Quote :

"that got so annoying: http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/windows-vista/disable-user-account-control-uac-the-easy-way-on-windows-vista/"

wow thank you.

okay no complaints with vista now.

6/11/2008 9:48:24 PM

^yeah that got really annoying. Prospero's alternative looks good too so you don't completely turn off uac.

^^great explanation. One thing that always buggs me about OSX is it seems a lot less customizable. The menus and interface have less options to stream line things and make it more efficient. You're stuck using the same method each time rather than altering the menus to fit your needs as Noen mentioned.

6/11/2008 10:44:43 PM

Just to be clear I'm not saying one way is *better* than the other. I really love a lot about OSX, and particularly about the iPhone (not so much the iPod classics, or iTunes, which are both pretty garbage in interaction terms).

6/12/2008 12:26:24 AM

I dislike itunes. I do on the other hand like OSX and the iphone. I just don't say it that much. I want an iphone for 199$ WITHOUT having to resign a 2-year contract!!!!

6/12/2008 12:37:45 AM

I'm not sure if this has been discussed yet,

but is there any reason why I'd want to put Vista into my new computer build?

I have ti on my laptop, and can't stand any of the new features.

Will software (especially games) a couple years from now no longer work on XP?

6/12/2008 8:02:40 AM

Quote :

"I have ti on my laptop, and can't stand any of the new features."

What features in particular? You'd be amazed at what you can turn off or customize.

Quote :

"Will software (especially games) a couple years from now no longer work on XP?"

You probably won't have to worry about that for a little bit, but to run any DX10 features you do have to run the game on Vista. There have been some rumors that Alan Wake might be Vista/DX10 exclusive but i think that's the only upcoming game that's said to be exclusive and that might even change.

6/12/2008 8:49:04 AM

Quote :

"What features in particular? You'd be amazed at what you can turn off or customize."

Yeah, I've turned them all off. But now it's just a better-looking XP.

I was wondering if any of the new features were worthwhile for future-proofing reasons.

6/12/2008 8:53:53 AM

The big reason i switched was the 64 bit support was so much better than XP's. I haven't run into any compatibility problems with 64 bit, and all the latest games support 64 bit. Whereas the support for XP 64 bit kinda sucked. Also the switch allowed me to break the 32 bit ram limit. I think having 4-8 gigs of ram alone is reason enough.

Plus there's been a lot of security updates in the 64 bit version like patchguard, having drivers digitally signed, more effective DEP, and driver support is supposedly better for future-proofing. I've actually disabled any anti-virus to speed things up and do random scans every few weeks but i have yet to get a virus/spyware (as far as i know).

6/12/2008 9:12:06 AM

^that's not just for the 64 bit edition.

Vista in general has MUCH better driver stability, MUCH better security (you should spring for OneCare now that it has Antivirus included), actually usable Indexing services (even moreso if you use other MS products like Outlook), and Volume Shadow Copy.

6/12/2008 4:18:31 PM

^from what i read i was under the impression that vista 64bit had more security features than 32 bit. But yeah the driver support and signing is vastly increased in both versions.

http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_ff_x64.asp

Quote :

"One of the primary benefits of using an x64-based version of Windows Vista is that these versions provide dramatically improved security functionality when compared to their 32-bit counterparts. Most dramatically, the Windows Vista x64 versions include a new secret security feature called Address Space Layout Randmonizer (ASLR) that helps eliminate remote system attacks for the first time on the Windows platform. This feature (which was first disclosed in this very article) ensures that system files load at random (1 in 256) memory offsets at every system boot, compared to previous Windows versions where system files always loaded to the same offset memory location. Because of this change, most (approximately 99 percent) remote attacks will simply fail on x64-based Vista versions."

So onecare is pretty good? How does it compare to symantec in terms of being a resource hog?

[Edited on June 12, 2008 at 4:27 PM. Reason : .]

6/12/2008 4:26:38 PM

i've been on the beta since v.1 for OneCare. i loved it, then i realized how poor it did in comparitive tests with other anti-spyware/anti-virus and dropped it.

VERY easy to use and includes easy backup/restore, etc.

6/12/2008 4:28:38 PM

Quote :

"new secret security feature"

Quote :

"Randmonizer"

Quote :

"his feature (which was first disclosed in this very article)"

Quote :

"most (approximately 99 percent) remote attacks"

wat

6/12/2008 5:53:28 PM

^I no right?

^^I look at onecare in the greater context though. It's a hella lot less of a system hoser than Symantec is (which I am running because it came preinstalled on my desktop). At work, we run E-Trust by CA. But OneCare, when combined with Vista's other built in security, and normal people not surfing for warez and illegal pr0n, is plenty sufficient.

6/12/2008 11:12:25 PM

Is there a better (but free) partition manager than the built in one? (I have partition magic 8 but it won't work with vista). I'm trying to rectify this situation:



Can't move C: forward (the unallocated space is where XP used to live).

6/13/2008 8:45:37 PM

you should be able to right-click on C: and choose "Extend Volume..." to extend it into the unallocated space, at least I can do this on my Vista SP1 Enterprise?

6/13/2008 9:00:06 PM

no you can't extend it to a lower offset, if that makes sense

edit: I mean C: starts ~150GB into the disk - I can't bring it forward and extend it to make it span the whole disk. Also, I went and converted it to a dynamic disk and that didn't help

[Edited on June 13, 2008 at 9:07 PM. Reason : .]

edit 2: Yeah according to the help I boned myself when I converted it to a dynamic disk. That turned my partition into a "simple volume" and now I have even fewer options. I guess I could figure out a way to back everything up, format and repartition, then restore

[Edited on June 13, 2008 at 9:11 PM. Reason : ..]

6/13/2008 9:03:08 PM

http://onecare.live.com/standard/en-us/default.htm

or

http://slickdeals.net/permadeal/12700

get either one, backup and the restore it to a new partition

[Edited on June 13, 2008 at 10:28 PM. Reason : .]

6/13/2008 10:26:35 PM

Quote :

"GOOD FOR 1 WEEK ONLY - June 2 to June 8, 2008"

Vista Ultimate will let me do an image backup - but I'll need to install another HDD when I get around to it.

6/13/2008 10:31:57 PM

6/13/2008 11:02:29 PM

For anyone running Vista SP1, Microsoft has released a performance and reliability update:

http://arstechnica.com/journals/microsoft.ars/2008/06/25/performance-and-reliability-update-for-vista-sp1-released

x86: http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=DF72A9B0-564E-4326-894E-05CBA709CB39

x64: http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=C3536CAA-7B71-4525-9D23-21A5B3D4507F

I ran into that invalid win32 application error fairly often, usually after uptime of a few days or more.

6/27/2008 7:06:12 AM

So, my idle memory footprint is about 900 MB (got 3 GB of RAM). Does this sound on par?

6/27/2008 9:36:54 AM

yep, sounds bout right.

6/27/2008 12:07:17 PM

hah, mine runs (according the the vista sidebar gadget) at about 45-50% just being on...out of 4gb

but, as it was pointed out...what's the point of having RAM if it's not being used? i guess i'd rather it use 2gb just being ON and have it be snappy and responsive than not

[Edited on June 27, 2008 at 12:11 PM. Reason : .]

6/27/2008 12:10:52 PM

i normally have less than 5% ram free on my 2gb ram system (vista home basic i think)

superfetch sucks up all available ram...and i think that is by default cause i never explicitly turned it on

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/windows-vista-superfetch-and-readyboostanalyzed,1532.html

6/27/2008 12:27:02 PM

same here, usually 35-50% idle. The ram never maxes out so it doesn't bother me, and it's very snappy.

6/27/2008 12:27:03 PM

You referring to idle processor usage? Mine's about 5 to 10 %.

6/27/2008 12:28:15 PM

^previous 4 posts:

Quote :

"So, my idle memory footprint is about 900 MB (got 3 GB of RAM)"

Quote :

"point of having RAM "

Quote :

"normally have less than 5% ram free on my 2gb ram system "

Quote :

"The ram never maxes out... "

lol.

But yeah in regard to processor that's about what mine is.

[Edited on June 27, 2008 at 12:36 PM. Reason : ..]

6/27/2008 12:33:03 PM

Quote :

"same here, usually 35-50% idle. The ram never maxes out so it doesn't bother me, and it's very snappy."

The fact that you re-specified "ram" in the second sentence led me to believe you were referring to something else (processor) in your first sentence.

[Edited on June 27, 2008 at 12:55 PM. Reason : ]

6/27/2008 12:54:24 PM

True, but i did say "same here" refering to the previous post on ram.

I wish windows had better multiple monitor support. I want to be able to put a different video on each screen using dreamscene, not the same one on both. Also if i want to do two different desktop pictures i have to combine two 1920 by 1200 pictures to a 3840 by 1200 picture and then tile it. I guess i could get ultramon or something. Anyone had any experience with good multiple monitor programs for vista?

6/27/2008 1:01:51 PM

^ I'll check Lenovo Presentation Director when I get home. From my initial tinkering with it there a hell of a lot of options.

6/27/2008 1:04:25 PM

http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/windows-vista/dual-monitors-use-a-different-wallpaper-on-each-desktop-in-vista-or-xp/

That one is free.

6/27/2008 1:11:02 PM

^ a bunch
acronis disk director works with vista and can move partitions around

6/30/2008 8:38:43 AM

here's a great (starting) list of UI nit-picks and bugs that are in Vista that overall show a lack of interface consistency and overall attention to detail (something that's bound to happen, of course, with millions of lines of code and 25 years of legacy products to support)
http://www.istartedsomething.com/20080531/windows-ui-taskforce-your-help-wanted/

for example, it's amazing you can still find this Windows 3.1 style Open dialogue box in Vista


and the remove-USB device dialogue, which hasn't changed since at least Windows 2000 and maybe before - it was bad then, and it's even worse now that USB devices have become even more common

7/1/2008 4:53:17 PM

i just yank that shit out. never had a problem.

7/1/2008 5:04:31 PM

There hasn't been a problem since 98. it's there for legacy devices and for power users who still use delayed read/write on external drives for performance gains.

Quote :

"that overall show a lack of interface consistency and overall attention to detail "

These are nit-picks and nothing more. They aren't dissatisfiers, people don't switch because of any of them, the overwhelming majority of users will never even SEE them.

It's okay to be a fanboy, but really, don't throw stones in a glass house. There's just as much "wrong" with OSX.

7/5/2008 8:39:35 PM

Quote :

" i just yank that shit out. never had a problem."

probably always be fine as long as you don't have any I/O going on at the time... am i mistaken or can't this cause problems? i hate the usb dialogs myself. in os x i love just dragging the drive to the trash or right-click -> eject.

^ UI can make a big difference to some people though, and consistency makes a huge difference with some users as well (i'm not tryin to start any arguments, just makin those two points about UI)

i have a current issue with Vista and trying to connect to an older Netgear router i've done some Googling but haven't gotten any simple solutions... the router isn't mine just been at the gf's family's house and get use it in Vista (connects fine in OS X, iPod Touch, and from all the XP computers in the house). i read that it may have something to do with Vista's use of ipv6 but i'm honestly not sure at this point and pretty much giving up.

7/5/2008 10:47:51 PM

Quote :

"These are nit-picks and nothing more. They aren't dissatisfiers, people don't switch because of any of them, the overwhelming majority of users will never even SEE them. It's okay to be a fanboy, but really, don't throw stones in a glass house. There's just as much "wrong" with OSX."

jesus, touchy much? I seem to recall you being much more open to Windows criticism before you got a job there....

I agree that they are nit-picks, but i still think they do make a difference and do demonstrate a lack of attention to detail. And again, I don't necessarily fault MS for this. Windows is an incredibly complicated system and they probably had a list of changes a mile long (which probably included many/most of those listed above) that they've been wanting to make for years, but if they fixed everything, then Windows would never ship.

Yes, OS X has interface problems and inconsistencies, but no, they are not as severe as Windows, if not simply because the OS X interface is only 7 years old, and Windows has interface widgets that have been around for nearly 20 years. Microsoft is often credited for going to incredible lengths to maintain backwards compatibility for programs that haven't been updated in 10, 15 or 25 years. And kudos to them, on that. It really shows a level of respect for their customers that is often missing from Apple, who, it may be said, ruthlessly forces their users and developers to rehaul and update their systems every few years (exhibit a: the transition from Classic to OS X, exhibit b: the switch from PPC to Intel, exhibit c: the upcoming Snow Leopard, which is dropping all sorts of backwards compatibility in the name of progress). But, of course, there is a price to pay. It can be said that Microsoft has rarely left a customer or developer out in the cold like Apple has, but that means that Windows has been dragging around decades worth of cruft for the benefit of very few people. Balmer (or maybe the Windows team lead) said last week that Windows 7 was going to be built on the core that is in Vista. I guess that when 7 ships in 2010 (or 2012 or whatever) we can look forward to another decade of design and interface decisions that were made before the Internet was commonplace and most people used 800x600 screens.

7/5/2008 11:52:03 PM

^me touchy? I gave a two sentence response to your ridiculous post and now you write a diatribe.

I've used BOTH systems longer than you have, in more environments. You yourself have said you've spent an hour or so with Vista? How are you qualified to make ANY judgement or comparison?

Quote :

"I seem to recall you being much more open to Windows criticism before you got a job there.... "

Nothing has changed. There's tons of stuff about Windows and Microsoft that I am and have been critical of. The only difference is that now I'm correcting the invalid, misinformed, and plain incorrect assumptions and assertions people make (I know I did) about the company. Things happen for far different and less nefarious reasons than most people seem to believe.

Quote :

"I agree that they are nit-picks, but i still think they do make a difference and do demonstrate a lack of attention to detail."

Again this is just not true, as you explained yourself in the two sentences following this. Not being able to update/refresh everything has no correlation to a "lack of attention to detail", it means priorities and resources were put to other areas. As a user, would you be more apt to buying a "consistent interface" or one with dramatically better security?

Quote :

"Yes, OS X has interface problems and inconsistencies, but no, they are not as severe as Windows,"

Again, you have no basis for comparison to make that statement.
http://planet.northernvoice.ca/node/24867

There's a few dozen to chew on. Or maybe the fact that nearly every bundled Apple application has different command shortcuts and interaction methodologies. I'd call that a pretty severe inconsistency.

Quote :

"It can be said that Microsoft has rarely left a customer or developer out in the cold like Apple has, but that means that Windows has been dragging around decades worth of cruft for the benefit of very few people."

It can also be said that Apple has never held more than a 4-5% market share, while Windows serves tens or hundreds of millions of people. Those "very few people" who need legacy support almost certainly outnumber the entirety of Apple computer owners.

Quote :

"I guess that when 7 ships in 2010 (or 2012 or whatever) we can look forward to another decade of design and interface decisions that were made before the Internet was commonplace and most people used 800x600 screens."

Another ignorant jab. You do realize the overwhelming majority of users are still running 1024*768 right? Apple can leave people out in the cold, because they ONLY sell to people who can afford the disposable Apple business strategy. Microsoft could easily do the same thing, it would just mean losing 90 or so percent of their market.

I put up with Windows, I put up with OSX. I don't particularly care for either of them. Hell if you asked me to pick my favorite OS, I'd be jumping aboard the Be wagon. Different strokes for different folks, and I enjoy the discussion, but at least keep it relevent. There's PLENTY to jab MS about without getting down to personal preference and nit-picking through the OS.

7/6/2008 1:56:24 AM

I've been using Vista for a couple of months now, and I still really like it. I'm kind of shocked.

7/6/2008 11:52:57 AM

Quote :

"Apple can leave people out in the cold, because they ONLY sell to people who can afford the disposable Apple business strategy. Microsoft could easily do the same thing, it would just mean losing 90 or so percent of their market."

well, i guess that's one of the ironies from the past 30 years of MS dominance and Apple's ups and downs. Microsoft at this point is clearly a victim of their own success. 25 years of global domination with 100's of millions of customers has forced Microsoft into a corner that they won't be able to get out of without alienating millions of people.

7/6/2008 1:32:18 PM

That's assuming it's a corner, and that they'd want to get out of it.

Apple has mass market appeal with the iPod and iPhone, it has a very niche appeal with it's computers. Microsoft has just the reverse. I don't know that appealing to the overwhelming majority is a "corner" to be gotten out of.

But damn I wish MS as a company had the resources to do what Apple does if only there were a good 5,000 excellent designers looking for jobs

7/6/2008 6:21:50 PM

Quote :

"I don't know that appealing to the overwhelming majority is a "corner" to be gotten out of."

The corner that i'm speaking of is the inability to truly wipe the slate clean and start again. Now, it may not be a real corner, but it is one less option. Apple did it in a big way in OS X and again going to x86, and they were able to do this both times because they didn't have a humongous use base, especially not in the corporate environment. Now, you may be perfectly happy with Windows Vista and Windows 7, which can still trace their roots back to NT 4. But all i'm saying is that Microsoft wanted to take Windows in a completely different direction, one which would, for example, require a new ISA or have a UNIX codebase or something, and therefore would require rewrites of all their apps (or must be run on a slow emulation), then they basically couldn't do it.

7/6/2008 8:10:32 PM

^If they did something like that chances are when it came to update, a lot more people would check out OS X as a different option.

7/6/2008 8:17:26 PM

Quote :

"maybe the fact that nearly every bundled Apple application has different command shortcuts and interaction methodologies."

most of the basic commands seem pretty universal to me.. as far as interaction... if you mean the apps themselves... it's because they're different apps... other than that... things like menus are pretty much uniform compared to anything else (see: windows)

7/6/2008 8:58:53 PM

Quote :

"Apple did it in a big way in OS X and again going to x86, and they were able to do this both times because they didn't have a humongous use base, especially not in the corporate environment. "

They did it with OSX, but the move to X86, and the recent Snow Leopard moves were not massive changes at all. A new kernal in the former, and removing legacy support in the latter are not massive or time intensive shifts.

Quote :

"The corner that i'm speaking of is the inability to truly wipe the slate clean and start again. Now, it may not be a real corner, but it is one less option."

They tried. WinFS never got to production and enterprise stability. And damn near everything under the hood in Vista is new. New driver stack, new networking stack, new kernel implementation. People knocked vista because it didn't "look" revolutionary. The UI was a +1 experience (or to many, myself included, a -1 experience) over XP.

I do wish they would release a "NEW" OS as more of a consumer experiment, for modders and tweakers, but the reality is, there's no money in that arena.

7/7/2008 1:17:10 AM

i've noticed my explorer crashes a lot in vista ultimate x86 folders open just go POOF.

also, i see a lot of random bugs with selecting files and seeing their filesize. sometimes it keeps adding the filesize at the bottom of an explorer window, so each time you click the file it adds it. very odd.

7/7/2008 2:23:16 PM

also, many times when deleting a folder with contents, i get a PERMISSIONS error. I can go inside the folder, delete all the files within, and then delete the folder.

yay for vista!

7/7/2008 3:45:29 PM

the question is, what in the world did you do to get yourself in that kind of mess in the first place?

Sounds like there are multiple other problems in play there

7/7/2008 5:16:51 PM

All I have to say is fuck UAC.

7/12/2008 1:31:50 PM

7/12/2008 7:18:13 PM