I’m sure that resource demands could be reduced with the removal of useless features and functions
I cannot deny that- but really, the question is- what is "useless"? many of the eye candy enhancements, obviously- and I'm sure there is a lot of other stuff, too. But what one person considers useless may be another persons main application- take the removal of movie maker- Which somebody at MS considered "useless" enough to remove- The same applies to most other features as well- Remove it- somebody will whine about it
That's what the options are for when you install Windows, though
If I may draw another parallel, to Windows 95- it introduced a number of "new features"- namely the "3d-look" for windows themselves- but this came at a resource and performance hit. Is this feature then, a "useless" one? It really doesn't add to the function- why not just draw all windows white?
Because it isn't appealing at all, probably. They decided that the trade-off between resources and look was justified- not everybody agreed at the time- and since Vista's UI requirements- especially the use of D3D at the desktop, which makes for some interesting effects but a large amount of resources used. On the other hand- these features can be disabled. It would have been nice if they had allowed for Luna themes as the "vista Basic" type, but I suppose that might have amounted to an admittance of failure.
So your saying that programs developed before Vista are badly programmed because the developers could not see into the future and predict the alterations to the API documentation that Microsoft were going to make?
No. that's not what I mean at all.
Microsoft Never changed the documentation- they change the functions to only allow what the documentation specifies.
To mount a specific example- Handles.
A Handle is a 32-bit integer (16-bit in Windows 3.1) that is used for almost everything- window handles for windows, buttons, listboxes, etc, file handles, and so on and so forth- anyway- the API documentation has never made any claims into the "internal Format" of the value (I mean, let's face it- it's a long integer. nothing special about that).
However, windows 9x had a quirk- although it's handles were 32-bit, it only used the lower 16-bits- after all, it was in a sense a partly 16-bit OS in many ways.
MS
never documented this. it just referred to it as a handle and left it at that.
However, one day, some clever programmer observed this behaviour, and decided, "hey, I can jam my own data into the upper 16-bits!" aqnd they did so. and it worked.
And then they try it on NT... (or upgrade to XP...) and it crashes. horribly. a completely different program get's activated, window drawing occurs on random other windows... etc. "now what in the heckleson could be going on?" they ask themselves.
Well, Windows NT actually uses the entire 32-bits for storing handle data... what they basically did was overwrite part of the handle value with their own, changing it and making it refer to something completely different, or more then likely simply make the handle invalid.
Now, MS never documented this- They probably never expected that anybody would actually shove their own data into a private handle value... but they did.
Now, this is obviously referring to bygone issues, essentially relic from the switch from 16-bit to 32-bit, but programmers do some really funky stuff, and think that because it works in say, windows 95, that it'll work elsewhere.
Here are some interesting blog posts:
http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2003/12/24/45779.aspxhttp://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2007/09/07/4796929.aspxNow, this isn't to say, that the compatibility issues are never microsoft fault- I cannot recall any specific examples but a few functions in some OS's didn't meet the API docs at all- and programmers (the clever little beasts) found out, for example, that they might need to cast one of the parameters to a Long, or change the function header they use to get it working.
Now- these workarounds work fine, but then, MS fixes the issue- and suddenly the workarounds are causing the issue. (although, in all fairness if MS finds a bug like that with a public function they general add (yet another) application compatibility hack, so the "workaround" programs- or at least, the popular ones - still work.
Yes run has always been in every Windows, but now you have to add it manually to the start bar. Increased User Optimisation, I will admit is a general moan about the reorganisation of Windows’ file system. Good for you, memorising all those file names and locations.
ahh, I see what you mean. Actually, I've always used Windows key+R, rather then the run item on the start menu, ever since win98SE, so I suppose I'm simply not affected by this change as much as others might. I've tinkered with the "search" box and found it pretty neat in some respects- having started various programs/documents with it- when the full name just wouldn't come in the run dialog. But- on the other hand, it sort of requires the indexing service and I've never particularly been fond of that. Even with this PC, where the only visible effect is the HD activity- it just feels... wrong- to have the HD being accessed so frequently. And also that it's practically invisible... same story with windows defender, took me a while to figure out exactly what was accessing the disk (I suspected malware, actually, since it was practically invisible...) but it turned out to be windows defender.
I've memorized the locations because I use them so much- D:\VBPROJ has been my Projects folder since I used windows 3.1
... although come to think of it I'm not sure why I need an additional "VB" folder within that. best not to think about that.
Office 2007 is the illegitimate offspring of OS10 and Vista, raised by the evil hand of Microsoft customer support team. It’s goal in life to ruin decades of IT MS Office training around the world. But I digress, back to Vista... I’m referring to the User’s personal file layout, apparently all my pictures, videos & music are not my documents and should come under such a folder.
I can't say I've ever used Office 2007... the ribbon is a neat idea, but I think they're trying to hard. At the very least there should have been an "old style" type option, because even if the new UI was easier to use overall after learning it- there was still the "learning it" part. And as you've said it practically through decades of Office training/learning- since likely the first word for windows- out the window, it really should have been more thoroughly planned.
But I think, I see what your referring to, is how the Pictures and whatnot folders are within the profile folder as opposed to within the "documents" folder. Really I can't say I've dealt with this whole "my documents" stuff ever. For me it's basically a bunch of empty folders that file dialogs start at, has been that way since I used windows 98. (although recently with XP I changed the "my documents" folder to point to D:\VBPROJ, which may explain the sudden appearance of "my pictures" and "my music" folders within it).. Honestly I've hated the whole idea of a "my documents" folder since it was introduced with windows 95... this change doesn't really phase me, since I've never liked it to begin with. I'll put my documents where
I want to, *censored*
)
I have a laptop on Vista and a computer on Vista. Can I access files between them? No. Never have and have given up trying. I am being totally serious when I say that I have had an easier time networking ME to XP. Oh and don’t get me started on the useless Vista loading bars that are about as accurate as the Windows 98 file transfer percentage bars. All they do is provide morons with a pretty green bar to look at and assume that their computer is doing something. (See reply to point “1.” about useless wastes of resources).
hmm, that's actually kind of weird- I had to tweak my XP install to get it networking with my Vista laptop but my new build didn't really have any problems communicating with my laptop. Although I won't say it was a "breeze" to setup, there was definitely some guesswork involved (namely, "now *censored* did I call the workgroup again?") and the whole issue where it insisted I go through this whoel song and dance to setup a folder share (something which also existed with XP's silly little "simple file sharing" option...
as far as the progress bars in the Location bar are concerned, I've found them pretty accurate, at least for viewing network computers. Only been in a few folders with pictures and whatnot... and it was a bit jerky at times but for the most part seemed to reflect the progress. I'm not sure if comparing it to win 9x's copy progress bars is really fair
I never had the issue of reduced performance until a reboot is performed before (usually after programs lock up and I can’t get stuff done). I’m loving the fact that program processes get stuck on and cannot be disabled. (I had this in XP as well but this is a Vista gripe not an XP gripe) XD. I agree with Patio on this you deserve a medal for that laptop.
heh, actually I got home this morning and it had rebooted from windows update. Well there goes my world record!
Come to think of it, I haven't had a PC hard-lockup on me since... well actually it was my Windows 3.1 laptop last month. I think the system board failed. heh, went to boot it it would stop right when it was about to show the prompt and say "divide error" and hang. Because that made perfect sense, lol. I have had programs crash, but for the most part it's Visual Basic, and it's my fault.
I actually like everything about the XP start menu, although I will admit initial complaints. I also like the Vista start menu layout... until I go into programs and oh no! Microsoft has removed the flowing folders. Now folders have to be clicked on and the contents drop down filling your menu even more. Yes I have to revert to the ‘Classic’ start menu, I would rather have the Vista one IF it was practically functional.
hmm, definitely a point there, and I cannot say that I find that feature to be a sound UI decision. I preferred the pop-up menu idea as well, myself. I think they're just trying to encourage people to use the Search bar, since it's so much harder to find stuff on the start menu otherwise
.
No, asides Vista being rubbish it works fine (never crashes on Linux). I’m not the only one that has problems with DirectX on Vista. C&C3 has problems with it and that’s a fairly new game.
Well, I never have. Obviously there are going to be issues on some peoples PCs various driver and hardware issues (in your case not hardware, given Linux works fine). I've personally been quite impressed with the stability of both my laptop and now desktop with Vista, (well, aside from Crysis crashing after 30-40 minutes... but I believe that's related to my graphics card). None of my older games seem to have any issues, though. Including Need for speed:High stakes
I should really thank Vista for this actually because if it’s defrag worked then I would never have discovered IO Bit Smart Defrag. (Download it, it’s good): http://www.iobit.com/
I'll admit it. I lied. I never defragment. So to say "it works fine here" was a lie. I apologize. I was making assumptions. I should have said- "it Might work fine here". But really... Dead serious... rarely defragment ever. One of the few things that we're supposed to do frequently that I practically never do. That and I often just toss files into the root directory, with the intent, "oh I'll organize them later".... 5 years later, and 4 PCs after, I
still have a copy of the Duke3d "user.con" in the root folder of D:\. Hey, I'll get to it eventually. I probably should delete it... But it's a piece of history now! A heritage file.... I couldn't!
Windows 95 – 350Mb (0.35Gb), Windows 98 – 500Mb (0.5Gb), Windows ME- 700Mb (0.7Gb), Windows XP – 1500Mb (1.5Gb), Windows Vista – 15000Mb (15Gb). So that’s:
Windows Vista – 15000Mb
Win95 – Win98 ~50% increase
Win98 – Win ME ~40% increase
Win ME – Win XP ~100% increase
Win XP – Vista ~ 1000% increase
Obviously each PC will have a different amount- but we're forgetting windows 3.1, which generally used about 15MB- so that to windows 95 was around %2333. Although I think 350MB is a bit big for a windows 95 install. I think windows 95 could fit in around 150MB, maybe less. it was a very lean OS... well, before IE4 anyway.
Microsoft allowed something new on an older version of Windows? Incredible! I thought they only let the new stuff loose on the newest versions to force people to upgrade. For the millionth time I do not want XP’s babies!
hee hee. Sorry about that. Most of that wasn't directed at you personally but rather the common cavalier attitude that basically calls out "save XP!".
Remember those lovely tabs you use to get in settings windows, like for example when you used to right click your desktop and click properties? You used to get a window with the tabs: Background, Appearance, Screen saver, etc.
Hmm, ahh, I see what you mean. really I have mixed feeling about it- at the very least they could have removed the tab from the top for each one. It's almost like their teasing us. "yeah, we
could have put all the tabs here, but we'll just put one. nyah nyah."
Hmm, actually, it might be possible to show, say display properties, with all the tabs, with good ol' rundll32.
oh dear,... this is gonna get nasty... 
Silly Silly Blockhead- this is a discussion, not an argument or flame war. Accessless makes some very good points.
I think one thing, that I hope we can all agree on, is that microsoft is at least trying to come up with old ideas- trying to improve what they have, and really nobody can say that's bad. And some parts of Vista are a bit- well, odd. and lacking, and whatnot- but I think it was important that MS make these bold attempts to redefine their OS- XP was pretty bold in some areas, and people complained at first- but Vista revamped a LOT of stuff- some of it worked- some of it didn't.
