|
i will let him/her know about fully featured vista
|
|
|
|
|
Windows Vista is cool, right up until you have to explain what in the @#$% Microsoft has done with their Operating System to one of your screaming executive directors who doesn't have a clue about how to use his own computer, much less about Microsoft or IT...
Sometimes, I think Executives should be required to have a license to operate a computer...I know the one over at LTM in Richmond types with his left pointer finger one character at a time and doesn't know what "defrag" means -- I know this, because we spent an hour-and-a-half in a meeting to understand what it was and how it worked. He was our company's VP and a former Colonel...I have to wonder what he was doing with his hands when he was in the service when he wasn't spending all day typing a single sentence with one finger.
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are a number of problems which I have had with Vista.
I used it for a while, but the problems it had overcame the minor improvements that I noticed.
- Turn off the GUI. You basically have an incredibly slow version of win2k
- By default, you receive popups when you run any application (Very anoying)
- There does not appear to be any major enhancements which are not available in XP
- The way Vista buffers your hdd into memory is not logical and overworks your machine
- Many older apps and games do not work
So far, I see no reason to "upgrade" to Vista. There will come a time when XP is too out of date (Like win2k is now) and everyone will be forced to upgrade. (Win2k was a fantastic OS. Becoming outdated was it's only downfall)
Most of the time, I run Linux. I would run fully on Linux (or Mac OS if I could afford a Mac) if I could run all my applications under it. Wine etc are good, but just don't cut it really.
The core of Linux is far better than Windows. There is an obvious lack of support, however it is getting better.
Windows is not keeping up anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
Member 1647671 wrote: Linux
Seriously. On many occasions with the later versions of Windows need to be sent to 'Recycle Bin' or given a delete key tribute with the 'Shift' key depressed. 
Vasudevan Deepak Kumar
Personal Homepage
Tech Gossips
The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep!
|
|
|
|
|
I have not upgraded my box to Vista, but from what I've seen on other people's machines, it is a decent OS. From the limited experience I've had with it, I think as good as XP if not better.
But let me get to my main point. A friend of mine was buying a new laptop recently to replace his Win 98 box (yeah people apparently still use that). He picked a Sony Vaio but he called me to ask if he should get XP or Vista. (I guess they had an option to choose). He has heard Vista is unstable etc and he was also concerned that he has to learn his ways around the new GUI.
I told him to get Vista and here is why:
1. Vista seems very stable and fast on new hardware (given it is well configured)
2. The OS has been released for a couple of years now and most of the early issues have been resolved.
3. SP1 for Vista has been released. (even XP was crappy until SP1 was released).
4. You have to learn the new GUI sooner or later. Windows 7 is coming out in about 1 year and it will use the same interface. It is the way of the future, learning it sooner rather then later is in your interest.
Why have I not moved to Vista you ask ?? My hardware is fairly old (single core 2600 Amd Athlon XP with 1.5Gb RAM). I just don't have the money right now, nor the desire to build a new PC (I build my own machines).
Since Windows 7 will be coming out in about an year, I think I'll wait it out, still, XP is in the past, give it a couple of years and XP will be the equivalent of Win 98 or 2000 or whatever.
|
|
|
|
|
I'd have to say, its just fast period..not only on new hardware. I have a 5 year old P4 machine that runs vista better than a throughly cleaned version of the copy of XP that came on it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
El Corazon wrote: everyone thought I was insane.
No, too easy. I want a challenge. 
|
|
|
|
|
LOL yeah I do remember.
I also remember how people grumbled about the "new" XP interface being so different than Win2000 and how it would require a lot of time to learn and all that ...
|
|
|
|
|
I have to say I've had no problems with Vista at all. I'm running the 64 bit version on a dual core Athlon64 thingy with NVidia graphics. You can't blame the operating system for poor drivers creating blue screens.
I don't think searching for files is as good as XP, but like the enhanced start button where you can just type what you want to run (which I think is part of the new search). 'Previous Versions' makes me uncomfortable as well in that when I permanently delete I file I expect it to be permanently deleted, but overall Vista feels pretty good to me.
Regards,
Rob Philpott.
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps not. Windows 5.1 does everything I could ever want and more and I see no good reason to pay money to upgrade 12 PCs. I was intrigued to notice that Microsoft are basing their next generation of Windows XP Embedded on Windows 7 rather than 6. Whoopee! I can skip a whole OS generation and not feel the pain.
Expategghead
|
|
|
|
|
Expategghead wrote: Windows 7 rather than 6. Whoopee!
you obviously didn't read.... windows 7 IS windows 6 plus a new paint and new calculator. 
_________________________
Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau.
Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
John Andrew Holmes "It is well to remember that the entire universe, with one trifling exception, is composed of others."
|
|
|
|
|
Are you a restricted user? Have you had Windows apply updates and tell you it was going to shut down in thirty seconds and not give you an option?
|
|
|
|
|
I'm still using XP, and it even disturbs me that XP wants to automatically shut down in 5 minutes (but you can canel it). Well, in XP it's possible to disable this using gpedit.msc
|
|
|
|
|
elektrowolf wrote: XP wants to automatically shut down in 5 minutes
I've never seen that. On mine, XP will download updates and then when I go to shutdown it says it asks if it should install them before it shuts down. I think that should be the default behaviour.
elektrowolf wrote: it's possible to disable this using gpedit.msc
After someone mentioned that about Vista I looked, but it seems Vista Home doesn't have gpedit.
|
|
|
|
|
PIEBALDconsult wrote: elektrowolf wrote:
it's possible to disable this using gpedit.msc
After someone mentioned that about Vista I looked, but it seems Vista Home doesn't have gpedit.
Quote Selected Text
gpedit.msc is on my Vista installations; maybe it's only missing the Home version(s). May have been true on XP too.
I think you can also get that behavior just be choosing the Windows Update option to "Download updates but let me choose whether to install them." (At least I don't remember changing anything w/r/t updates in gpedit.)
|
|
|
|
|
There's upgrades and there's upgrades.
Most of my systems (and I dare say, those in the outside world) are not particularly Vista ready, unable to "unleash" it's full (or dubious?) benefits.
How many systems max-out at 2GB RAM. Quite a few. Should I be driven to buy a new PC because of this bloatware? Even my Laptop screams now (XPsp2) with it's 2GB maxed out. I'm afraid those screams of joy would turn into tears of dispair.
Add to this the general experience that so much software needs patching and/or replacement in order to run and we have a product that would never sell if it were not being preloaded on systems. Sold largely to the innocent (although if it's there first PC, perhaps that doens't matter?).
Those of us who call it crap have various reasons. Let's put aside that it may need another service pack or two. It's the demand for hardware resources that do not encompass the generally owned user systems that's troubling.
Then I look at Linux upgrades. Backwards compatability to die for. Certainly when compared to Windows. Windows is just consumer-be-damned (but look at the pretty pictures!).
The 'crap' in it's nature is at a spiritual level.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"How do you find out if you're unwanted if everyone you try to ask tells you to stop bothering them and just go away?" - Balboos HaGadol
"It's a sad state of affairs, indeed, when you start reading my tag lines for some sort of enlightenment?" - Balboos HaGadol
|
|
|
|
|
Balboos wrote:
Then I look at Linux upgrades. Backwards compatability to die for.
And that is both software and hardware.
John
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dear all,
Any of you have code for a high-resolution precise timer under Vista.?(Expected atleast 1 micro-second precision). The purpose is to do data-transfer to and fro PCI device between very small time intervals(0.0001s). Even minute inconsistancy will affect the end result.
Stated below are two assembly functions which I've been calling till today from my VC++ application to attain this. Both works perfectly under all previous Windows OS (frm Windows 98 - XP) with acceptable consistancy (less than 0.2% error always) and nano-second resolution.
Though it is working on Vista, its not providing that sort of accuracy, even after disabling all eye-candy graphic options of Vista.
Function - 1
__int64 GetMachineCycleCount()
{ __int64 cycles; _asm rdtsc; // won't work on 486 or below - only pentium or above
_asm lea ebx,cycles;
_asm mov [ebx],eax;
_asm mov [ebx+4],edx; return cycles; }
Function - 2
void Delay(__int64 uSec )
{
__int64 n=0;
for(__int64 i = 0; i < uSec; i++)
{
n++;
_asm nop
}
}
Any suggestions on modification of these codes or support on a code for a consistant-high-resolution timer on Vista would is greatly appreciated.
Thanks in Advance - Jose
|
|
|
|
|
Jose Praveen wrote: Any suggestions on modification of these codes or support on a code for a consistant-high-resolution timer on Vista would is greatly appreciated.
I think the problem is that you didn't use inline VB's uber nanosecond timing that can set to lower intervals that get ignored even though it's only like really a 44 ms resolution restriction.
You see the trick is despite the WM_TIMER restrictions Vista had a new feature that you can fool the OS by using a bogus value, but in VB only. So, try some inline VB like so to initiate the hax:
__int64 Delay(__int64 uSec)
{
_vb
{
Dim tHax As Timer
tHax = 1 \ 0 ' init hax
OnError Return tHax.HiddenWindowsCode.TinyTimer.Now
}
}
|
|
|
|
|
I am getting "_vb - undeclared identifier" error when trying to use your codes under VC++. Do I need to set something?
|
|
|
|
|
Jose Praveen wrote: Do I need to set something?
Yeah, check out MSDN for the /allowvb compiler switch.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
