Do people in the/. world really NOT KNOW that Windows 2000, XP, Vista all have prevasive Multi-threading, although it is not as extensive as BeOS?
So ya we need more Pervasive multi-threading in other OSes, and Windows needs to extend the level of pervasive multi-threading that is already in the OS architecture.
think about it: Windows Vista is, on average, 10% slower than XP for generic tasks and gaming. Why the hell is that ? Someone fucked with the kernel and stuck things in it that don't belong there, like that ever-annoying popup security model.
These are FUD or myth figures. Vista is actually faster than XP in 99% of tests when the system has 1GB of RAM to take advantage of the new caching system.
The only area where Vista HAS EVER been 10% slower than XP is in Video games, and this is in FRAME RATES. So instead of 30fps you get 27fps. And even this has changed with driver updates from NVidia and ATI with some games equality XP, and MOST games being able to use higher quality of textures for that 3fps drop because of the memory virtualization of WDDM in Vista.
I get tired of the armchair techs spouting these numbers when they are FALSE.
So in games you can lose 10% on framerates with older drivers, but in business apps and illustration programs like Corel or AI your applications load 10x faster and redraw complex images 20x faster.
I think the Vista trade off is quite good in comparison to XP.
As for the performance of Vista being in the kernel, you have no idea about the NT/Vista kernel and changes made, as the scheduler and performance in Vista is also significantly faster than XP and even BSD Linux and OS X, where a single CPU system CAN show 8 movies at once with no UI sluggishness and full system responsiveness, just like the concepts of BeOS once touted.
Maybe it is time some of these armchair techs actually PAY attention or use Vista and stop assuming it performs like Win98.
Possibly, but UAC can and does fail like this. You can get the 'do you want to do this?' box, click OK and have nothing at all happen - for example I had a vista box do that consistently when deleting items from the desktop - the only way to delete items was to start up and administrative shell and delete using the command line as the gui was totally broken.
Unless it is a shortcut installed for all users, if you are getting a UAC for files or documents that truly exist in your desktop folder you have some massive permission problems with your system and should force the folder files to inherent their parent permissions.
This is not in any way normal or the default behavior of Vista.
For example, when you post that: "you can easily remove the trial version, and reinstall the old version." Are you posting from actual experience, or from what you think should be possible?
Even clueless users don't have the problems you describe. Your example is one of the most moronic examples one could possibly use.
1) Office 200x saves the files in the format they were created in. It WILL NOT change the file format. (This even applies to older non Office imported file formats. A Lotus format saves as Lotus, a CSV saves as a CSV, a TXT or RTF or WP files saves as the original format, and yes even Office 97, 2000, XP, or 2003 saves as the ORIGINAL FORMAT. PERIOD.)
2) Office 200x Outlook DOES NOT CHANGE the PST structure, and keeps the previous structure in the PREVIOUS VERSION FORMAT. Yes there is a new unicode format in 2003 and 2007, but you have to SPECIFICALLY convert the PST, and this is for users that are close to the previous 2GB pst store limit in previous versions of Outlook.
3) Access will change the file format if you want to DESIGN the database, but it not only warns you but FORCES you to make a backup of the previous file format before it converts it.
So if files were 'changed' or converted to the newer format, the USER FREAKING DID IT SPECIFICALLY! And as with Access, the non changed version IS STILL THERE!
Now do you see why this is so f**king ridiculous?
And if you think it takes a MSFT expert to not be retarded and save OVER their documents with Save As in the 2007 format, you my friend have more problems than installing Office.
, too, have no problems uninstalling anything on my Vista system, and I'm running with all patches. But then, I'm also running with UAC disabled. Maybe this is a simple permissions issue?
We have tons of test systems with mass amounts of test software. I can CERTAINLY say that this article is either FUD or a TROLL and why SlashDot put it up is just another sign this sign is dying or dead.
The UAC doesn't matter in this regard, we have systems with it disabled and systems with it on, and after asking a few of the techs this weekend, not a single system has the Uninstall button disabled, and this even includes 'very' test systems with non-standard updates and software installed.
UAC works like this, the Uninstall button would NEVER disapper, the only way the UAC would be involved is if the Program needs permission to delete itself from a protected area like Program Files. In this can the UAC will note the process trying to access this area of the system and pop up a prompt LONG after the person has clicked the Uninstall button and started the uninstall application.
UAC would have nothing to do with this user's incompetence.
(Involved in years of beta with Vista and 100s of thousands of users and new users to Vista, and this is the first user I have ever seen even ask a ridiculous question like this, or purport it has something to do with Vista. Chances are this person has installed some 'spycleaner/regcleaner/crap' utility to his system and isn't bright enough to correlate that IT screwed with his registry.)
Who the fuck do you think you are, to tell me my own actual experience is poorly informed or an opinion?!
Actually you would be surprised.;)
Well, I would do that, except it worked significantly better in XP and Kubuntu...
Either way, your system is having an issue. It could be something as simple as having the power management setting messed up to a video driver that doesn't properly scale back when you are on battery. Which our techs have seen on a couple of laptops, and replacing the driver fixed.
Try this, leave Aero on, but turn off the transparency in the personalization settings. See if that doesn't fully restore your battery time. On some Intel based GPUs the transparency effects have to be processed over PS 2.0 and this is done through software emulation because of the inherent lack of features in the intel GPU. By turning off the main source of use of PS 2.0 features it will pull less resources from the CPU if your video is one of these models and should give you better than XP or *nix battery times do to the internal scale down powering of the system when.
Even a few months of experience on Vista on ONE computer is NOT going to represent MOST of the experience users are having, even though your experience has not been the best.
If you look at a new laptop from Dell that Vista designed BIOS/Audio/etc you would be shocked how much better Vista operates and controls the system compared to even an XP Shipped laptop from last year. In these circumstances, Vista tramples XP in terms of performance, battery, and features and is more of the norm for users that are buying new systems with Vista pre-installed.
I hope you find the root of the missing battery time problem you are seeing.
What in the hell is happening to this site. Once a good source of fairly trusted information or stories from around the net and now we are finding duplicates of stories everyday, biased submitter comments that don't even understand the articles they are posting and NOW we get opinion on subjects that are complete incompetence or flat out lies.
How can someone talk about using 2007 Office when they admit they never used it?
How can we trust an article where the user is SO STUPID that they reinstalled Office to import data when the software installed ALREADY does this automatically if they would just have freaking looked at the options instead of assuming MS is evil and forcing users to into their software.
This isn't even about MS or Office or Office 2007. This is about an really incompetent computer user proporting themselves as an 'expert' and yet having less knowledge than an average user in the same circumstances.
Do you think MS would bait people with a new version of Office and then want to pay for 'free' support calls to get the users back to their original versions? Just from a $$ standpoint, this would be STUPID for MS to do, and why this DOES NOT happen as the submitted story suggests.
Slashdot, this is now to the point where your main articles are making up crap just to try to push the anti-MS FUD.
So what insane/. headlines can we expect next?
"Don't install evil Vista because my 3yr old ate keys off the keyboard"
"Don't use evil Windows Server, when I installed NT 3.51 Server my audio in doom stopped working"
"Stay away from MS, I drove by their headquarters and bigfoot attacked my car and raped me"
"I am too stupid to breathe most of the time, but after installing Vista, I forgot how to breathe altogether"
"MS forces evil DRM on me in Vista because it has something called protect processes that secures parts of the OS from other processes, and even though it wasn't designed for DRM, idiots like me see it as DRM because we are too f**king stupid to know what we are talking about"
I've been using Vista (Business) all summer; I should know.
Wow, with all that expertise being used to negatively judge Vista, how on earth could any person ever argue with you...
1) People shouldn't listen to SlashDot for Windows Expertise advice.
2) When you have been using it for only a month, you should keep your mouth shut.
3) Everything you mention is either poorly informed or an opinion. For example:
But they don't do me any good because they suck my battery life
Yet, most experts that have done actual tests agree Vista with Glass/Aero enabled only consumes 1-3% more battery than XP. So explain again how much Aero sucks your battery?
Utilizing the GPU for fairly infrequent operations like Aero demands is LESS DEMANDING on a GPU than continually having to redraw application screens using 2D without a composer. And this doesn't even get into how Vista more efficiently uses a Vector based composer that is lighter on the GPU than the old 2D APIs.
However, if you are telling the truth of your experience, then you have some serious issue and should check with the MFR, as your results are not typical.
this is definitely MS driven with the BBC in cahoots with them
Ok, how much koolaid do you have to drink to actually make this into MS's fault? I suppose if they were using iTunes instead it would be Apple's fault, right?
This is just insane. MS makes DRM protection available, it doesn't give a flying F*** if anyone uses it, and they don't try to make people use it, in fact Gate has encourage people to not use since December of last year if their business model doesn't specifically need it (Yes he was saying this a month or two before Jobs made his anti-DRM comments.)
So with that out of the way, can you give a rational reason why the BBC is using Windows based DRM? How about 97% of the desktops can access the content with no effort? How about MS Encoding tools and software for content are free? How about just making up something less insane than blaming MS for what the BBC is doing?
I don't know what is in the BBC charter, but I doubt there is any illegality in what they are doing. What you are arguing is in the realm that they must provide their services to everyone, and I don't think that is required on this level or people without a TV would have also sued them since they can't get the BBC on their tinfoil hat.
Ok, one common theme here being argued is in regard to the DRM issues with v3.
I tend to agree with Linus and others that benefit from the OSS world that all DRM is not bad, and by restricting its use when needed is arrogant and foolish.
DRM actually creates new markets and new products along with new distribution models for existing products.
Sure there are evils of DRM, but they are not the 'norm'. And even in the context of audio where it has been used in an evil fashion, you can also find examples of companies that use it responsibly to create a new market. Look at audible.com, does anyone honestly think that authors would allow audio downloads of their books if it wasn't protected? Audible.com and the market it has created for online books didn't exist before audible.com and now is a credible market place for authors. And yet DRM with Audible is used fairly light and responsibly.
So can we just be so stupid to assume that the GPL is right with v3? Honestly to dictate what I can and cannnot do based on what they think is right is the exact OPPOSITE of what OSS was all about, and what the GPL was supposed to protect and now tries to dictate.
So sure I agree a lot of DRM issues are bad, but there are viable business models that could be created out of good DRM concepts, and by limiting any OSS developers from moving into these models is downright going to hurt OSS and put off more people that it will drive people to OSS.
Debugging aside, the real note of interest to people that are not familar with Vista is that this performance information is already in the OS and the Error Reporting/System Performance tools already in Vista report this exact same information as the poster gave as an example, so this is NOT a feature of TweakVista.
64 Bit Vista uses the new driver model. It requires code to be done right. The botchwork that programmers could get away with for 32 bit Windows no longer works.
And 64 Bit Vista drivers have to be signed. Which is something that vendors should do for all versions of Windows, its only been a recommendation for like 5 years.
Ya but even these requirments are for KERNEL LEVEL DRIVERS.
There is no need an iPhone/iPod or any other media device would need to have kernel level drivers unless Apple is sticking in some obscure unseen DRM services that operate below user mode.
Strange that other media players from Creative and phones from motorola interface just fine with any 64bit version of XP or Vista.
Maybe Apple needs MS to hold their hand and help them write the software/drivers for the iPhone.
PS, doesn't anyone else find it strange that a Phone with Wifi needs a USB driver to charge and download content? Wasn't the whole point is that you wouldn't need a computer? Geesh.
On the other hand, Verizon Wireless has horrible customer service, cripples their phones (to the extent that, for instance, you can't even get your pictures off of them and onto your computer without using some proprietary service), doesn't use GSM...
Ya, and with Verizon you can't use your own MP3s as ringtones on some phones, and Bluetooth is crippled on SOME phone, oh wait, you can't do either of these things on the iPhone either. Talk about Vendor lock in, and then defending ATT and Apple? That is just insane.
Of course I have had a 3G phone from Verizon for almost 4 years, and been able to use it to even play MMOs in my car with my phone as my uplink, but that is too fancy for Apple Fans. (Did I mention even my old phone has removeable 4gb RAM for movies and audio, and no iTunes needed?)
Oh, and I can put on a bluetooth headset, and press a button on my ear and say "Dial 8005551212" and it dials the number, or phonetically any name in my address book. But this is an OLD phone, and I'm sure the iPhone is superior to USABILITY like this. Oh wait, it doesn't do any of this 'simple' crap phone users are use to using.
I am so tired of the iPhone. The UI is pretty, but looks like Vista development applications from 3 years ago, Album flip, etc. It is so cool, people have already made copies of the UI for the Windows Mobile platform, just in case the people with real 'computer phones' feel left out of the buzz of Apple.
Oh and the touch screen is nice, but I would rather not have to use the buttons on my phone and just use voice commands, you know as in 'science fiction star trek stuff' that has been around for YEARS now on phones.
There should be a mandatory term for people the defend the iPhone for what it isn't, as it does have some good things, but people argue that it is 'everything' and it IS NOT. iPhone = cheap phone + cheap iPod all in one great package.
So, when Linux had fewer vulnerabilities, it was because it was obscure. When Vista has fewer vulnerabilities, it's because it's fundamentally more secure.
I would prefer to say, "Compared to XP, which also has been doing well in security for a while now, Vista is much more secure."
1) Vista has to deal with all the XP and previous generation vulnerbilities.
2) Vista is already used more than Linux or OS X
Vista doesn't have the obscurity you seem to think to protect it.
My last 4 windows installs have come up in 640x480 4bit because the video card wasn't recognized
My gawd, what version of Windows you installing?
Windows since Win2K and XP run in SVGA mode when it can't detect the video card, and this is at the very leat 800x600 16bit in XP and 640x480 8bit in 2K.
So are your numbers inaccurate or are you trying to BS everyone?
So you admit YOU can't use a dictionary, including not being able to tell the difference between different and distinct. The distinction is in the way Microsoft treats the two, you confused Microsoft user (both by Microsoft and yourself), too dumb to use a one-button mouse. Not to mention that you admited that Windows and its Server versions are different, if only by a setting in the Registry.
Actually that DEFINITION was from the dictionary, you freaking idiot.
NT is a shared code base and it is a commerical OS and it even uses the same binaries for the core OS. They don't get ANYMORE the SAME that that. PERIOD. OS X and OS X server have MORE differences between them in the OS than Vista and Longhorn does.
Somehow you seem to think that OS X for the desktop and OS X is the SAME EXACT product. IT IS NOT! OS X Server has extra services, servers, features, and even has modified core differences for priorities and other needed changes for a server responding OS and a Desktop OS.
So keep telling us all they are the same and how NT is not the same and everyone that actually has a freaking clue will move on because you are either stupid or insane.
No the ability to have complete control of every aspect of the operation of a linux/unix computer makes it more secure, I can shut off everything that remotely access the computer except ssh and run that on a non-standard port.
See right here you show everyone you have no idea when it comes to Windows. You can turn off every freaking port as well, and run a simple SSH server, or telnet server, or Remote Desktop with NO OTHER ACCESS (Take your pick). PERIOD.
You've got to be kidding. Linux has for years provided for filesystem encryption far more advance and flexible than that provided by Windows.
Ok, what reality are you going for here? The only real FS for Linux that support encryption is Reiser4, and it was designed in 2004, and still hasn't been merged into the kernel. There is a lot of controversy with both the original ReiserFS and Reiser4 as they sometimes do things a bit different and can cause corruption with some apps.
However, encryption technologies have been around for Linux, but they are NOT FS encryption. You need to have a basic understanding of the difference before this will make sense to you.
If you want to fully encrypt a volume, you can do so on Linux using PGP or whatever, but what you forget is most of these technologies are also available for Windows and have nothing to do with FS level encryption.
Even ZFS doesn't have FS encryption, and this is something NTFS has been doing well for a long time. And Vista has upped the stakes a bit with a combination of FS level encryption and full volume cryptographic support with BitLocker. Both BUILT IN, and NOT AVAILABLE IN 99% of Linux Distributions.
Linux still wins with a long list of scripting tools tailored for a verity of different uses.
I think you should look up PowerShell before you make this claim. There are also this like the inherent scripting technologies in Windows that can provide the functionality of a full application in addition to doing some serious scripting. From DOS/NTCMD/VBS/WSS/PSS/etc etc.
Also you seem to think that the scripting and command line tools people use on Linux haven't been ported to Windows, how could anyone assume such a stupid thing? And again you are also forgetting the *nix geeks like myself that use Windows and spend time in the BSD subsystem, running almost the same scripts and commands you would.
Re:OSX is Mac OS X, with extraneous bits removed
on
The Roadmap to Leopard?
·
· Score: 0, Troll
. (1) The distinction between Mac OS X and Mac OS X Server is non existent. It's the only commercial operating system in the world where that's true.
Do you realize Windows NT since 1992 has had a shared code base between the client and server versions. (You could literally make Windows NT Workstation into Server by changing a registry key.) The only exception is Windows 2003 Server which was delayed for security updates, and even then, it is still the same OS, but recompiled and a bit more optimized. Vista and Longhorn are essentially the same EXACT product as well, as Vista SP1 will be Longhorn without the server features.
Why are all the Mac experts clueless to anything non-Mac?
Oh BTW as to the iPhone and running OS X giving it an advantage is not as true as many would like to think. When development is closed to Web only widgets it is severly limited for creating custom solutions or doing anything outside of the 'Apple locked in Vision'.
Even though Windows and Windows Mobile have different architectures, applications designed for.NET run fine on both. (Add in Vista's.NET technologies and Windows Mobile will already do things with Silverlight or the slimmed down version of.NET 3.0 that OS X itself can't even do running on a Mac let alone a phone.)
This is why you are already seeing iPhone interface rip-offs running on Windows Mobile just to demonstrate it is not only possible, but insanely easy for Windows Mobile and a single developer to create what the iPhone UI is.
Lets see, Vista, very basic OS functionality, linux distro, very advance OS functionality plus 1000 applications. Yeah, that's a valid comparison.
Actually the original article compared only features in Vista that were also installed by *nixes. So since Vista doesn't have a mail server, all the vulnerbilities in relation to mail servers was NOT INCLUDED in the *nix distributions.
So if the feature wasn't in Vista or installed by default in Vista, it wasn't compared, so things like Apache, etc were omitted from the *nixes.
So you are basically making a good point, but the original articles and comparison already took this into account and took them out of the *nix pool. So they did what you ask, even though you didn't seem to read that far.
Also, why not look beyond just Vista, how about Windows Server 2003, which does ship with a lot of servers and services, it has had very little patching as well in comparison to *nix distributions and it is based on the old NT fork. When MS does do something right, it is retarded to pretend they haven't just to feel better about your OS religion or to find a way to hate them.
Hell, even the most basic linux or unix setup provides far more functionality than Vista
How much would like to wager on this?
Show me one *nix distribution that has a GPU model that allows pre-emptive multi-tasking of the GPU or will do SMP across multiple GPUs and also virtualize GPU RAM for gaming. Um, ya none exist.
Ok, I'm being a dick here, but there are lot of things that Vista does that truly cannot be done on other OSes at this time. People forget this, and it has a bit of importance in the upcoming technologies of the next few years.
As for the number of applicatons available for *nix compared to Vista, you do realize Vista ships with a full BSD subsystem, and it can run pretty much any *nix application natively.
Vista isn't perfect, but Windows stopped being a PoS OS around XP SP2 and I am really tired of the *nix wannabes pretending like this is 1998 and we are dealing with a DOS Hybrid Win98 as the example of Windows and how horrible it is.
Just the GPU WDDM model in Vista is more advanced than anything going in the OSS world and will kill any desktop wannabes in the next few years if we don't wake up and meet or beat them at this game. (OS X is not even attempting to compete in the WDDM area, so don't expect Apple to do this for us.)
I have been involved 'deeply' in both *nix and Windows for over 25 years now, and when each side should be benefiting from each other, one side is sticking its head in the sand and pretending that Windows still sucks as much as it once did.
In the OSS world and *nix world we can learn from the MS research group and what they and the MS engineers are getting right and are pushing into Windows, and we should at least be keeping up, instead of pretending like Windows is still a Piece of S**t and looking the other way and remaining ignorant.
Why would anyone bother putting out security patches for an OS that nobody uses yet?
And sadly it is used more than OS X and most *nix distributions already.
So if we take OS X as an example, with regard to security and patches and vulnerbilities, Vista is more widely used and had far less patches and remains more secure to date.
This is where the Apple people should say, "oh crap..."
for one am glad Microsoft releases fixes for XP problems in a more timely fashion than Vista. I would expect that when Vista deployments outnumber XP, the situation will reverse itself. So where's the story here?
The story is, Vista now is more widely used than OS X and many *nix distributions, and with comparison to them, it is significantly ahead of all of them in terms of security. This is no longer about Vista vs XP or based on installations with Vista vs XP.
So one example coming from this report is now that Vista is more prevalent than OS X, it is still tighter and better patched than OS X and other OSes that have been held in high regard in terms of vulnerbilities and security.
i.e. MS if finally doing something right in terms of security, and it is not just better than Windows, it is better than most OSes out there.
That's quite a statement. I don't have evidence supporting anything either way but I still have a hard time swallowing that one given my past experiences.
Numbers are out there... Dare I suggest, "Open up and say ahh.";)
Slashdot Mirror
OMG Pervasive Multithreading like NT/2K/XP/Vista?
/. world really NOT KNOW that Windows 2000, XP, Vista all have prevasive Multi-threading, although it is not as extensive as BeOS?
Do people in the
So ya we need more Pervasive multi-threading in other OSes, and Windows needs to extend the level of pervasive multi-threading that is already in the OS architecture.
think about it: Windows Vista is, on average, 10% slower than XP for generic tasks and gaming. Why the hell is that ? Someone fucked with the kernel and stuck things in it that don't belong there, like that ever-annoying popup security model.
These are FUD or myth figures. Vista is actually faster than XP in 99% of tests when the system has 1GB of RAM to take advantage of the new caching system.
The only area where Vista HAS EVER been 10% slower than XP is in Video games, and this is in FRAME RATES. So instead of 30fps you get 27fps. And even this has changed with driver updates from NVidia and ATI with some games equality XP, and MOST games being able to use higher quality of textures for that 3fps drop because of the memory virtualization of WDDM in Vista.
I get tired of the armchair techs spouting these numbers when they are FALSE.
So in games you can lose 10% on framerates with older drivers, but in business apps and illustration programs like Corel or AI your applications load 10x faster and redraw complex images 20x faster.
I think the Vista trade off is quite good in comparison to XP.
As for the performance of Vista being in the kernel, you have no idea about the NT/Vista kernel and changes made, as the scheduler and performance in Vista is also significantly faster than XP and even BSD Linux and OS X, where a single CPU system CAN show 8 movies at once with no UI sluggishness and full system responsiveness, just like the concepts of BeOS once touted.
Maybe it is time some of these armchair techs actually PAY attention or use Vista and stop assuming it performs like Win98.
Possibly, but UAC can and does fail like this. You can get the 'do you want to do this?' box, click OK and have nothing at all happen - for example I had a vista box do that consistently when deleting items from the desktop - the only way to delete items was to start up and administrative shell and delete using the command line as the gui was totally broken.
Unless it is a shortcut installed for all users, if you are getting a UAC for files or documents that truly exist in your desktop folder you have some massive permission problems with your system and should force the folder files to inherent their parent permissions.
This is not in any way normal or the default behavior of Vista.
For example, when you post that: "you can easily remove the trial version, and reinstall the old version." Are you posting from actual experience, or from what you think should be possible?
Even clueless users don't have the problems you describe. Your example is one of the most moronic examples one could possibly use.
1) Office 200x saves the files in the format they were created in. It WILL NOT change the file format. (This even applies to older non Office imported file formats. A Lotus format saves as Lotus, a CSV saves as a CSV, a TXT or RTF or WP files saves as the original format, and yes even Office 97, 2000, XP, or 2003 saves as the ORIGINAL FORMAT. PERIOD.)
2) Office 200x Outlook DOES NOT CHANGE the PST structure, and keeps the previous structure in the PREVIOUS VERSION FORMAT. Yes there is a new unicode format in 2003 and 2007, but you have to SPECIFICALLY convert the PST, and this is for users that are close to the previous 2GB pst store limit in previous versions of Outlook.
3) Access will change the file format if you want to DESIGN the database, but it not only warns you but FORCES you to make a backup of the previous file format before it converts it.
So if files were 'changed' or converted to the newer format, the USER FREAKING DID IT SPECIFICALLY! And as with Access, the non changed version IS STILL THERE!
Now do you see why this is so f**king ridiculous?
And if you think it takes a MSFT expert to not be retarded and save OVER their documents with Save As in the 2007 format, you my friend have more problems than installing Office.
Slashdot - April Fools everyday, just to appeal to the fanbois that now control it.
/. is still less biased sadly.
How much lower can your editorial responsibilities go?
This week is just ridiculous, and makes the inquirer seem credible, although
, too, have no problems uninstalling anything on my Vista system, and I'm running with all patches. But then, I'm also running with UAC disabled. Maybe this is a simple permissions issue?
We have tons of test systems with mass amounts of test software. I can CERTAINLY say that this article is either FUD or a TROLL and why SlashDot put it up is just another sign this sign is dying or dead.
The UAC doesn't matter in this regard, we have systems with it disabled and systems with it on, and after asking a few of the techs this weekend, not a single system has the Uninstall button disabled, and this even includes 'very' test systems with non-standard updates and software installed.
UAC works like this, the Uninstall button would NEVER disapper, the only way the UAC would be involved is if the Program needs permission to delete itself from a protected area like Program Files. In this can the UAC will note the process trying to access this area of the system and pop up a prompt LONG after the person has clicked the Uninstall button and started the uninstall application.
UAC would have nothing to do with this user's incompetence.
(Involved in years of beta with Vista and 100s of thousands of users and new users to Vista, and this is the first user I have ever seen even ask a ridiculous question like this, or purport it has something to do with Vista. Chances are this person has installed some 'spycleaner/regcleaner/crap' utility to his system and isn't bright enough to correlate that IT screwed with his registry.)
All I know is that I've reformatted my FAT partition enough times that any hidden files have long been destroyed, but my ipod keeps on working.
Simple people require even simplier devices, enough said.
Who the fuck do you think you are, to tell me my own actual experience is poorly informed or an opinion?!
;)
Actually you would be surprised.
Well, I would do that, except it worked significantly better in XP and Kubuntu...
Either way, your system is having an issue. It could be something as simple as having the power management setting messed up to a video driver that doesn't properly scale back when you are on battery. Which our techs have seen on a couple of laptops, and replacing the driver fixed.
Try this, leave Aero on, but turn off the transparency in the personalization settings. See if that doesn't fully restore your battery time. On some Intel based GPUs the transparency effects have to be processed over PS 2.0 and this is done through software emulation because of the inherent lack of features in the intel GPU. By turning off the main source of use of PS 2.0 features it will pull less resources from the CPU if your video is one of these models and should give you better than XP or *nix battery times do to the internal scale down powering of the system when.
Even a few months of experience on Vista on ONE computer is NOT going to represent MOST of the experience users are having, even though your experience has not been the best.
If you look at a new laptop from Dell that Vista designed BIOS/Audio/etc you would be shocked how much better Vista operates and controls the system compared to even an XP Shipped laptop from last year. In these circumstances, Vista tramples XP in terms of performance, battery, and features and is more of the norm for users that are buying new systems with Vista pre-installed.
I hope you find the root of the missing battery time problem you are seeing.
Take Care, and good luck to you.
Slashdot resorts to making crap up?
/. headlines can we expect next?
..................
What in the hell is happening to this site. Once a good source of fairly trusted information or stories from around the net and now we are finding duplicates of stories everyday, biased submitter comments that don't even understand the articles they are posting and NOW we get opinion on subjects that are complete incompetence or flat out lies.
How can someone talk about using 2007 Office when they admit they never used it?
How can we trust an article where the user is SO STUPID that they reinstalled Office to import data when the software installed ALREADY does this automatically if they would just have freaking looked at the options instead of assuming MS is evil and forcing users to into their software.
This isn't even about MS or Office or Office 2007. This is about an really incompetent computer user proporting themselves as an 'expert' and yet having less knowledge than an average user in the same circumstances.
Do you think MS would bait people with a new version of Office and then want to pay for 'free' support calls to get the users back to their original versions? Just from a $$ standpoint, this would be STUPID for MS to do, and why this DOES NOT happen as the submitted story suggests.
Slashdot, this is now to the point where your main articles are making up crap just to try to push the anti-MS FUD.
So what insane
"Don't install evil Vista because my 3yr old ate keys off the keyboard"
"Don't use evil Windows Server, when I installed NT 3.51 Server my audio in doom stopped working"
"Stay away from MS, I drove by their headquarters and bigfoot attacked my car and raped me"
"I am too stupid to breathe most of the time, but after installing Vista, I forgot how to breathe altogether"
"MS forces evil DRM on me in Vista because it has something called protect processes that secures parts of the OS from other processes, and even though it wasn't designed for DRM, idiots like me see it as DRM because we are too f**king stupid to know what we are talking about"
Geesh
I've been using Vista (Business) all summer; I should know.
Wow, with all that expertise being used to negatively judge Vista, how on earth could any person ever argue with you...
1) People shouldn't listen to SlashDot for Windows Expertise advice.
2) When you have been using it for only a month, you should keep your mouth shut.
3) Everything you mention is either poorly informed or an opinion. For example:
But they don't do me any good because they suck my battery life
Yet, most experts that have done actual tests agree Vista with Glass/Aero enabled only consumes 1-3% more battery than XP. So explain again how much Aero sucks your battery?
Utilizing the GPU for fairly infrequent operations like Aero demands is LESS DEMANDING on a GPU than continually having to redraw application screens using 2D without a composer. And this doesn't even get into how Vista more efficiently uses a Vector based composer that is lighter on the GPU than the old 2D APIs.
However, if you are telling the truth of your experience, then you have some serious issue and should check with the MFR, as your results are not typical.
this is definitely MS driven with the BBC in cahoots with them
Ok, how much koolaid do you have to drink to actually make this into MS's fault? I suppose if they were using iTunes instead it would be Apple's fault, right?
This is just insane. MS makes DRM protection available, it doesn't give a flying F*** if anyone uses it, and they don't try to make people use it, in fact Gate has encourage people to not use since December of last year if their business model doesn't specifically need it (Yes he was saying this a month or two before Jobs made his anti-DRM comments.)
So with that out of the way, can you give a rational reason why the BBC is using Windows based DRM? How about 97% of the desktops can access the content with no effort? How about MS Encoding tools and software for content are free? How about just making up something less insane than blaming MS for what the BBC is doing?
I don't know what is in the BBC charter, but I doubt there is any illegality in what they are doing. What you are arguing is in the realm that they must provide their services to everyone, and I don't think that is required on this level or people without a TV would have also sued them since they can't get the BBC on their tinfoil hat.
Ok, one common theme here being argued is in regard to the DRM issues with v3.
I tend to agree with Linus and others that benefit from the OSS world that all DRM is not bad, and by restricting its use when needed is arrogant and foolish.
DRM actually creates new markets and new products along with new distribution models for existing products.
Sure there are evils of DRM, but they are not the 'norm'. And even in the context of audio where it has been used in an evil fashion, you can also find examples of companies that use it responsibly to create a new market. Look at audible.com, does anyone honestly think that authors would allow audio downloads of their books if it wasn't protected? Audible.com and the market it has created for online books didn't exist before audible.com and now is a credible market place for authors. And yet DRM with Audible is used fairly light and responsibly.
So can we just be so stupid to assume that the GPL is right with v3? Honestly to dictate what I can and cannnot do based on what they think is right is the exact OPPOSITE of what OSS was all about, and what the GPL was supposed to protect and now tries to dictate.
So sure I agree a lot of DRM issues are bad, but there are viable business models that could be created out of good DRM concepts, and by limiting any OSS developers from moving into these models is downright going to hurt OSS and put off more people that it will drive people to OSS.
Debugging aside, the real note of interest to people that are not familar with Vista is that this performance information is already in the OS and the Error Reporting/System Performance tools already in Vista report this exact same information as the poster gave as an example, so this is NOT a feature of TweakVista.
64 Bit Vista uses the new driver model. It requires code to be done right. The botchwork that programmers could get away with for 32 bit Windows no longer works.
And 64 Bit Vista drivers have to be signed. Which is something that vendors should do for all versions of Windows, its only been a recommendation for like 5 years.
Ya but even these requirments are for KERNEL LEVEL DRIVERS.
There is no need an iPhone/iPod or any other media device would need to have kernel level drivers unless Apple is sticking in some obscure unseen DRM services that operate below user mode.
Strange that other media players from Creative and phones from motorola interface just fine with any 64bit version of XP or Vista.
Maybe Apple needs MS to hold their hand and help them write the software/drivers for the iPhone.
PS, doesn't anyone else find it strange that a Phone with Wifi needs a USB driver to charge and download content? Wasn't the whole point is that you wouldn't need a computer? Geesh.
On the other hand, Verizon Wireless has horrible customer service, cripples their phones (to the extent that, for instance, you can't even get your pictures off of them and onto your computer without using some proprietary service), doesn't use GSM...
Ya, and with Verizon you can't use your own MP3s as ringtones on some phones, and Bluetooth is crippled on SOME phone, oh wait, you can't do either of these things on the iPhone either. Talk about Vendor lock in, and then defending ATT and Apple? That is just insane.
Of course I have had a 3G phone from Verizon for almost 4 years, and been able to use it to even play MMOs in my car with my phone as my uplink, but that is too fancy for Apple Fans. (Did I mention even my old phone has removeable 4gb RAM for movies and audio, and no iTunes needed?)
Oh, and I can put on a bluetooth headset, and press a button on my ear and say "Dial 8005551212" and it dials the number, or phonetically any name in my address book. But this is an OLD phone, and I'm sure the iPhone is superior to USABILITY like this. Oh wait, it doesn't do any of this 'simple' crap phone users are use to using.
I am so tired of the iPhone. The UI is pretty, but looks like Vista development applications from 3 years ago, Album flip, etc. It is so cool, people have already made copies of the UI for the Windows Mobile platform, just in case the people with real 'computer phones' feel left out of the buzz of Apple.
Oh and the touch screen is nice, but I would rather not have to use the buttons on my phone and just use voice commands, you know as in 'science fiction star trek stuff' that has been around for YEARS now on phones.
There should be a mandatory term for people the defend the iPhone for what it isn't, as it does have some good things, but people argue that it is 'everything' and it IS NOT. iPhone = cheap phone + cheap iPod all in one great package.
With a nod to Mencia, I suggest 'iDeeDeeDee'.
So, when Linux had fewer vulnerabilities, it was because it was obscure. When Vista has fewer vulnerabilities, it's because it's fundamentally more secure.
I would prefer to say, "Compared to XP, which also has been doing well in security for a while now, Vista is much more secure."
1) Vista has to deal with all the XP and previous generation vulnerbilities.
2) Vista is already used more than Linux or OS X
Vista doesn't have the obscurity you seem to think to protect it.
My last 4 windows installs have come up in 640x480 4bit because the video card wasn't recognized
My gawd, what version of Windows you installing?
Windows since Win2K and XP run in SVGA mode when it can't detect the video card, and this is at the very leat 800x600 16bit in XP and 640x480 8bit in 2K.
So are your numbers inaccurate or are you trying to BS everyone?
So you admit YOU can't use a dictionary, including not being able to tell the difference between different and distinct. The distinction is in the way Microsoft treats the two, you confused Microsoft user (both by Microsoft and yourself), too dumb to use a one-button mouse.
Not to mention that you admited that Windows and its Server versions are different, if only by a setting in the Registry.
Actually that DEFINITION was from the dictionary, you freaking idiot.
NT is a shared code base and it is a commerical OS and it even uses the same binaries for the core OS. They don't get ANYMORE the SAME that that. PERIOD. OS X and OS X server have MORE differences between them in the OS than Vista and Longhorn does.
Somehow you seem to think that OS X for the desktop and OS X is the SAME EXACT product. IT IS NOT! OS X Server has extra services, servers, features, and even has modified core differences for priorities and other needed changes for a server responding OS and a Desktop OS.
So keep telling us all they are the same and how NT is not the same and everyone that actually has a freaking clue will move on because you are either stupid or insane.
You mean 'distiction' as in:
"Condition of being different; difference"
Is using a dictionary really that hard for Apple nuts? No wonder Jobs said that more than one button on the mouse would confuse his customers...
No the ability to have complete control of every aspect of the operation of a linux/unix computer makes it more secure, I can shut off everything that remotely access the computer except ssh and run that on a non-standard port.
See right here you show everyone you have no idea when it comes to Windows. You can turn off every freaking port as well, and run a simple SSH server, or telnet server, or Remote Desktop with NO OTHER ACCESS (Take your pick). PERIOD.
You've got to be kidding. Linux has for years provided for filesystem encryption far more advance and flexible than that provided by Windows.
Ok, what reality are you going for here? The only real FS for Linux that support encryption is Reiser4, and it was designed in 2004, and still hasn't been merged into the kernel. There is a lot of controversy with both the original ReiserFS and Reiser4 as they sometimes do things a bit different and can cause corruption with some apps.
However, encryption technologies have been around for Linux, but they are NOT FS encryption. You need to have a basic understanding of the difference before this will make sense to you.
If you want to fully encrypt a volume, you can do so on Linux using PGP or whatever, but what you forget is most of these technologies are also available for Windows and have nothing to do with FS level encryption.
Even ZFS doesn't have FS encryption, and this is something NTFS has been doing well for a long time. And Vista has upped the stakes a bit with a combination of FS level encryption and full volume cryptographic support with BitLocker. Both BUILT IN, and NOT AVAILABLE IN 99% of Linux Distributions.
Linux still wins with a long list of scripting tools tailored for a verity of different uses.
I think you should look up PowerShell before you make this claim. There are also this like the inherent scripting technologies in Windows that can provide the functionality of a full application in addition to doing some serious scripting. From DOS/NTCMD/VBS/WSS/PSS/etc etc.
Also you seem to think that the scripting and command line tools people use on Linux haven't been ported to Windows, how could anyone assume such a stupid thing? And again you are also forgetting the *nix geeks like myself that use Windows and spend time in the BSD subsystem, running almost the same scripts and commands you would.
. (1) The distinction between Mac OS X and Mac OS X Server is non existent. It's the only commercial operating system in the world where that's true.
.NET run fine on both. (Add in Vista's .NET technologies and Windows Mobile will already do things with Silverlight or the slimmed down version of .NET 3.0 that OS X itself can't even do running on a Mac let alone a phone.)
Do you realize Windows NT since 1992 has had a shared code base between the client and server versions. (You could literally make Windows NT Workstation into Server by changing a registry key.) The only exception is Windows 2003 Server which was delayed for security updates, and even then, it is still the same OS, but recompiled and a bit more optimized. Vista and Longhorn are essentially the same EXACT product as well, as Vista SP1 will be Longhorn without the server features.
Why are all the Mac experts clueless to anything non-Mac?
Oh BTW as to the iPhone and running OS X giving it an advantage is not as true as many would like to think. When development is closed to Web only widgets it is severly limited for creating custom solutions or doing anything outside of the 'Apple locked in Vision'.
Even though Windows and Windows Mobile have different architectures, applications designed for
This is why you are already seeing iPhone interface rip-offs running on Windows Mobile just to demonstrate it is not only possible, but insanely easy for Windows Mobile and a single developer to create what the iPhone UI is.
Lets see, Vista, very basic OS functionality, linux distro, very advance OS functionality plus 1000 applications. Yeah, that's a valid comparison.
Actually the original article compared only features in Vista that were also installed by *nixes. So since Vista doesn't have a mail server, all the vulnerbilities in relation to mail servers was NOT INCLUDED in the *nix distributions.
So if the feature wasn't in Vista or installed by default in Vista, it wasn't compared, so things like Apache, etc were omitted from the *nixes.
So you are basically making a good point, but the original articles and comparison already took this into account and took them out of the *nix pool. So they did what you ask, even though you didn't seem to read that far.
Also, why not look beyond just Vista, how about Windows Server 2003, which does ship with a lot of servers and services, it has had very little patching as well in comparison to *nix distributions and it is based on the old NT fork. When MS does do something right, it is retarded to pretend they haven't just to feel better about your OS religion or to find a way to hate them.
Hell, even the most basic linux or unix setup provides far more functionality than Vista
How much would like to wager on this?
Show me one *nix distribution that has a GPU model that allows pre-emptive multi-tasking of the GPU or will do SMP across multiple GPUs and also virtualize GPU RAM for gaming. Um, ya none exist.
Ok, I'm being a dick here, but there are lot of things that Vista does that truly cannot be done on other OSes at this time. People forget this, and it has a bit of importance in the upcoming technologies of the next few years.
As for the number of applicatons available for *nix compared to Vista, you do realize Vista ships with a full BSD subsystem, and it can run pretty much any *nix application natively.
Vista isn't perfect, but Windows stopped being a PoS OS around XP SP2 and I am really tired of the *nix wannabes pretending like this is 1998 and we are dealing with a DOS Hybrid Win98 as the example of Windows and how horrible it is.
Just the GPU WDDM model in Vista is more advanced than anything going in the OSS world and will kill any desktop wannabes in the next few years if we don't wake up and meet or beat them at this game. (OS X is not even attempting to compete in the WDDM area, so don't expect Apple to do this for us.)
I have been involved 'deeply' in both *nix and Windows for over 25 years now, and when each side should be benefiting from each other, one side is sticking its head in the sand and pretending that Windows still sucks as much as it once did.
In the OSS world and *nix world we can learn from the MS research group and what they and the MS engineers are getting right and are pushing into Windows, and we should at least be keeping up, instead of pretending like Windows is still a Piece of S**t and looking the other way and remaining ignorant.
Why would anyone bother putting out security patches for an OS that nobody uses yet?
And sadly it is used more than OS X and most *nix distributions already.
So if we take OS X as an example, with regard to security and patches and vulnerbilities, Vista is more widely used and had far less patches and remains more secure to date.
This is where the Apple people should say, "oh crap..."
for one am glad Microsoft releases fixes for XP problems in a more timely fashion than Vista. I would expect that when Vista deployments outnumber XP, the situation will reverse itself. So where's the story here?
The story is, Vista now is more widely used than OS X and many *nix distributions, and with comparison to them, it is significantly ahead of all of them in terms of security. This is no longer about Vista vs XP or based on installations with Vista vs XP.
So one example coming from this report is now that Vista is more prevalent than OS X, it is still tighter and better patched than OS X and other OSes that have been held in high regard in terms of vulnerbilities and security.
i.e. MS if finally doing something right in terms of security, and it is not just better than Windows, it is better than most OSes out there.
That's quite a statement. I don't have evidence supporting anything either way but I still have a hard time swallowing that one given my past experiences.
;)
Numbers are out there... Dare I suggest, "Open up and say ahh."