Vista == Mojave == Wow?

I woild put it this way: with reasonable hardware Vista is IMHO the best client OS MS ever made (ad surely the best from MS I worked with); not for eprformance reasons, but for usability ones. The UI is very convenient, the search function is extremely useful, the system menus are much better then in XP, the stability is on pair with MacOS (with XP I had to reformat each 6 month) and they finally made a reasonable directory structure.

Well, I just finally changed from XP to Vista64 as my primary OS (although I've had a secondary Vista32 installation for a while but only used for programming), and I like Vista for many reasons, but the reason I stayed away for a long time is because of UI issues. Now it's always the case that each new OS comes with a bunch of crap you must learn how to disable, like the search dog in XP and the horrible personalized menus. The problem in Vista is that the annoyances can't easily be disabled. For instance the change to full row select in folders. It makes any form of drag'n'drop work very error prone. You drop files into an open folder window thinking the files will be copied there, but because you dropped them on a line that contained a file of a type that happened to be recognized by Windows it can do any form of arbitrary action, like launching an exe with all your dropped files as arguments, or copy them into a subfolder, or add them into a zip file etc. A change of this type is something that should by all standards be a checkbox under Folder Options so I can disable it, but there is no such thing. Fortunately I found a vbs script that fixed the problem. Of course, it's still not like in XP, but now only the filename column is selected. In XP you had to drop something onto the actual file and not just its column for it to interpret it like you wanted the default action of the file you dropped it on.

Another annoyance is that Vista looks into folders for their contents in order to decide what view they should be in. I pretty much always want my folders to be viewed in Details mode. In XP I just configured a folder view I liked and then clicked "Apply to folder" and it would stick. If I wanted a special view on some folders, like my photo folder, I could still do that. Vista tries to be smart, and consequently annoys the hell out of me. Everytime you create a new folder it looks into the folder for its files and applies what it thinks is the most proper view. If there happens to be any form of image file in there it thinks it's a "Pictures and Videos" folder, even if the vast majority of the files are not. It doesn't inherit the folder view from the parent, which would make the most sense to me and be consistent with how folders in any file system normally works. So everytime you unzip a file and go into the folder you might be randomly greeted by huge thumbnail images instead of the detail view.

The removal of the "up" button in explorer is also a deadly sin. Yes, you can do everything with the clickable address bar, which btw is great, but that does not make the removal of the up button a reasonable idea. Many times the up button is just plainly faster as it requires no reading and less aiming and is less prone to errors. I still keep making the mistake to push the last button thinking it'll take me up one level and not realizing that it points to my current directory so I have to push the next button.
 
Two things they should have improved with vista (to be honest, they should've improved it with Win2k already): Notepad and Paint. I mean - come on! Is no one at microsoft embarrassed about those two...ahem, "pieces of software"?

Paint has improved, but if they do much more they will be sued for it.

Notepad? What do you want it to be besides what it is? I use notepad quite often still.
 
Would you say that's because XP did not make use of the resources properly? (IE: No performance increase with substantial hardware upgrade)

no id say it was because when you have have a program running perfectly smoothly if you increase the speed of the pc it will still run perfectly smoothly aka: no visible difference
 
:rolleyes:

Step 1


Step 2



Step 3



Done



BTW, the reason it asks for admin priv is that accurate time is crucial to crypto security, so it has to be a privileged operation to change it.

You do realize that's literally twice as many steps as it used to be, right? Go ahead and roll your eyes.

Before it was
1) open date/time properties
2) CHANGE ****ING DATE AND TIME!

(not yelling at you, btw - yelling at the ****tards at MS that thought this was a brilliant design decision)
 
I'm sorry, $500 laptops. The point still stands that laptops and certainly desktops can be had for very low prices that run Vista just fine.

You say this as though I'm in disagreement with you.

You can disagree all you want

I'm not ;) Quit looking for an argument that isn't there. All I disagreed with was your assertion that a $399 computer with an Intel IGP is going to run Vista well with Aero and UAC enabled. The average user with such a system will notice the difference compared to an identically-configured system running XP.

but I've used systems with integrated graphics that were just fine.

What does this mean? Your level of acceptability (more like toleration) is likely to be stretched very thin here. You know what I do when I get a system running Aero on an IGP? Disable it! I have yet to have a user request that it be re-enabled, especially since I take the time to explain what I've done and why I do it. Every single one has thanked me for it. Most of my customers are repeat customers too, so when I see them again I ask how the system they brought in last is doing, and it's always something along the lines of "great!"

I've used systems with single core processors that were just fine. Were they slower than XP? If single core yes when using a single application but faster when using multiple.

How much RAM did these systems have? I'll bet it was nothing like the pathetic 1GB or less that most < $399 computers came with up until just a couple months ago. RAM is the key for multi-tasking non-compute-intense apps (which is true of the vast majority of applications consumers use nowadays).

Again one of the great advantages with Vista is how well it handles multiple applications compared to XP.

I don't doubt Vista's technical superiority. I do doubt its ability to overcome its own bloat. I don't perceive any weakness in multi-tasking on my system. This is because I have 4GB RAM and an OS that doesn't choke on its own features.

Hear it as much now as then.

I work with some dumb clients, but I don't hear these complaints about XP. I believe you are exaggerating for effect. Nor does the average PC user feel the same about XP now as they did when it was released. That's common knowledge.

You've already been shown how ridiculously wrong you were with this one. You sure you weren't one of the people shown Mojave?

Which took all of a week to learn. Are you really that lazy? Let me guess you also freaked out because the music folder was named "Music" and not "My Music"? Whoa holy shit I just saw this option on the left side of the Control Panel that says "Classic View." Freaking radical idea there Microsoft! You likely also shit bricks over the default button in the Start Menu being sleep? Again, things that take no time to learn and over time end up being better. Do you not support change? I've learned it takes some to make proper advancements.

I suggest you drop the attitude. You're a smart guy, but you have some serious communication and respect issues. I've done nothing to deserve your animosity, nor your belittlement.
 
You do realize that's literally twice as many steps as it used to be, right? Go ahead and roll your eyes.

Before it was
1) open date/time properties
2) CHANGE ****ING DATE AND TIME!

(not yelling at you, btw - yelling at the ****tards at MS that thought this was a brilliant design decision)

Why are you getting so upset about an additional "Change date" button? One more or one less click does not make any difference...
 
Why are you getting so upset about an additional "Change date" button? One more or one less click does not make any difference...

It's not just "one more click", it's a permissions pop-up box first and then a whole separate screen! XP's time/date interface is extremely simple and intuitive, not just in comparison, but on its own. You double-click on the time in the system tray (or right-click and select adjust date/time) and then change to your liking.

Edit: my "enthusiasm" here is not because this issue is terribly important in and of itself, it was a singular example meant to prove my overall point that Vista has made a lot of tasks more complex than they were in XP. A lot of this complication is due to the addition of UAC, some is due to the renaming and reorganization of features which are accessed frequently, some is due to idiotic design decisions that add steps to what should be a very simple and straight-forward process (case-in-point: changing the date/time).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's not just "one more click", it's a permissions pop-up box first and then a whole separate screen! XP's time/date interface is extremely simple and intuitive, not just in comparison, but on its own. You double-click on the time in the system tray (or right-click and select adjust date/time) and then change to your liking.
The additional "Change date and time" is actually a very good idea. My girlfriend frequently abused the clock in xp as a calendar and ended up changing the system date. Much better in Vista! And my sister prefers her children not to be able to change the date and time, change drivers, install spyware among other thing. For her Vista is a real blessing.
 
You say this as though I'm in disagreement with you.

I'm not ;) Quit looking for an argument that isn't there. All I disagreed with was your assertion that a $399 computer with an Intel IGP is going to run Vista well with Aero and UAC enabled. The average user with such a system will notice the difference compared to an identically-configured system running XP.

Then do your clients a favor and disable UAC. Explain how you find it useless and then they'll love you for it. Your average computer user is going to follow the advice of the first person who they perceive is knowledgeable on the issue.

What does this mean? Your level of acceptability (more like toleration) is likely to be stretched very thin here. You know what I do when I get a system running Aero on an IGP? Disable it! I have yet to have a user request that it be re-enabled, especially since I take the time to explain what I've done and why I do it. Every single one has thanked me for it. Most of my customers are repeat customers too, so when I see them again I ask how the system they brought in last is doing, and it's always something along the lines of "great!"

Exactly, you form your customers opinion on the matter. They also don't care enough to disagree with you. Aero itself isn't the greatest feature of Vista but I've yet to run into a issue with it on any system that supported it. From Intel Integrated to my 8800GTS-512. I'm so damn confident in integrated graphics running it fine that the laptop I just bought has integrated graphics and I feel no worry it won't handle Vista absolutely fine.

How much RAM did these systems have? I'll bet it was nothing like the pathetic 1GB or less that most < $399 computers came with up until just a couple months ago. RAM is the key for multi-tasking non-compute-intense apps (which is true of the vast majority of applications consumers use nowadays).

The first computer I experienced Vista on was a A64 3200+ with 1GB of RAM and Nvidia integrated 6200 graphics. Vista handled that computers resource far better when it came to multitasking than XP did.

I don't doubt Vista's technical superiority. I do doubt its ability to overcome its own bloat. I don't perceive any weakness in multi-tasking on my system. This is because I have 4GB RAM and an OS that doesn't choke on its own features.

Again, what bloat that would be limiting performance? All the extra applications on run when you want them. UAC only comes up when it needs to. The memory charge is higher when idling but I've yet to run into a single occasion where XP wasn't slowing down considerably more when memory usage was pushed to the max.

I work with some dumb clients, but I don't hear these complaints about XP. I believe you are exaggerating for effect. Nor does the average PC user feel the same about XP now as they did when it was released. That's common knowledge.

It sounds like you're working with more traditional users. I would surely expect if that's the case then that you do constantly hear about issues with XP. 99% of computer issues I've come to find are software related and forced onto by the user of the computer through whatever means. When Vista launched I noticed an up swing in complaints about not being able to find things and the interface being different but that was to be fully expected. Otherwise the issues are identical between the two OSes.

I suggest you drop the attitude. You're a smart guy, but you have some serious communication and respect issues. I've done nothing to deserve your animosity, nor your belittlement.

You're annoying me, you seem to live in some fairy land where Vista has make believe issues. It sounds just like all the people across forums do as well.
 
Vista - it's not as bad as you think. A line of advertising which is certainly a bit of a novelty.

They probably should've just pulled an ME by now - take it round the back and shoot it in the neck, then apologise and move on.
 
A lot of this complication is due to the addition of UAC

Well, of all annoyances, the UAC doesn't upset me because it's for security. It's an excellent idea and I would use it if it didn't (for reasons beyond my comprehension) caused problems for Visual Studio 2005. It's pretty much the equivalent of what happens in Linux when you attempt to run anything requiring root access from a non-root account. A dialogbox pops up prompting for the root password. The difference is that in Vista you're not asked for the password, you just click the button. It's the perfect balance between security and convenience IMHO.

ps: in vista i open a folder containing movies and a green progress bar starts filling the address bar, whats that all about ?

That's when Windows is looking through your folder and grabbing thumbnails from image files etc.
 
ps: in vista i open a folder containing movies and a green progress bar starts filling the address bar, whats that all about ?

It's scanning the files to create thumbnails to use instead of the generic icons and possibly to extract out media information.
 
Then do your clients a favor and disable UAC. Explain how you find it useless and then they'll love you for it. Your average computer user is going to follow the advice of the first person who they perceive is knowledgeable on the issue.

Boy would I ever love to do that! Problem is, there are applications (mostly professional apps) that do not work properly in Vista without UAC enabled, and since the vast majority of my customers are business customers using professional apps I'm afraid that's just not an option. Had to learn that one the hard way after a few hours trying to figure out why one client's Peachtree Accounting software worked when it was first loaded, but not after the client applied his basic preference options. Re-enabling UAC allowed the application to run properly.

Exactly, you form your customers opinion on the matter. They also don't care enough to disagree with you. Aero itself isn't the greatest feature of Vista but I've yet to run into a issue with it on any system that supported it. From Intel Integrated to my 8800GTS-512. I'm so damn confident in integrated graphics running it fine that the laptop I just bought has integrated graphics and I feel no worry it won't handle Vista absolutely fine.

And my experience has shown that there are plenty of IGP-powered systems that came pre-loaded with Vista that literally choke on Aero effects. Your experience differs - fine. Don't discount mine because of it though (I'm not discounting yours).

The first computer I experienced Vista on was a A64 3200+ with 1GB of RAM and Nvidia integrated 6200 graphics. Vista handled that computers resource far better when it came to multitasking than XP did.

In what manner? I have a hard time believing you because most of the 1GB single core systems I've seen running Vista did so very poorly, even when tweaked.

Again, what bloat that would be limiting performance? All the extra applications on run when you want them. UAC only comes up when it needs to. The memory charge is higher when idling but I've yet to run into a single occasion where XP wasn't slowing down considerably more when memory usage was pushed to the max.

bloat = memory footprint, which you most certainly will admit is higher with Vista (irrespective of cache allocation)

It sounds like you're working with more traditional users. I would surely expect if that's the case then that you do constantly hear about issues with XP. 99% of computer issues I've come to find are software related and forced onto by the user of the computer through whatever means. When Vista launched I noticed an up swing in complaints about not being able to find things and the interface being different but that was to be fully expected. Otherwise the issues are identical between the two OSes.

I deal with a mix of hardware and software issues. Sort of a fix-it-all tech ;)

You're annoying me, you seem to live in some fairy land where Vista has make believe issues. It sounds just like all the people across forums do as well.

Tell it to my customers. They come to me with issues, I resolve them. If re-configuring Vista (or removing it) solves their problem (and it has on countless occasions), you're wrong.
 
Well, of all annoyances, the UAC doesn't upset me because it's for security. It's an excellent idea and I would use it if it didn't (for reasons beyond my comprehension) caused problems for Visual Studio 2005. It's pretty much the equivalent of what happens in Linux when you attempt to run anything requiring root access from a non-root account. A dialogbox pops up prompting for the root password. The difference is that in Vista you're not asked for the password, you just click the button. It's the perfect balance between security and convenience IMHO.

OSX handles security and permissions MUCH BETTER, in my experience. Far less intrusive, and just as secure (if not more so). My understanding is this is similar to how Linux handles things, but I only use Windows and OSX on a regular basis.

Odd to hear about VS2005, read my account of Peachtree Accounting software and UAC. There were a couple older Intuit apps with similar issues as well.
 
The additional "Change date and time" is actually a very good idea. My girlfriend frequently abused the clock in xp as a calendar and ended up changing the system date. Much better in Vista! And my sister prefers her children not to be able to change the date and time, change drivers, install spyware among other thing. For her Vista is a real blessing.

Password-protected user accounts with differing permissions solves that problem, and provides a whole host of other benefits as well. MS' answer to this non-problem (yours is the first case I have ever heard a move to add complexity was beneficial, and I've serviced countless thousands of PCs over the last decade or so, as well as read and participated in more conversations than I'd care to admit to) does more harm than good. Optimizing for a corner case (pardon the poorly worded analogy) is not a best practice.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
At work, they have the change time/date function in XP and Server 2003 disabled via group policy. You cant even bring up the calendar via double click on the clock. Even if you have local administrator permissions on the box, you can not even bring up the calendar. It's quite annoying as I need to run a different program just to look at a calendar.

I'm sure other corporations have similar group policies in place for these older OSes.

If it was Vista, I could at least see the calendar.
 
OSX handles security and permissions MUCH BETTER, in my experience. Far less intrusive, and just as secure (if not more so). My understanding is this is similar to how Linux handles things, but I only use Windows and OSX on a regular basis.

I am only starting programming on MacOS, but if I understand it correctly each system function has a special right assigned to it (like change.system.time right). Users and applications have to request this rights (ths is where the password confirmation windows pops in). Working as administrator you will almost never see the password confrmation window, only when really important changes are being made (like something being installed in the root directory). The system is very convenient and easy to use. But usable rights management system is a common knowledge in Unix (and therefore MacOS) , and the applications are designed accordingly. If you want to install something, you have to ask the OS for permission and it will then ask the user if he wants it (not like with windows, where the OS has to detect if the app tries to perform a system-wide change, pause it and then ask the user). In windows, where due to bad programming habbits almost each app assumes it has administrator rights, it is rather hard to ensure good security. As I already wrote, UAC seems to be a really complicated peace of engeneering, but all this could be avoided if the rights management system would be done right in the first place. With Vista, MS tried to correct lot of design flaws of their previous systems, flows that granted windows a fame as a insecure and bloated OS, but what should I say if even their own Visual Studio had to be run as administrator user? This is just not right...
 
I think most of those issues are fixed in the current version -- Visual Studio 2008.
 
At work, they have the change time/date function in XP and Server 2003 disabled via group policy. You cant even bring up the calendar via double click on the clock. Even if you have local administrator permissions on the box, you can not even bring up the calendar. It's quite annoying as I need to run a different program just to look at a calendar.

I'm sure other corporations have similar group policies in place for these older OSes.

It is an annoyance as a user, but at least it's being enforced by a local group policy and not as an OS-wide restriction which cannot be over-ridden by any means.

If it was Vista, I could at least see the calendar.

You have a point there. Ok, there is some benefit to this move after all. I still don't like it though. I am the Admin on every machine I use so anything that would place me on the same level as a restricted user is frustrating.
 
Back
Top