Windows Vista: Windows Vista Bugs
yes but
by rmjivaro - 3/16/07 7:10 PM In reply to: A self-cleaning house would be nice, too. by Igiveup2I have worked on Linux of a number of flavors, QNX, MAC, and several versions of DOS and Windows (I overstepped by speaking for Unix) and by far, windows requires more attention to keep running than any of them for 2 primary reasons: First, the file systems that microsoft has developed over the years tend to fragment and corrupt, and second, of all the others mentioned except DOS and including Unix, it is a single user operating system that is now trying to be multiuser. The significance of this is that regular users have the ability to alter core system files, and this invariably leads to system damage. In Linux I am able to run multiple Xwindows sessions at the same time while also running multiple console sessions, all the while working in USER space and unable to damage the system. I do not EVER need to defragment the hard drive, it checks itself for errors in SECONDS during boot, averts file system damage also by using a journaling file system which works, and other than those things that take care of themselves, I don't really have to do much of anything unless I am working as root and digging into the system. I am sure it is more automated than Unix is, but it is also far more stable than windows will ever be.
Not having any problems
by sntholiday - 3/16/07 7:55 AM In reply to: Windows Vista Bugs by photohamI bought a new eMachines PC already loaded with most of the software I need on a daily basis. This software works great. I have also added some other software that is working fine also. In other words, I am not having the problems others are experiencing. I cannot speak for those that upgraded from XP to Vista, but the same software is going to work no matter how you purchased Vista.
Windows Vista - Problems with the first release? Well duh.
by BradKC1 - 3/16/07 9:03 AM In reply to: Not having any problems by sntholidayI'm hearing the same kind of complaints that happened after Windows 95's first release came out, then Windows 98, then Windows XP, now Vista. The fact of the matter is that unless you have a compelling reason to upgrade I would not until at the minimum the first service pack is released. Save yourself some time and headaches, be patient, and eventually things will settle down. I'm a software developer on large software systems and I have never seen a software system, much less something far more complicated like an OS, be successfully deployed and up and running smoothly in the beginning.
Also, having done plenty of side PC jobs I know all about user ignorance and them screaming and yelling or calling you out for incredibly stupid things. Say like, "MY SOUND DOESN'T WORK ON THIS PC YOU BUILT!!!! *&@_#&@!(^3Y4". My response: "I will come out but if the problem is not my fault it's $35 for coming and $35 an hour." Haven't had one call yet that wasn't caused by user ignorance. In this particular case the fool had turned mute on. And I will not diagnose problems over the phone. The frustration level is too high.
the murkiness of Microsoft protection
by gontar 60 - 3/16/07 9:17 AM In reply to: Windows Vista Bugs by photohamUnder Win2K task manager would reveal 27n processes running at any given time. Now with Vista home basic Task Manager shows 71! My old system with Windows 2000Pro, a Pentium 3 (700mghz)and 370MB of ram couild actually handle a lot of tasks. Now with Vista, a Pentium 4 at 3.0 ghz and 512 MB of ram the system can barely move. I was instantly forced to upgrade to 2GB of ram. Running Vista is like watching a little kid so protected in his snowsuit,scarves,and hats that he can barely make it outside. In addition, Vista doesn't ever seem to recognize any other program other something from Microsoft.For me Half-life has always been one of the most stable games or applications. Now Vista is constantly blaming Valve (Half-life) for it's frequent crashes.Microsoft answer: Get rid of Half-life
Windows - threat or menace? Or just inept?
by yarlq - 3/16/07 9:31 AM In reply to: Windows Vista Bugs by photohamSince its inception Windows has enjoyed the benefits of (essentially) a monopoly - no competitive pressure, vast income, 'if you don't like us, buy #2' -- only there was no #2.
Early on Steve Jobs said MS code was sloppy and loose - obviously - as Windows is up to several Gigs and the number of patches is beyond counting. (How many patches are really just patching earlier patches?)
If MS wasn't so OCD and anal-retentive, I might vote that suppliers should be responsible for updating drivers, but since MS jams new formats down customer throats (a la Word '07, etc.) and has NEVER offered a stable platform, it is unreasonable to require suppliers to try and keep up with MS's moving target. Especially when MS guards its 'code' almost as tightly as Coke does.
MS is damnably hostile to cooperation (Every distro of Linux I've run can handle MSWin/Dos files -- and Apple!) but after 23 years MS still can't recognize a Mac file or a Linux partition. That's HOSTILE. And stupid.
MS should be responsible for extending support on updating drivers and also to all users who have had their system blown by MS glitches or reset to some obscure default when the daily downloads finish - you know, those downloads that take priority over anything else you might want to do - they are worse than Symantec or McAfee.
Right now I dual boot with Xandros. To install it, together with Firefox, GIMP, Open Office and a dozen other FREE programs plus all drivers & etc., took less than 20 minutes UNATTENDED. A single-contact update checked and updated every application - including Xandros - in less than 2 minutes.
Total install time: less than a half-hour with my entire contribution being to do a couple of restarts.
And how long did your last Windows install take?
Bill, Mac is making you look bad on TV (admittedly not difficult) and Linux makes MS look totally inept.
If you can, do the drivers. And hurry, because Linux does Windows.
Length of time for Windows Install
by BradKC1 - 3/16/07 9:48 AM In reply to: Windows - threat or menace? Or just inept? by yarlqMy windows installs take about 3.0 hours including tailoring the OS to the way I like it. I don't install a bunch of apps but use portable apps with a pre-built Start Menu I created and maintain. Install the OS, drop the Start Menu on the All Users Start Menu, fiddle with settings to make it how I want. Set Windzupdate to run before going to bed and voila. A PC loaded with apps, all patches, etc. Oh, I forgot. Part of the reason it takes me even this long is due to installing SQL Server, Visual Studio .NET, MSDN library, and lots of SDKs from Microsoft, Sun, etc. But even those are sitting on my D drive where they install very fast. And I maintain a directory with a list of shortcuts to anything actually needing installation. The install for a non-developer is about 1.5 hours.
Portable apps are the coolest thing under the sun in software.
Linux is a fine OS, but if you're going to work in industry as a developer, forget it, unless you just happen to get lucky.
Awesome
by rmjivaro - 3/16/07 4:23 PM In reply to: Windows - threat or menace? Or just inept? by yarlqOh your post is so nice to see.
I have been using Linux for years, including Redhat, Fedora, Suse, Knoppix, Debian, Damn Small Linux, Slackware and others, and while I will grant you that for a long time it was more difficult to use than windows, it has also always been more stable and much more capable and configurable.
I almost laugh when I see these little windows monkeys pretending they know something, with their little clean coats and businesslike manners spouting microsoft propaganda they memorized from a book and thinking that continual reboots are just normal for a computer. They won't hesitate to call me some kind of fanatic, yet they know so little about what makes a computer work I find I am unable to learn anything but rote procedures from them!
A computer is a complex machine that either has to be built on tightly controlled hardware like Mac's are, in which case they are quite stable and easy to use, or, as in the case of Linux, they require a modicum of understanding (not mere knowledge), or, as in the case of windows, they are just inherently broken and unstable.
What microsoft is great at is marketing and cutthroat business dealings. Their software, while nifty in some regards, is of limited worth and does not belong anywhere in the enterprise. It's place is on the desktop of users that don't want to spend money for a real machine and aren't interested in knowing how it works. But of course it doesn't work very well there either, because of its inherent tendency to self-destruct without constant intervention in the form of registry cleanings, file system defragmentations, security patches and the like.
I have not booted windows in well over a year, and now that their software is strictly permissionware that wants to phone home if I want to keep using it, they have no place in my house, and I am quickly removing them from important functions at work.
Have fun with your vista everybody. It looks like air pollution to me.
Smarter people...
by genotypewriter - 3/17/07 5:20 PM In reply to: Awesome by rmjivaro... can use any OS they want to get their work done. I think it takes more than a monkey to use windows... after all, you say it crashes and requires a lot of maintenance unlike Linux. So maybe once you get past the installation stage... linux maybe more suitable for monkeys than windows.
Also, what do you do with Linux other than using it? At the end of the day, you're a "user" too. Maybe you program a little bit, which makes you a programmer... which is not much different than being a builder. Maybe you patch the kernel... which makes you something like a software plumber.
Unless you've created something new for the world, you're talking just like those guys who act like they designed a Ferrari just because they could afford one. However, in your case, you got your "Ferrari" for free... and it's maintained by the public. I can only think of you being a big-mouthed communist at best...
Third Parties
by qtjdenny - 3/16/07 11:01 AM In reply to: Windows Vista Bugs by photohamIt is in all 3rd party vendor's best interest to make every attempt to provide compatibility within their applications when a new OS arrives on the market. Only the fittest will survive in the market!
If "photoham" chooses to switch to the Mac, the discovery of fewer overall vendor options will soon become painfully obvious.
Software vs Hardware 1986 to today
by jccnecns - 3/16/07 11:02 AM In reply to: Windows Vista Bugs by photohamBeing in this field since 1986 this has been the trend. Folks forget when Windows 95 came out there were compatibility issues then too. Things that ran with windows 3.11 wouldn't run or systems that had a lack of ram or speed needed to be updated or replaced. One gig hard disks were plenty! I can laugh now but what the heck. This has been a see saw effect for years, with hardware manufactures on one side and programmers on the other. The hardware gains in speed then programmers write software to take advantage of it. More graphics, more information, better organization..... Hardware manufactures would have no incentive if programmers had to run their programs in 640K of ram (an older DOS limitation for those of you who only know how to use a GUI). Change is good and change comes with the industry. If you don't like the way things are going change them. Look at the Linux community getting stronger all the time. When it becomes mainstream and not so foreign to business they will give Microsoft a run for its money. Is it any wonder why Novell and Microsoft are collaboration on open source? Humm... There could be money to be made here. There will always be change so adapt to it or change it. Information is growing and we need ways of processing it and we need to change with it.
Jim Cristallo
Microsoft Designs without the ROW-Rest of World In Mind
by Scampi Checkman - 3/16/07 12:17 PM In reply to: Windows Vista Bugs by photohamFamous Saying Never ever purchase or lease software with 1.0 in it.
Microsoft designs software without the rest of the world in mind. This is not the first time Microsoft has done this. The problem with this whole situation is compatiblity issues. If you do not have backward or downward compatibility, you have just thrown away access to programs and data that is still productive and needed.
Microsoft's ultra secrecy and belated release of code is the problem to allow vendors to properly create the necessary interface to allow non-microsoft vendors.
The more tragic situation are the usefull fully functional proven legacy programs where the vendor no longer exits.
Microsoft is to blame for creating the environment. If Vista were a car or any other product, it would never have left the factory.
Instead of rewriting the entire source code from scratch -this would have required at least another year,
Suckers!
by mattd241 - 3/16/07 12:43 PM In reply to: Windows Vista Bugs by photohamMicro$oft does not want compatibility! They will be issuing new software, drivers, and all else that is needed for Vista at AN ADDITIONAL COST. This is nothing new for them. A little more time and effort on their part could have had Vista programmed to accept, at he very least, their own older versions of software, but why give something away when you can charge for it. Vista suckers!
Who's At Fault?
by ed1847 - 3/16/07 1:24 PM In reply to: Windows Vista Bugs by photohamIn my opinion, it's up to the Software and Driver manufacturers to upgrade their products to operate on any new system. I've been using Windows products for Fourteen Years and was able to use most of my hardware and software through all of my upgrades, except for a scanner that the manufacturer refused to create an upgrade for. Which by the way I dumped, along with the manufacturer.
Re: Vista
by klam4life - 3/16/07 2:08 PM In reply to: Windows Vista Bugs by photohamIf General Motors or Ford produced cars that would not run on regular fuel or oil, if the radio & airconditioner did not work, if the electronic fuel injection dropped out all the time, who would you blame?? the car manufacturer or the parts manufacturer?? Either way it does not matter however it will not translate to sales. I believe that both are to blame. I think a lot of manufacturers saw it as a good opportunity to force people to upgrade virtually every piece of hardware they have. I know I am a computer vendor.
i switched to mac about 31/2 years ago
by hitsch - 3/16/07 2:08 PM In reply to: Windows Vista Bugs by photohammac pulled the very same trick when they switched to the intel chip; most programs still worked with more or less troubles and some did not. i blame mac for it, the same as i blame microsoft; the two think, they are king and everybody has to bow to them.
since the same mess happened with wista, it becomes very obvious, that the owners of the os systems are releasing them immediately upon completion, to recuperate the developement money faster. the hell with the inconvenience to consumers, that have to wait for the software makers, that seem to recieve the finished product on the same day it goes on sale, to update their programs.
is it the fear of copyright infringments or plain old greed of microsoft and apple that creates this situations ? i don't know, but i do know that both os systems are totally useless, if the software we need for work or hobbies, does not work any more. i still wait for photoshop elements to be issued in universal binary for the intel mac's.
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
