures with apps (including VS) having to be run as an administrator or some such thing, and other similar minor annoyances. Add to that the fact that, as mentioned above, much of the OS functionality was simply moved around or made more of a PITA to deal with because of UI decisions to dumb things down so that mere mortals could more easily adjust things that mere mortals shouldn't even be touching. Consequently, I had to deal with a learning curve not because functionality had changed, but merely because it was harder to find or harder to get to the actual switches on the wall. None of this sounds like much of a compelling reason to ditch Vista, does it? And yet, I spent an afternoon reinstalling two boxes back to XP. I didn't upgrade my boxes from W2K to XP until I saw that for my environment, Remote Desktop was a killer app that made the upgrade worthwhile. I very much dislike the Fischer-Price interface, but I've learned to live with it. Each new version of Windows runs slower on existing hardware than the one before, so I'm not spending time and money to upgrade unless I get something in return. My reason for ditching Vista was actually quite simple. It wasn't compatible with many of my existing boxes, runs slower than pervious OS versions as usual, and had a collection of usability annoyances. And what did I get in return? Nothing but a spiffy looking glass interface. In short, when I deleted Vista, I did not lose any functionality. I don't believe that as a customer I should feel obligated to upgrade by default. If you want my money, you have to give me something of value in return. As an operating system, Vista didn't give me anything that I can't already do in XP. I'm somehow supposed to feel like a Luddite if I don't swallow whole every shiny new thing MS pushes at me. If they want to give it to me for free, maybe I'll consider it. But it costs money, and if you want my money, you're going to have to give me value in return. Vista didn't do that. Perhaps Weven will.
-
What is everyones problem with Vista? I have had one feature(bug) bite me in the rear since I started to use in (RC1). Yes it is bloated but when you want backward compatibility on a system that was not designed for it there will always be bloat. WinXP compared to Win2K there was bloat, 2k to NT4/98 there was bloat. It is what happens when you build on bad code and dont replace the bad code entirely. Vista was supposed to end it but then had to have XP support (at the customers request) so I have never held any grudge against MS for it. Weven is what Vista should have been, no XP support unless you intentionally cripple yourself with the XPM. Fast, reliable and unbloated.
In my experience it is slower and fatter on anything but gold-plated hardware. XP uses about a third of the RAM and this make a big difference when you've only got 1GB to play with. This is my experience with two different mid-range laptops. YMMV so no flame wars. All UAC did was teach people to click OK without reading the message displayed - almost as dangerous as asking them in the first place IMHO. Christopher nailed it - I have downgraded two laptops back to XP and have lost ZERO functionality and the machines seem quicker, boot faster and aren't consuming the same amount of system resources. And the myriad different versions was a stupid idea (same goes for all the Visual Studio versions). Talk about letting the Marketing dept. take over the company! And yes, XP was bloated compared to W2K - maybe 10% more bloat in my experience (we still have a lot of W2K machines out there) but both my laptops that had Vista were using 600MB or more RAM once booted and XP uses less than 200MB. Yeh, memory is cheap yadda-yadda but using that much RAM? Pre-caching you say? Why not leave this off by default and let advanced users decide these sort of things? And don't get me started on the low-end laptops out there that just cannot handle Vista but ship with it anyway.
-
I don't have any particular axe to grind with Vista, but after completing a project that required it, I eventually took it off my machine and still run XP exclusively on my network. Why? I don't count driver issues as a Vista specific negative because that happens with every new OS in the beginning (although I had no driver problems). UAC was (intentionally, by MS's own admission) massively annoying, but I immediately turned it off since I'm the only one using the machine. Even so, there were occasional adventures with apps (including VS) having to be run as an administrator or some such thing, and other similar minor annoyances. Add to that the fact that, as mentioned above, much of the OS functionality was simply moved around or made more of a PITA to deal with because of UI decisions to dumb things down so that mere mortals could more easily adjust things that mere mortals shouldn't even be touching. Consequently, I had to deal with a learning curve not because functionality had changed, but merely because it was harder to find or harder to get to the actual switches on the wall. None of this sounds like much of a compelling reason to ditch Vista, does it? And yet, I spent an afternoon reinstalling two boxes back to XP. I didn't upgrade my boxes from W2K to XP until I saw that for my environment, Remote Desktop was a killer app that made the upgrade worthwhile. I very much dislike the Fischer-Price interface, but I've learned to live with it. Each new version of Windows runs slower on existing hardware than the one before, so I'm not spending time and money to upgrade unless I get something in return. My reason for ditching Vista was actually quite simple. It wasn't compatible with many of my existing boxes, runs slower than pervious OS versions as usual, and had a collection of usability annoyances. And what did I get in return? Nothing but a spiffy looking glass interface. In short, when I deleted Vista, I did not lose any functionality. I don't believe that as a customer I should feel obligated to upgrade by default. If you want my money, you have to give me something of value in return. As an operating system, Vista didn't give me anything that I can't already do in XP. I'm somehow supposed to feel like a Luddite if I don't swallow whole every shiny new thing MS pushes at me. If they want to give it to me for free, maybe I'll consider it. But it costs money, and if you want my money, you're going to have to give me value in return. Vista didn't do that. Perhaps Weven will.
Christopher Duncan wrote:
n short, when I deleted Vista, I did not lose any functionality. I don't believe that as a customer I should feel obligated to upgrade by default. If you want my money, you have to give me something of value in return. As an operating system, Vista didn't give me anything that I can't already do in XP.
This is what I've always said about vista. Regardless of my personal likes and dislikes there is no value proposition.
Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long Avoid the crowd. Do your own thinking independently. Be the chess player, not the chess piece. --Ralph Charell
-
What is everyones problem with Vista? I have had one feature(bug) bite me in the rear since I started to use in (RC1). Yes it is bloated but when you want backward compatibility on a system that was not designed for it there will always be bloat. WinXP compared to Win2K there was bloat, 2k to NT4/98 there was bloat. It is what happens when you build on bad code and dont replace the bad code entirely. Vista was supposed to end it but then had to have XP support (at the customers request) so I have never held any grudge against MS for it. Weven is what Vista should have been, no XP support unless you intentionally cripple yourself with the XPM. Fast, reliable and unbloated.
-
What is everyones problem with Vista? I have had one feature(bug) bite me in the rear since I started to use in (RC1). Yes it is bloated but when you want backward compatibility on a system that was not designed for it there will always be bloat. WinXP compared to Win2K there was bloat, 2k to NT4/98 there was bloat. It is what happens when you build on bad code and dont replace the bad code entirely. Vista was supposed to end it but then had to have XP support (at the customers request) so I have never held any grudge against MS for it. Weven is what Vista should have been, no XP support unless you intentionally cripple yourself with the XPM. Fast, reliable and unbloated.
I have zero problems with vista. I just don't need it.
Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long Avoid the crowd. Do your own thinking independently. Be the chess player, not the chess piece. --Ralph Charell
-
I don't have any particular axe to grind with Vista, but after completing a project that required it, I eventually took it off my machine and still run XP exclusively on my network. Why? I don't count driver issues as a Vista specific negative because that happens with every new OS in the beginning (although I had no driver problems). UAC was (intentionally, by MS's own admission) massively annoying, but I immediately turned it off since I'm the only one using the machine. Even so, there were occasional adventures with apps (including VS) having to be run as an administrator or some such thing, and other similar minor annoyances. Add to that the fact that, as mentioned above, much of the OS functionality was simply moved around or made more of a PITA to deal with because of UI decisions to dumb things down so that mere mortals could more easily adjust things that mere mortals shouldn't even be touching. Consequently, I had to deal with a learning curve not because functionality had changed, but merely because it was harder to find or harder to get to the actual switches on the wall. None of this sounds like much of a compelling reason to ditch Vista, does it? And yet, I spent an afternoon reinstalling two boxes back to XP. I didn't upgrade my boxes from W2K to XP until I saw that for my environment, Remote Desktop was a killer app that made the upgrade worthwhile. I very much dislike the Fischer-Price interface, but I've learned to live with it. Each new version of Windows runs slower on existing hardware than the one before, so I'm not spending time and money to upgrade unless I get something in return. My reason for ditching Vista was actually quite simple. It wasn't compatible with many of my existing boxes, runs slower than pervious OS versions as usual, and had a collection of usability annoyances. And what did I get in return? Nothing but a spiffy looking glass interface. In short, when I deleted Vista, I did not lose any functionality. I don't believe that as a customer I should feel obligated to upgrade by default. If you want my money, you have to give me something of value in return. As an operating system, Vista didn't give me anything that I can't already do in XP. I'm somehow supposed to feel like a Luddite if I don't swallow whole every shiny new thing MS pushes at me. If they want to give it to me for free, maybe I'll consider it. But it costs money, and if you want my money, you're going to have to give me value in return. Vista didn't do that. Perhaps Weven will.
Christopher Duncan wrote:
but I immediately turned it off since I'm the only one using the machine.
Well actually, it doesn't matter if you are (were?) the single user, UAC is still useful. You can be an administrator and still have UAC prompt you when applications attempt to do system level stuff. I personally find UAC very useful. To each his own I guess. <blockquote class="FQ"><div class="FQA">Christopher Duncan wrote:</div>And what did I get in return?</blockquote> Transactional file system[^]? Vista Resource Monitor[^]? Deadlock Detection[^]?
Regards Senthil [MVP - Visual C#] _____________________________ My Home Page |My Blog | My Articles | My Flickr | WinMacro
-
I don't have any particular axe to grind with Vista, but after completing a project that required it, I eventually took it off my machine and still run XP exclusively on my network. Why? I don't count driver issues as a Vista specific negative because that happens with every new OS in the beginning (although I had no driver problems). UAC was (intentionally, by MS's own admission) massively annoying, but I immediately turned it off since I'm the only one using the machine. Even so, there were occasional adventures with apps (including VS) having to be run as an administrator or some such thing, and other similar minor annoyances. Add to that the fact that, as mentioned above, much of the OS functionality was simply moved around or made more of a PITA to deal with because of UI decisions to dumb things down so that mere mortals could more easily adjust things that mere mortals shouldn't even be touching. Consequently, I had to deal with a learning curve not because functionality had changed, but merely because it was harder to find or harder to get to the actual switches on the wall. None of this sounds like much of a compelling reason to ditch Vista, does it? And yet, I spent an afternoon reinstalling two boxes back to XP. I didn't upgrade my boxes from W2K to XP until I saw that for my environment, Remote Desktop was a killer app that made the upgrade worthwhile. I very much dislike the Fischer-Price interface, but I've learned to live with it. Each new version of Windows runs slower on existing hardware than the one before, so I'm not spending time and money to upgrade unless I get something in return. My reason for ditching Vista was actually quite simple. It wasn't compatible with many of my existing boxes, runs slower than pervious OS versions as usual, and had a collection of usability annoyances. And what did I get in return? Nothing but a spiffy looking glass interface. In short, when I deleted Vista, I did not lose any functionality. I don't believe that as a customer I should feel obligated to upgrade by default. If you want my money, you have to give me something of value in return. As an operating system, Vista didn't give me anything that I can't already do in XP. I'm somehow supposed to feel like a Luddite if I don't swallow whole every shiny new thing MS pushes at me. If they want to give it to me for free, maybe I'll consider it. But it costs money, and if you want my money, you're going to have to give me value in return. Vista didn't do that. Perhaps Weven will.
Christopher Duncan wrote:
I'm somehow supposed to feel like a Luddite if I don't swallow whole every shiny new thing MS pushes at me.
Amen. Couldn't have put it better.
¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF! Personal 3D projects Just Say No to Web 2 Point Oh
