Vista lolness

[nerp]

He probably doesn't know about superfetch.

 

[lefenzy]

Didn't you learn in English that using corny similes and colloquialisms makes for terrible writing?

 

[pugh]

Xp???...... Come up with the times.. Move on and let that dead horse sleep.....

 

[Rhonda the Sly]

his didn't sound right so I logged out and checked what my computer did. Wrong password: no welcome message. Correct password: welcome message. I am running vista ultimate. Sounds like the computer you are working on has something else going on, vista doesn't show a welcome message when you enter the wrong password.

Enter the wrong password a few times and the OS should pass over to the Welcome screen with the spinning wheel for about 30s while it does... something. This is something that Windows has done for some time (since Windows XP, at least), I've always assumed it was creating some type of report, log, or event.

 

[lefenzy]

Enter the wrong password a few times and the OS should pass over to the Welcome screen with the spinning wheel for about 30s while it does... something. This is something that Windows has done for some time (since Windows XP, at least), I've always assumed it was creating some type of report, log, or event.

I think it's just creating a delay so people attempting to get in can't continuously try passwords.

 

[coreyb]

I'm ashamed that you are from Ontario.

 

[Red Squirrel]

Xp???...... Come up with the times.. Move on and let that dead horse sleep.....

XP is still one of the best OSes from Microsoft. Heck, I'd use win2k if it was compatible with everything but it's too old. They should have just built everything off win2k and not add all the bloatware. Imagine how fast win2k would be on today's hardware if it was simply updated to support new technologies that came out since then, and not touched further. An OS is just a layer to run your programs, it should be as low footprint as possible.

 

[lxskllr]

An OS is just a layer to run your programs, it should be as low footprint as possible.

BS... Features don't come free. If everybody took your stance we'd still be using DOS. Just about every O/S MS has made has been better than the previous. Even ME was the best consumer level O/S at the time(2kpro was meant for businesses).

 

[MrChad]

XP is still one of the best OSes from Microsoft. Heck, I'd use win2k if it was compatible with everything but it's too old. They should have just built everything off win2k and not add all the bloatware. Imagine how fast win2k would be on today's hardware if it was simply updated to support new technologies that came out since then, and not touched further. An OS is just a layer to run your programs, it should be as low footprint as possible.

Windows 7 starts up much faster on my laptop (Core 2 Extreme Q9300 with 8 GB of RAM) than XP did. Windows 2000 would be even slower.

There have been all sorts of improvements to thread scheduling (utilizing hyperthreading, multiple cores, etc) and memory management since 2000. Security features have been improved as well. Almost all the reasons why people prefer XP can be traced back to the fact that its been out for 8 years.

1. Familiarity
2. Stability (hardware manufacturers have had 8 years to get the drivers right, and after 3 service packs there aren't many OS surprises)
3. Compatibility

I will agree that XP has been a rock solid platform since SP2, but don't mistake Vista and 7 as just UI bloat piled on top of the core NT kernel.

 

[Red Squirrel]

Windows 7 starts up much faster on my laptop (Core 2 Extreme Q9300 with 8 GB of RAM) than XP did. Windows 2000 would be even slower.

There have been all sorts of improvements to thread scheduling (utilizing hyperthreading, multiple cores, etc) and memory management since 2000. Security features have been improved as well. Almost all the reasons why people prefer XP can be traced back to the fact that its been out for 8 years.

1. Familiarity
2. Stability (hardware manufacturers have had 8 years to get the drivers right, and after 3 service packs there aren't many OS surprises)
3. Compatibility

I will agree that XP has been a rock solid platform since SP2, but don't mistake Vista and 7 as just UI bloat piled on top of the core NT kernel.

Yeah I will agree with that, but what if MS took win2k for example, and simply had modified it to support better thread scheduling for dual core CPUs (which I don't think were out at the time) and basically just revamp it to take advantage of newer technology. I think this is the step they should have taken.

 

[lxskllr]

Yeah I will agree with that, but what if MS took win2k for example, and simply had modified it to support better thread scheduling for dual core CPUs (which I don't think were out at the time) and basically just revamp it to take advantage of newer technology. I think this is the step they should have taken.

That's what they did, and also added nicer looking theming. I spend too much time in front of a computer to stare at an ugly assed gui all day. In addition to that, the amount of hardware supported out of the box has grown exponentially. Size is the price for compatibility.

 

[Crusty]

Yeah I will agree with that, but what if MS took win2k for example, and simply had modified it to support better thread scheduling for dual core CPUs (which I don't think were out at the time) and basically just revamp it to take advantage of newer technology. I think this is the step they should have taken.

That is basically what happened. Win7 is still based off of the same NT kernel that Windows NT, 2k, and XP all used. Granted it's a whole lot more complex than it was 10 years ago, but it's still from same line of kernels.

You really need to get your facts straight before you try to discuss stuff you have no clue about.

 

[Nothinman]

That's what they did, and also added nicer looking theming. I spend too much time in front of a computer to stare at an ugly assed gui all day. In addition to that, the amount of hardware supported out of the box has grown exponentially. Size is the price for compatibility.

I generally stare at the content in whatever I'm doing, how the window borders, task bar, start button, etc all look is pretty inconsequential. At home I run E16 because it stays out of the way.

Exponential device support doesn't mean exponential code growth. Linux supports much more hardware on like 2 dozen architectures and the whole of the kernel and it's modules is still <300M. Figuring in Gnome or KDE since that's where the UI for working with some of that hardware is will jack the size up considerably, but nowhere near what Win7 takes. The fact that the Windows directory on my laptop here is >14G is pretty outrageous IMO. But I'm not very concerned because I really only use it for work, if it was my personal machine I'd probably have a bigger problem with it.

BS... Features don't come free. If everybody took your stance we'd still be using DOS. Just about every O/S MS has made has been better than the previous. Even ME was the best consumer level O/S at the time(2kpro was meant for businesses).

It would be one thing if those features were optional though. With the release of Server Core I was hoping they'd put more work into modularity and that would trickle down to the consumer OSes but so far that's still a pipe dream.

And I'd probably go with Win98 SE over WinME if those were my only choices.

There have been all sorts of improvements to thread scheduling (utilizing hyperthreading, multiple cores, etc) and memory management since 2000. Security features have been improved as well. Almost all the reasons why people prefer XP can be traced back to the fact that its been out for 8 years.

While those are all very valid reason to prefer Vista or Win7 over previous releases, none of those account for the pure growth in size that happened.

 

[lxskllr]

I generally stare at the content in whatever I'm doing, how the window borders, task bar, start button, etc all look is pretty inconsequential. At home I run E16 because it stays out of the way.

I don't have that kind of tunnel vision, I want my O/Ss to look good. Going by your standard, anything above utilitarian in life's a waste of resources. Why buy curtains when some ratty old sheets will do?

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Wow, you're seriously comparing the size of the Linux kernel to the entire Windows OS? You think that's a fair comparison? And who cares how much size the OS uses on disk? I just bought 2tb of disk space for less than I paid for my case and PSU! Windows uses so much disk space mainly because of system restore and similar features which can be disabled.

I swear you Linux fanboys only see what you want to see.

 

[Nothinman]

I don't have that kind of tunnel vision, I want my O/Ss to look good. Going by your standard, anything above utilitarian in life's a waste of resources. Why buy curtains when some ratty old sheets will do?

Kinda, although not to that extreme. I wouldn't go so far as ratty old sheets, but plain curtains or blinds are fine.

Wow, you're seriously comparing the size of the Linux kernel to the entire Windows OS?

No, of course not. I mentioned the Linux kernel as an example of a system supporting thousands of devices without the kind of growth that Windows has shown. And I even mentioned adding in the sizes of Gnome or KDE because that's what the user would see to actually use the devices. But even with all of that it's still not anywhere near the 14G Win7 is using here.

And who cares how much size the OS uses on disk? I just bought 2tb of disk space for less than I paid for my case and PSU! Windows uses so much disk space mainly because of system restore and similar features which can be disabled.

Lots of people care, especialy now since SSDs are all the rage. So how much would 2TB in SSDs cost you? And I know you wouldn't replace that storage with an SSD but if your OS takes up half or your SSD that severely lowers the affect on other things like load time in games.

I swear you Linux fanboys only see what you want to see.

Apparently you've got similar issues with our posts.

 

[Red Squirrel]

That is basically what happened. Win7 is still based off of the same NT kernel that Windows NT, 2k, and XP all used. Granted it's a whole lot more complex than it was 10 years ago, but it's still from same line of kernels.

You really need to get your facts straight before you try to discuss stuff you have no clue about.

Sort of, but they also added lot of bloat. Well to be fair, that was Vista, from what I've seen in Win7 they seem to have really slimlined it. While 7 is basically a Vista SP, they did do lot of good changes as far as performance. I would actually consider it later on.

A good analogy is say you want to update a house's electrical and bring it up to code, you do it, and the house should not suddenly start using more electricity! Ms should of took win2k, "bring it up to code" but not have it use more resources.

Linux is like this most of the time. Ubuntu, for example is very quick. I even enabled the desktop effects (equivalent of aero) on a very basic dell machine at work. We're talking a P4 HT with MAYBE 1GB of ram. The video card is pretty much as low end as they get. It's a standard corporate PC, not a gaming machine. Despite that, Ubuntu was running super fast even with the effects enabled. This was Ubuntu 9.x, I have not played too much with 10 yet but from what I've seen, it does not use more resources then 9 did, but I'm sure it has lot of new features.

I did discover one good thing about Vista (hopefully it applies to 7). You CAN turn classic start menu on like in XP! For some reason I thought they removed that option and I never bothered checking. Nice to see it's there. Same with control panel, I could not stand that default view, yuck!

 

[JACKDRUID]

You're obviously on board the Vista hater bandwagon, and it seems your whole experience with Vista is having tried it once when it 1st came out.

So your method of fixing this guy's computer is to reformat and downgrade him to XP, a nearly decade-old OS? I'm glad you're not my computer guy. I won't even get into the fact that he probably hasn't provided you with a license for XP.

BTW I run Vista Basic on a laptop with 1GB and it's quite smooth.

I would do the same, XP is much better than win7 alpha

 

[lxskllr]

I would do the same, XP is much better than win7 alpha

Win7 performs the same as Vista. It's the same O/S :^S

 

[pcgeek11]

This was Ubuntu 9.x, I have not played too much with 10 yet but from what I've seen, it does not use more resources then 9 did, but I'm sure it has lot of new features.

Ubuntu is only at 9.10.

pcgeek11