|
Colin Angus Mackay wrote: The last thing I want is more crap in my system.
5.
If you truly believe you need to pick a mobile phone that "says something" about your personality, don't bother. You don't have a personality. A mental illness, maybe - but not a personality. - Charlie Brooker
My Blog - My Photos - ScrewTurn Wiki
|
|
|
|
|
Colin Angus Mackay wrote: The last thing I want is more crap in my system.
Well, i agree completely. Heck, that's one reason why i'm not using Vista... *bada-boom!*
----
Yes, but can you blame them for doing so if that's the only legal way they can hire programmers they want at the rate they can afford?-- Nish on sketchy hiring practices
|
|
|
|
|
Shog9 wrote: Well, i agree completely. Heck, that's one reason why i'm not using Vista...
Actually, Vista's really quite good. And because so much crap doesn't run on it yet my system runs really nicely at the moment. I was, however, disappointed to find that Adobe Acrobat runs on it.
Upcoming events:
* Glasgow: Mock Objects, SQL Server CLR Integration, Reporting Services, db4o, Dependency Injection with Spring ...
* Reading: Developer Day 5
Ready to Give up - Your help will be much appreciated.
My website
|
|
|
|
|
Colin Angus Mackay wrote: Actually, Vista's really quite good.
I was... mostly joking. 
Colin Angus Mackay wrote: And because so much crap doesn't run on it yet my system runs really nicely at the moment.
Well, there's where the joke bites down hard. See, by far the worst software i'll allow to be installed on any of my systems are the hardware drivers, and of these, drivers for HP products are consistently the worst. So yes, the test install of Vista on my desktop is considerably less crap-infested than usual, but at the expense of not being able to use the HP scanner. And the Vista laptop my wife uses only recently became able to print to the network-shared HP printer... at which point, it began to suffer the sorts of subtle problems that generally accompany software that talks to HP drivers (random crashes mostly).
So yeah, that aspect won't last. 
----
Yes, but can you blame them for doing so if that's the only legal way they can hire programmers they want at the rate they can afford?-- Nish on sketchy hiring practices
|
|
|
|
|
Isn't that the danged truth?
I'm still using XP, and still do all my searches the old-fashioned way. I never install any of those third-party toolbars or search products, even if they're by Google. I prefer to use Windows search for my PC file system and Google or Yahoo (through their homepages) for web searches.
All in all it's just one fewer installed program I have to manage; I'm just too lazy to keep everything running at the latest version. 
|
|
|
|
|
Sentinel_13 wrote: I'm still using XP, and still do all my searches the old-fashioned way
Since installing Copernic desktop search I almost never do searches the old-fashioned way. It's just far too slow.
Sentinel_13 wrote: I never install any of those third-party toolbars or search products, even if they're by Google
The only toolbar I use is Google, simply because the extra features of the toolbar are (for me) invaluable.
Sentinel_13 wrote: I'm just too lazy to keep everything running at the latest version
The Google toolbar auto-updates so your laziness doesn't matter.
Kevin
|
|
|
|
|
The question is whether you should have a choice to use a 3rd party search provider, not that you MUST allow 3rd party software onto your system
|
|
|
|
|
I know I voted yes. But at the end of the day I don't really care since I run Debian/GNU.
|
|
|
|
|
I know Google is phoning home lately, so I don't think it's a good idea to have google search through my data. And for the rest, Windows Search works, so why should I use a different search engine?
WM.
What about weapons of mass-construction?
"What? Its an Apple MacBook Pro. They are sexy!" - Paul Watson
My blog
|
|
|
|
|
WillemM wrote: I know Google is phoning home lately
You mean like the way Windows Media Player does?
|
|
|
|
|
yes, exactly 
WM.
What about weapons of mass-construction?
"What? Its an Apple MacBook Pro. They are sexy!" - Paul Watson
My blog
|
|
|
|
|
ed welch wrote: WillemM wrote:
I know Google is phoning home lately
You mean like the way Windows Media Player does?
don't forget the genuine advantage thing too...
|
|
|
|
|
No problem, it is your decision. But others peoples should make another decision. I shurely will try google search to compare it with the MS stuff. The web search of Google is better than the MS search, I try both sometimes to check.
Competition will make Software better. 
Greetings from Germany
|
|
|
|
|
I totally agree, it's a matter of choice.
WM.
What about weapons of mass-construction?
"What? Its an Apple MacBook Pro. They are sexy!" - Paul Watson
My blog
|
|
|
|
|
Disclaimer: I don't use Vista.
Ok, so i'm not a huge fan of companies attempting to legislate or sue their way onto my computer... but yeah, this is something that ought to be flexible. I mean, i've been trying and subsequently disabling Microsoft's various desktop indexing attempts for years now, and while they've gotten better, as of last December WDS still had a nasty habit of kicking in several minutes after i'd started a "rebuild all"... this is the kind of software you really do want to have the option of swapping out.
Maybe Vista's search is fast, and intelligent about resource usage, and when eventually i start using it i'll never go back... but just in case it's not, i'd love to have that choice.
----
Yes, but can you blame them for doing so if that's the only legal way they can hire programmers they want at the rate they can afford?-- Nish on sketchy hiring practices
|
|
|
|
|
In my experience, nothing in Vista is intelligent about resource usage.
Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of things I like fine about Vista, but the resource usage is just ... FUBAR.
Grim (aka Toby) MCDBA, MCSD, MCP+SB
SELECT * FROM users WHERE clue IS NOT NULL
(0 row(s) affected)
|
|
|
|
|
Shog9 wrote: as of last December WDS still had a nasty habit of kicking in several minutes after i'd started a "rebuild all"...
Does it not have the option to pause indexing?
For example, I have Copernic desktop search. It suspends indexing when it other applications are active. However, it can still index while you're installing software, especially with an apparently frozen progress bar. In that case I just manually suspend indexing.
Kevin
|
|
|
|
|
Kevin McFarlane wrote: Does it not have the option to pause indexing?
It does, but... that's not the sort of app i really have the patience to be hand-holding.
----
Yes, but can you blame them for doing so if that's the only legal way they can hire programmers they want at the rate they can afford?-- Nish on sketchy hiring practices
|
|
|
|
|
I should add however that in your scenario of a rebuild I've not noticed any interference from indexing. Could be that CDS is more resource efficient?
Kevin
|
|
|
|
|
Kevin McFarlane wrote: Could be that CDS is more resource efficient?
That's quite possible.
Also, I use a laptop with a rather slow harddrive - which makes unnecessary disk activity really hurt. I can't tolerate virus scanners running while i work either, for the same reason.
----
Yes, but can you blame them for doing so if that's the only legal way they can hire programmers they want at the rate they can afford?-- Nish on sketchy hiring practices
|
|
|
|
|
Shog9 wrote: Maybe Vista's search is fast, and intelligent about resource usage
I don't Vista either - but my Dad does, and I've noticed that the disk seems a lot more active than when using XP - looking at the task manager, the indexing service does seem reasonably busy as well...
|
|
|
|
|
IMHO, Vista should just have an option to hide the default search box/search options. If Google/anyone else wants to, they can create their own Explorer add-in and have it place the search box there, but that's not exactly replacing the default Vista search engine, now is it?
|
|
|
|
|
here's my experience with both.
here's my computer specs:
fx-60 running at 3.2Ghz
4 gig of ram
500 gig sata-II striped raid
vista's search indexer:
75% cpu 100% of the time
95% memory usage (of 4 gigs o.O)
high task priority
ran for 2 weeks before stopping the aggressive indexing
google's search indexer
no noticable cpu utilization
no noticible memory consumption
background task priority
done indexing everything in 4 hours
so. I disabled vista's search because I don't want that piece of crap running 24/7 using all my resources on a very beefy machine, so I run google desktop. If I could integrate google's search into vista I would.
have you even tried vista's search? I'd trust a search engine's software for searching over an operating system company who wants to have their hands in everyone's pot all the time.
|
|
|
|
|
Mostly, I agree.
Except for: "I'd trust a search engine's software for searching over an operating system company who wants to have their hands in everyone's pot all the time."
That's histerical! Google's giving new meaning to the on-line Big-Brother. They unabashedly will go through your google-mail, keeping items even if you delete them. Gathering. Gathering. Gathering. And trying to by doubleclick - arguably the no. one privacy villan on the net. I don't even like to send mail to google-boxes. Could/Is Billy Gates been any worse when it comes to privacy? A plague on both their houses.
MS should be made to open up the access so that they can't destroy their competition by the technique used to put NetScape Navigator into an early grave.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
a while ago, the US government demanded that online providers such as google, yahoo, and microsoft hand over information about who is searching what. every other company gladly handed over the information except google. they were taken to court for not complying with the subpoena.
now who knows what goes on behind the scenes (neither you nor I) so anyone crying big brother does so in ignorance, but the facts that are available give me the impression that data collected by google stays with google, and that they take privacy very seriously.
everything you do online is tracked by someone (and rest assured the american government is one of those people). the concept of privacy is a misnomer, and I cannot believe for a moment that the purchase of double click had anything to do with "getting peoples secrets" it acquired one of the biggest ad companies in existence (of which google is one of the biggest even before the acquisition of double click) to take advantage of ads online. Have you forgot about the dot bomb era where every search engine around (except google) sold page rank, ran a billion ads to the highest bidder, and every other means to make a buck??? google looked like an idiot for having an "ad" free page that didn't sell page rank, and only had a few contextual text ads on each page. now google's search engine look and feel is copied by every search engine out there.
more importantly, online privacy isn't what the poll or the comments were about btw, and the "I'd trust..." bit was trusting the quality of the search indexing/storing/retrieval of data/ resource consumption, not privacy (as you so quickly jumped on the assumption van about).
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
