Jump to content

A year later, Vista SP1 or XP SP3


iwod
 Share

A year later, Vista SP1 or XP SP3  

150 members have voted

  1. 1. Is Vista Good enough yet?

    • I am Sticking to XP
      84
    • Vista is great!
      66


Recommended Posts

As a general reply, and to those who replied:

The reason for my posts was because for a long time I see some things taken for granted and just repeated over and over. IMO they are not true and will not become true if they are repeated more times.

I hope I'm entitled to my opinion.

If it is seen as "I hate Microsoft at any cost", so be it, but I hope 'the other side' admits there are flaws/bias in their arguments too.

There are already many Microsoft-bashing sites out there that have much stronger (technical, specific) arguments than I have (not to mention the law suits), but as I repeated over, my goal was not to blindly attack Microsoft (or Vista), but to give a pull back to the rope 'the other side' :hello: has pulled too far over to their side. To restore some common sense (IMO), if you want.

GL

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Drivers running as services; I meant 5x more code; 5x more code running all the time is always a bad thing.
Bleh, I'll never be as good technically or pedagogically as Mark Russinovich, but let me have a stab at this misconception:

A mix of terminology there - drivers run in kernel mode, services run in user mode.

"Code" does not execute - threads do - and that is not semantics, there is a vast difference between processes using virtual memory by their presence/size and the number of threads in the READY state.

The working set of a process is that subset of its virtual size which is actually using physical memory - that is a more useful measurement of load on system resources.

A high number of threads in the READY state at any given time would indicate a bottleneck with the processor(s) - but system initialization is where there will be a lot of competition for all kinds of system resources so is not a good yardstick for comparison.

The number of entries in the process list does not give any indication of "bloat" or work the system actually has queued.

e.g. "There are more svchost.exe process in Vista than in XP, slowing down or bloating my system!"

Vista has added more features and resulted in the creation of new services, and previous large services may have been split into multiple ones to make them more modular or fit the changed (extended) security model better - the aim being to only give the services the permissions they need (think back to when everything ran as "SYSTEM" and the risk that poses).

Efficiency, efficency, efficiency! (And you can quote me on that. :) Why couldn't ALL services (and yes in XP too) be startable on demand? Oh wait, it means more work and less pay for Microsoft programmers....
Actually, efficiency comes in many different forms - preloading data from a relatively very slow storage device (disk) into one of the fastest volatile storage locations (RAM) is a way to gain efficiency by reducing (or eliminating) delays when the data is demanded.

One of the big changes that made XP appear faster than 2000 was the parallelization of some processes - you get to the desktop quicker and can "start working", but in reality the system is still completing its startup routine (whereas on 2000 you didn't get the logon prompt until those processes had completed in a serial nature).

Vista introduced the delayed auto-start service type too - to allow the much more vital automatic services to get CPU time and disk access first, before using the resources later instead of competing for them - for efficiency.

At the very lowest level, it can be more efficient to have longer code instead of a tiny "loop" due to the lower number of jumps in the instruction pointer which wastes CPU cycles - the result is larger binaries on disk and bigger memory footprints... for more efficiency at runtime.

Some of the enemies of efficiency is compatibility, stability, security and flexibility:

- making product version X+1 work with products designed for product X

- checking the data being processed and assumptions are not made (e.g. data integrity & preventing crashes due to corrupt data)

- checking the data being processed falls within boundaries (e.g. prevent buffer overrun exploits)

- making sure the product allows for future expansion without a rewrite from scratch

An OS can never be about only efficiency.

I hope I'm entitled to my opinion.
Of course! Everyone is entitled to opinions, and it's always interesting to read peoples' perceptions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, not very technical, but 'just my opinion' (and I know either 'side' won't 'give in'), but yet...

Bleh, I'll never be as good technically or pedagogically as Mark Russinovich, but let me have a stab at this misconception:

A mix of terminology there - drivers run in kernel mode, services run in user mode.

I'm sure it'll be dubbed as offtopic, but every Windows version so far has promised to take out drivers out of kernel mode, (for the purpose of stability) but the end result was just restrictions.
"Code" does not execute - threads do - and that is not semantics, there is a vast difference between processes using virtual memory by their presence/size and the number of threads in the READY state.

The working set of a process is that subset of its virtual size which is actually using physical memory - that is a more useful measurement of load on system resources.

A high number of threads in the READY state at any given time would indicate a bottleneck with the processor(s) - but system initialization is where there will be a lot of competition for all kinds of system resources so is not a good yardstick for comparison.

The number of entries in the process list does not give any indication of "bloat" or work the system actually has queued.

e.g. "There are more svchost.exe process in Vista than in XP, slowing down or bloating my system!"

Vista has added more features and resulted in the creation of new services, and previous large services may have been split into multiple ones to make them more modular or fit the changed (extended) security model better - the aim being to only give the services the permissions they need (think back to when everything ran as "SYSTEM" and the risk that poses).

Not disagreeing here, just about the semantics: by 'code' I meant 'lines of code' or quantity of code (and I didn't even talk about the amount of memory reserved/taken). :) Again, cost vs. benefit: does this all this new and improved code work for me all the time? DRM/UAC aside, it just sees too bureaucratic to me: inventing solutions for problems that did not exist in the first place. Or creating problems where there weren't any.

What if I don't want that "efficient" code (let's say I use one computer for video/audio recording only, or any 1 program at a time): I should be able to turn prefetching/some of the services off. But many are not switchable/uninstallable any more in Vista. I want to take a chance with that old tuner card I have on x64 (and some good fella has recompiled the driver): "Sorry, no can do. It will crash and give the OSs a bad rep."

And don't get me started on System Account(s)... On my XP systems, I've eliminated all but Local System and The Administrator accounts. They work fine for 3+ years without any problems or need of reinstallation. (OK, a mindless thing to do if you don't know what you're doing and I don't recommend it to anyone). But it is possible after all and the world won't crumble down if you do something against Microsoft's way of doing it. Not so in Vista, from what I see. From the many recommendations for solving problems with Vista, most often I see: "Don't touch that", (or in case of this thread: "It's better that way"). I know many people that get confused if the wallpaper is changed. I don't want to be one of them (or forced to be).

Actually, efficiency comes in many different forms - preloading data from a relatively very slow storage device (disk) into one of the fastest volatile storage locations (RAM) is a way to gain efficiency by reducing (or eliminating) delays when the data is demanded.

One of the big changes that made XP appear faster than 2000 was the parallelization of some processes - you get to the desktop quicker and can "start working", but in reality the system is still completing its startup routine (whereas on 2000 you didn't get the logon prompt until those processes had completed in a serial nature).

Vista introduced the delayed auto-start service type too - to allow the much more vital automatic services to get CPU time and disk access first, before using the resources later instead of competing for them - for efficiency.

At the very lowest level, it can be more efficient to have longer code instead of a tiny "loop" due to the lower number of jumps in the instruction pointer which wastes CPU cycles - the result is larger binaries on disk and bigger memory footprints... for more efficiency at runtime.

I read that as "for more PERCEIVED efficency at runtime", or "cheating" (you knew I would say this, right? :lol: ). All I know is people complained about Win2000's slow startup time (which is not a valid point at all in my book - let the initialization be done properly) and than all this prefetching thing started. I see this just as an aftermath justification.
Some of the enemies of efficiency is compatibility, stability, security and flexibility:

- making product version X+1 work with products designed for product X

- checking the data being processed and assumptions are not made (e.g. data integrity & preventing crashes due to corrupt data)

- checking the data being processed falls within boundaries (e.g. prevent buffer overrun exploits)

- making sure the product allows for future expansion without a rewrite from scratch

An OS can never be about only efficiency.

I agree with you here, but I prefer efficiency and there is no way to make that the primary goal of Vista.

It all comes down to (freedom of) choice. For every limitation there should be justification.

GL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Drivers running as services

Drivers don't run as services. And no, there isn't 5x more code running eithe (Mr Snrub's explanation is pretty good there I think). Vista boots on ~2x the RAM XP takes here, and that's not bad at all for 7 years' worth of changes and all the new stuff.

Efficiency, efficency, efficiency!

Like others said, there's a LOT more to an OS than that.

Why couldn't ALL services (and yes in XP too) be startable on demand? Oh wait, it means more work and less pay for Microsoft programmers....

Except what you said makes no sense. It's not "more work" for them, it's just not possible. Some of the services are required for your OS to work.

Just ask any vLite user...

I'll repeat my question: Like what? Trying to say "ask someone else" when you don't have a valid answer doesn't work, sorry.

why should I chose it over XP? There are SOME goodies it brings, but there is also a huge penalty - and IMO it FAR outweighs the goodness).

Because of the new features and all that. It's a good OS, as long as you have recent hardware to run it (yes, new OS'es always tend to run slow on old hardware, such is life)

There were plenty of problems with programs older than Vista

And again with the vague answer "stuff doesn't work!", without being able to mention any names. Yep, more FUD.

Again, what was the *technical* reason for reshuffling? Add the new feature, don't take out the old one. And don't move it unless it's absolutely necessary.

The technical reason? They have usability experts (people who make a living out of this) and all that, and they made it this way because it's easier. But yes, there's always people complaining about things that were moved around a bit and such -- those who resist change instead of embracing it. If we listened to those folks, nothing would ever change -- even when it's for the best. And no, they didn't take out the old one, the classic start menu is still there (4 clicks TOTAL to enable it: right click, properties, classic, click ok, done!) so even those who resist change can have it their way.

(I would say phoning home, but that's just me)

paranoia much?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I meant to say: find a particular control panel applet in one try. Add new, don't take out old.

Again, it comes down to resisting change, even when the new names are better. And again, half the time you don't even have to go there anymore (want the device manager? fine, hit "start", then start typing "device", an by the time you hit te 3rd letter or so, it'll have found it, just press enter).

might even be a bad one, but I got the impression, like most things Microsoft, that there are ulterior motives

Indeed, it was a bad one. The full docs were provided to the samba team and all that, as part of the recent EU ruling. Yep, so it was all about revamping an overdue 12 year old system...

So it's psyshic? It knows all ahead of time?

What? It tracks basic usage patterns (just like XP's been doing for ages, for things like the "common apps" in your start menu), and it does a half decent job of it. So what if it only caches the data you're actually going to use 50% of the time? Where's the issue here? When it gets it right (i.e. you loading one of your common apps), then the binaries and data and everything else are already loaded in RAM (which has "access times" of NANO seconds, which is LOTS better than waiting MILI seconds after a such a slow device as a hard drive). There's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Again, out of principle, it can't possibly know the future.

Except, it doesn't have to know the future. In your scenario, your movie player & codecs & web browser & plugins & games would be cached in RAM all week making load times much quicker and a much more pleasant experience (less pointless waiting). And then yes, powerpoint won't be cached in RAM, it'll load at the same speed XP would have (oh noes!) There isn't a case against caching in RAM. There is NO valid technical reason not to do it.

you are an exception since I think I read you work there, but in general

I think that's where you're mistaken. People buy a new version of Windows for it's new features and advances -- not because it runs on old hardware. Not everyone is hell-bent on "Windows should run on a Vic 20". Like cluberti said, you're part of that vocal 1% (and no, I don't work for Microsoft)

that Newzealander's paper

Seriously, that thing was the worst misinformed, FUD-spouting, technically wrong piece by some id*** who didn't have a clue what he was saying I might have EVER read. It was more hilarious than anything. It all goes like "xyz don't/won't work!!!", except, it actually does work just fine if you try it for yourself -- repeat ad nauseam.

You are completely right, but again, seen from Microsoft's perspective.

What's so Microsoft centric about that? We all know ~99% of end users LOVE eye candy, and that eye candy sells. Why in the world would they not do like everyone else?

but the end result was just restrictions.

How so? What restrictions did moving drivers to user space bring? I didn't hear of any. On the other side, it certainly made Windows more stable.

inventing solutions for problems that did not exist in the first place

Just because you didn't see them, doesn't mean there wasn't a problem in the first place. There were thousands of very vocal people saying things like "Windows won't ever be secure until it has a sudo-like mechanism", and UAC was born... Like I was saying, people were actually asking for those features.

But many are not switchable/uninstallable any more in Vista.

It's no worse than XP really.

I want to take a chance with that old tuner card I have on x64 (and some good fella has recompiled the driver): "Sorry, no can do. It will crash and give the OSs a bad rep."

Except you can load it anyways, and if you're having issues with code signing because they didn't bother signing it, then you can just sign it yourself (yes, there's even tools for that!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a dual boot system. I have XP Pro SP3 32-bit and Vista Ultimate x64 SP1 installed. Both have worked for all of my needs. While I consider XP to be more polished and stabilized due to its age I cannot say that Vista is a bad choice given my hardware.

I haven't actually booted into XP in a couple months because I haven't come across anything that I wasn't able to accomplish using Vista. The last time I did have to boot into Vista was to flash a piece of hardware and I couldn't do so under Vista due to a driver signing issue. It was more an x64 issue than XP vs Vista.

People should use what works best for them. I've run into no real issues with Vista that I would consider a show stopper.

Too bad there isn't a choice that is more middle of the road for the poll. Vista has become my default OS but were I to find myself in a situation where I can't accomplish a task then, yes, I'll boot into XP. I consider them both to be functioning well using SP3 for XP and SP1 for Vista.

Edited by rotjong
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This will never end... but yet, before I wasn't so persistent in replying and recently I realised it could be seen as a sign of weakness/not having arguments/surrender, so.... any time you want, I'll stop.

To try not to repeat myself, and make this thread more efficient :angel I'll not write the replies that would be the same over and over again. (My posts were also snipped.) This doesn't mean I answer only to things I chose to.

Except what you said makes no sense. It's not "more work" for them, it's just not possible. Some of the services are required for your OS to work...

1. All of them? And if it's OK for some, and I start, where do I stop? Can't I decide for myself?

2. Everything can be achieved if enough effort/beforethought/will is put into it, but you always take Microsoft's resource (money) managing efficiency into account and say it wouldn't be practical/too costly. Again, my stomach tumbles when I think of this: I should give Microsoft the right to weigh cost/benefit, but not do that for myself?. Why don't you stay to technical points (which you have plenty of good ones an beat me right down with them) and let MS managers do their job? I, on the other hand, for all my points before and after, speak in general/principle terms, and while having some small knowledge, am probably no match to you in the technical field (and there is the language barrier - English is not my native language and I sometimes can't find the right word I wanted to). Yet you find justifications for Microsoft's (non)efforts/wrong decisions all the time. Do you care for car manufacturers' troubles just as much?

3. Even with Microsoft's 'where to put the money to' weighing taken into account, there are some (many?) unnecesary dependencies/restrictions (no, not DRM, but I suspect that might be the goal - obfuscation of the code so no one can analyze it (I don't care about their protection of their rights - there are patents (and they use them) there is the copyright law (and they use it) and what not else - I give them money so they work for me, not the other way around. They think it's too much bother to sue every pirate out there so they impose WGA/mandatory activation and they expect us to love it?) (Yeah again the line of thought has brought me to different direction than I intended to).

4. What are these restrictions (a.k.a. vlite usage)? nLite/vLite has shown that (nearly) everything is possible and that not everything is set in stone. With every new version, there are more and unnecessary dependencies/bindings defeated. As I said, there is always a way and that those restrictions, once thought justified, were only forced for Microsoft-only-knows-why. Either that or Nuhi is God (and I believe in both :)).

5. This leads me to all the nice technical talk you and others spoke: it's just fairy tales, sorry. If able programmer doesn't see Windows code, we'll never know if the talk is true or if it could have been done better. No I don't want to see it (and if I saw it, I wouldn't know what to make of it). No I don't want anyone else from the outside to see it. But I also don't want it to be presented as a proof if it can't be seen.

6. To try to provide technical answers, let's reduce the technical items to few most important point you raise (choose some questions) and I'll try to research them in a few days time. But ahead of time I see it will be difficult, because there's FUD from both sides.

Because of the new features and all that. It's a good OS, as long as you have recent hardware to run it (yes, new OS'es always tend to run slow on old hardware, such is life)
why should I chose it over XP? There are SOME goodies it brings, but there is also a huge penalty - and IMO it FAR outweighs the goodness).

:) Yeah, I've just reversed the quotes.

Again, strive for the better (here it's the harware that brings the goodness, and what does Vista bring?) This thread is about Vista vs XP on same hardware (or so I understood). So what good would Vista bring on same hardware? Fill up/drain memory all the time? And as for new hardware, if XP could be made to run on it (and it still can) what's the need for Vista? I still stand behind my "5X/2X evaluation".

Let's put it another way: please name 1 groundbreaking feature why should I buy Vista if I already have XP. The one I couldn't live without and would be impossible to implement on XP. That you're sure afterwards I would say: "You were right, it made my money's worth". Just 1. Or 3 if you like, but please be sure that it's worth it and that it can't be done on XP.

And I don't talk about 'experience'. I don't want to have 'experience' with ANY OS. I want it to do some work for me or let me/help me do my work and not get in the way. If you just happen to say "oh, but it was the experience" I will just mention that (in this forum) it was said that Mac or Linux have better 'experience'. I personally if I had any of them would try to turn all that 'experience' off. :rolleyes: (I've worked on Mac and I don't like it and had Slackware 10 with minimal GUI).

And again with the vague answer "stuff doesn't work!", without being able to mention any names. Yep, more FUD.
ESET Smart Security, Licenced, recent, killed an internet connection. Tried everything from the GUI, nada. Only uninstall helped. OK, it was not Vista itself, but compatibility is often mentioned. And if it was my computer and my installation, I would dig deeper and eventually find the reason (and report it to you in more detail). Just to mention a name.
resist change instead of embracing it... the classic start menu is still there

Believe me, in those few times * few hours I needed to work on Vista, I tried to approach it as open minded as I could, but only one feeling prevailed... WHY? (and this was said by EVERYBODY that has worked on Vista, and I spoke face-to-face to). I managed well and did everything I wanted to, but it took me at least 2X (:)) as much time as before. The new interface might be more usable and work well for 10 year olds from now on, but WHY teach old dogs to new tricks if you don't have to? Are we circus animals? Again, what's the benefit for the dog? Will it get a new bone? It paid for it already!

paranoia much?
Hasn't Microsoft given enough reasons in the past?

GL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the very lowest level, it can be more efficient to have longer code instead of a tiny "loop" due to the lower number of jumps in the instruction pointer which wastes CPU cycles - the result is larger binaries on disk and bigger memory footprints... for more efficiency at runtime.

I'm not a coder, but almost, I'm a scripter, and I can confirm that more code is necessary to improve performance and avoid bugs.

But obviousely, M$ coders have not hand-typed 12 Gb of codes! Otherwise M$ would have run bankrupt by the cost of used keyboards alone! I imagine that they copy-pasted entire folders without even knowing what was inside, that there are a lot of multimedia materials (tours, tutorials, flash screens, demos etc), that there are a lot of duplicated files probably under different names etc.

B.L.O.A.T.E.D

What we are saying by bloat is things which are there on your hard disc, sometimes running sometimes not, and shouldn't. It's a sign of negligeance.

New features don't explain why there is about 10 Gb of datas which will never be used under any circumstance. It doesn't take gigabytes of codes to implement aero-glass. Does it?

That Snow Leopard and Ubuntu do the same or that it has always been like this doesn't bring any explanation neither (it only expands the interrogation).

Does Vista runs too many processes (or services)? from my own experience, I don't think so considered the processor and memory power.

Vista has been built for dual-core processor, huge HDD and 2 Gb of memory. Assuming that you use this sort of hardware, there is no visible hog or sluggishness.

Bloat is another thing. It doesn't affect the operations, it just makes me wondering how did they fill all the Gb of datas? Uncompressed videos maybe?

Is Vista expensive?

I see many poeple complaining, but so far I have found Vista pretty cheap: 0$.

(Yes, zero american dollars! )

If you buy a new computer today it comes automaticaly with Vista pre-installed and it's included in the price.

As a result, you never need to buy Vista. It costs you nothing. M$ has created the cheapest and most democratic OS ever!

It so true that I don't even know how much costs Vista where I live, or which odd person would need to buy it.

It's like an mp3 player or a cell phone: you buy it with the software preinstalled and you don't think how much this software costs.

So, granted that I have Vista for free when I buy a computer, I don't have to complain neither about price (which is 0) neither about its lack of performance (which can't be compared with a payware).

Edited by Fredledingue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you care for car manufacturers' troubles just as much?

The way you sound, anything that changes or is improved is "trouble". If by new cars having new features you also mean trouble, then sure, I welcome "trouble" such as ABS brakes, fuel injection, air bags and such.

5. This leads me to all the nice technical talk you and others spoke: it's just fairy tales, sorry. If able programmer doesn't see Windows code, we'll never know if the talk is true or if it could have been done better. No I don't want to see it (and if I saw it, I wouldn't know what to make of it). No I don't want anyone else from the outside to see it. But I also don't want it to be presented as a proof if it can't be seen.

I'm sorry, but I just can't make sense out of that one. Must be the language barrier.

Again, strive for the better (here it's the harware that brings the goodness, and what does Vista bring?) This thread is about Vista vs XP on same hardware (or so I understood). So what good would Vista bring on same hardware? Fill up/drain memory all the time?

Well, right off the bad you say the hardware is the important part (somehow the OS isn't). And on the same modern hardware, both run great.

please name 1 groundbreaking feature why should I buy Vista if I already have XP. The one I couldn't live without and would be impossible to implement on XP.

We've already established a while ago you're not interested in new features of any kind but having windows run on the oldest possible hardware. So what do new features in an OS bring to you in particular? Nothing obviously. The thing is, other people have different needs (for like, features they might use, instead of having Windows v7 work on a Vic 20). Lots of people love superfetch, the extra stability, the new GUI, the sidebar, the extra security, the new WinPE-based installer, the new apps like the photo gallery, the new start menu,the new breadcrumbs nav, the new hassle-free audio mixer, IPv6, management improvements, the built-in indexing/search, aero glass, the background defrag, the new fonts and everything else. There's no shortage of new features and improvements, and unlike you, a LOT of people actually care for them and make use of it.

ESET Smart Security

Which is known to work just fine on Vista (I've seen it work perfectly). To quote ESET's own prodcut page: "Recommended configurations for ESET Smart Security: * Microsoft ® Windows® Vista / XP / 2000". PEBCAK. Again, you failed to name a single app that doesn't work, just like all the others complaining about compatibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, all this care about Microsoft... OK, you are an exception since I think I read you work there, but in general - why should the client care about the efficiency of the vendor (and in what part of the production process should he spend his money)? That's their problem, not mine. And if the most efficient design doesn't win, something is wrong with the market.
I can't really address the first part here, but as to the second, if you pay for the OS and thus are funding the development/manufacture, eventually at cost it does become a consumer problem. Microsoft isn't going to spend more on a product than they can get a return on (at least not in the Windows or Office space - media stuff notwithstanding).
Actually, this is the first time I fully agree. Netbios was worse (and I didn't bring up SMB2 first), but it's sad really - to replace something worst with something non-standard (as far as I can see).
Well, SMB 1.0 (CFCS) isn't a "standard" either, technically - it started out as a project at IBM for DOS networking, and was bolted onto OS/2 (and thus Windows) way back when in the late 80s and early 90s. It's a Microsoft standard, I guess if you look at it one way, for doing file transfers. It's fully documented (now), just like NFS is a file sharing standard. It's sad to see the lack of working together that XP and Vista machines have on a network (with the LLTS update to XP it makes it easier on Vista, but it doesn't go the reverse for XP without some tweaking), and I can agree it's a pain point. But again, the only real way to fix it would have been to make XP SMB 2.0 compliant, which just is not possible without a TCP stack rewrite (amongst other things).
Any links, please? I didn't ask for links because I thought there weren't any, but because I searched and couldn't find any (at least slightly) technical; only advertising. I really want to see them and try to decide for myself.
Let me see if I can find you something that I can send you - give me some time, if it exists, I'll find it.
I don't expect anything from any company. I expect to get useful features for my money. If anything, I have the impression that in this forum far more vocal are those on 'your' side of the bridge. ;)
That probably wasn't the case a year ago (and maybe with good reason - Vista RTM was NOT ready for primetime, but SP1 certainly is). I guess that's what happens when you reboot an OS project 50% through and start over.
May I admit I hate monopolies? :}
All monopolies? There are quite a few out there that are not spelled "Microsoft" that (at least those of us in the US) have to deal with every day... ;)
Maybe I'm stupid, but for the life of me can't see what benefit does the PVP/PUMA bring to the USER.) I tried to summarize my view as short as possible. NOW can I be accused of spreading FUD, but let's just ask Google about it. :)
I've read them all, and there's a LOT of guesswork done. Suffice it to say Microsoft isn't going to stand up to the big media companies, and neither is Apple, or probably any other for-profit OS vendor. It's not in their (and their shareholders') best interest to limit multimedia choice just because the vendor pushes DRM. The market will have to vote with their wallets whether or not they want DRM content (and I for one do not either, but again, we make our choices). Microsoft is not responsible for making that choice for us, we are. Microsoft is just making a business decision to allow it, based on the fact that the media studios (et al) are not going to (currently) release media without DRM. If Microsoft wants to allow these media formats to be playable on Windows, they will include avenues for DRM. It's not personal, it's business.
You are completely right, but again, seen from Microsoft's perspective.
. True - but that perspective makes money and isn't illegal, so until it doesn't or becomes a point of contention for the DOJ or EU, it won't change.
Correct, but shouldn't they give discount for the inconvenience? Instead, they are trying to make people love it. :wub:

Kidding, but I hope you see my point.

I see it, but I have to agree to disagree. Windows is pirated en masse today mostly because it was easy to do so up until XP (and even then, that was easy to a large degree). I think for the most part pirates are not going to pay for Windows regardless, so it's a lost sale either way. However, *forcing* someone who is going to use your product to do it legally and provide you revenue when possible really isn't a horrible idea. It's a little heavy-handed, I'll agree, but the alternative is to leave things be, and have 500+ million legal copies of Windows out there, and even more (yes, it's more than 50% currently) pirated. If you could get even 10% of those people to have to pay to use the product, as the rest of us do, would you not? As a company, they again have a duty to protect their intellectual property (sorry, had to throw that out there) that people are using - they have to answer to the market, and their shareholders.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed, it was a bad one. The full docs were provided to the samba team and all that, as part of the recent EU ruling. Yep, so it was all about revamping an overdue 12 year old system...
Indeed it was. But, as I said, it was the first thing I looked up (I knew very little about it before) and there was a stain.
...There is NO valid technical reason not to do it.
I disagree, and not because I think I know more, but because of reasons I said before - more overhead, more code, more chance for bugs... In principle.
and no, I don't work for Microsoft
I meant Cluberti. But nevermind, that's not the topic here, I just didn't want to offend him by chance, and I wasn't sure.
that Newzealander's paper
Seriously, that thing was the worst misinformed, FUD-spouting, technically wrong piece by some id*** who didn't have a clue what he was saying I might have EVER read. It was more hilarious than anything. It all goes like "xyz don't/won't work!!!", except, it actually does work just fine if you try it for yourself -- repeat ad nauseam.
If the kill switch isn't flipped yet, (not the WGA kill switch that was dropped with SP1; not the ActiveX "kill bit"; I can't find its proper name any more - so much kill parts with Microsoft :)) it doesn't mean it isn't there (all rebuttals of that 'FUD' haven't proved it isn't there). Just as you now, they focus on Microsoft's grace not to activate it. And this is a general gripe I have with DRM/HDCP/Bluray (out of principle) - Microsoft isn't the only culprit here - but they did nothing to prevent it and showed clearly which side they are on.

About those 'rebuttals' - all is peachy and they almost convince me that there is nothing wrong with Vista's "media path". And then comes the "network file copy transfer slowdown while media is playing" bug and everybody again denies everything and nobody connects these two?! (not in a direct sense, but as there is really something going on under the curtains there). And why do they put so much effort (they are what I would call "vocal") to rebutt something that's so out of touch with reality? You can call me paranoid, but I call that common sense and thinking for myself.

Like I was saying, people were actually asking for those features.
You say that, I ask how many people and what people? Every poll can be rigged, and it's a piece of cake with those without independent control. I know I am a (potential) buyer and I didn't ask for that. There are not many things I would've asked in Vista, so why buy it - talking from user's perspective? (again, remember the thread - Vista vs. XP.) I don't speak (much) in the name of other people, but how can you prove there are more people in the world that requested (or wanted) those features than those that didn't? Your word against mine.
Except you can load it anyways, and if you're having issues with code signing because they didn't bother signing it, then you can just sign it yourself (yes, there's even tools for that!)

How usable is that to tinker on every reboot? I didn't know there were tools, but if you mean about test signing, I heard it was still not permanent solution (I can look up if you want)

GL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I meant Cluberti. But nevermind, that's not the topic here, I just didn't want to offend him by chance, and I wasn't sure.
Just to wit, I'm not easily offended, and get called all sorts of things I won't repeat because of my choices in work. If you want to send me a PM or email to take some of your questions offline, that's cool. I'd send you a PM, but your PM is disabled it seems.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Otherwise M$ would have run bankrupt by the cost of used keyboards alone!

:lol: Very funny. I agree with most of your points too.

I imagine that they copy-pasted entire folders without even knowing what was inside, that there are a lot of multimedia materials (tours, tutorials, flash screens, demos etc), that there are a lot of duplicated files probably under different names etc.

It's not the case. If you look more closely, you'll see where the extra disk space went.

\Windows\WinSxS is the biggest culprit by far (over 4GB on my system). Yes, one could say it's a bit over the top, but then again, disk space is dirt cheap, and it's doing its job great (when was the last time you run into the old DLL hell problem again?). These complaints of bloat about Vista should mainly be directed at that: they cache too many versions of different assemblies in there.

It's pretty hard to blame Vista for most of the other stuff:

\Windows\System32\DriverStore : 1.37GB of drivers (a LOT more than XP had), so stuff just works out of the box (including not requiring a *&^#$%@ floppy to install on any RAID/SATA/SCSI controller, or to have to slipstream all your mass storage adapter drivers on every disc, or not being stuck at 640x480 & 16 colors until you put video drivers on there)

\Windows\Installer : 1.4GB worth (on my box anyways) of unnecessary installers (in case you decide you want to add or remove features to some app, without having to insert the disc again...) which are from other apps (thank Acresso/Macrovision or whoever happens to own Installshield these days for this mess)

\Windows\Web : some multimedia content (wallpapers, etc). Not necessary, but hardly the end of the world.

\Windows\Assembly : 552MB worth of .NET assemblies. It's a fair amount of space, but considering that includes 5 different "generations" of it out of that space, and that it gets reused a lot by all .NET apps (saving space), it's not that bad I guess.

\Windows\Fonts : 400MB or so worth of fonts (~500). Could be less, but personally I always add some (nice Adobe fonts, nice palatino's, etc). The real sore point here isn't how many fonts that comes with it, it's the lack of a built-in font manager (a problem we've had since Win 3.x that they still haven't addressed)

\Windows\Speech : ~300MB of speech support engines and such (it's a lot better than XP's too)

\Windows\Help : ~200MB, self-explanatory

Windows\IME ~200MB input method editor stuff (including dictionaries and what not)

\Windows\eHome ~200MB of MCE stuff (assuming your edition comes with it)

etc.

Most of it went to well-known places. If you disregard the admittedly large (and you could say over-zealous) WinSxS cache, all the extra drivers it comes with, and the installer cruft left mostly by other apps, my Vista install would already only be like 4GB or so, which isn't bad considering all the extra stuff (even more so when you look at the parts of that taken by the extra fonts, MCE and such). So the OS itself isn't that much bigger. It's not like it's Aero Glass using up 10GB extra.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way you sound, anything that changes or is improved is "trouble". If by new cars having new features you also mean trouble, then sure, I welcome "trouble" such as ABS brakes, fuel injection, air bags and such.

You wouldn't want fuel efficency if it's too much trouble for the maker (he would have too much costs, he would have to skim on other parts? Or you don't even think about that - just walk into a dealership and weigh price/performance YOU get?

This thread is about Vista vs XP on same hardware (or so I understood). So what good would Vista bring on same hardware?
Well, right off the bad you say the hardware is the important part (somehow the OS isn't). And on the same modern hardware, both run great.

...

We've already established a while ago you're not interested in new features of any kind but having windows run on the oldest possible hardware.

Where did I say this? I'm too tired to check now, so maybe I did, but in general and everywhere I was writing about the situation in my quote above.
So what do new features in an OS bring to you in particular? Nothing obviously.
It should bring me some so I wish I buy it. See below.
Lots of people love superfetch, the extra stability, the new GUI, the sidebar, the extra security, the new WinPE-based installer, the new apps like the photo gallery, the new start menu,the new breadcrumbs nav, the new hassle-free audio mixer, IPv6, management improvements, the built-in indexing/search, aero glass, the background defrag, the new fonts and everything else.
Again, love and experience (mostly)... If you say they're useful, OK. But if you admit there are also restrictions and inconveniences (I claim, often unnecessary), and if you weigh both sides (and also take into account $$$ needed), which side would be heavier? That's what I'm talking about all this time.

And you did't point any 1 most important feature. OK, maybe you think all of those above are great and essential, but what of those can't be achieved on XP?

PEBCAK. Again, you failed to name a single app that doesn't work, just like all the others complaining about compatibility.
The owner didn't want to investigate further and decided it's not worth the hassle. (recent=from 1 month ago) Maybe it's another bad example (hurried), but I see you mention above: the extra stability, management improvements. I value them also in an OS, but they didn't show in my first encounter(s).

GL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

Now would you believe it, I agree in everything with you! :o Mostly on the technical points (I couldn't say there is any flaw in them), and I accept the other ones but I still reserve the right to believe it doesn't HAVE to be that way/it couldn't have been better.

GL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...