Rhonda the Sly
Senior member
- Nov 22, 2007
- 818
- 4
- 76
- Sep 28, 2001
- 8,464
- 155
- 106
i really had a hard time with rather "cosmetic" issues, the start-menu MIGHT also fall under "cosmetic"
() "hide desktop" on the RIGHT <----- i constantly click on IE icon by mistake after years being used that the "hide desktop" icon was on the left
() windows live mail SYSTEM FONT. The "Segoe UI" system font is ugly and already set my whole theme fonts to my beloved Arial 10.
However, in Live Mail that ugly Segoe font is hardcoded, so i actually PATCHED windows live mail .dlls now so it uses the Arial font
Biggest gripe is the fact that the unread msgs (the subject lines) are not displayed in bold, but "regular"....and when they are read they become gray.
I want them BOLD when they are UNREAD as in any other mail application.
() "hide desktop" on the RIGHT <----- i constantly click on IE icon by mistake after years being used that the "hide desktop" icon was on the left
() windows live mail SYSTEM FONT. The "Segoe UI" system font is ugly and already set my whole theme fonts to my beloved Arial 10.
However, in Live Mail that ugly Segoe font is hardcoded, so i actually PATCHED windows live mail .dlls now so it uses the Arial font
Biggest gripe is the fact that the unread msgs (the subject lines) are not displayed in bold, but "regular"....and when they are read they become gray.
I want them BOLD when they are UNREAD as in any other mail application.
- Sep 28, 2001
- 8,464
- 155
- 106
I very, very much agree with the OP's opinion. This especially since W7is rather a "turned down" version of Vista w/o a lot of the bloat.
Its still "vista" otherwise we would have a problem running anything here, but we dont.
Paying for LESS "features" doesnt make sense, and paying for the essential fixes of a broken OS doesnt make sense either.
If this would be a major SP to make Vista "useable" it would make a LOT of sense, but as a whole new "OS"...probably not.
Whats *specifically* fixed that was broken in Vista?
What features were removed? (other than mail and calendar, which are free downloads now)
I'm just not following your line of reasoning here.
The amount of ignorance here baffles me. Yes, Windows 7 is a revised version of the kernel in Vista. But Vista uses a revised version of the NT kernel, nothing new to see here. And using it as a stable, primary OS? It's a Beta! Bugs are to be expected and comparing it to a RTM OS isn't fair. Lastly, why the occasional fuss over waiting for Windows 8? What new, godly feature do you anticipate receiving? If you don't like "incremental" OS updates just be glad you don't own a Macintosh.
- Sep 28, 2001
- 8,464
- 155
- 106
BD, you really want me to post ANOTHER useless and annoying post about what's broken in Vista? I am so tired of it, but for a start, just ONE example:
One thing which failed in Vista was their realization of the philosophy of pre-fetching using superfetch and similar methods which are supposed to speed up daily work in Vista. In theory this sounds good, and all earlier versions of Windows had some forms of pre-caching/pre-fetching already.
In Vista, this backfired since IN MY OPINION the constant work of superfetch is actually causing more problems than the received benefit. One might argue that superfetch only happens while "idle"....this might be the case.
In reality however i see my Vista system(s) constantly "working", indexing and whatnot in an attempt to "speed up the system over time"....but causing a SERIOUS lack of responsiveness. Combine this with search-indexer and windows media indexing and so forth...in simple words:
Vista is always "busy" optimizing.....but it goes too far doing this and rather resulting in the opposite effect than a REAL and received performance gain.
You can very nicely see this with ready-boost, which is kind of related, eg. cacheing parts of the OS onto a 4GB USB stick. AGAIN..in theory this sounds nice.
In practice however this resulted (for me) in long shut-down times as well as the occasional BSOD since it took the OS a LONG time to mainain the cache on the stick..i sometimes experienced 10mins "shut down" delays waiting for Vista to write or delete 4GB of ata on the USB stick.
You can see that those issues seem to be fixed in W7, noticeable faster bootup-time....CORRECT pre-fetching and pre-loading at boot-time, as oppsed to Vista where i constantly see icons not being loaded or startup-programs loaded in random fashion causing odd behaviour.
In W7 i dont see any of those issues, boot up time VERY fast now as well as NO EXCESSIVE work on the HD anymore.
(Waiting 15 mins after Vista boot until the system is "quiet" and somehow "responsive" <--- No thanks)
In Vista there is A LOT going on in the background, many of those things many users dont need.
Its NOT that i pull this out of my a$$, its what i see every day on my Vista machine. if i click on "windows mail" there is no fricking reason to wait 2 mins to get to my mail since "Vista is busy" with something else.
This just ONE aspect which was "broken" in Vista.
MAJOR ISSUE 2, MS themselves admitted their "failure":
Introduction of UAC.
Now in W7 we have a simple slider, we can turn it off.
May UAC "make sense" in many ways, the realization/implementation of UAC and (lack of) easy UAC control caused actually MORE problems than it solved. You can read some statements online where MS openly admits this.
One thing which failed in Vista was their realization of the philosophy of pre-fetching using superfetch and similar methods which are supposed to speed up daily work in Vista. In theory this sounds good, and all earlier versions of Windows had some forms of pre-caching/pre-fetching already.
In Vista, this backfired since IN MY OPINION the constant work of superfetch is actually causing more problems than the received benefit. One might argue that superfetch only happens while "idle"....this might be the case.
In reality however i see my Vista system(s) constantly "working", indexing and whatnot in an attempt to "speed up the system over time"....but causing a SERIOUS lack of responsiveness. Combine this with search-indexer and windows media indexing and so forth...in simple words:
Vista is always "busy" optimizing.....but it goes too far doing this and rather resulting in the opposite effect than a REAL and received performance gain.
You can very nicely see this with ready-boost, which is kind of related, eg. cacheing parts of the OS onto a 4GB USB stick. AGAIN..in theory this sounds nice.
In practice however this resulted (for me) in long shut-down times as well as the occasional BSOD since it took the OS a LONG time to mainain the cache on the stick..i sometimes experienced 10mins "shut down" delays waiting for Vista to write or delete 4GB of ata on the USB stick.
You can see that those issues seem to be fixed in W7, noticeable faster bootup-time....CORRECT pre-fetching and pre-loading at boot-time, as oppsed to Vista where i constantly see icons not being loaded or startup-programs loaded in random fashion causing odd behaviour.
In W7 i dont see any of those issues, boot up time VERY fast now as well as NO EXCESSIVE work on the HD anymore.
(Waiting 15 mins after Vista boot until the system is "quiet" and somehow "responsive" <--- No thanks)
In Vista there is A LOT going on in the background, many of those things many users dont need.
Its NOT that i pull this out of my a$$, its what i see every day on my Vista machine. if i click on "windows mail" there is no fricking reason to wait 2 mins to get to my mail since "Vista is busy" with something else.
This just ONE aspect which was "broken" in Vista.
MAJOR ISSUE 2, MS themselves admitted their "failure":
Introduction of UAC.
Now in W7 we have a simple slider, we can turn it off.
May UAC "make sense" in many ways, the realization/implementation of UAC and (lack of) easy UAC control caused actually MORE problems than it solved. You can read some statements online where MS openly admits this.
In W7, it still precaches via superfetch, it just doesnt appear to do it right off the bat, and waits for you to be idle. Its probably a better way to do it for most people, but I never really had an issue with it in Vista because I rebooted once every month or so. No one should be rebooting anymore unless a software or driver install requires it, which is something they tried to make transparent by making the start menu button suspend instead, but people were stuck in their ways. I'd hardly call it broken though, I prefer that it gets preloaded ASAP, but the Win7 is probably an improvement for most.
UAC is a bit different though. MS has even said themselves they intended it to be annoying. It had to be, otherwise developers would never get out of the habit of requiring admin privileges. You could never have had the UAC you have in W7 if the Vista UAC wasnt as strict as it was. You *always* could turn it off though, and to be honest, I'm not convinced the default W7 UAC would protect me as well as the Vista one, so I jacked it back up.
Neither of those are technically broken though, just annoying to some, and if you have 15 min boots and 10 min shutdowns, even with superfetch or readyboost, you have an abnormally slow hard drive.
I still dont see how this is service pack stuff though. These are improvements on features, not bugs being fixed. I want it for free too though.
UAC is a bit different though. MS has even said themselves they intended it to be annoying. It had to be, otherwise developers would never get out of the habit of requiring admin privileges. You could never have had the UAC you have in W7 if the Vista UAC wasnt as strict as it was. You *always* could turn it off though, and to be honest, I'm not convinced the default W7 UAC would protect me as well as the Vista one, so I jacked it back up.
Neither of those are technically broken though, just annoying to some, and if you have 15 min boots and 10 min shutdowns, even with superfetch or readyboost, you have an abnormally slow hard drive.
I still dont see how this is service pack stuff though. These are improvements on features, not bugs being fixed. I want it for free too though.
Is everyone forgetting that Vista SP2 is coming out, and its Beta actually improves performance over SP1?
I paid just shy over $200 for Ultimate on day 1. Upgrade version was on sale.
Of course, now I have to deal with pain-in-the-butt problems when reinstalling (microsoft decided to make vista upgrade literally mean it has to upgrade something), but I've made use of both the Media Center functionality and the RDP connections for limited amounts of time.
I've since shifted to VNC though, and 3rd party media center apps blow windows media center out of the water. (and they're all linux too!)
SunnyD
Belgian Waffler
My system was always responsive within about 10 seconds of getting to the desktop. And it was by no means a high end system, and any "optimization" that Vista would do during the course of the day was immediately preempted when I needed to do something.
UAC was more of an issue to those uneducated in a connected world than it was an issue of itself. UAC was Microsoft's attempt at trying to help people be smarter with their computers with security. Unfortunately the throngs of people out there that would rather remain oblivious to the harm they do to themselves... well you see where this is going.
nitromullet
Diamond Member
- Jan 7, 2004
- 9,031
- 36
- 91
Thanks, this is useful.
edit: all that needs to happen now is that there should be an option to have the buttons shuffle themselves to keep inactive apps on the left and active on the right.
Durr, I meant system tray.
I think it is stupid that they spent so much time making everything look better then just half asses and gave us black and white icons there.
You can just shift-click to get a new instance or if you have a wheel mouse, clicking the wheel opens a new instance.
- Sep 28, 2001
- 8,464
- 155
- 106
i am going crazy since my task-bar icons constantly SHIFT around....when i start Firefox and go to a page the tray icon is gone. I am used to have my FF and other icons in the tray and for a new instance i quickly click on the tray icon to make a new window. I cant do this anymore, i dont like the option with MMB/Shift-click..i want my icons to STAY and not dance around in whatever way MICROSOFT thinks is good.
nitromullet
Diamond Member
- Jan 7, 2004
- 9,031
- 36
- 91
If you really want your quicklaunch back, the best way to do this is:
1) create a folder called Quicklaunch, and add the shortcuts you want
2) Select "add new toolbar" by rt-clicking on the taskbar, and select the Quicklaunch folder you just created
3) rt-click on your new toolbar, and uncheck show text/labels
4) slide your new toolbar all the way to the left
Your new "quicklaunch" works exactly like it always did in XP/Vista. You can add Quicklaunch icons by dragging them to the toolbar. If you choose the "Never Combine" and "use small icons" options, you pretty much have the Vista taskbar.
I'm sure you could also use this: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/190355 to re-create a show destop icon, which you could paste to your Quicklaunch toolbar.
edit: the regedit as described here didn't work for me: http://www.sevenforums.com/tut...ch-enable-disable.html
thats odd response, i never said they were forcing anything, how could they?
i said they "want". All compnanies want customers to pay for upgrades, duh. why quote my opinion if you dont even read it.
Now what enthusiast wants to reinstall Vista/SP1 then have to install W7 on top of that if they want/need to format or use a new HD??
and "much,much"?? i wouldnt go to say that far, dunno what it is now but at first Vista basic upgrade was $99...far too much.
Maybe cause if you notice from the 99% reuse of Vista code with some minor changes and additions, that they could if they wanted to cause thats pretty much what SP's are...code changes and code additions.
But ok, so if you bought Vista and your happy paying again for what MS screwed up the first time, its your right. For those on XP or the losers who pirated Vista, then definitly it would be worth alot more to them to buy W7 but i agree with someones idea that W7 should have a discount for those who bought Vista. Its a great idea and is respectful to consumers...how could anyone disagree with saving money?
Apple and Linux do the similar thing..they just tweak and add and call it a new release, however the difference between those and Windows incremental changes is the *** PRICE!
Yeah, dont get me wrong, Windows is and always has been too expensive, even the upgrades. But thats nothing new.
I dont see how MS owes people anything. Vista was by no means perfect, but you guys calling it broken and all this hyperbole need a little perspective... Remember Windows 95, 98 or ME? Hardly anyone could keep those damn systems running for more than a day or two without a BSOD. Leave them on for too long and if they didnt BSOD, they slowed down so much you needed to reboot anyway. *Thats* what I call broken. So vista isnt as fast as you'd like, and it's got more dialog boxes than you'd like. Yeah, its annoying, but hardly broken.
I dont see how MS owes people anything. Vista was by no means perfect, but you guys calling it broken and all this hyperbole need a little perspective... Remember Windows 95, 98 or ME? Hardly anyone could keep those damn systems running for more than a day or two without a BSOD. Leave them on for too long and if they didnt BSOD, they slowed down so much you needed to reboot anyway. *Thats* what I call broken. So vista isnt as fast as you'd like, and it's got more dialog boxes than you'd like. Yeah, its annoying, but hardly broken.
yeah, 95-me was broken too, Xp/2000 was done far better and including Vista..thats the problem. when you go from XP to vista which seemed alot worse than XP for a good 6-8 months after release..hten yeah, i call that broken as well.
It was about as terrible a launch as you can get (even though bad drivers were the cause of most of the stability problems), but nowadays, the problems with vista are almost entirely perceptual instead of technical. It may have been broken for some at launch, but launch was over 2 years ago. They dont owe people a new OS.
Im surprised they didnt do anything to the aero glass theme. People probably wouldnt be calling it a fixed vista so much if it didnt look almost exactly like it. They added a whole lot of new stuff, but really, theres only so much you can do with an OS nowadays. Thats really their whole problem...all people really want is a stable platform to run their apps. They accomplished that with Win2k and XP, and thats been good enough for most people.
And thats fine, no ones putting a gun to anyone's head to upgrade. XP and Vista will continue to work fine for years to come.
GodlessAstronomer
Lifer
- Oct 27, 2007
- 17,009
- 5
- 0
You say:
So what exactly do you want? A cheaper upgrade option or not? Or should Microsoft hire some psychics so they know whether or not you've bought Vista before? You argue against a cheap upgrade option and then demand a cheap upgrade option. You just want to hate MS for the sake of it.
... and then:
So what exactly do you want? A cheaper upgrade option or not? Or should Microsoft hire some psychics so they know whether or not you've bought Vista before? You argue against a cheap upgrade option and then demand a cheap upgrade option. You just want to hate MS for the sake of it.
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
-
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 411
Facebook
Twitter