Nothinman
Elite Member
- Sep 14, 2001
- 30,672
- 0
- 0
And for a rundown on some of the changes in Vista and the why's behind them: http://arstechnica.com/reviews/os/pretty-vista.ars
Aikouka
Lifer
- Nov 27, 2001
- 30,383
- 912
- 126
Nope, annoyed because your points are horridly personal. These aren't system breaking reasons why someone shouldn't get Vista nor should they be treated like they are. Hence why you changed your original title of this thread.
Pray tell, did you take the time to find out how to do said things in Vista... or just complain about it when you couldn't figure it out? Was everything immediate to you in Windows XP? If you went from Windows 98 to XP, I sure hope you'd say no.
Nope, the only thing you'd be writing about is how "M$" is trying to squeeze even more money out of you for passing of a prettier and repackaged Windows XP.
Maybe now it's easier to show why I have such a problem with this thread... it all started with your DoA thread. You're one of those nitpickers. The guy who finds fault in just about anything that has a microscopic issue.
Based on your logic, I should be in Off-Topic right now complaining about my new car because the high-beam control requires it to be pushed away from me instead of pulled toward me like it has been in all of my cars! Or how I have to press the unlock button once and then again on my Intelligent Key just to open my doors. Damn you Nissan! Oh no, they changed something that I was used to... big deal, I got over it.
The efficiency of an UI is not subjective. If it takes 3 seconds to reach a certain program in the start menu in XP versus 6 seconds in Vista, with all variables kept constant, that's not subjective.
Aesthetics in a car is not about beauty, it's about keeping up with the "modern look." If you don't like how a car looks, tough luck. That doesn't change the fact that it's more modern-looking than a car 30 years ago. Vista also changed to a more modern look, known as Aero. It looks very nice, IN MY OPINION. However, that doesn't change the fact that it takes longer to browse for programs in the start menu compared to XP. If you can get from point A to point B faster in the Vista start menu than the XP start menu, please share your wisdom. If not, stop disputing this.
No, I can get to them faster by browsing to the program. And no, I'm not a slow or bad typer either. However, I have no complaints about this feature because it's not in the way of anything. I just choose not to use it.
I've never spent a single penny on M$ products..................shhhhhhh
Wait, maybe I bought a license for Visual Studio .NET for $15 or so a few years back, but that's about it.
So what is this a personal vendetta. I find faults in a lot of things, but things that I cannot overlook. I just have different standards that you do. And if you think I'm a nitpicker, then don't read my thread and trash it. I still think Vista sucks and that it's benefits aren't worth the head ache of getting used to the new interface. Linux probably has a more functional interface. I haven't touched it in a few years, but I wasn't difficult for me.
I have the High-beam pushed away from me in my car too, big deal. But that other thing sucks about having to push the button twice in two areas. You're fault for buying an Nissan. You think I'm complaining cause I'm not used to something and that's bullshit. You don't know me and I'm not just some retard who doesn't like changes. I like them for the good, and Vista isn't for the good.
After seeing Vista, I thought about it. It felt like some of the menus in Vista were trying to look like the MAC OSX, but the OSX did a better job. Wait a minute... I don't like change. Umm forget what I said. Windows XP is greater than all.
Mem
Lifer
- Apr 23, 2000
- 21,476
- 13
- 81
Surprising statement(that sounds like HK-47 in KOTOR2 hehe),new layout does not take long to get use too(however you need to give more then a few hours if you really want to know your way around and for Vista's layout to become 2nd nature). Lets be honest a 10 year kid could navigate round Vista with no problems with time.I would say Vista does not suck at all,infact when you look at Vista and what Microsoft tried to do with security and new features for a price of 2 games for OEM version,quite a bargain really.
Taking most the drivers out of kernel was a smart move,probably why I'm still waiting for my first BSOD.
Vista's launch was a lot more solid on stability then XP was when it was first released.
XP layout was not perfect or particular great, however I would not say it sucks because of that,far from it just like Vista.I also feel you are nitpicking on layout to be honest,my opinion so you have to respect that.
I'm sure in 5 years time we'll be saying how good Vista is and some of us will be having a go at Microsoft's next OS Vienna.
Although this article didn't detail all of the improvements to Vista, I'll comment on those available.
A new API is nice, but it has an indirect benefit for the user. Benefits we probably won?t see widely for another year when developers get used to making Vista applications. It looks like MS as just trying to catch up to OSX. And just as I thought, the 3d windows are useless, focusing more on the cool 3d animation than the speedy alt-tab.
This article even comments a few times that certain features have questionable benefit or have no benefit to the user. They seem to be more for Microsoft keeping control of the world by providing developers with proprietary tools to make their development easier.
It feels to me that Vista is like the Geforce 3. It supported DX8 and had some power. But the real DX8 card was the Geforece 4 with DX8.1; the next windows being the Geforce 4. There is no must have here unless you?re into gaming. And even then, it may be cheaper to wait just two years to see what the next windows will do.
There is no mention of the changes to the GUI. And that?s what I?m really annoyed at. I don't care about anything else really as long as it works. It would be nice for those things to work faster, but making the interfacing slower really annoys me.
I don't doubt that with a few days I'll get used to the Vista layout. But the All programs will never be faster. "And I can say that and you'll laugh cause there's a puppet on my hand." LOL. sorry. It won't though. 3 clicks on the XP start menu to access a program. 5 clicks to access a program on the Vista menu. Almost twice as slow and that's not even counter the time it takes to scroll on the Vista menu.
I don't think I've ever gotten a BSOD on XP; except for those time I was overclocking. But I agree that moving most of the drivers and finally IE out of the kernel was a smart move. And I'm sure that makes a more stable OS. But as of right now, I find no hurry to jump on to Vista, being that the age of XP also makes it stable.
The XP layout isn't perfect, but it was better than the previous. It took a few hours to get used to it and it became faster. Vista seems to be more for disorganized people. Like many have been saying: they don't use the Vista start menu. But I'll bet disorganized people will love that search bar. I don't understand why they did what they did with All programs. They could've kept them like the XP and then added the search feature. It's like MS expected everyone to use the search feature and therefore decided that the All programs menu didn't need to be that intuitive.
Everybody has different perspectives, I can understand if you think I'm nitpicking. One day I may just try Vista again. I probably need to stop saying Vista Sucks. I apologize for my crude language. I should probably be saying something a little less vague. It's just difficult to think of something that uses such little words. Or how about Vista's not worth it. Especially the Retail version. Imagine that.
It sounds like you had issues picking up on the new interface. I wouldnt blame the interface tho, you didnt give yourself any time.
I love it. Just the new explorer and search make vista better than xp. The start menu is fine but if your so worried about speed and amount of clicks why dont you set shortcut keys to your programs? You can start things faster like that than you can from any version of the start menu.
I love it. Just the new explorer and search make vista better than xp. The start menu is fine but if your so worried about speed and amount of clicks why dont you set shortcut keys to your programs? You can start things faster like that than you can from any version of the start menu.
I don't see it as having issues picking up, but rather realizing that it was slower and cluttered. And I didn't like that. I like very streamlined things.
See right there, you love the search. I never use the search. I couldn't case less about searching my folders. Indexing is off. I know where everything is.
Setting shortcut keys to your programs would be faster, but I like the way XP manages my most used programs. It's automated. Vista also does it. Which just made me think of something. Something that'll surprise you all. Yes..
Vista has the All programs menu the way it does because it, most likely, will become useless to you. While still accessing it will be more tedious, soon you programs will start to appear the Most Used programs list, which initially houses a space for 9 programs, 3 higher than XP. 9 I think would be enough for me. So your most used programs will be there and you'll have to visit the All programs menu less often. Sounds like an interesting theory. And I'll test it when SP1 comes out. I can't keep installing things back and forth, my girlfriend will kill me if she doesn't get to play Sims2. She has all the expansions and it takes an hour to install them all.
That's one thing out of the way. Although there are other annoying things, like I said the start menu was a biggie for me. I'll set my XP Mostly Used programs to allow 9 programs for right now to see how often I have to use the all programs list. I'll see how it goes once SP1 rolls along.
I don't understand the hype about this new search feature. Is it only faster because it takes so much longer to actually find things in the start menu manually? I've never "lost track" of things in XP, but then again I'm very above-average in terms of organizing my stuff on the computer.
Moving onto other issues... The mini network icon in the taskbar changed for the worse. Before, all you need to do is single-click it and it'll open up the connection status dialog. In Vista you need to:
1. Single-click it
2. Click the link in the little window that pops up
3. Click another link in the network window that opens
4. Click "View Status" or something like
That's a ridiculous routine! The reason for the old single-click access was that people only care about the status window and nothing else. They'll click it, check the status, then close it. This process used to take no more than 4 seconds. In Vista it takes...well...a lot longer. It's things like these that really bug me.
Moving onto other issues... The mini network icon in the taskbar changed for the worse. Before, all you need to do is single-click it and it'll open up the connection status dialog. In Vista you need to:
1. Single-click it
2. Click the link in the little window that pops up
3. Click another link in the network window that opens
4. Click "View Status" or something like
That's a ridiculous routine! The reason for the old single-click access was that people only care about the status window and nothing else. They'll click it, check the status, then close it. This process used to take no more than 4 seconds. In Vista it takes...well...a lot longer. It's things like these that really bug me.
its faster because it starts filtering as you type. no waiting at all.
it has nothing to do with the start menu.
Oh ok. I've only used it once just to try it and it seemed to search the start menu. Well, like VIAN, I also have indexing turned off and never search so this feature is useless for me. However, it's not in the way of anything so even though it's useless, I don't really mind it being there.
its pretty cool. indexing in XP was uselss and i turned it off there as well. give it a shot in vista. you may know where everything is, as do i but say your in your music folder and want to play all your flac files for example. you type flac in the search and 1 second later they are all listed.
thats a very basic example but it is powerful.
thats a very basic example but it is powerful.
Nothinman
Elite Member
- Sep 14, 2001
- 30,672
- 0
- 0
Even those cars that were built to specifically look retro?
It looks to me like it might be a bit quicker, the All Programs button is closer to the start menu than the Programs menu entry on XP so you have to move your mouse a shorter distance to open that menu. And you'll likely be pinning your most used apps to the main menu anyway.
Then you have even less room to complain.
Hopefully the next one will be more indepth.
Which would happen either way, MS can't force developers to put out software any faster. All they can do is lay the groundwork and hope people build on it.
Well PeterB's a little bitter because MS didn't expose everything to the API that he would have liked so Beryl (and possibly QuartzGL) are more flexible. But AFAIK Exposè is the only thing to have real functionality with quantifiable benefits right now and everything else is just a demo to show off the GL desktop. The composited windows by themselves have obvious benefits but it'll take a while for the shock and awe to wear off before people start shutting off the glitter and finding real benefits besides the core changes.
And a huge part of MS' business has always been providing developers with proprietary tools that make their job easier if they stick with Windows, that's just smart business and will never change.
Possibly, Vista is the starting point for a lot of changes and you can't expect to see the benefits of them right off the bat. But since you are a Windows user you can only stick with XP for so long. Eventually something will come along that requires Vista, especially if you're a gamer.
But you need to realize that the UI changes are only a small part of the whole set of changes. They're the most obvious because you see them immediately, but the underlying changes are usually more important and will affect what happens to the OS in the future.
How many cars on the road are retro? Not very many. How many people will use classic theme instead of Aero? Not very many. You're looking at an anomaly in the grand scheme of things.
Have you even used Vista at all? There's a scrollbar in the start menu because the start menu is too small to show all the folders/programs, or even half of them. It's also very narrow such that long folder/program names will be cut off. I really don't know why you even bother to keep disputing this. Go use the new start menu before arguing about it simply for the sake of arguing.
I knew someone would come out and reply with something like this. Thanks for volunteering. How much "room" I have to complain is irrelevant. I'm critiquing Windows Vista based on its functionality, not on how much I spent to get it on my computer. Because I spent no money on Vista, my arguments are unbiased, whereas if I shelled out $400 for Vista Ultimate and was unhappy with it, I'd feel ripped off and try to bash Vista in every way possible. Have I ever said "Vista sucks?" No. I like Vista a lot but that doesn't mean I have no right to point out the negative aspects of the operating system. I'm speaking purely from an user's perspective, not a buyer's perspective.
Your link doesn't work.
And to answer your question, yes I've used it. I have Ultimate installed on my laptop. I'll take a screenshot of what I see for you when I get home.
And to answer your question, yes I've used it. I have Ultimate installed on my laptop. I'll take a screenshot of what I see for you when I get home.
Nothinman
Elite Member
- Sep 14, 2001
- 30,672
- 0
- 0
My point was simply that aesthetics is about beauty and not how new or old something looks.
I'm looking at it now and it doesn't look that bad. I can see how the left/right cut off would annoy you since there's no way to scroll left/right on that menu, but the up/down scrolling seems fine.
The real time to point out the negative aspects was during the beta not after the release, those were even freely available then too. And of course there's nothing stopping you from posting on random forums, your blog or wherever you want about how you hate the new start menu and how you're glad that you didn't have to shell out any real money for it but it won't accomplish anything. You missed your chance to make a difference in Vista.
you have to use IE for the link to work. Basically, it shows the Vista start menu, but very tall with many programs in it.
It would take even more time to access those programs not shown.
It would take even more time to access those programs not shown.
I'm not on a mission to change Vista. I'm just critiquing the final product as a user, much like how sites like Anandtech reviews hardware. I'm not one of those Vista haters, and I'm certainly not boycotting the operating system; in fact I'm happily using it on my laptop. It's better than Windows XP, but there are interface changes that I didn't like and I'm explaining why I don't like them.
How many programs are perfect when they are first released? Barely any. There are almost always modifications after the release of the "final product." I don't know if Vista's future updates will address my issues or not. If they don't I'm not going to start making claims about how "Vista sucks."
It was a bit difficult for me at first, but thats only because I'm used to the old style. I guess it makes sense if you never used display properties before, but you'll adapt quickly, and it's something that you rarely access, so it's not a big deal.
If that extra click really kills you, I wrote a script in another thread that you could certainly modify to restart rather than switch users.
You can move the user folders wherever you like, rename them etc. You can also certainly add your own folders to the user folder. Im not surprised to find out theyd recreate themselves upon deletion, but why would you want to do that? In the end, the system is little different than the old my documents system, so I don't understand the complaint.
Your keyboard has a start button, and it defaults to the search box, and with the indexer, it takes a split second to find the program you're looking for. I rarely use that anyway...thats what quick launch is for.
The links on the left have redundant links...by default. You can modify them at will, and it's personally the most useful addition to explorer in years. I have a list of all the folders I frequently access, and I can get to them with a single click, instead of navigating through folders. It's brilliant IMO. The view defaults to details, which is pretty ridiculous, but you can easily change it to list and apply it to all folders by default.
I could not possibly agree less.
You've spent a lot of time focusing on how it isnt XP, without really noticing how simple it is to address your complaints. Theres a few things that annoy me (I can't move the quick launch bar), and I needed a little adjustment to some of the changes, but overall it's definitely an improvement, and theres FAR more to it than the new UI.
Uh. The mousewheel works in the start menu now dummy. Much faster to drill to where you want than XP was. If you had taken more than a few minutes to get to know Vista before you came in here ranting you wounldn't be coming across so ignorant now.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter