For all those who have "HEARD" Vista is bad

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Rifleman

Vista, it's core, the kernel, only uses 404K of RAM when in use.

---

Sorry, but that is the most retarded thing I have heard in a long time.:grin:
Besides the kernel there are a bunch of DLL's that are required for running and O/S. There is word that some guys have managed to run an absolutely minimal version of Vista in 25M or so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Rifleman

By your standards of programming Win95 is inferior to Win1 cause Win1 would FLY with only 256KB of RAM.

---

Absolutely NOT! There are radical improvements in Win95. However from 95 to Vista the only radical change is the interface... oh and the resources required...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by slgrieb

I don't think he means we should all go back to CP/M, Wordstar, and CalcStar, he's just making the point that slower, more bloated code, consuming more and more horsepower shouldn't be an inevitable outcome of newer, more capable software.

---

Well put! Absolutely I'm not advocating going back to those days. But look for example at Office97 vs Office2007... virtually nothing has changed apart from the layout of buttons. They all do virtually the same. Yet try to load Office2007 on a P233/64M:eek:
However I *do* have a Spectrum Sinclair-compatible that can run CP/M in working condition... and I can at any time run ws or multiplan... just in case ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by slgrieb

Could most software be far more efficient? Sure. How much software is written in assembly languages these days?

---

A lot of software is inefficient because 2 main factors:
1. The tendency of programmers to break everything into (too) small classes and objects - resulting in way too many instantiating calls (though it makes it easier to program, I have to admit it)
2. Compilers generate bigger and bigger code
Nobody writes in assembly these days (well apart from some maniacs...). But there is no excuse for code compiled with a new compiler (VS2005) to run some 30 times slower than when compiled with a 10+ years compiler (Borland C++ 3). Yes, 30x slower... doing *exactly the same*.

We've appartently gotta situation where you think things were done to hinder users and that ya coulda personally done better. I'd like to see the proof rather than opinion. This is where someone creates an improvment to the existing code and I don't see it happening. You want to talk about the core, not the additions, then you wanna talk about the core with some additional DLLs, you can bias your comparisons all day long to skew anything any way you like.

As stated before, a barebones loaded with 95 back in it's day was much less usable than a barebones loaded with Vista today, so the comparison is pure rhetoric. Progress is progress, not everyone likes it, but it comes about anyhow. The creatures of habit will just hafta deal with it (and the ones with the bad habits typically scream the loudest).

I guess I may have to have Kedrin send you the nekkid pics of Ferrit to finally get ya to quit talkin down on a good product... :uke:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Rifleman

I guess I may have to have Kedrin send you the nekkid pics of Ferrit to finally get ya to quit talkin down on a good product... :uke:

---

I heard he looks just like his avatar....:rolleyes:

Everyday I seem to read posts of Vista Haters and when I am consulted about a new PC purchase I hear from almost everybody "Hey Bob, can you help me out with selecting a new computer but I do not want Vista because my friend told me it sucks" Only to find out that this friend is a truck driver (no offense to the truck drivers out there) that has no IT experience, has never used Vista, and barely touches a computer. I have installed and worked on countless machines with Vista on them and have yet to find a problem that I can trace back to the operating system. In fact most people that give me the "Vista Sucks" attitude just bought a PC from an OEM that loaded it up with "crapplications" like toolbars, freeware/trialware, and useless extras. I usually show them how to clean the system up and they are amazed on how much better it runs.


I will agree that Vista Premium versions require more ram than its predeccessor but I want to add that if you turn off the visuals and bring it back the more basic look of XP it only requires slightly more (100 - 200MB) of Ram to operate on a similar PC installed with similar applications. To me that is no different the earlier generations of Windows.

My main attraction to Vista is the overall experience when it comes to everyday use. It is the little things that make my everyday work easier. I find that everything I need is virtually at my fingertips and a click away depending on what I am doing in the operating system. The built in backup features are wonderful for the everyday consumer that never seems to back up their files. I have showed many people how to do this and schedule backups to a secondary drive in their system such as a large USB Memory stick or a USB Hard Drive. Yeah you can get something like ghost like someone mentioned in an earlier post but why do that when Windows will give it to you and it is easier for the average PC user to use. In this day and age where DVD-Burners are almost a standard feature and everybody has a digital camera that can take pics and short movies the Movie Maker and DVD Maker programs are also great. Easy to use and within minutes the average person can make a home movie or picture slideshow that they can play in any DVD player. Aren't features like these that windows users used to complain about that Apple had standard. So the way I see it a lot of the items in Vista were requested by its users and/or developed based on how a typical user uses their PC. So people are going to bitch and complain because Microsoft listened to its customers and included features people wanted in their operating system. I just don't get it. If you complain about performance just put some memory in the computer. For most modern computers you can get 2GB for $50 in some cases. If you are going to buy a computer with low memory or install Vista on a 3+ year old computer with 512MB or less of memory then you have no right to complain.

I want to close that I am not saying Vista is perfect and problem free but what operating system (or piece of software) is? I haven't found one yet. But I will say that over 90% of the problems blamed on Vista are not problems of Vista in the first place.

Whew! Sorry for the rant but this whole thing where everytime MS releases a new product version and people instantly attacking it (in most cases from people who have no clue what they are talking about) gets old very fast. All this does is get out the average computer user who does not know any better and they end up believing it and it spreads and spreads like a vicious rumor.

AMEN brutha!

It was a good rant, don't apologize for it.. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BOB IROC

So people are going to bitch and complain because Microsoft listened to its customers and included features people wanted in their operating system. I just don't get it.

---

Problem is that they forced everything into it instead of leaving the additional "features" as an optional component that can be added or removed.
So maybe for average Joe it is a benefit but otherwise...
-I don't care about movie maker, I use Premiere or Media Studio
-I don't care about built-in backup, I use Backup Exec from a remote server
-I don't care about (the crappy) built-in zipper, my file manager has a better one
Any decent O/S should (in my opinion) give you options for selecting components... yes have a default install for Joe "my CPU has a 2GHz hard drive" but leave advanced options for whomever knows what he/she is doing... just like in the days of '95
And going back to the way software is written - look what SP2 did to XP, then magically SP3 boosts performance... hmmmm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CeeBee

why should you need a high-end video card to view the desktop??? 3D games have been around for ages and needed by far less graphics power...

---

I think you forgot that to get the 3d graphics, you had to get a 3d accelerator....expensive! It wasn't until the Geforce 256 did pc graphics actually get good 3d performance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CeeBee

a bunch of useless gadgets that most people don't care about.

---

Exactly which gadgets and which people? The people I see are impressed with a number of things Vista does, the interesting thing is that each person is impressed by something different. It's about what appeals to the individual. The single most useful gadget for me on the Vista sidebar is the analogue clock. It's large and I don't need to read it - I can just look at the pattern it displays and know the time. A silly thing really, but it beats the hell out of peering down at the task bar.

I still have the original Kings Quest upstairs, I have an old IBM laptop which I keep as a DOS machine. There was alot that could be done with it. I remember debating with a machine code programmer about the necessity for larger and larger RAM requirements. He was absolutely of the opinion that it was tantamount to moving house because the trash cans were full. To an extent, I agree with him. But developing code is expensive and reusable code is seen as a great way of saving money and time. Reusable means must work under several circumstances which means that at any time part of that code is not needed in another project. The world simply won't wait for programmers to acquire "real" programming skills and people are not prepared to pay for the extra time it takes for code to be properly optimised. If the hardware is cheap, why spend money on optimisation when the hardware can handle it?

CeeBee, I sympathise, but no one wants to pay for a really good job, they will only just about pay for a job that is good enough. The day you first used a CASE tool was the beginning of the end of the hard learned specific skills.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheRifleman

Do you really wanna see Ferrit or me naked and hungry?

---

Err no... and just the thought of that image....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CeeBee

Problem is that they forced everything into it instead of leaving the additional "features" as an optional component that can be added or removed.
So maybe for average Joe it is a benefit but otherwise...
-I don't care about movie maker, I use Premiere or Media Studio
-I don't care about built-in backup, I use Backup Exec from a remote server
-I don't care about (the crappy) built-in zipper, my file manager has a better one
Any decent O/S should (in my opinion) give you options for selecting components... yes have a default install for Joe "my CPU has a 2GHz hard drive" but leave advanced options for whomever knows what he/she is doing... just like in the days of '95
And going back to the way software is written - look what SP2 did to XP, then magically SP3 boosts performance... hmmmm

---

CeeBee you are not an average user and probably represent a small segment of the computer user population. Just because you don't care about those features or find them "crappy" doesn't mean the majority of Microsofts target audience does. Every mainstream OS (including Apples) installs features that some people will never use. To the best of my knowledge apples little "iApplications" are an integral part of OS X so they are no different. I am sure if you research enough you may find ways to remove those "unwanted" features. Or better yet just don't use them. I don't see the Microsoft Police coming to your house and forcing you to use them. You have to realize that Microsoft Windows is an operating system designed to target many different audiences and work with many different systems. So they cannot always taylor it to every possible individual user or situation. Maybe they could invest some time into finding ways to have these features not installed but maybe they do not find it cost effective for the small percentage of people that are going complain about it.

When it comes to the way software is written you are complaining that Microsoft released Service Pack 2 and it cut into the performance of a PC a little bit? Then spent time and released another Service Pack to address more issues including performance. What a terrible company they are. At least they pass these service packs and new features on to their customers for free unlike some other OS maker (cough cough Apple).

Fortunately its the users who pay our bills that we need to convince and not CeeBee. Amen to that
I have had zero problems deploying vista even to customers who "heard it was crap.
We all want bigger better faster (well except CeeBee) and thats what it evolves to whether we like it or not.

Oh and Rifleman quit posting them pics. :flames:

By the way, best thread production wise I ever started eheheheheh

Just so long as we're all in agreement Ceebee is off his rocker :P

Hi Noo!

CeeBee is not off his rocker... it may be he just hasn't discovered Vista Basic :D

Hi Rifleman!

I meant he was off his rocker for not conceding the point.

Guess he want's the sample pic of Ferrit that Ked sends out to scare folk. :eek:

Hmmm maybe CeeBee likes to look inside the box... Albiet a very closed and sheltered box but a box none the less. Opposed to the rest of you who might be looking outside it. I find everyones point of view interesting as it is nice to hear the pros and cons from every angle. Oh and no offense with the box comment it was just in jest. I myself have reservations against vista but I learn more and more my judgements are based on my lack of practice and time to learn about about vista than any actual design flaws. I'm sure the more I work with it I'll find a flaw or two but if there weren't flaws in programs I'm sure most of us wouldn't have a job. Keep the posts up I do find this very informative, and fun.

Let's see things that Vista/XP/NT has brought in that win95/98 did not have:

MultiCore support. Back then, a dual processor system was unheard of except by the true professional and way out of the majority of people's price range. If you did have a dual core, you would be running NT and not 9x.

Isolated Kernel. Win95 let anything run in kernel mode. This is one of the biggest reasons Vista/XP crashed a lot less than 95. Back then, applications could access hardware directly, it was faster, but your system was susceptable to the skill of the programmer for that application, now, they *must* work through the HAL preventing a lot of system crashes.

Modular Operating system; this is new to Vista, it's existed in *nix for a while. Rather than incorporate everything into the kernel (like 9x/XP) the kernel runs windows, and everything is setup around the kernel, that way, if something crashs in one of the core components, the whole OS won't go down.

Data Execution Prevention, Vista only. Let's force programmers to program properly so that we can increase security. let's not allow applications to run from memory address spaces that is flagged for data only.

Finally, the newer operating systems are needed to handle the new hardware coming out:
Fat32 on a 1 terabyte drive; talk about slack space
Did you ever try installing win9x on a system with 768+ megs of ram?
NT on a harddrive larger than 7.8 gig... i still shutter at that one
PCI-e

etc etc etc...



The end result is that the VAST majority of the improvements made in operating systems, people don't care about. They care by what they can see and feel. That's why Vista is so promonent on the eye-candy, it's in your face about security and it's as backwards compatible as it could be made.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ferrit

Fortunately its the users who pay our bills that we need to convince and not CeeBee. Amen to that
I have had zero problems deploying vista even to customers who "heard it was crap.
We all want bigger better faster (well except CeeBee) and thats what it evolves to whether we like it or not.

Oh and Rifleman quit posting them pics. :flames:

By the way, best thread production wise I ever started eheheheheh

---

I think i still have that picture of you posing with The Cat, talk about disgracefull.. Don't make me post that one also ;)