Buzz Out Loud Lounge: Windows Vista Rant, Rant!
Mac not as original as Fanfoys think
by KanineLupus - 10/20/07 4:43 PM In reply to: It's not as if... by Nicholas BuenkJust a tip boys. If you follow history, many of the so-called Mac inovations were presented by MS when the development of Vista was first announced. And dashboard is a blatant rip-off of Konfabulator (which has since been bought out by Yahoo). Apple is one of the biggest idea-thieves of all time, so get over it.
As to MS, they are never going to please everyone. If they make things more backwards compatible, then they are daubed 'Outdated.' On the otherhand, if they completely re-wrote Windows you'd have even more people complaining of older hardware/software not working.
Apple needn't worry about such issues for 2 reasons:
1)They have a much smaller user base so it is easier to keep people happy (how many big businesses are Mac-dependent compared to Windows??)
2)The Mac-fanatics are so deluded that no matter how much Apple tramples on them they'll still be smiling!!
I know all that
by Nicholas Buenk - 10/20/07 5:54 PM In reply to: Mac not as original as Fanfoys think by KanineLupusBut apple got them working before Microsoft did. 
But this is beside the point, I was not trying to accuse Microsoft of stealing, rather approaching it with more this sentiment 'at long last windows has a compositing windowing system and a desktop search program.
BTW your 2 reasons are quite wrong. Apple users are easily upset, they're a small extremely picky crowd who moan on blogs about the slightest problem and class action lawsuits against apple are not unusual.
The advantage apple has is that they own the hardware, and it's easy for them to ensure that a new OS works with their hardware.
Also as apple releases a new OS every 2 years or so, mac developers are quite used to having to patch software for new OS versions, this is not at all true for windows developers.
But the main problem for both Apple and Microsoft is a lot of the time compatibility is the fault of the app and not necessarily of the OS. Apps can do hacky things that they really shouldn't, the OS will be updated and operate the same way going by the documentation.. but not with the strange hacky method some app decided to use... why I remember an article on the Windows 2000 source code being leaked, and a lot of the comments in the code featured Microsoft developers swearing about having to write a bunch of code just to make one single app work. And here's an excerpt from the blog of keith stattenfield, a developer of Leopard which is pretty interesting and pretty much says it all.....
I work on Mac OS X, and long ago it was announced that Mac OS X 10.5, codename Leopard, would be shipping in October, so it’s no secret that the process of wrapping up the release has been going on for a while. It’s an interesting time for an engineer, at least for me at Apple, because it generally means that I’m hip deep in bugs and the goal every day is to make them go away as quickly as possible. Sometimes that means fixing them, because the bug represents something that is actually wrong with my code which I need to address. Sometimes the bug I have isn’t really a bug at all in my code, but a problem elsewhere which I can’t do anything to address. And, sometimes it’s a problem in whatever code is calling me, usually written by someone outside Apple, but which either behaved correctly in previous releases or which behaved differently in previous releases, and I have to patch around it in my code because even though the bug is in that code over there, well, it isn’t going to get changed and we don’t want to ship an os release which breaks a lot of things, because people hate that.
So, I end up doing lots of things like “If an application A launches another application B, and if it then tells the system to bring that application forward, and if that application what was launched is running but isn’t yet far enough along in its launch to be brought forward, then save aside the knowledge that B should be brought forward and let application A believe that bringing it forward worked, and later, when application B does get far enough along in its launch process, bring it forward then, unless something else has happened between back then and now which changed the application ordering. Do all that so that an app written and released back in 2001 keeps working, because a fair number of folks still use that app. And do all that even though application B would have always been brought forward after it finished launching, so there’s never been a need for application A to do so, but it did, and it always use to work and so it needs to continue to work.”
Can Concede
by KanineLupus - 10/20/07 6:35 PM In reply to: I know all that by Nicholas BuenkYes Mac did get them working first, but given that they rolled them out only months after they were first presented for Vista (over four years ago) then one should hope that Mac has the bugs out by now 
I have to say that at the end of the day I find things to like with both the OS X and Vista systems... as a graphic-design/digital-arts teacher I have to be able to navigate and work with BOTH systems proficiently. By biggest bugbear is not with either system (I'm yet to see a perfect operating system where NOTHING ever breaks or where at least something doesn't annoy me) but rather the attitudes of the Mac fanatics who always seem to pop up in any discussion relating to Windows. At the end of the day I think MS has come a long way in the last few years (I used to be a Mac user myself), especially in catering to the varying needs of what is truely a staggeringly large user-base. I think this is now an area where Apple needs to do a little catching up ...no offence to you intended.
At the end of the day of course it is always going to be a matter of personal preference (something I WISH the fanboys would appreciate). As a digital artist I just couldn't move back to Macs these days... I find Windows much more suited to my own needs.
And Mac has it all worked out does it??
by KanineLupus - 10/20/07 4:33 PM In reply to: Other OS's have smooth upgrades, why can't MS do the same? by mindpowerYou forget that many of Mac's drivers are open source and do NOT always work as they should. I had a Canon Pixmar printer which was nearly 12mths old when my wife got her iMac ...the only Mac driver available were the open-source drivers which were buggy as all hell! And try using an MP3/MP4 player which is NOT made by Apple and see how well it works on a Mac. Non-mainstream software which breaks when Apple releases one of their updates. Let's stop kidding ourselves that Mac has it all sorted out!!
MS (or any other OS developer for that matter) is NOT responsible for the development/provision of hardware drivers ...this is the domain of the hardware manufacturers. If they are not passed onto MS to be included in Windows' releases then of course they will be absent. Stop blaming MS for issues which are out of it's domain - look instead at which software companies are to lazy to do things properly.
As to backwards-compatibility, a number of inovations were pulled out of Vista to ensure it was as compatible as possible (without major security comprimises) with older software ad hardware, so count your blessings. Word is already that backwads compatibility will not be such a dominant force in the next realease (code-named Windows 7).
Not quite true
by George Gray - 10/21/07 6:59 PM In reply to: Other OS's have smooth upgrades, why can't MS do the same? by mindpowerI had Ubuntu on an older machine. BEFORE I 'upgraded' it to 7.04, my network card worked fine. After the 'upgrade', no go. Also, prior to even putting Ubuntu on the machine, I had full access to my home network, including my all in one HP printer/scanner/fax/etc. After Unbuntu, I could 'see' the printer, but I NEVER got it to connect and print. Admittedly, I am not a Linux person. However, if Ubuntu was as easy as we are supposed to believe, I should not have to be a Linux guru to get something as simple as a printer to work. XP went back on the machine and now it all 'just works.' As Mac OS, I am constantly hearing about people who are hesitant to upgrade to Leopard and have relayed their own horror stories surrounding previous upgrades. No, it is not always a simple thing and it is not just Microsoft.
vista ultimate 64 bit 2 thumbs up!
by diawa944 - 10/20/07 8:12 AM In reply to: Windows Vista Rant, Rant! by mobile_bobone should only consider windows vista (any version) only if you have a very recent system running a core 2 or quad core processor with abundant memory (2gb), a decent hard drive and video card with 256on board ram. This operating system is very very demanding. Don't bother with the upgrade if you have the "minimum" required specs.
The installation/upgrade will provide the majority of the needed drivers and require that you do your homework before you undertake the install/upgrade. For most users the 32 bit upgrade is the way to go and a much easier route with almost (90%) of the driver issues resolved. I am thrilled with the new vista interface and will not look back to XP ever again.
One important note-If you decide to upgrade please do so with only 2 GB's installed! Add the additional memory afterwards! Also make sure that you are upgrading a valid version of windows and not a borrowed copy! Yes- Microsoft tech support was very helpful and will guide you through it if needed. After the install they helped me to migrate all the items i needed such as my internet explorer favorites, and the various outlook files. (they were only 3 small files) yet I still needed help.
The 64 bit version requires a clean install on a computer that runs in a 64 bit mode. It is very very fast and noticeable with my video editing software and recognizes more than the 3gb memory max on the 32 bit version.
All in all---I am very happy with vista!!!
Not quite!
by KanineLupus - 10/20/07 6:42 PM In reply to: vista ultimate 64 bit 2 thumbs up! by diawa944Um, am running Vista Ultimate 32bit on my Sat Pro - Dual core, GeForce 7300 (128MB graphics memory) and 1.5GB RAM. Granted I don't get into the video editing much, but it more than handles my other needs. On the rare occaisions I start running short on memory I simply pop in the SD card and make good use of the ReadyBoost feature and off I go ....that one feature not yet found elsewhere
Running Vista BEUTIFULLY on two machines.
by kjdinoc - 10/20/07 8:00 PM In reply to: Windows Vista Rant, Rant! by mobile_bobI have two HP's running Vista. And I do mean beautifully. The O/S looks and performs great. I've had very few problems that were quickly smoothed out and everything works perfect. Haven't had a blue screen or crash for several months. It seems I stumble onto little things in Vista that make using a PC easier all the time. Its like "oh thats cool, I didn't know it could do that"!
When I'm forced to go back to an XP machine it really feels old and dated. My friend just got an Apple I Mac. We were comparing some of the features and I really found that my Vista machine did far more than that Apple could do.
I am just dumbfounded by all the whining and complaining and people wanting to downgrade new machines to XP. It's ridiculous. A few weeks with the new O/S is all I needed to appreciate how far ahead of XP it is.
HP desktop running Vista Home Premium and an HP media Notebook running Vista Ultimate 64 Bit.
Yeah,I think you people miss the point...
by Frost7331 - 10/21/07 6:24 AM In reply to: Running Vista BEUTIFULLY on two machines. by kjdinocI am a gamer.I play it more-so on the computer,and when It eats my resources to cause my frames per seconds to go to 1/2-1/4 what it was on XP,that's not acceptable.(Yes,I do have 2 gigs of RAM..)Upgrade?Sorry,I'm not going to pay around 300 dollars for some BS thing that makes all PC users look retarded,and then buy some unnecessary parts to make it what it was on XP.
I might like to add I remove 3/4ths of windows xp's services anyways,I don't need and or use them.
Hey: Drivers aren't the only gripe ...
by QuadFather - 10/23/07 8:01 AM In reply to: Windows Vista Rant, Rant! by mobile_bobI too remember the release of XP and the rush for compatible drivers. Honestly, I have not run into many driver issues at all with Vista - that's not my gripe at all. My gripes are that Vista g-o-b-b-l-e-s up performance, even on very decent machines! It's infuriatingly intrusive with it's security "features". It's absolutely, unreasonably, irrationally difficult to share drives on a network or across other versions of windows. Oh, and I have to scroll through a list of programs - and continue scrolling down once a folder expands below the stupid-tiny list window - rather than speedily clicking my way through a folder tree. "Folder trees are so antiquated," you say? Railroads are antiquated, but we still use them. And we still use them because they work. If it's not broken, don't fix it by making life more difficult. I swear, Vista was designed specifically to increase one's potential for developing carpal tunnel syndrome.
I digress.
I'm only saying that the reason people complain about Vista is a LOT more than just the driver issues.
That can all be changed.
by kcoppock - 10/23/07 8:13 AM In reply to: Hey: Drivers aren't the only gripe ... by QuadFatherFirst of all, you can disable the UAC so that you don't have the security popups every time you turn around. As far as the start menu, just go into the start menu properties and change it back to classic mode.
Yes, i understand all that ...
by QuadFather - 10/23/07 12:42 PM In reply to: That can all be changed. by kcoppockBut MS sure did make my life difficult at the outset (and any time i install vista). I very much resent that you can only revert back to the *mind-numbingly* drab '98' mode and not xp mode. What the ... ?
Let me say that if Vista worked well (contra my earlier definition of not-well), I would really like it a lot. Also, I really do like the windows media center a LOT. I would almost cast aside all of my gripes and complaints SOLEY to enjoy the new windows media center. That is one HOT piece of software.
Still, the issues remain that Vista gobbles performance unnecessarily, that they really went out of their way to make networking drives difficult even for experienced users, that the OS has difficulty with secondary displays (for me when attempting with different machines), and so on. So I reiterate my contention that driver incompatibility is not the sole reason for all the negative rants aimed at Vista (in fact, driver compatibility may be the least of the gripes). I've had some well-rounded experience playing around with and using Vista for a variety of things, and my opinion is that these negative rants are often warranted.
Let me add to my rant ...
by QuadFather - 10/24/07 10:56 AM In reply to: Windows Vista Rant, Rant! by mobile_bob... that I just bought an 8GB SD card for an upcoming trip I'm taking. I tried to format it using Vista, and wouldn't ya know it: Vista froze on me when I clicked "Format". Twice. And now this 120-something dollar SD card is useless.
Thank you, Windows Vista. Screwing up an expensive piece of technology that I haven't even used yet is *exactly* what I wanted out of my OS.
I was around when XP was introduced
by john3347 - 10/24/07 11:52 AM In reply to: Windows Vista Rant, Rant! by mobile_bobI was around when XP was introduced; as well as Win95, 98, ME, 2000, etc. I also recently bought a new computer with Vista preinstalled. Vista DOES NOT perform as well as as previous operating systems. Of all of these, 2000 was the best system I have ever used. The point of all of this is that we did not need a new operating system so we can go through all the "growing pains" of all new drivers, completely new interface that doesn't function well and is very difficult to understand. We needed the old system fixed and some minor upgrading. Some updating to XP (which still has many freeze-ups, "cannot display page", and networking difficulties, etc.) would have been MUCH more effective a fix to something that admittedly was broken than a completely new and trashy new operating system with all the new system bugs. What we really need is Windows 2000 SP12 or so.
Rant rant
by Ron-Mexico - 11/1/07 9:26 PM In reply to: Windows Vista Rant, Rant! by mobile_bobI hate Vista so much . . . . I now have it installed on all 3 of my systems at home.
I bought an inexpensive HP system for my wife that already had it installed and have had virtually zero problems with it (even though it only has 1 GB of RAM and should be running dog slow according to most of the complaints I'd heard prior to getting it.) I also did a clean install on my main gaming rig that I'd previously built myself. It was honestly the most seamless install I've ever experienced with no need to download/install any additional drivers.
I was so impressed with the previous two machines I finally broke down and installed it on my beloved HTPC so I can enjoy the uber-awesomeness that is Media Center. I've tried a TON of 3rd party HTPC programs and still can't find anything that remotely compares with Media Center as an all-around package. It's just so easy to use, stable and dead sexy-looking (even my Mac co-workers love playing with it; one's even getting an Xbox to primarily to use as an extender now.)
I can't understand all the hatred either, but I no longer care. It works great for me.
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
