My opinions on Vista SP1, 8 months later..

NathanE · 2 Feb 2008 at 15:21

dirtydog said:
Vista has flaws a-plenty BY DESIGN; XP didn't and doesn't. You can't compare deliberate design flaws with a few bugs or driver issues. The latter would always be fixed; the former won't ever be fixed because MS have lost the plot with Vista.

XP doesn't have flaws? Hmm.. just OTOH:

GDI? DPI scaling? Drag a window and it will very likely cause a 100% CPU usage spike? Any window that needed translucency requiring a ton of hacks and loads of CPU time?

Security? No least privilege mind set during development nor any UI to expose it exists on XP.

16-bit sound stack? Not a problem unless you want to watch hi-fidelity movies as is now becoming the norm

Inability to properly support IPv6?

Pretty big flaws for the world's most popular OS, going forward, wouldn't you say?

People saying Vista is stable so we should upgrade

Never seen anyone use that as a reason to upgrade. In fact Windows has been pretty much rock solid stable for going on a decade now. Can't believe people are still talking about stability :confused:

m4cc45 · 2 Feb 2008 at 15:57

dirtydog said:
UAC; superfetch; the indexing, whatever it's called now; the abysmal start menu; the lack of menubar and total lack of customisation options of the toolbar which every prior Windows version had; the non-functional network activity icon; the lack of an up button in explorer; the slow file copying speeds (fixed for some but not all people in SP1); there is a whole array of other faults which MS do not consider to be faults so will never be fixed.

Indexing - switch it off - works perfectly for me though if I leave it on it indexes the drive once then leaves it alone only indexing new files

UAC - not a problem with - I have it switched on and haven't seen it for more than 6 weeks now

You've just said they won't be fixed but then said that it is fixed in SP1 - Windows is very much an evolving operating system, every version has evolved and this is no different. If there's enough demand for features then they will be changed.

M.

m4cc45 · 2 Feb 2008 at 15:58

NathanE said:
...Never seen anyone use that as a reason to upgrade. In fact Windows has been pretty much rock solid stable for going on a decade now. Can't believe people are still talking about stability

People use that as an excuse as most people don't look after there O/S. People have all kinds of junk on there and bad / beta drivers, overclock the system to hell, have no firewall / AV and then blame Microsoft when it goes wrong.

Sad but true.

M.

dirtydog · 2 Feb 2008 at 16:07

Burnsy2023 said:
Oh dear. Why is superfetch or indexing a flaw?

All the other things you have listed are just issues with yourself adjusting to change, nothing more. People had similar issues through pretty much every Windows release, it's called advancement.

Burnsy

No mate; removing basic functionality is not advancement, it is retrograde.

dirtydog · 2 Feb 2008 at 16:09

NathanE said:
XP doesn't have flaws? Hmm.. just OTOH:

GDI? DPI scaling? Drag a window and it will very likely cause a 100% CPU usage spike? Any window that needed translucency requiring a ton of hacks and loads of CPU time?

Even if it does - so what?

Security? No least privilege mind set during development nor any UI to expose it exists on XP.

16-bit sound stack? Not a problem unless you want to watch hi-fidelity movies as is now becoming the norm

Funny, I've never actually had a problem with sound in XP! :eek:

Inability to properly support IPv6?

This affects me and everyone else how?

Pretty big flaws for the world's most popular OS, going forward, wouldn't you say?

No I wouldn't.

mr.sly · 2 Feb 2008 at 16:15

dirtydog said:
UAC; superfetch; the indexing, whatever it's called now; the abysmal start menu; the lack of menubar and total lack of customisation options of the toolbar which every prior Windows version had; the non-functional network activity icon; the lack of an up button in explorer; the slow file copying speeds (fixed for some but not all people in SP1); there is a whole array of other faults which MS do not consider to be faults so will never be fixed.

Whats wrong with UAC? Put it into quiet mode, you don't even know its there. Indexing is brilliant, 19,000 items indexed at the moment. All show up within a second on the start menu when I start typing, could never do that on XP.

Abysmal start menu? Please explain?

"the lack of an up button in explorer" - the breadcrumbs (is that the name?) is far more advanced than an up button and means you can just to pretty much anywhere on your system in two clicks.

SP1 hasn't even been released yet, so I'm not sure how you can say its not been fixed for all. Lets wait until its out before you go judging it.

dirtydog · 2 Feb 2008 at 16:26

mr.sly said:
"the lack of an up button in explorer" - the breadcrumbs (is that the name?) is far more advanced than an up button and means you can just to pretty much anywhere on your system in two clicks.

Yes you can now go up in two clicks. Funny, in every previous version of Windows you could do it in one click.

TheVoice · 2 Feb 2008 at 16:29

dirtydog said:
Yes you can now go up in two clicks. Funny, in every previous version of Windows you could do it in one click.

No, it's still one click.

mr.sly · 2 Feb 2008 at 16:29

dirtydog said:
Yes you can now go up in two clicks. Funny, in every previous version of Windows you could do it in one click.

Give me two minutes to record a video and I'll show you how to do it in one click if you want?

NathanE · 2 Feb 2008 at 16:37

Think we are on to a loss here folks

He actually has some good counter-arguments :eek:

dirtydog · 2 Feb 2008 at 16:39

TheVoice said:
No, it's still one click.

How?

Steedie · 2 Feb 2008 at 16:39

dirtydog said:
Yes you can now go up in two clicks. Funny, in every previous version of Windows you could do it in one click.

Jeez you're really clinging onto this as much as you cant aren't you :confused:

This is exactly how you were with the whole 60fps debate

XP is more practical for some people, Vista for others

Just because you don't like Vista doesn't mean its crap, to me, Vista is by far the more superior OS, I use both day to day. Vista on my main rig and XP on my laptop.

XP just seems so boring now, plus Vista to me just seems a lot better to use in general

I remember when XP was released, it was a disaster, for me personally I couldnt even use my computer with it installed so many crashes, hardware incompatabilities. Yet for others it was trouble free

Exactly the same for Vista, I haven't had a single problem from the day of release, but others had

No experience will ever be the same.

Just stop being such an idiot and trying your best to put it down. It honestly sounds like you're trying to convince yourself its as crap as you make out.

dirtydog · 2 Feb 2008 at 16:40

NathanE said:
Think we are on to a loss here folks He actually has some good counter-arguments

I suppose when you've lost the argument your only option is to resort to sarcasm

dirtydog · 2 Feb 2008 at 16:41

Steedie said:
Jeez you're really clinging onto this as much as you cant aren't you

This is exactly how you were with the whole 60fps debate

XP is more practical for some people, Vista for others

Just because you don't like Vista doesn't mean its crap, to me, Vista is by far the more superior OS, I use both day to day. Vista on my main rig and XP on my laptop.

XP just seems so boring now, plus Vista to me just seems a lot better to use in general

I remember when XP was released, it was a disaster, for me personally I couldnt even use my computer with it installed so many crashes, hardware incompatabilities. Yet for others it was trouble free

Exactly the same for Vista, I haven't had a single problem from the day of release, but others had

No experience will ever be the same.

Just stop being such an idiot and trying your best to put it down. It honestly sounds like you're trying to convince yourself its as crap as you make out.

Wow, yes I must be an idiot for not sharing your opinion

I guess all the businesses and IT professionals shunning Vista are idiots too.

Steedie · 2 Feb 2008 at 16:43

dirtydog said:
Wow, yes I must be an idiot for not sharing your opinion

Its not the fact you don't share my opinion. It's because you're being so closed minded about the whole thing, just because you dont like it, it must be awful for everyone

NathanE · 2 Feb 2008 at 16:43

Yeah, sarcasm is the lowest form of wit 'n all that. Shrug

Really didn't think it mattered how I replied (or any of us) as lets face it you've been anti-Vista (without substantiated reason) for 2 years now and aren't likely to change any time soon

mr.sly · 2 Feb 2008 at 16:44

dirtydog said:
How?

http://rapidshare.com/files/88619173/breadcrumbs.wmv.html

There you go, video footage of it happening in one click.

Made with Fraps.

Can't do that in XP.

Compressed with Windows Movie Maker 6, which is a lot nicer to use. And doesn't mean your video gets compressed to 640 either.

dirtydog · 2 Feb 2008 at 16:45

Steedie said:
Yes, yes you are

Its not the fact you don't share my opinion. It's because you're being so closed minded about the whole thing, just because you dont like it, it must be awful for everyone

Isn't that a personal insult and against the rules? Roffles.

I'm not closed minded. I've tried Vista extensively. I've just come to the considered conclusion that it's a pile of crap.

Macro · 2 Feb 2008 at 16:58

TheVoice · 2 Feb 2008 at 17:09

dirtydog said:
How?

http://www.zdnetasia.com/techguide/windows/0,39044904,61954884,00.htm

If anything, Vista's method is better because it allows you to go 'up' by a number of levels in a single click, rather than having to click an Up button several times.