|
Chris Maunder wrote: I remember the rants about the File and Folder tasks
I remember the "tutorials" repeatedly showing up how to turn off the XP new look. It was "called" eye-candy back then even though now it is just normal stuff. Gradient coloring, rounded edges, shadowed look on bevels and stuff. I forget who posted most of the "turn off this" bit, but I do find it ironic that everything that was hated is at the very least accepted and even praised by some.
"You'll pry my copy of DOS 3.3 DOS 6.0 Windows 3.0 Windows 3.1 Windows 3.11 Windows 95 Windows 98 Windows 2000 Windows XP from my cold dead fingers, I will never use DOS 6.0 Windows 3.0 Windows 3.1 Windows 3.11 Windows 95 Windows 98 Windows 2000 Windows XP Windows Vista!"
_________________________
Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau.
Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
|
|
|
|
|
Me too...I keep forgetting how to turn it off when I do a reinstall...
|
|
|
|
|
if you want to run the latest software, try updating your hardware. I have an e-machine and I ripped out the 2.9ghz Celeron and put in a 1.8ghz P4 processor, updated my ram to 1gb and overlayed Vista Home Premium on top of XP. I now have all my files(this was a huge deal to make my Itunes work again)in a folder called windows.old. I can run both VS2005 and VS2008 at the same time for code comparisons, while my google mail is open and I'm chatting and studying college classes online all at the same time with no problems.
Most people don't understand Vista because some very important user functions have had their names changed a little and can be found in a different place. However, if you take the time to learn how to use it, you'll be surprised at how much you can do and how easy it is.
As far as other problems such as lockups/freezes and things like that, I've never had that problem. But then, I'm the only one I know that successfully ran Windows ME for over a year without experiencing any of the horrors we all heard so much about.
If you can read, you will learn
|
|
|
|
|
I run Vista at home and on one of my developer boxes at work and I haven't had any problems since I installed the service packs for Visual Studio and SQL Server. Well there is the problem I had with UltraEdit but I blame UltraEdit, not Vista (their installer doesn't like IE7 so I switched to PSPad).
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I guess it goes under "haven't used it enough to make a call".
Seriously, I have heard mostly good things about Vista (well except here at CP  ), but the machines I use are simply not good enough to run it. When I buy/get a new one, it will probably have Vista pre-installed anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
Every tried to get a Vista machine onto a secured wireless network? Why is it that 50% of the time it prompts for the WEP key and the other 50% it asks for a username and password? Close the wireless options and reopen them a few times and low and behold it will change it's mind every few times. I've seen this with about 50-60 different Vista machines. Makes no sense at all.
I've also seen about a dozen Vista infected machines (yes...Vista is a disease!) that wouldn't run the updater automatically even though it's set to run automatically, OR it will do some updates and not others. Got people on the phone to Microsoft trying to figure out why and the Microsoft phone reps are APOLOGIZING for the evil product!
When opening and saving files it's totally clunky if you need to choose a different folder than the one you are already pointing at.
POS OS in my opinion. Who needs 'pretty' when you can have functionality!
|
|
|
|
|
I suspect Vista is so slow because MS has used .NET code in it. .NET requires JITing, boxing/unboxing, array-bounds checking, and automatic gargage collection.
While this is acceptable for an average business application, I think this technology is inappropriate for an operating system.
|
|
|
|
|
Alan Balkany wrote: I suspect Vista is so slow because MS has used .NET code in it.
They tried, but eventually removed it (one of the reasons Vista was late).
|
|
|
|
|
GemmaBlckbrn wrote: Got people on the phone to Microsoft trying to figure out why and the Microsoft phone reps are APOLOGIZING for the evil product!
That's pretty standard for customer service.. Microsoft has delt with a lot of buggy releases, including every operating system they've released... just because a phone rep appologizes doesn't mean anything - I'm an I/T guy too, and I appologize for my customer's user-error all the time...
|
|
|
|
|
...but that's the only benifit I can figure out. I don't do PC Games (except Spider Solitaire while something big is compiling) and I don't do graphics...I'm artistically Challanged.
I've used Vista some on a friends computer and if you're a developer, I don't see the point. It just uses more Resources.
But I must say when games are played or artsy-fartsy stuff is shown, it looks nice!
|
|
|
|
|
This post, I'll be a little more serious.
For whom was Vista developed. Not for developers.* It's an additional visual dog-and-pony show. Security could have been enhanced upon XP if that was the concern. It was, in my opinion, a necessary add-in but not a driving force.
Look at the way movies are made. TV News is presented. Even newspapers. It's all for short attention spans and lots of special effects. It takes advantage of the growing (dominant) generalized anti-intellectual environment.**
Conspicuous Consumption has become a way of life (for those who have access). Vista feeds into that way of life.
So, walk the dog. Brush the pony. The show must go on.
*Unless you count getting paid to re-write software.
** This means no one will take a chance on Linux - they have to learn something 'new' - and it might be hard. That would be unpleasant. Taught early, in children's cartoons: The "geeks" may save the day, but the jock gets the girl. Thinkers are useful, but who wants to be one of them anymore? At least that's what they're selling.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe I'm asking to much when I ask for some substance...but I don't think so.
|
|
|
|
|
No - you're just showing your age.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
Balboos wrote: No - you're just showing your age.
Dang! I hate it when that happens...and you kids get off my lawn!
Signed: Not Quite to AARP Joe 
|
|
|
|
|
True Vista is Pretty useless.... 
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
