|
Be nice if microsoft thought more aboput developers and created a developer version that has all the benefits of Vista's framework with none of the fancy over the top stuff and super prettied up gui. You know, really fast and also really up to date...or at least made a program that can run on vista to make this happen.
|
|
|
|
|
I made the mistake of getting Vista before its first service pack was released. 
Once I finally decide that UAC can go to Hell (as opposed to it sending me there every day) I think Vista will be much more palatable.
:josh:
My WPF Blog[ ^]
Without a strive for perfection I would be terribly bored.
|
|
|
|
|
You can turn UAC off, you know
'Howard
|
|
|
|
|
Howard Richards wrote: You can turn UAC off, you know
Yes I know. That's what I meant when I wrote "Once I decide UAC can to go Hell..."
:josh:
My WPF Blog[ ^]
Without a strive for perfection I would be terribly bored.
|
|
|
|
|
Than what is the point in using Vista over XP? More hardware requirements, more memory requirements and nothing else.
UAC was supposed to offer better security, similar to OS X and Linux. Microsoft's implementation of UAC is bolted on and out of place.
Jeez, OS X and Linux have been doing this for years and it feels like a natural part of the OS.
With Vista, it feels like you either put up with the crap that is UAC or you go back to XP style "security". Basically running at admin/root.
So Vista with no UAC is just a waste since it requires more memory and better hardware.
Gee, I think I will pass.
OS X 10.5 Leopard and Ubuntu Linux have replaced everything I have needed to do under XP/Vista. For .Net development, I just use Parallels. Parallels lets me run XP at near native speeds, it integrates into OS X so that a native XP app looks and seems like a native OS X app. It is a great product and worth the money.
Now if you only care about XP for games, then use BootCamp and boot to XP for the games.
I am not a big PC gamer, I only need XP for Visual Studio and I have found I am SOOO much more happy using OS X and Parallels to run .Net.
|
|
|
|
|
I use XP at work and Vista at home. I must say after using Vista for a year, I would not consider using it as a development environment. Its ok for the kind of stuff I do at home..games,tv, movies,email but to often I have had Vista just not work after an auto update or had to manually register dll and ocx files. We would not dream of using Vista at work on a development system(we have a system to test installs and compatibility for our software).
When prediction serves as polemic, it nearly always fails. Our prefrontal lobes can probe the future only when they aren’t leashed by dogma. The worst enemy of agile anticipation is our human propensity for comfy self-delusion. David Brin
Buddha Dave
|
|
|
|
|
I run XP on my development machine and would not switch in a million years - Vista is simply too big and too slow. It also seems a bit less stable, but that is a subjective impression based on using it on my laptop (in a spirit of adventure, you understand).
I do feel Microsoft have lost the plot a bit. While Vista does have one or two nice features (like windows-tab and breadcrumbs in explorer) I really don't think it justifies all the hype, or the vast amount of system resources it needs. 800MB of RAM in use just to run ZoneAlarm and IE? No thanks. I really feel sorry for people who but a new PC with Vista pre-installed (and one of those silly 'recovery partitions' - ugh) and have no choice but to live with it.
|
|
|
|
|
I like both XP and Vista, and I would go back to XP if I could too, but my computer came with XP 64bit( A big fault on my part for ordering that version of Windows), which I thought would rock because games would run twice as fast as 32 bit ones, as I have a 64 bit processor, however I learned its not like that, and some old classic 16 bit games, that were developed in Windows 98 and Windows 95, don't work on XP 64, so if I did decide to go back it would be to that version, unless I order 32 bit.
On the other hand, I find Vista extremly useful, and I'm looking forward to testing the new API's.
Tom
|
|
|
|
|
While the poll is happening I just wanted to find out if I was on my own with this little problem:
I am happily programming away on my computer designing the next thing to Google (some parts of this story may be embellished). When suddenly the computer prompts me to ask if I want to save the file I am working on, this is the standard prompt you get if you try to close Visual Studio without saving all your files first. Of course I am still working on the file and don't want to close the application so I click cancel. Suddenly the application still closes, the screen blanks and then I see and nice message on screen telling me that vista is configuring updates!!
Hang on a minute I told my application not to close! I have just lost all my work since my last save (and yes I am one of the 99% of the world that don't save their work every 3.5 seconds)! and more importantly who told Vista that it should install the updated then and there! I saw no prompt the system never told me it need to do something!! Are Microsoft controlling this?
The first time this happened I thought maybe it was something I clicked! The second and third times it happened I started on my letter to Microsoft. I am wondering if I can charge MS for the work I lost?
|
|
|
|
|
MCEdwards wrote: I am wondering if I can charge MS for the work I lost?
If you could (if we could) - then it never would have happend. Accountability would adjust MS's attitude.
Consider (or if you're an old phart like me, recall) MS-DOS 6.0. This was the first MS-DOS with disk compression. It ruined countless systems - so then MS released 6.1. No bills to pay.
The sound of Bill Gates snoring: "Ooops. Snicker Snicker Snicker. Ooops. Snicker Snicker Snicker."
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
It's just that I'm not sure I like to use Vista
Alex C. D.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm with this guy. I like XP for myself but it seems to work well on my gf's machine. She was always getting adware on her old xp box, despite my efforts. Vista is locked down so hard by default that her box is as clean as if I just installed it. The only bad thing is that its slow as heck.  Mebbe the next version will be like XP to ME (vista).
|
|
|
|
|
I didn't ditch my XP install...
|
|
|
|
|
Microsoft has made a big mistake with Vista.
I have done 3 installations on my main machine, each with varying success. The first installation would cause 2 (apparently) different network connections, each one causing different problems and really slowing down my internet service. Every time that I'd delete the copy, it would return on rebooting.
In the second instance, I installed a utility that was supposed to be Vista compatible but always seemed to run into problems. What happened to the backward compatibility philosophy? I don't expect something that worked on Win 98 to work on Vista, but something that works on XP should, without flaw. So far I have found about a dozen of my favorite software packages that are incompatible, most likely because of the Aero graphics.
My third try, I made a concerted effort to not install anything that wasn't 100% compatible. All device drivers were good, but the computer was slower than I expected. It turns out that my 6 month old nVidia card with 256 mb memory was insufficient for the Aero graphics. I bought a newer card with a faster GPU and the computer is much better.
Sometimes when opening Outlook it freezes. This is not an unknown problem and I've seen it happen with XP. My guess is that Outlook hits a snag whilst trying to synchronize with Hotmail. Normally this is solved by killing the Outlook process and restarting the application. In XP the Task Manager is quick to pop-up and allow you to delete. I have waited up to 3 minutes for the Task Manager in Vista, but most of the time I've hit the reset button first. How did Microsoft ever let Vista get released without a quick responding task manager?
There are numerous other problems, but not all is bad. Some of the mechanisms, while irritating, are better for security purposes. Sure it's annoying to be asked if I want something to install or to be asked if it's OK to use administrative privileges, but the risk of a virus outbreak outweighs the inconvenience.
The bottom line for me is that Vista wasn't ready for prime time and therein lies the problem. Every time I turn around there is something new in development. If I could give any advice to Microsoft it would be slow down. In less than 5 years we're already beta testing .NET Framework 3.5 and many developers are still at version 1.1. Meanwhile some of the bugs in ASP.Net 2.0 go unresolved.
Frankly, if IIS 7.0 and DirectX 10 were available for Windows XP there is no question that I'd be re-installing Windows XP.
|
|
|
|
|
MythicalMe wrote: How did Microsoft ever let Vista get released without a . . .
This quote should answer your questions:
"We're Microsoft. We don't give a damn. We don't have to!"
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
If those are the only two things keeping you..
There are no proper games that are DX10-only anyway, not yet (as far as I know).
I'd just go back to XP.. (I did..)
|
|
|
|
|
We already know that nobody likes Vista... Should be something like ,"How much has Vista ruined your life". With a scale starting at 5 and going to 10.
Hogan
|
|
|
|
|
lol
Agreed.
Yesterday, Vista told me a text file was -65000 bytes.
 I suppose some bugs are suBtle
|
|
|
|
|
You need to copy and paste quite a lot of "Lorem ipsum.."-nonsense-text into the file to just make it empty...
Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable, let's prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all.
Douglas Adams, "Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency"
|
|
|
|
|
Oh yeah I agree!
I have developed a tool for my own usage (everything that I might need when using my computer) since early windows 98.... and it is about 20,000 lines of code....
Up to now, it ran on all windows, but on VISTA, it cannot run!   
I installed vista, THEN I installed my tool, it didn't run --> I deleted vista!!
|
|
|
|
|
I have had little or no problems with running any of my software. Have you considered that your tool wasn't following the guidelines. And I'm not talking about specific Vista guidelines but ones that have been there for a while. If your program had followed the guidelines it should work on Vista very easily. With a little additional tweaking you can also get around the UAC irritation also.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think there were every any guidelines for Windows development that you could take seriously. I remember once reading in a MSDN artical "you should avoid writing to the registry too much". MS apps themselves broke that one, writing kbs to the registry with wild abandon.
|
|
|
|
|
but that would be biased 
Actually, I voted yes.
|
|
|
|
|
snorkie wrote: We already know that nobody likes Vista...
Who is "we"? Certainly not me, I've been developing in it for over 9 months now and I'm very happy with it.
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscripti catapultas habebunt
|
|
|
|
|
John Cardinal wrote: Who is "we"? Certainly not me, I've been developing in it for over 9 months now and I'm very happy with it.
Me too, I have been developing on vista during the past 6 months. Besides of some initial problem, I'm quite happy too. I don't see it as worse than XP (I may be wrong).
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
