Welcome guest. Before posting on our computer help forum, you must register. Click here it's easy and free.

Author Topic: Why am I using Vista?  (Read 14211 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

BC_Programmer


    Mastermind
  • Typing is no substitute for thinking.
  • Thanked: 1104
    • Yes
    • Yes
    • BC-Programming.com
  • Certifications: List
  • Computer: Specs
  • Experience: Beginner
  • OS: Windows 8
Re: Why am I using Vista?
« Reply #15 on: August 13, 2009, 10:00:05 AM »
Quote
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  :P


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.




Quote
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.aspx

http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2007/09/07/4796929.aspx

Now, 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.


Quote
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.


Quote
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* ;D)

Quote
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 :P

Quote
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!  :P

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.

Quote
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 :P.

Quote
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 :D

Quote
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!  ;D

Quote
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.

Quote
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!".

Quote
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.
I was trying to dereference Null Pointers before it was cool.

Accessless

    Topic Starter


    Adviser
  • Thanked: 14
    • Yes
  • Computer: Specs
  • Experience: Experienced
  • OS: Windows 7
Re: Why am I using Vista?
« Reply #16 on: August 13, 2009, 11:18:27 AM »
Right bare with me here, I'm a bit rubbish rubbish with programming. So people used to write programs and add stuff after the first 16-bits which MS left blank. (I expect to see a similar thing going from 32-bit to 64). How is it programmers fault unless MS said that they were going to use those last 16 bits and the programmers were just being short sited?

You have to admit though that MS 3.1 to 95 was a bit of a jump. I mean did 3.1 actually do anything apart from being a visual aid to what was basically DOS? Windows Vista is not that far ahead of XP, not 1000% anyway. On the other hand 3.1 to Win95 is about 6000% progress, I'm surprised that they managed to compress it that much.

I think that all my OS sizes should be the maximum install size w/o expansion packs.

Can you believe that I forgot to mention Vista's security paranoia? "Did you know that you just clicked on this program?" "Will you allow this program you just opened to proceed?" "Someone has disabled your start up items!". This was one of the first things that I disabled and replaced.

And I must admit lying about IE8. I started using Firefox when they were still on IE6. I only occasionally open IE (Internet Exploiter) to disable the many adware programs and search bars that it accumulates.
Back on good old fashioned Air cooling again.

Gen0



    Greenhorn


    BC_Programmer


      Mastermind
    • Typing is no substitute for thinking.
    • Thanked: 1104
      • Yes
      • Yes
      • BC-Programming.com
    • Certifications: List
    • Computer: Specs
    • Experience: Beginner
    • OS: Windows 8
    Re: Why am I using Vista?
    « Reply #18 on: August 13, 2009, 07:27:01 PM »
    UAC kinda pissed me off at first too, and I disabled it- but after  I reinstalled  (to get all the preinstalled cruft out... it was REALLY slow with all the crap toshiba thought I needed.... manufacturers may be partly responsible for all the problems many people using Vista experience... but It has, in a way, prevented several issues. Programs I download that shouldn't need Administrator access asking for it raises a red flag for me... and several times I've discovered that that program was a trojan. Of course if I used AV software I would have been warned as well, but I've never been able to swallow the hit from using Antivirus software. the main annoyance for me is getting command prompt to run as admin.... Windows-Key+R and cmd gives me a basically useless prompt. But as I said before I've gotten that down to a fairly fluid motion using the search bar, so I guess it's good for something.  ;D


    Quote
    Right bare with me here, I'm a bit rubbish rubbish with programming. So people used to write programs and add stuff after the first 16-bits which MS left blank. (I expect to see a similar thing going from 32-bit to 64). How is it programmers fault unless MS said that they were going to use those last 16 bits and the programmers were just being short sited?
    It's the programmers fault- because MS never said, "this part is always blank. use it as you want." it was never documented. Some observant nerd noticed it and, instead of using up an entire 16-bytes to, you know, allocate their own space, they decided to use the handle to store their own crap. In a way, this would be akin to if you had to forward a package of mail every month or so, and discovered that half toe package was blank- so you open up the package and shoveyour own crap in there and send it off. Then one day you find it full, so you actually remove half the contents to put your own stuff in there. needless to say the recipient has no idea where their stuff is, and why half of the box is filled with possum carcasses.  ;D It's analogous to noticing that, say, the second and third digits always appear to be 0, so why not shove our own numbers in there?  :P


    3.1 wasn't what I'd call a Full Operating System... but that's why it was marketed as an operating environment :) I think the 64-bit transition is going much smoother, since like 16-bit before it you can still run 32-bit programs in the VDM.


    Also, I wouldn't say that vista uses 15GB, I did a maximum install of Ultimate fairly recently and my windows folder is around 8GB. pretty large jump, but I think the "recommended disk space" quotes from MS take other programs into account, too. Then again, my XP Windows Folder is around 3 GB, so it's still almost double, and the XP wasn't quite so fresh.

    I was trying to dereference Null Pointers before it was cool.

    Accessless

      Topic Starter


      Adviser
    • Thanked: 14
      • Yes
    • Computer: Specs
    • Experience: Experienced
    • OS: Windows 7
    Re: Why am I using Vista?
    « Reply #19 on: August 14, 2009, 04:14:11 AM »
    I still don't see how its the programmers fault if MS never stated that they were going to use that left over space. Although saying that I supposed it was a bit retarded not to relies that they would eventually use it.

    I've never had a company installed OS, well except the laptops but I just instantly start deleting the rubbish they send as soon as I get the things. Oh well you can't blame companies for doing this for people that don't understand that computers need programs to do things.

    I just checked my windows folder. Windows has been installed for about a year now... 22.4Gb. If I didn't have a 931Gb hard drive then I would be offended. Does anyone remember the days when you could get by on a 1Gb hard drive and 3Gb was an insane size that could never be filled?
    Back on good old fashioned Air cooling again.

    Mulreay

    • Guest
    Re: Why am I using Vista?
    « Reply #20 on: August 14, 2009, 07:17:05 AM »
    I just checked my windows folder. Windows has been installed for about a year now... 22.4Gb. If I didn't have a 931Gb hard drive then I would be offended. Does anyone remember the days when you could get by on a 1Gb hard drive and 3Gb was an insane size that could never be filled?

    I had a 13gb HDD with a 450ghz CPU my boss at work said that that was a waste and what will you ever use that kind of power for. That was back in... 1999 I think.

    BC_Programmer


      Mastermind
    • Typing is no substitute for thinking.
    • Thanked: 1104
      • Yes
      • Yes
      • BC-Programming.com
    • Certifications: List
    • Computer: Specs
    • Experience: Beginner
    • OS: Windows 8
    Re: Why am I using Vista?
    « Reply #21 on: August 14, 2009, 09:23:46 AM »
    I still don't see how its the programmers fault if MS never stated that they were going to use that left over space. Although saying that I supposed it was a bit retarded not to relies that they would eventually use it.

    It was reserved- programmers do the same thing with function parameters that are literally called "reserved" and state "this parameter must be null"... then another version of windows might add some useful feature that takes up that parameter (this is good, because if they didn't "reserve" the parameter, then everybody would need to recompile their applications... although, come to think of it, they would probably just create an "Ex" version of the function) anyway, once it get's a use, suddenly all these programmers who were using the parameter for god knows what  can't figure out why the function does goofy things.

    Actually, a better example is the reserved members of a structure, not reserved parameters.

    The thing regarding the hi-order word being empty in the 32-bit handle- is that if MS was to explicitly say, "do not use the hi order word of this value for your own purposes" they'd have to add all sorts of other idiot-proofing type of statements. Like, "do not pass a FILETIME structure to the GetSystemTime() function. You can force it, but don't. it won't work. Likewise, don't pass a SYSTEMTIME structure into the GetFileTime() Routine for the same reason."

    Also- with the handle issue, especially with hWnds (window handles) where this was used the most- they might have an excuse, if there wasn't an entire set of functions for storing extra bits of data using the handle (setProp and getProp).

    In fact, a Handle is really a pointer to a Structure, but the structure MS is referencing is undocumented, and not declared in any of the windows headers. This is actually fora very good reason- if they document it, they have to support it and make sure that future versions of windows are compatible and whatnot. Instead, they keep the internal structure undocumented, but have plenty of handy functions for accessing the data within the structure. This way they can reorganize the structure (as I'm fairly certain they will have done for 64-bit) with no ill-effects to applications.



    I used to have a 40Mhz 386 with a 50MB HD running windows 3.1. Windows 3.1 consumed about 9 MB of that space- that's around 18% of the total disk size. Now, with my 698GB drive, Windows consumes 19.8 GB... and I think that would include some shadow copies and whatnot, that's around 2%. In some ways an unfair comparison, but in other ways it isn't- consider the huge leap in CPU- (my quad core at 2.33 Ghz for each core compared to the 40Mhz 386 is, directly calculated, over 58 thousand times faster then it. it has 8GB of RAM, which is exactly 1024 times as much as the 8MB... considered to be gobs.. that the 386 had. Not to mention the leaps in video and sound hardware- namely the switch from CPU-processed graphics pushed through a fairly basic VGA adapter and beeps and boops to Video cards with the ability to paint billions of triangles in a frame -  with time left over to apply post-processing effects - and 5.1 surround sound. Now it stands to reason that at some point an OS should be designed to take advantage of this hardware- Vista is an attempt to take a step in this direction, namely with it's use of accelerated 3-D on the desktop- and Windows 7 does nothing different here. -  in addition to keeping memory from being idle with "superfetch" which in some ways is an extension of the prefetch cache used by XP.

    So In many ways it "takes advantage" of the new features in a modern, up to date PC. Unfortunately it doesn't really degrade well for PCs at or near it's minimum requirements, which is one of the things MS tried to tackle with Windows 7.
    I was trying to dereference Null Pointers before it was cool.

    kpac

    • Web moderator


    • Hacker

    • kpac®
    • Thanked: 184
      • Yes
      • Yes
      • Yes
    • Certifications: List
    • Computer: Specs
    • Experience: Expert
    • OS: Windows 7
    Re: Why am I using Vista?
    « Reply #22 on: August 14, 2009, 09:37:13 AM »
    Quote
    Now, with my 698GB drive, Windows consumes 19.8 GB..
    My Windows folder is 11.8 GB.

    Quote
    Windows has been installed for about a year now... 22.4Gb. If I didn't have a 931Gb hard drive then I would be offended. Does anyone remember the days when you could get by on a 1Gb hard drive and 3Gb was an insane size that could never be filled?
    That's exactly the thing. HDDs are getting bigger and better, enabling Microsoft to create bigger and better OSs.

    Mulreay

    • Guest
    Re: Why am I using Vista?
    « Reply #23 on: August 14, 2009, 10:33:23 AM »
    My Windows folder is 11.8 GB.
    That's exactly the thing. HDDs are getting bigger and better, enabling Microsoft to create bigger and better OSs.


    Exactly nothing wrong with Vista I use it and well... no problems. 3yrs not one single re-install.

    BC_Programmer


      Mastermind
    • Typing is no substitute for thinking.
    • Thanked: 1104
      • Yes
      • Yes
      • BC-Programming.com
    • Certifications: List
    • Computer: Specs
    • Experience: Beginner
    • OS: Windows 8
    Re: Why am I using Vista?
    « Reply #24 on: August 14, 2009, 10:34:33 AM »
    hey, there's a 5 page minimum post size!  :P
    I was trying to dereference Null Pointers before it was cool.

    Mulreay

    • Guest
    Re: Why am I using Vista?
    « Reply #25 on: August 14, 2009, 10:36:55 AM »
    hey, there's a 5 page minimum post size!  :P

    Lol I just did'nt have that much to say...  ;D

    Wade2462



      Rookie
      Re: Why am I using Vista?
      « Reply #26 on: August 17, 2009, 11:01:12 PM »
      for program compatibility seeing how xps going to go obsolete soon :(

      BC_Programmer


        Mastermind
      • Typing is no substitute for thinking.
      • Thanked: 1104
        • Yes
        • Yes
        • BC-Programming.com
      • Certifications: List
      • Computer: Specs
      • Experience: Beginner
      • OS: Windows 8
      Re: Why am I using Vista?
      « Reply #27 on: August 17, 2009, 11:13:09 PM »
      for program compatibility seeing how xps going to go obsolete soon :(


      ???
      I was trying to dereference Null Pointers before it was cool.

      Wade2462



        Rookie
        Re: Why am I using Vista?
        « Reply #28 on: August 17, 2009, 11:14:53 PM »
        Xp is in extended updates now i dont see xp living much longer even though its great.

        BC_Programmer


          Mastermind
        • Typing is no substitute for thinking.
        • Thanked: 1104
          • Yes
          • Yes
          • BC-Programming.com
        • Certifications: List
        • Computer: Specs
        • Experience: Beginner
        • OS: Windows 8
        Re: Why am I using Vista?
        « Reply #29 on: August 17, 2009, 11:20:41 PM »
        Xp is in extended updates now i dont see xp living much longer even though its great.

         ::)

        It's going to be around for a while yet. Not sure what that would have to do with compatibility.
        I was trying to dereference Null Pointers before it was cool.