Jump to content

6 things you don't like about Vista


Spooky
 Share

Recommended Posts

Then you lose the benefits that it gives you. Actually, I'd like an option to selectively elevate programs - rather than having to click to elevate.

I'm a big supporter of UAC - but these darned prompts are driving me crazy! It's an XP thing tho' - once Vista compatible apps start coming out it'll solve itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I agree, it will drive you nuts. Look in the Tweaks and Tips section for a reg twek i posted that lets you keep it turned on so it can work with things like Protected Mode in IE but will supress the prompts.

Then you lose the benefits that it gives you. Actually, I'd like an option to selectively elevate programs - rather than having to click to elevate.

I'm a big supporter of UAC - but these darned prompts are driving me crazy! It's an XP thing tho' - once Vista compatible apps start coming out it'll solve itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it is only enforced for 64-bit Windows

Didn't know that :) (I don't run Vista yet)

Yet another reason to not use a 64 bit version of windows... Seemingly there's so much problems with 64bit OS'es right now, it's not worth the trouble.

From missing drivers, to lack of 64 bit software, to apps using more memory (due to pointers being twice as big and other things), no legacy 16 bit app support whatsoever, etc. I just see no real pros, but sure are a lot of cons.

I just discovered today another problem running apps with 64 bit Windows: apps can't use the Jet engine anymore. Yes, it's crusty old tech that sucks, but there's a LOT of apps relying on it still. Jet is not ported to x64 platform, and will likely never be! While it's possible to install the 32 bit version (4.0 SP8) on x64, 64 bit apps cannot make use of it (as it's an in-process component).

It could be a problem with many apps. Even for web stuff - there's a lot of small intranet apps that still use jet (ms access .mdb files) for databases. Won't work on 64 bit windows (there's no 32 bit copy of IIS), forcing people to convert their apps to use another database.

Might not be a bad thing to see Jet finally die - being replaced by "ACE" (Access Data Engine), but still breaking apps. Besides, I doubt ACE will be much better (security/performance/feature wise). Why not force people to use a REAL database instead? (they're suggesting it, but then turning around and creating another sub-par engine hardly helps)

While it's not a major problem, it just seems to pile up with the countless other problems/issues/whatever about 64 bit Windows. Maybe in a few years, it might finally be worth it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't get why people complain about UAC! It's there for your protection!

If it does annoy you, why don't you turn it off?? I leave it on myself as I know my system will be alot more safer (and it's below me to get annoyed by something so pathetic *cough*), but the option is there to turn it off WITHOUT having to make a trip to the registry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

keytotime;

You just described 100% of the problems with 100% of every operating system in existance as viewed by anyone at any certain time depending on their requirements. Can you be a little more specific for Vista please?

Thank You

1) Very Few Real Improvement's

2) To Many Bug's

3) To Few Compatible Driver's

4) Requirement's are unreal

Edited by Spooky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't get why people complain about UAC! It's there for your protection!

Some of us don't need or want the protection. Same reason why I don't run an anti-virus, nor a firewall, nor an anti-spyware, nor any other software or hardware that's meant to "protect me".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Getting back to the original question, here's my list (embellished with some explanations of my thinking).

1. There's been a lot of ballyhooing about UAC, but this isn't so much about UAC so much as it is about user implementation. Most of the griping about UAC comes from computer experts whining that it's sticking its nose in their business when they know **** well what they're doing. And all this wouldn't be an issue if a user created account could be above UAC. The built-in Administrator account is like this; UAC is on but it doesn't bother the built-in Admin. However, just being a member of the Administrators group doesn't bequeath such privileges. This methodology is counter-intuitive. The current setup of Admins in Vista is more like what I'd see the Power Users group be like: able to do most anything, but be prompted for permission anytime it does something with system-wide consequences. Then regular users could also have UAC prompts when doing system changes, but would need to input a password of an account of higher permission level. And then Limited Users would be outright denied these actions. UAC is designed to protect careless users from destroying their PCs, but the first account made by the system is still a member of the Administrators group. The user should be asked what kind of user to make, complete with simplified explanations of what each level (Admin, Power User, Regular User, Limited User) entails. Of course, all this would be moot if the built-in Admin account had a blank password (then a lower level account could just whack return when prompted and do whatever it wanted), thus if the only account a user makes upon install isn't and Admin or Power User the installation should prompt for a password for the "System" account (or whatever wording would be least confusing for non-technical users). This, I think, would go a long way to making everybody happy.

2. Moving on, I have some GUI gripes. First up would be that not all the control applets are integrated into Explorer. Main gripe here would be what used to be Display Properties. It's now been reorganized into the Personalization section (which isn't bad). Each option that used to be a tab in the old properties window now has it's own little section. Only when you click on them it pops up the old style window, but now with just one tab on it. The old way control applets worked wasn't bad, and the new way is indeed slick, but this hybrid is just plain bad. This should be fixed to make everything consistent.

3. Another GUI gripe comes from the new Explorer. There's so many good changes here that it's sad that there's one glaring flaw: you can't hide the Favorites panel. You can hide the Folders panel but not the Favorites panel. Why? I can see myself using it a lot, but having it hide when not needed would allow for more space for the folder view. And while I'm asking for things, how about implementing some tabs in Explorer? IE has them now, why not share the organizational love to local file work too?

4. Keeping up on file management, this is one of my long standing gripes about Windows: how it deals with file moves and copies. Now, Microsoft has fixed part of the equation with Vista. When moving files about, you are given a lot more info and control over file overwrites. I don't know (because I haven't tested it yet :blushing:) if any single failure brings the whole operation down or not, so I won't comment on that. However, the third part of this pie is still broke. If you initiate two or more file operations that use the same drives they run concurrent, dragging down transfer speeds. What should be done here is operation queuing; if an operation either originates or terminates on a drive that is currently being used in another operation, it should wait until the other is done (and of course telling the user that it's waiting so as to not look like it locked up). I'd like this to apply to programs too, but I'm certain that'd probably just cause major havoc with some programs, so I'll just settle for the user-initiated stuff.

5. And one more file related thing. Why is it that the size column still doesn't show folder sizes? The tooltip does (or attempts to, as folders with a lot of files can't be tallied up fast enough for the tooltip). The super-nice shell extension Folder Size adds a column that does this; it accomplishes this feat by keeping a small database of folder sizes inside a service. On my PC with a decent amount of drives and folders, it only takes up about 18MB or RAM. Windows itself could do this inside the Explorer process (since it's also the system shell and runs all the time). And before anyone says to just use the extension, no, that won't work; while Folder Size is a nice piece of software, it doesn't work in Vista or any 64-bit Windows versions. But, really, I don't see why there isn't an option to cache such information in Explorer itself considering all the other stuff Vista wants to cache into RAM. ;)

6. The new Start Panel. I'll admit, at first I didn't like the new panel in XP. But after I customized it with the menus I found most useful, I grew to love it. So, instead of extending a good idea, Microsoft just redid it completely. OK, I can let that slide. If the new one was superior to the old one in every way. But sadly that just isn't the case. The search/run box is absolutely awesome, but it's really the only change that's for the better. The Log Off/Shut Down button setup in XP worked perfectly fine, but is replaced with a total mess in Vista. There's again two main buttons, but instead of one of them leading to a user friendly window asking if you want to Shut Down, Restart, or Sleep your PC, you have to push a little arrow button to get ... an old-school popup menu. Oh, and that power button looking one doesn't actually shut down the PC; it Sleeps instead. Not exactly what I expect from the look of the icon; you can change this, but still the default behavior isn't what you'd think. Continuing on with this poor panel, the most recent program list and the system options columns are pretty much the same, only the system side loses the icons with the text and instead changes the user icon to whatever is hovered over. Slick, but I'd prefer the most collapsed look some XP skins have of just icons on this side. The left side is about the same, until you click the All Programs button. In XP this poped up the plethora of menu windows that have been part of the Start Menu since the 95 days. In Vista, though, the programs list instead shows up in the recent programs side. And, well, it just seems so bloody claustrophobic. Plus it practically guarantees involving scrollbars, something I've noticed Vista tries to avoid at all costs. It also doesn't autoscroll near the edges, so you have to manually scroll up and down. And what if you have some really nested file structures (because you're an orgizational freak like me)? You have this vertical nested visual mess that just feels even more cramped. Sure having menus running all the way across the screen isn't very elegant, but it sure doesn't feel as confining. I guess if the panel in which all this was done was wider, it'd work out better. As is, if just feels totally awkward to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't get why people complain about UAC! It's there for your protection!

Some of us don't need or want the protection. Same reason why I don't run an anti-virus, nor a firewall, nor an anti-spyware, nor any other software or hardware that's meant to "protect me".

Well then, disable it! People are saying its a bad thing even though they can have it either enabled or disabled.

And the start menu power button can be change through the power options - but I do agree its a silly idea have standby as standard and not shut down :}

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I complain because I'm frustrated. It doesn't mean that I hate Microsoft, nor does it mean that I hate UAC. It's that it doesn't suit my needs, and I'm too impatient to wait for a "fix" to come out.

UAC is, IMO, too inflexible for those of us who tinker with their systems. And, especially with apps designed for XP, it doesn't let us choose to "Allow" the app forever (like a software firewall will). Actually, a fix probably isn't needed as the problem will go away once my chosen apps become Vista compatible - but until then I reserve the right to b*tch about it! :)

From my Army days: "A happy soldier is a b*tching soldier."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to totally disagree here. I use the Windows Key all the time, and allows power users to navigate the OS quicker, if you take advantage of it. Just take for instance "Windows Key + E" to open Windows Explorer, or "Windows Key + R" to open the run command, just those two alone used by someone knowledgeable, can navigate to any area of the OS with the keyboard much quicker than using the GUI. If anything, they should extend on it, and add even more shortcut keys, and allow them to be remapped too.

I'm sure it's useful, (though I stubbornly refuse to use it) but I still think it's an unnecessary key created by the MS marketing department. Ctl-alt, ctl-shift or any combination other existing keys would have got the job done and I would encourage MS to include/keep standard key combo alternatives to the Windows key. Where's my Tux Key or my OSX key (though I wouldn't be surprised if Apple has one) ? Using marketing clout to put a specific OS key on what is supposedly standard PC hardware, capable of running many operating systems, just seems arrogant.

Aside from pure marketing arrogance, the Windows key holds a special place of evil in my heart as the key which causes me to die when I accidentally press it during First Person Shooter sessions and get rudely switched back to the desktop while the start menu opens. I used to rip it off my keyboards for this very reason. (I've improved and most games handle it better these days)

Anyway it's admittedly a minor, personal peeve and I posted it more to be humorous than anything else... ;)

happy holidays!

PS ---

I agree with everyone that UAC is annoying but it's easily turned off!!!! (run msconfg.exe > Tools > disable UAC, reboot)

I can see why corporate environments would want it and think it's good they included it.

3. Another GUI gripe comes from the new Explorer. There's so many good changes here that it's sad that there's one glaring flaw: you can't hide the Favorites panel. You can hide the Folders panel but not the Favorites panel. Why? I can see myself using it a lot, but having it hide when not needed would allow for more space for the folder view. And while I'm asking for things, how about implementing some tabs in Explorer? IE has them now, why not share the organizational love to local file work too?

I completely agree here and to make matters worse, MY favorite links (to unc paths) don't even work so I can't even make this patronizing 'feature' useful.

I have discovered that if you resize the Folders pane you can completely obscure Favorite Links, making Explorer appear and behave as if it wasn't there. Fortunately, this seems to be remembered after closing and restarting Explorer (though it remains to be seen for how long, as many settings in XP often got 'forgotten' after a period of use).

Edited by joei
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<Hmmm...note to self, suggest to MS they add an 'Anti-Fat Finger' feature. :) >

Aside from pure marketing arrogance, the Windows key holds a special place of evil in my heart as the key which causes me to die when I accidentally press it during First Person Shooter sessions and get rudely switched back to the desktop while the start menu opens. I used to rip it off my keyboards for this very reason. (I've improved and most games handle it better these days)
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...