SRL Archive - Discussions & Debates

Ok, so I've decided after getting a negative rep for saying that people should STFU about vista sucking, I've decided to defend me stance here (And possibly open myself up to more bad reps, but whatever.)

First, some background. I have been running vista ultimate x64 for about 6 months now, I have LOVED it as an operating system. Before I bit the bullet, however, much of the negative rep it received made me fairly nervous about using it. In fact, I almost didn't!

So here is how I would like to proceed, I'll address the most common complaints that I've read about vista and then answer questions or "Vista sucks because of X" statements. I won't respond to "Vista sucks because Microsuck made it!" type responses. As that just screams "Im a fanboy that can't come up with rational arguments".

Vista is a memory hog
This statement has to be the most common vista complaint I've seen. So obviously you have to ask the question "Why is vista using so much memory?" The answer, simple, Superfetch. Vista, much more then XP did (and yes XP did do this to some extent), loads up frequently used programs and files into memory. It does this so that when you click on the Icon, the program seems to launch much quicker.

So what if you want to run a program that uses more memory that is available? Simple, vista frees the superfetch memory and allocates it to the program requesting it.

So my question to those complaining of this, would you rather your 8gb of ram sit there empty, doing nothing, or would you rather it provide a performance increase by pre-loading frequently used data?

Vista is unstable
There is not much to say here other then that is a complete lie. Vista is EXTREMELY stable. I've experienced fewer crashes with it then I did with XP (and I experienced very few crashes with XP). So where the problem? recent studies showed that 90% of all vista crashes where caused by nVidia drivers. Not exactly microsoft's fault. They gave nVidia and several other driver manufactures tons of specs/SDKs about how their drivers would work, and yet the companies sat on their duffs.

Vista doesn't support X
You know, this one sucks, but eventually microsoft had to stop supporting programs made for the 1980's. Most of them will run with a program like DosBox if you really need it to. Its Ironic because this complaint leads to the next. Much of vistas support issues where fixed with SP1. I, myself, haven't run into a program that vista couldn't handle out of the box.

Vista's Too bloated!
My response, Well, of course. Chances are the same person that complains that vista doesn't support X will also complain about how bloated it is. Well, you can't have it both ways. Vista supports far more hardware straight from the disk then any previous version of windows has. That support comes at the cost of bloat. Not only that, but the added features and background services that make the system run smoother and cleaner aren't magically free. So vista resideds in 1GB of HD space, and DOS only took up 1 MB, So what? Are you saying that $.01 you spent for the gig that Vista occupies is really that important?

UAC sucks!
Yes, it does, it also makes the computer much more secure. Vista infection rates are the lowest of any MS operating system ever. Sounds like UAC is doing its job well. Not only that, but you have the option to disable it if it really bugs you that much.

Those are the main points I've seen brought up about vista sucking. I'll be happy to address any other that you are willing to bring up. I'm just tired of seeing the childish bashing of vista. It started with a media propaganda hatred for MS and ended with the now moot arguments we see today. The same thing was attempted with Win 7, however, microsoft seams to have effectively smooshed that with their open beta program for windows 7 (because enough people are able to say STFU when a online reviewer talks about how terrible win 7 is).

good post, i've also used vista for about a year now with NO qualms. the UAC is fairly easy to turn off, and I've loved it off the whole time. as for stability, 1 BSOD over the year I used it, and that was when I accidentally did something stupid to cause the crash.

From: boberman

UAC sucks!
Yes, it does, it also makes the computer much more secure. Vista infection rates are the lowest of any MS operating system ever. Sounds like UAC is doing its job well. Not only that, but you have the option to disable it if it really bugs you that much.

Statistics show that 90% of the users of Vista would recommend it to a friend. Also, that the UAC stopped 70% of malware from entering the operating system.

Vista is amazing i love it cant wait for windows 7 to come out

Well, I'll agree with you that Vista isn't nearly as bad as people say it is, but I still don't particularly like it.

There are a lot of games and programs that I use/have used since Vista's launch that 90% of the problems (glitches, crashes, etc) could be traced back to attempting to run said program on Vista. All were active, constantly updated programs.

As for the UAC, sure, it does protect the system some, but it also trains people to just click "yes" or "okay". Let's face it, not everyone is either aware that you can turn off the UAC or is unable to.

There's also the fact that a lot of systems were advertised as "Vista Ready" when they were barely capable of running Home Basic, if at all.

Edit: Also, it's really easy for Vista to have a lower infection count than XP when you consider the fact that there are just under 3 times as many people using XP as there are people using Vista.

I have vista, for around a year, and i had xp when i was younger.

Too be honest, i dont care xp or vista.

IF im going to be running games and stuff like that - XP
Else - VISTA
(JUST WHAT I PREFER)

Vista worked like crap on my laptop, but works awesome on my desktop. To be honest, I don't mind it on my desktop, it runs fine, I've never had any major crashes, and I've been using it over a year.

I agree with pretty much everything you said, I mean, if you're going to complain about how bad something is, just don't use it, simple as that. There's no point in complaining to everyone about it, how is that suppose to help your situation. :p

Vista is only good if you got a powerful computer otherwise its just crap, running wise.

From: BobboHobbo
Vista is only good if you got a powerful computer otherwise its just crap, running wise.

Worked fine on my Acer Aspire 5720Z (my current laptop). Look at the specs, ran smoothly :)

If you have a computer built in the last 5 years, then vista will run fine on it. it has the requirements of a high end 10 year old system. (and a bottom of the barrel system now)

Only thing that I don't like is 64 bit, but that is nothing against Vista.

I'm running Windows 7 right now 64x, it's great.

There are 32-bit versions of Vista I believe, correct me if I am wrong.

Edit: But I'd like to have more memory, so…I have 64 bit :p.

I think that Ejjman meant that he doesn't like the 64bit version.

macromedia MX's programs have sooo many gliches with vista. that was the main reason i hated it when i first got it, because i usto always be on macromedia flash makeing little flash games and expanding my skills, (before i got into scar) but with vista it always crashed. so i looked for something new and i suppose it was a blessing because it brought me here ;D

Edit: actualy the biggest thing i dont like about vista, is that it looks so much differant from XP. I became fluent in XP and i could navagate around it so well, it was hella annoying when vista came along and everything looked differant. I realy wish they had an option to keep the design of it the same as XP if you didnt want to go and get used to the new style.

From: lancerawks aka Lance
macromedia MX's programs have sooo many gliches with vista. that was the main reason i hated it when i first got it, because i usto always be on macromedia flash makeing little flash games and expanding my skills, (before i got into scar) but with vista it always crashed. so i looked for something new and i suppose it was a blessing because it brought me here ;D

Edit: actualy the biggest thing i dont like about vista, is that it looks so much differant from XP. I became fluent in XP and i could navagate around it so well, it was hella annoying when vista came along and everything looked differant. I realy wish they had an option to keep the design of it the same as XP if you didnt want to go and get used to the new style.

they do. You just have to dig a bit to get it.

they do for what? the macromedia programs or getting back the old XP design?

Do you think superfetch is something special to Vista? It is because of how it is engineered that it requires superfetch to speed it up.

Duct tape might work, but it's not the best solution.

Vista idles with 2gb of ram for me I switched to Ubuntu it idles with around 300mb

From: cycrosism
Vista idles with 2gb of ram for me I switched to Ubuntu it idles with around 300mb

Oh my god you're an idiot.. /facepalm

Read the first post, specifically the 1st point.

Yep, Vista is great. Only problems for me are dodgey USB driver but that's not Vista's fault, it's Saitek's fault. Anyway, vista is stable, and runs MUCH faster than XP. Although, that might be due to the fact I have 8x more ram than my laptop. :)
The things I use (VS2008, MS Office 03, Firefox, mIRC, Notepad++) have never crashed on me. So yeah, it's stable enough.
(Waits for neg-reps).
– BP

I'm a happy Vista user too.

Networking shizzle Vista <—-> Xp is a hell and my xp never works on vista or comes with troubles… and it's not my fault!

From: boberman
So where the problem? recent studies showed that 90% of all vista crashes where caused by nVidia drivers. Not exactly microsoft's fault. They gave nVidia and several other driver manufactures tons of specs/SDKs about how their drivers would work, and yet the companies sat on their duffs.

I used to have a massive article (Edit: Here it is, please at least load it up to see how big it is :p) going over changes Microsoft made in the drivers scheme for Vista, and I have to say here that this is completely Microsoft's fault. All digital display ports capable of DRM (read: HDMI) are forced to monitor themselves for tampering so that DRM can't be circumvented by checking various sensors for changes ("tilt bits" they're called). This is also one of the many things that slows down Vista fractionally (but it adds up) and also caused lots of people on launch to not be able to watch any DVDs at all.

Anyway, I installed Vista once. Roughly 7 seconds in, the sidebar crashed and I said fuck this (it took like 10 seconds to log in from the fresh install). Also, there's about a 50ms lag when moving windows. Aero is the most bloated graphic interface ever. Compiz looks a lot nicer and is more customizable, faster, and can do all the triple-buffering, etc. that Vista's drawing system does (you could even replicate those diagonal bars behind the titlebars and such).

I don't remember what it's called, but that thing that uses flash drives as fake RAM has been shown to make flash drives only last roughly 10 years before data starts corrupting (compared to ~90 years)

Vista is okay… but I just hate how lazy of an effort Microsoft put into it.

Proof Vista is crap imo is: Microsoft ditched Vista for Windows 7.

Windows 7 > Windows XP > … > Windows Vista
Thx.

Ubuntu > Windows 7

Thx Freddy.

From: cycrosism
Vista idles with 2gb of ram for me I switched to Ubuntu it idles with around 300mb

You know whats Ironic? Ubuntu does the EXACT same thing as vista! after running it for a couple of hours, if you have a resource bar open you will notice that it has a large chuck of memory going to what it calls "Cache". However, ubuntu doesn't report cache as memory being used.

That is the difference, ubuntu doesn't report it as used and vista does.

From: kingarabian
Vista is okay… but I just hate how lazy of an effort Microsoft put into it.

Proof Vista is crap imo is: Microsoft ditched Vista for Windows 7.

Microsoft hasn't ditched vista for windows 7. They've taken a different OS development route with windows 7. Rather then wait 8 years like they did with longhorn, they are doing smaller improvements over shorter time periods.

By the time windows 7 is release, we will start hearing MS press releases about Windows 8 (Or whatever MS decides to call their newest os).

From: R0b0t1
Do you think superfetch is something special to Vista? It is because of how it is engineered that it requires superfetch to speed it up.

Duct tape might work, but it's not the best solution.

superfetch isn't unique to vista, most linux distros have a similar concept built in (prefetching). Whats unique is how MS decided to report memory usage as a result of superfetch.

And no, it isn't a Duct tape solution. It is one applied to many different OS's for speed.

The place they focused a large amount of effort was a complete rewrite of their driver hierarchy. Now, most applications will run the same if not faster in vista vs xp. In the beginning this wasn't true, but that was mainly a result of sub-optimal drivers.

From: lancerawks aka Lance
they do for what? the macromedia programs or getting back the old XP design?

getting the look back to the original.

As for the macromedia problem, yea, it sucks. From what I've read, it will work if you run it as an administrator and in XP compatibility mode.

From: Widget
I used to have a massive article (Edit: Here it is, please at least load it up to see how big it is :p) going over changes Microsoft made in the drivers scheme for Vista, and I have to say here that this is completely Microsoft's fault. All digital display ports capable of DRM (read: HDMI) are forced to monitor themselves for tampering so that DRM can't be circumvented by checking various sensors for changes ("tilt bits" they're called). This is also one of the many things that slows down Vista fractionally (but it adds up) and also caused lots of people on launch to not be able to watch any DVDs at all.

Anyway, I installed Vista once. Roughly 7 seconds in, the sidebar crashed and I said fuck this (it took like 10 seconds to log in from the fresh install). Also, there's about a 50ms lag when moving windows. Aero is the most bloated graphic interface ever. Compiz looks a lot nicer and is more customizable, faster, and can do all the triple-buffering, etc. that Vista's drawing system does (you could even replicate those diagonal bars behind the titlebars and such).

I don't remember what it's called, but that thing that uses flash drives as fake RAM has been shown to make flash drives only last roughly 10 years before data starts corrupting (compared to ~90 years)

Most hard mechanical hard drives only last 10 years. for the SSD hard drive, the problem comes in the fact they have limited rewriteability. That, and when vista was released MS didn't expect SSD's to be as popular as they are becomming. The built vista with mechanical drives in mind. Windows 7 rectifies this.

As for the article, it is not about driver changes but about the DRM inclusion that Vista has. This is the one major point that I don't like about vista, Microsoft's love for DRM. I can only pray that the RIAA's announcement that DRM is dead is true.

but for the compiz = much better then Areo. I've never had aero crash or cause instability on me. I've had that happen multiple times with compiz (Try running full screen GL programs with compiz, or just about any program with wine its a pot shot at best that it will work). I've also not noticed any increased lag do to the glass look.

Vista's never caused me any problems.

Vista is ok, but my uncle works with a company that works with microsoft, so i was able to use/test w7 rc 6 and natal :)

From: NiCbaZ
Vista is ok, but my uncle works with a company that works with microsoft, so i was able to use/test w7 rc 6 and natal :)

How's Natal? :D

From: Freddy1990
Windows 7 > Windows XP > … > Windows Vista
Thx.

and why do you say that?

and on topic, my desktop uses xp and my laptop uses vista. the laptop only has .5 gb of RAM(dont laugh ;)) and it runs mirc, runescape, smart, and itunes smoothly.

my desktop has 3 gigs, and it still lags some times. although im not saying anything bad about xp either

I got vista and I was suprised because every one is saying it's so bad. I have it like a year now and it's great. Btw, my scholl is in the "MSDN Academic Alliance Software Center" and we can download the legal versions of vista, xp… for free :p

Edit: Checked it now and it has Windows 7 to :D

From: cycrosism
Ubuntu > Windows 7

Thx Freddy.

Hmm, I dunno…
Ubuntu has crashed on my more than once, Windows 7 hasn't…

Thx cycrosism.

From: boberman

superfetch isn't unique to vista, most linux distros have a similar concept built in (prefetching). Whats unique is how MS decided to report memory usage as a result of superfetch.

And no, it isn't a Duct tape solution. It is one applied to many different OS's for speed.

SuperFetch is a technology that pre-loads commonly used applications into memory to reduce their load times. It's based on the "prefetcher" function in Windows XP.[8]

The intent is to improve performance in situations where running an anti-virus scan or back-up utility would result in otherwise recently-used information being paged out to disk, or disposed from in-memory caches, resulting in lengthy delays when a user comes back to their computer after a period of non-use.

SuperFetch also keeps track of what times of day that applications are used, which allows it to intelligently pre-load information that is expected to be used in the near future.

No. Superfetch is not prefetching. Superfetch attempts to make up for the slowness of the operating system by preloading files into RAM that you would normally be using. Also, prefetching is a Windows-specific feature. What you are referring to is "instruction prefetching" which is a method to speed up a CPU.

From: boberman

Most hard mechanical hard drives only last 10 years. for the SSD hard drive, the problem comes in the fact they have limited rewriteability. That, and when vista was released MS didn't expect SSD's to be as popular as they are becomming. The built vista with mechanical drives in mind. Windows 7 rectifies this.

They have limited rewriteability, yes, but as Widget said their lifespan was supposed to be about 100 years instead of 10. "SSD becoming popular" has nothing to do with it wearing out solid-state drives.

From: boberman

but for the compiz = much better then Areo. I've never had aero crash or cause instability on me. I've had that happen multiple times with compiz (Try running full screen GL programs with compiz, or just about any program with wine its a pot shot at best that it will work). I've also not noticed any increased lag do to the glass look.

Aero is a core part of the operating system and was tested as such. Also, the operating system was pretty much designed around it. Compiz, on the other hand, is meant to run on almost any linux distribution, and it is quite easy to fix the flickering problem – if you're on Ubuntu, you can run `metacity –replace` and then run `compiz` again when you're done with your game. The "just about any program" might fail is also a lie, the only problems encountered are when the program does graphics intensive work as the screen is buffered and will take time to load, flickering is to be expected, and as Linux was not built around compiz, this is OK. None of what you mentioned will cause Compiz to crash, however.

No. Superfetch is not prefetching. Superfetch attempts to make up for the slowness of the operating system by preloading files into RAM that you would normally be using. Also, prefetching is a Windows-specific feature. What you are referring to is "instruction prefetching" which is a method to speed up a CPU.

Im not referring to instruction caching as that is OS independent. Linux caches (Caching = superfetch/prefetch) just like windows does, it just doesn't report the cache as being memory in use.

https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-users/2007-October/126282.html
http://www.scottklarr.com/topic/134/linux-how-to-clear-the-cache-from-memory/
http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/2770

The links above prove that linux does the same thing. If you would take a minute and look at your memory usage you to could see a large chuck of memory dedicated to "Cache".

They have limited rewriteability, yes, but as Widget said their lifespan was supposed to be about 100 years instead of 10. "SSD becoming popular" has nothing to do with it wearing out solid-state drives.

It has everything to do with it. If your OS is designed with the idea that you can write unlimited times without wear, then you are going to design things a whole lot differently then if your drive has x amount of writes per sector. SSDs have a limited number of rewrites, not a lifespan based in years. Vista does things like defragmenting in the background. That is hard on SSDs. The OS was built with mechanical drives in mind.

BTW, I still would like to know where this "100 year lifespan" thing is coming from. Most SSDs are have a warentee for 10 years.

http://vista.blorge.com/2008/11/08/windows-7-will-be-more-ssd-friendly/

Aero is a core part of the operating system and was tested as such. Also, the operating system was pretty much designed around it. Compiz, on the other hand, is meant to run on almost any linux distribution, and it is quite easy to fix the flickering problem – if you're on Ubuntu, you can run `metacity –replace` and then run `compiz` again when you're done with your game. The "just about any program" might fail is also a lie, the only problems encountered are when the program does graphics intensive work as the screen is buffered and will take time to load, flickering is to be expected, and as Linux was not built around compiz, this is OK. None of what you mentioned will cause Compiz to crash, however.

Oh, so first compiz is the shiz, and now "It only causes problems because it isn't a core part of the OS.". Seriously? So now if any part of linux crashes its OK because it really isn't part of the kernel, but if some part of a MS os crashes it is all the sudden uber sucky… Double standards FTL.

And for the issues I mentioned

http://yokozar.livejournal.com/18488.html
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/compiz/+bug/102807
http://www.linuxforums.org/forum/debian-linux-help/133126-sts-chaos-using-wine-malfunction-compiz-fusion.html
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/compiz/+bug/347773
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=605429

Gee, looks like it crashes with GL programs, just like I described. As for the "Just about any program." I Specifically said running programs under wine, not native applications. While it is possible for a native app to crash Compiz like wine does, it is not likely.

Compiz doesn't crash for me with any GL Game and Wine, perhaps you use a binary blob video driver? (Nvidia)

Binary BLOBs

I don't have much to say on Vista, because I haven't used it a lot. While fixing computers of friends and such, I've noticed that Vista is far from stable, IMO.
But I partially blame that on using illegal copies that don't get recent updates. Still, I find Windows horrible, no matter how you look at it. I guess the two nice parts in Windows are DirectX and the NT Kernel.

To me, this argument is pointless, because I honestly don't give a damn about Windows. Even if it is deemed to be more `stable' by some souls. In general I don't like the ideology, philosophy of developers and manufacturers of Windows and Windows-Only Software.

When I used Windows I was very interested in the source of several programs I used often. They were 100% cost-free, but the author(s) never `wanted' to release the source, because they saw no reason to release it. Needless to say, it annoyed me a lot.

What I like most about Linux is that you (mainly) use Free Software. Software that the creators care about, and love to share with others. It brings you in contact with Free Software, and the Packages are very well maintained.

In reality, I still (but rarely) use my Windows XP. You'll find that I am 99,9% on my time on Free Operation Systems. I prefer multiple mouse pointers and workspaces, compiz, wine, and Free Games to one Desktop and a ``Windows Explorer'' that crashes and lags so often it would make a normal person cry out loud. (I'm sure you love those timeouts in it.)

I'm sure Linux lags behind on certain aspects; gaming for example. But I don't think this is to blame on Linux, but more on the companies that only create their games for Windows.

E: http://arstechnica.com/hardware/news/2008/03/vista-capable-lawsuit-paints-picture-of-buggy-nvidia-drivers.ars

From: Wizzup?
When I used Windows I was very interested in the source of several programs I used often. They were 100% cost-free, but the author(s) never `wanted' to release the source, because they saw no reason to release it. Needless to say, it annoyed me a lot.

Why do I get the feeling that's a cheap stab at me? Any sane person wouldn't try to force a developer to release the source of his program if it's already 100% cost-free.

I haven't used Windows 7, but Vista isn't that bad for me. I do get some crashes now and then, also it can be very unstable. But, I still like ubuntu better, except for that fact, Scar looks like crap on ubuntu.

Edit: no offense Freddy, not your fault lol.

Edit2: Thanks Wizzup?, I'll try that when i get on ubuntu

From: Freddy1990
Why do I get the feeling that's a cheap stab at me? Any sane person wouldn't try to force a developer to release the source of his program if it's already 100% cost-free.

I was talking about www.foobar2000.org, and not SCAR.
Getting you to Open Source SCAR is something I gave up ages ago. But yea, I can't help it if you tend to take offense to random sentences.

And to your point; any sane person would release the source of his program if it is 100% cost-free.

From: Smarter Child
I haven't used Windows 7, but Vista isn't that bad for me. I do get some crashes now and then, also it can be very unstable. But, I still like ubuntu better, except for that fact, Scar looks like crap on ubuntu.

Edit: no offense Freddy, not your fault lol.

http://www.villavu.com/webdump/courie32.exe

Install that in WINE.

From: Wizzup?
And to your point; any sane person would release the source of his program if it is 100% cost-free.

A lot of our favorite programs must be made by nutcakes then.

From: Freddy1990
A lot of our favorite programs must be made by nutcakes then.

If you say so; on topic again.

From: Wizzup?
If you say so; on topic again.

You said so ;)

From: Wizzup?
Compiz doesn't crash for me with any GL Game and Wine, perhaps you use a binary blob video driver? (Nvidia)

Binary BLOBs

I don't have much to say on Vista, because I haven't used it a lot. While fixing computers of friends and such, I've noticed that Vista is far from stable, IMO.
But I partially blame that on using illegal copies that don't get recent updates. Still, I find Windows horrible, no matter how you look at it. I guess the two nice parts in Windows are DirectX and the NT Kernel.

To me, this argument is pointless, because I honestly don't give a damn about Windows. Even if it is deemed to be more `stable' by some souls. In general I don't like the ideology, philosophy of developers and manufacturers of Windows and Windows-Only Software.

When I used Windows I was very interested in the source of several programs I used often. They were 100% cost-free, but the author(s) never `wanted' to release the source, because they saw no reason to release it. Needless to say, it annoyed me a lot.

What I like most about Linux is that you (mainly) use Free Software. Software that the creators care about, and love to share with others. It brings you in contact with Free Software, and the Packages are very well maintained.

In reality, I still (but rarely) use my Windows XP. You'll find that I am 99,9% on my time on Free Operation Systems. I prefer multiple mouse pointers and workspaces, compiz, wine, and Free Games to one Desktop and a ``Windows Explorer'' that crashes and lags so often it would make a normal person cry out loud. (I'm sure you love those timeouts in it.)

I'm sure Linux lags behind on certain aspects; gaming for example. But I don't think this is to blame on Linux, but more on the companies that only create their games for Windows.

E: http://arstechnica.com/hardware/news/2008/03/vista-capable-lawsuit-paints-picture-of-buggy-nvidia-drivers.ars

Don't get me wrong, linux OS's are great, and they do their jobs well. My primary purpose for this thread wasn't to get people to avoid *nix OS's or buy MS OS's. My primary purpose was to hopefully prevent a few ignorant statement on how terrible Vista is. It is a solid OS that.

From: boberman
Im not referring to instruction caching as that is OS independent. Linux caches (Caching = superfetch/prefetch) just like windows does, it just doesn't report the cache as being memory in use.

https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-users/2007-October/126282.html
http://www.scottklarr.com/topic/134/linux-how-to-clear-the-cache-from-memory/
http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/2770

The links above prove that linux does the same thing. If you would take a minute and look at your memory usage you to could see a large chuck of memory dedicated to "Cache".

> For Windows (NT4/2000/XP) you get the amount of memory actually in use
> by applications + kernel. This figure doesn't represent the amount of
> file cache in use, which is indicated in the task manager under the
> "Performance" tab as "System Cache". In fact, you can have a situation
> where application+kernel + file-cache is larger than the total memory
> available (hint: swap).
> I don't know how with Vista the value is interpreted.
>
> For Linux the used memory is interpreted as memory that is either used
> by the kernel, application or as file cache. So the value, while it has
> the same name, means something completely different. In fact, the notion
> of 'used' is Linux might be quite confusing to some users. Nevertheless,
> I personally don't call the overcommit handling in Linux a 'sweet
> design' (I would rather nominate NetBSD).

From one of the links you posted. This states that Windows DOES NOT report the amount in cache. Given Vista might be different, by why would they all of the sudden change? Also, Linux cache's different things. Windows would cache executable files or spreadsheets you open constantly (to make up for operating speed), but Linux caches shared libraries and etc.

From: boberman
It has everything to do with it. If your OS is designed with the idea that you can write unlimited times without wear, then you are going to design things a whole lot differently then if your drive has x amount of writes per sector. SSDs have a limited number of rewrites, not a lifespan based in years. Vista does things like defragmenting in the background. That is hard on SSDs. The OS was built with mechanical drives in mind.

BTW, I still would like to know where this "100 year lifespan" thing is coming from. Most SSDs are have a warentee for 10 years.

http://vista.blorge.com/2008/11/08/windows-7-will-be-more-ssd-friendly/

No, the writes are expected to last you a certain number of years. I understand their lifespan is not measured in years. However, you've almost started talking about something completely different at this point.

From: boberman
Oh, so first compiz is the shiz, and now "It only causes problems because it isn't a core part of the OS.". Seriously? So now if any part of linux crashes its OK because it really isn't part of the kernel, but if some part of a MS os crashes it is all the sudden uber sucky… Double standards FTL.

And for the issues I mentioned

http://yokozar.livejournal.com/18488.html
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/compiz/+bug/102807
http://www.linuxforums.org/forum/debian-linux-help/133126-sts-chaos-using-wine-malfunction-compiz-fusion.html
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/compiz/+bug/347773
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=605429

Gee, looks like it crashes with GL programs, just like I described. As for the "Just about any program." I Specifically said running programs under wine, not native applications. While it is possible for a native app to crash Compiz like wine does, it is not likely.

No, I understand you meant running programs under WINE. I'm saying most of them won't crash, unless you have a seriously limited view on things.

I do not have double standards. I am simply saying that- Ok, screw this, go TICKLE your mother with a FEATHER. I'm sick of Windows Vista trolling and I'm not going to type up my argument again.

nah vista isn't crap. i thought it was too for a while, but now its actually really handy a lot of shortcuts and i actually like the layout and color schemes. if your computer can't handle vista thats your computers fault, but if it came preinstalled with vista then its gonna be good. i haven't experienced any meltdowns of any sort so SUCK IT UP :)

From: boberman
Don't get me wrong, linux OS's are great, and they do their jobs well. My primary purpose for this thread wasn't to get people to avoid *nix OS's or buy MS OS's. My primary purpose was to hopefully prevent a few ignorant statement on how terrible Vista is. It is a solid OS that.

I understood that, but in my opinion Vista is horrible; I've seen so many problems with the program that ran well in XP. Indeed, in XP. I know Vista wasn't made for backwards compatibility, but it goes down quite often, and if it goes down, it goes down hard. There are a lot of programs from XP that I still want to use, and they often don't work in Vista.
I often found WINE to be a better alternative…

My main problem with any windows is that I have to do a ``Clean Install'' every half a year or more often. It simply becomes too slow or non responsive.

This is a problem I don't experience with Linux OS'es.
And about Compiz; I was serious when I mentioned the Binary blob thing; Nvidia drivers are said to be `stable' and quite `fast', but they are a bit of a hell when it comes to multiple monitors, etc. I didn't mess with my Xorg that much yet, though.

But most of these problems arise because manufacturers don't want to support Linux.

From: yubinator
nah vista isn't crap. i thought it was too for a while, but now its actually really handy a lot of shortcuts and i actually like the layout and color schemes. if your computer can't handle vista thats your computers fault, but if it came preinstalled with vista then its gonna be good. i haven't experienced any meltdowns of any sort so SUCK IT UP :)

First, let me say congratulations. You're the only person with a dark-green name that I've seen post more than 1 sentence about the actual topic in quite a while.

Second, let me say yes it is crap. My laptop came preinstalled with Vista. Do you want to hear all of the problems that arose in and outside of Vista because I used it?

-Wireless router randomly crashed and failed to accept any new connections as well as cut off all of the old ones until it was rebooted and connected to with a non-Vista computer.

-GIMP, a wonderful art program, crashed three times within the span of 10 minutes of use. The CPU stayed under 50% the whole time, and the functions I were using were trivial. Using the fill-bucket SHOULDN'T MAKE THE PROGRAM 'SPLODE. I later reinstalled it to no avail.

-When booting in to Vista, I would randomly get a "Windows Explorer has stopped responding. Restart?" message. I then had to restart Windows Explorer.

-Chrome has crashed numerous times on trivial sites such as Yahoo and Facebook.

-30% of the time that I click on the wireless or sound icons in the taskbar, it freezes. After the insanely long timeout, it restarts itself. I had to wait over A MINUTE to adjust the volume on that computer via the taskbar.

-After around 30 minutes to 5 hours of use, if I don't keep the processor at 100% the whole time, the screen blacks out and the computer becomes completely unresponsive to anything. I've already checked for solutions on this; updating the BIOS didn't help, and there is no other way I've found that works to avoid it (other than ensuring the processor never drops below 100%) in my 50 page search of Google.

Then it crashed while installing SP1. Wouldn't boot, so I had to wipe it and reinstall from the factory settings. I checked those problems; the SAME THINGS HAPPENED.

When I loaded XP Pro SP3 on, it ran smoothly. It hasn't crashed once since then, and I have had none of the aforementioned problems with my computer. (Chrome crashed once because I wanted to see how many RuneScapes I could run before killing it. But that was the only problem. :P)

It's an old model, so it only has a 1.9Ghz processor and 2GB of RAM, but that is obviously more than enough to run Vista. ;)

Those are my woes with Vista, and my reasons for refusing to run it. I get free XP licenses through my school and I have 32 and 64 bit Ubuntu on two seperate DVD-ROMs.

:P
~Macro


EDIT:
R0b0t1- I heard that there was a Unix-based OS that a manufacturer was officially offering as an alternative to XP SP3 for their computers… I think it was called EEEbuntu? It's compatible with all of their drivers, etc. and apparently is really stable. Yay for Unix. :D

In my experience, Vista on a <2gb machine just doesn't work well.

what I hate with vista is that it always require admin privileagies, ofc im admin on my comp but anyway, I hate having to click on that stupid box "If u started this program click here"

I've tried Vista on several of my machines and it just feels like a beta.

As for your Superfetch argument, if it allocated the memory quick enough it'd be a decent idea, but it just didn't work. Hell my application loading time was HUGEE on Vista as for XP, seconds.
I run a dual core at a clock speed of around 3.7-3.8 ghz, 9800GT, and 4GB of RAM and it runs a treat..
TF2 FPS is around 180+ on XP where as it was a dismal 90FPS on Vista, boot up times were sluggish, and shut downs were rarely successful, and i usually ended up returning to my PC after work to find my electricity bill was skied because my pc hadnt shut down and had just been running for 12 hours straight.
Thanks vista, ill forward the bill :)

My vista experience was god awful and I hated it.
I've ran it on my laptop aswell and same applys really, I think it was a shoddy incomplete Operating system that felt like it had so much potential but it just wasn't done properly whatsoever..

However!
Windows 7 on the other hand.. is just..
Well.. Vista meets XP and its just perfect :)

Vista is great, just when running on a laptop with 1gb of ram didn't work out too well, but we got that laptop for free so who's complaining :p.
And Windows 7 is awesome, when I first installed it, it only had like 6 processes running, and right now my XP has 34 running (I have no idea why) but it still runs nice. But anyway Windows 7 is kinda like Vista except doesn't hog as much memory.

Where the problems of vista really shine is on a server environment.

Huh… well I didn't really care about Vista or XP but those points really do explain the stereotypes associated with Vista. I never knew why it used so much RAM but that's actually a cool function and I've only just noticed that it loaded faster xD Very nice!

Happy Vista user here.

the only reason i would go back to XP is because i don't like how much ram superfetch uses, everything else is great.

superfetch should be limited to to 25% of ur ram, not all 3.5gb of mine >.>

From: Freddy1990
Hmm, I dunno…
Ubuntu has crashed on my more than once, Windows 7 hasn't…

Thx cycrosism.

Really? I wonder what you were doing at the time.
I have had ubuntu for about 2 weeks now it hasn't crashed
But I'm not wanting to go back to windows

Thx Freddy.

How the fuck does Ubuntu crash? Honestly. Were you like, trying to summon a demon? To do that you need Gentoo.

I am not really a fan of Vista because of pure preference. Recently I had my RAM go bad causing frequent crashes and corruption of needed xp files. I finally decided to give vista a shot.

I ran vista for a while on the bad RAM and noticed it did a very nice job of recovering and repair files that were corrupted by the RAM. Vista seemed like a sluggish OS, but only because of the default fade effects which required a simple google search to turn off.

Another thing I noticed was vista ran games at a lower framerate than XP. In places I would normally average 80+ fps, I was running a meager 20-30.

My biggest thing was I could not for the damn life of me get sound to work. I googled and researched and experimented for 20+ hours testing countless driver versions, repair installs and reformats.

My biggest issue was its user interface. It all seemed slower and dumbed down for the average computer user. I could not stand having to right click and change a setting to type in a location on the address bar. The default folder view settings annoyed the hell out of me also.

I hated annoying eye candy things like transparency and widgets. I also hated how they changed the size of the minimize/restore/close buttons. I really did like the search bar in the start menu; however, the rest of the menu was unbearable. I can't stand the way it works when you open a folder.

Needless to say I switched back to good old XP 64 bit and am loving it. Its simple. Lacks the extra eye candy, and its very easy to bend it to your will.

Vista is realistically far superior to xp… if you are new to computers/not already attuned to the feel of xp. For me its my small pet peeves and preferences that make trying to get used to Vista. When im using XP, it always feels like "My computer" and I always am on it. When I had vista it felt like foreign territory that I was not used causing me to only get on occasionally when I had to.

Almost forgot a huge huge huge huge huge problem I hate about Vista Ultimate x64. Photoshop CS4 gpu enhancements DO NOT WORK. Your work area stays gray and you are unable to see what you are working on. Working with a tablet often I need the gpu enhancements for things like canvas rotation and smooth draw.

Yeah, the slow FPS is pretty much the flickering game in Compiz problem, except Compiz does more buffering so it's even slower.

If one wants performance it is not more than reasonable to turn off compiz, since it uses OpenGL for ALL it's drawing, which makes your games run slower, obviously. (How do I turn off compiz? Use the Compiz Fusion Icon, called fusion-icon, Nvidia users should set the Loose Bindings in the Compiz Options (in the Compiz Icon.))

Good post. I turned off UAC and keep getting this popup every now and then, and it reads "turn it on, turn it on!!".
Why I don't like Vista is because Microsoft tried to make it so good that it's almost funny.
e.g, When a program doesn't respond, this idiotic popup shows up, "find the problem, blablabla, fix it". No' I just want to close it ffs. XP was easier to use.
And when downloading third party softwares from forums and stuff, there are always someone asking despretaly, "Does it work on vista??". And usually it doesn't. And sometimes my internet connection turns to "Local only" and takes ages to get it back to normal. I wish there was a mod that brought back the old fashion XP way of browsing folders…

From: Freddy1990
Windows 7 > Windows XP > … > Windows Vista
Thx.

I would sAy more like
apple computers in general> windows. 7>= xp>windows 98> windows 95> vista
see how far vista is?
You put up a valid argument And actully swAyed my opinion on some
but it just doesnt prove enough to me.

Not sure if Windows 7 will be as good as the hype makes it seem.. When I ask people why it'll be the "greatest operating system ever omgomg" I never get a real answer "it just will be" doesn't count.

http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2009/Sep/0039.html

That's pretty nice..

From: GoF
When I ask people why it'll be the "greatest operating system ever omgomg" I never get a real answer "it just will be" doesn't count.

The same was for Vista, but look at it…

I hate vista because I can't shut it down properly.. I always press the 'Sleep' button instead of shutdown. And then when I press the power button on the PC, out of rage, the pc itself crashes.

Meh.

From: GoF
Not sure if Windows 7 will be as good as the hype makes it seem.. When I ask people why it'll be the "greatest operating system ever omgomg" I never get a real answer "it just will be" doesn't count.

The real reason it's the greatest OS ever is because it's not Vista.

Also, this may be relevant:
- http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/09/microsoft-teaches-best-buy-employees-how-to-troll-linux-users.ars
- http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/09/microsoft-helps-best-buy-employees-troll-mac-users-too.ars

Read both of the slideshows, then go troll your local Best Buy :)

vista dose in fact blow. I was running vista on my laptop and it was very very slow. I formatted the hard disk then installed unbuntu 9.04:)

I been using windows all my life, I had a XP for a while, I was very used to it. When I got my vista for christmas, I was alright with it, very excited for the new computer, but was just alright, not too happy, but not mad, that I had gotten vista. When I started using it, I hated it, I wanted to go back to XP so bad. After a little while though, I learned how to do all my regular things on a vista and I thought it was alright, I didn't hate it anymore. I only hated it because I wasn't used to it, now, I love it. Vista is nice in my opinion, and I turned off UAC for scar, but that's the only thing I really have done to altar anything mentioned in the first post. I see why some people bash windows in general and stuff, but I prefer windows over mac anyday, I never used a linux though, to say the same about it too, but I would most likely like windows more then linux too, just because I grew up with windows my whole life and know a lot more about it then any other OS.

You shouldn't have to modify yourself for a piece of crap.

From: R0b0t1
You shouldn't have to modify yourself for a piece of crap.

I'm pretty sure you have to modify yourself if you wish to switch from Windows to Ubuntu…..

From: Ogre
I'm pretty sure you have to modify yourself if you wish to switch from Windows to Ubuntu…..

Not really, you just have to remember your start menu is where it would be if you had a Mac (or wait, did they get rid of the apps menu in Mac OS X?), unless of course you have Kubuntu, then your start menu is still in the same place.

Unless you count not spending $100/month at least on software you don't really need as modifying yourself.

Edit: The transition from XP to Vista is bigger than the transition from XP to Ubuntu in my opinion, especially since you've probably been using a lot of the "replacement" programs on XP already (Firefox, OpenOffice.org, etc).

From: Widget
Not really, you just have to remember your start menu is where it would be if you had a Mac (or wait, did they get rid of the apps menu in Mac OS X?), unless of course you have Kubuntu, then your start menu is still in the same place.

Unless you count not spending $100/month at least on software you don't really need as modifying yourself.

Edit: The transition from XP to Vista is bigger than the transition from XP to Ubuntu in my opinion, especially since you've probably been using a lot of the "replacement" programs on XP already (Firefox, OpenOffice.org, etc).

It is quite easy to download a few of those programs that you were using on XP, and wouldn't require any 'modification'.

Also, "spending $100/month at least on software you don't really need", I'm not sure who does that…

And I really just don't see how you can say that making a switch from Windows to Linux doesn't require modifying yourself. To me, it seems that there is a lot of things in Linux that an average person may want to do, but not know how because of how different it is from Windows in some ways.

Also, I meant from Windows to Linux, not Windows to Ubuntu in the first post.

Windows => Linux > Windows => Vista