Windows Vista Blows.......

[EA2BA]

I have been using Vista for the last 2 weeks and as a geek/IT person I can fix any problems no big deal, as to giving it to end users, yes I am very nervous and reluctant at this point in time for the reasons you have pointed out.

[johnydep]

Originally Posted by sourbastard

You mean Geeks with no jobs, no lives, no partners, live in a dark cave and eat microwave nachos every night, yes they have the time to fix it.

Those of us who actually work in the IT industry think a little differently. When I roll out 100 new desktops, I dont have time to sit and hold hands with the users and fix every problem, quirk, error message and general fault that Vista farts out on an hourly basis. I need it to work, NOW, not after a memory upgrade, not after waiting 6 weeks for a patch, not after spending 5 hours trying to nail some bizarre registry problem. NOW NOW NOW. It ****es off the users, it ****es me off, and that leads to reprisal killings in the microsoft carpark.

We will be sticking with XP for a long time yet.

Have you had your Caffeine fix today? :

Your reasoning is exactly why I'm waiting

[Sourbastard]

Originally Posted by johnydep

Have you had your Caffeine fix today? :

Your reasoning is exactly why I'm waiting

caffeine is for the weak!!!

Im currently on a 3 hour long sugar high thanks to a bag of jelly snakes. If not for this I would currently be asleep, I've worked over 100 hours in the last 7 days.

EDIT: And yes I mean OVER 100 hours, i stopped counting at 100 because the thought became too depressing.

[Jeeepers]

Originally Posted by sourbastard

caffeine is for the weak!!!

Im currently on a 3 hour long sugar high thanks to a bag of jelly snakes. If not for this I would currently be asleep, I've worked over 100 hours in the last 7 days.

EDIT: And yes I mean OVER 100 hours, i stopped counting at 100 because the thought became too depressing.

We'll have to get some Krispy Kremes over to you fast... They can do anything....

[Hunter]

Originally Posted by Rodp

The new security model. Likely will be compromised pretty quickly but I live in hope.

I don't have time to write a full reply (because I have like 5 minutes left of lunch), but I will when I get home. However I just thought I should point out that their new 'security' model is severely flawed, particularly in terms of UAC. It is the most annoying piece of code ever developed. Most people will probably end up turning it off (and thus rendering it pointless). Microsoft took a fundamental security principle which has been sucessfully implemented by Apple and many Unix developers, and turned it into a three-ringed farce.

[Jeeepers]

Originally Posted by Hunter

I don't have time to write a full reply (because I have like 5 minutes left of lunch), but I will when I get home. However I just thought I should point out that their new 'security' model is severely flawed, particularly in terms of UAC. It is the most annoying piece of code ever developed. Most people will probably end up turning it off (and thus rendering it pointless). Microsoft took a fundamental security principle which has been sucessfully implemented by Apple and many Unix developers, and turned it into a three-ringed farce.

First thing I disabled was the UAC, yes, a waste of time.

[Rodp]

Originally Posted by Hunter

I don't have time to write a full reply (because I have like 5 minutes left of lunch), but I will when I get home. However I just thought I should point out that their new 'security' model is severely flawed, particularly in terms of UAC. It is the most annoying piece of code ever developed. Most people will probably end up turning it off (and thus rendering it pointless). Microsoft took a fundamental security principle which has been sucessfully implemented by Apple and many Unix developers, and turned it into a three-ringed farce.

I'm sure I can pre-empt what you're going to write.

UAC is certainly dependent on trusted applications and is a weak spot and the reason I suggested that it will be compromised pretty quickly. At least in my use of my PC, I won't be installing an application that isn't trusted which probably completely negates the use of UAC anyway.

It's only one facet and certainly the weakest one of the lot. My interest was more on service hardening and network protection.

[Quasi]

Originally Posted by EA2BA

well geeks/it people can fix most problems/issues without much fuss and don't think much of it. Where users well are users it works or the world is ending.

You really needed to READ my response more closely mate

The 'Wink' emoticon would indicate I thought you were spot on.....though seem to be a few "IT People" still grumbling, guess that's the way it goes.

[robs_ls1]

Originally Posted by Rodp

So you actually are serious? Wow. If you're not, you got me.

Doesn't it upset you that your "brand new" $400 OS is still being built on technology which first appeared in 1993? Seriously dude.

Originally Posted by Hunter

Most people will probably end up turning it off (and thus rendering it pointless). Microsoft took a fundamental security principle which has been sucessfully implemented by Apple and many Unix developers, and turned it into a three-ringed farce.

You're right, UAC is total rubbish. But what it does do is give Microsoft the opportunity to cover their collective butts with something like, "We provide security measures. It isn't our fault if the customer turns them off."

Originally Posted by Rodp

My interest was more on service hardening and network protection.

Oh. You mean like this? http://www.neowin.net/index.php?act=view&id=34444

Originally Posted by sourbastard

We will be sticking with XP for a long time yet.

Same thing happened with Win2k/XP. Heaps of companies waited until SP2 was out before company migration.

Like I've said its going to be a pain for companies that purchase Dell machines (large majority) because they already have Vista included in the package.

[sfr rob]

Originally Posted by sourbastard

You mean Geeks with no jobs, no lives, no partners, live in a dark cave and eat microwave nachos every night, yes they have the time to fix it.

Those of us who actually work in the IT industry think a little differently. When I roll out 100 new desktops, I dont have time to sit and hold hands with the users and fix every problem, quirk, error message and general fault that Vista farts out on an hourly basis. I need it to work, NOW, not after a memory upgrade, not after waiting 6 weeks for a patch, not after spending 5 hours trying to nail some bizarre registry problem. NOW NOW NOW. It ****es off the users, it ****es me off, and that leads to reprisal killings in the microsoft carpark.

We will be sticking with XP for a long time yet.

Haha, well bloody said!
P.S, I heard you have a CD containing some software that starts with X and ends with P in the mail for me. :evil3:

[Rodp]

Originally Posted by robs_ls1

Doesn't it upset you that your "brand new" $400 OS is still being built on technology which first appeared in 1993? Seriously dude.

Not particularly. As I've pointed out several times, I didn't pay a cent for it, nor would I if I had to.

I don't understand your point. You claim that it's just window dressing over a 640k limit. It's Friday, I was on call last weekend, be specific.. are you screwing with me or do you really believe that?

What exactly appeared in 1993 that you're referring to?

[atec77]

Originally Posted by ORSM T

First thing I disabled was the UAC, yes, a waste of time.

We ran vista here for a couple of days on a very powerful machine , decided it was crap at what it was asked to do and installed solaris , much better ( no it's not for games)

[Quasi]

It's simple really...if you can't cope with it, don't use it.

[Schlimmeh]

Originally Posted by robs_ls1

Doesn't it upset you that your "brand new" $400 OS is still being built on technology which first appeared in 1993? Seriously dude.

You're right, UAC is total rubbish. But what it does do is give Microsoft the opportunity to cover their collective butts with something like, "We provide security measures. It isn't our fault if the customer turns them off."

Oh. You mean like this? http://www.neowin.net/index.php?act=view&id=34444

win95, 98, XP and VISTA have EVOLVED from DOS but it is important to realise that DOS functionality is emulated. To put it more clearly - DOS is not at the core at all and a 'DOS like' command prompt is availble to run 'DOS like' functionality.

Your emotive spiel which touts terms like 'rubbish', 'upset' and 'take seriously' like you are some 'uber IT' person. I would prefer to think of your rant as 'Quasi IT' and misinformation.

Anyway - don't expect me to read your no doubt highly combustable reply - I'd just laugh anyway...

[Perana]

hmm Vista... one reason why ive gone to OSX...... Still have XP SP2 to boot to if it's needed..

I tried RC2 for a while.. UAC annoyed me a LOT, OSX have a similar system but has been implemented so much better.

Oh and DOS as the core left with Win 95.

[Rodp]

Originally Posted by atec77

We ran vista here for a couple of days on a very powerful machine , decided it was crap at what it was asked to do and installed solaris , much better ( no it's not for games)

What did you ask it to do that made solaris a better fit, out of interest?

[Jeeepers]

Originally Posted by Quasi

It's simple really...if you can't cope with it, don't use it.

Bingo!!

[Quasi]

Originally Posted by Schlimmeh

I would prefer to think of your rant as 'Quasi IT' and misinformation.

Well then......pardon me.......LOL!

[Hunter]

Originally Posted by Rodp

For corporate right now? Hard to say. Depends on whether the security features are worth it. I adore the search feature on the start bar and my XP machine was slain by a virus about 2 weeks ago and my Vista machine seemingly repelled it. If I was in an IT dept, I'd certainly not roll it out to any large degree until it matured a lot more.

I'm not suggesting that XP is perfect, not by a long shot, but Vista doesn't, yet, seem to be a step forward.

You're going to have to explain a few things to me though;

Why does it specifically need a faster hard drive? I had it boot off a USB1 device which was a 5400rpm drive powered through USB and I/O certainly wasn't an issue.

Well, from what I have seen, its a *lot* more IO intensive than XP ever was, particularly at boot. Maybe the machines more than 2 GB of RAM but our test boxes seem to be doing an awful lot of IO operations when sitting idle.

Unless you're running aero (and it's just fancy schmancy graphics) why would you need a grunty video card, it's not neccessary on a corporate desktop.

I agree with you that its not necessary but our organisation (a university) has always run XP with the default theme and using the XP start menu, etc... I personally run the classic theme because I can't stand all the extra crap (and I like to run my systems as lean as possible). The reason they have kept it so bog standard is so that joe bloe can come from home or whatever and not be confused. I know its ridiculous but people are by and large dumb and don't want to learn new things. Most of the people I service would complain how 'different' everything is if even one icon moved or they had to do one thing differently.

So from that point of view, it makes sense to keep the operating system in a state that is similiar if not the same as it is when it comes out of the box.

My machine uses a lot less than 400MB at idle and I haven't stopped any services yet, are you running any 3rd party stuff or stuff at boot?

Nup was a base install of Vista Ultimate without anything loaded. The first thing I did when testing was check out the memory usage.

I certainly can't predict how well it'll be accepted on the corporate desktop but I'm not quite sure your justifications (apart from the difference in speed) are the reasons why it probably won't be accepted.

Well I'm purely speculating. I mean you know what opinions are like .

I'm waiting with baited breath to see how it all goes. I think Vista could quite possibly be a major sales let down - relatively speaking its the most hardware intensive operating system microsoft has released to date.

My cousin is a retail IT tech and he's had a fair few people come in demanding Vista on their old hardware or cracking up because it won't run fast or at all. One guy had a crappy old laptop with only 512 MB of RAM on it and wanted Vista Ultimate. Brings it in after he's installed it and complains that it runs slow. Laptop in question would only take 1024 MB of RAM so they fitted it with that and it still ran like absolute bollocks.

I think that is one thing that will kill their retail (home) sales - people, particularly with large mortgages, don't want to have to go and pay $3000 for a new computer just so they can have a slightly nicer shell with some added extras (many of which Apple introduced into MacOS themselves ages ago).

[robs_ls1]

Originally Posted by Schlimmeh

Anyway - don't expect me to read your no doubt highly combustable reply - I'd just laugh anyway...

Probably not as hard as I'm laughing right now. :

'Quasi IT' is actually several steps up from where I'd place myself. :king:

I'm just a guy who uses computers. ;)

Originally Posted by Schlimmeh

win95, 98, XP and VISTA have EVOLVED from DOS but it is important to realise that DOS functionality is emulated.

Actually W2K, W2K3, XP and Vista all evolved from Windows NT, which was mostly written by a fellow called Dave Cutler. Dave was head-hunted by Microsoft, and left his position at Digital (DEC) to start work on the NT project in 1989. People who've seen the source code for his original work on NT have commented as to it's similarity to VMS, (which is an operating system he worked on while at Digital).

DOS, OTOH, was written by a bloke called Tim Paterson. It was originally (rather aptly, too) called QDOS (Quick and Dirty Operating System). Microsoft bought the rights to it from Tim for $50,000 because they needed something to show IBM and didn't have the time or capability to write something from scratch themselves.

Now, all sh!tstirring aside, Win95, Win98 and WinMe really were tablecloths for DOS. Proof came in the ability to strip the DOS component out of them and run it independantly. Back in the days when I had nothing better to do, I did this myself on several occasions. The DOS kernel was a critical component of these OSs.

Originally Posted by Rodp

What exactly appeared in 1993 that you're referring to?

For one, Vista's filesystem. :

Originally Posted by Hunter

I'm not suggesting that XP is perfect, not by a long shot, but Vista doesn't, yet, seem to be a step forward.

Exactly right. :

[Rodp]

Originally Posted by robs_ls1

For one, Vista's filesystem. :

Wow. Don't I look like a fool! This coming from the guy who uses a mem command in a DOS emulator to prove that Vista swaps memory in and out of a 640k memory space.

So tell me, genius. How long had Ford being using a straight 6?

Cheers,
Rod.

[Quasi]

Originally Posted by Rodp

Wow. Don't I look like a fool! This coming from the guy who uses a mem command in a DOS emulator to prove that Vista swaps memory in and out of a 640k memory space.

So tell me, genius. How long had Ford being using a straight 6?

Cheers,
Rod.

Please don't tell me that the Typhoon uses the same alloy head 250 from an XF, but with fancier bolt ons....I'll be devastated.. :

[brenx]

Can't say I'm having an real issues apart from slow frame rates due to poor drivers for my 7600GT vid card. Other than that I am running two machines on Vista. A socket 478 p4 2.8 and a p4 socket 775 3.2. Neither have any issues.

I've had to sort out small issues but this is normal for a new OS. I run Vista home premium.

Issues I had?

Mapping drive C for the network. (Just required both machines to have a password)
MSN crashing (it's a java/msn issue) unchecked a pop up and issue solved
Cuteftp crashes on exit. Might just need an updated version. Still working on it ;)

Nothing major really. Other than that I like Vista.

[robs_ls1]

Originally Posted by Rodp

Wow. Don't I look like a fool! This coming from the guy who uses a mem command in a DOS emulator to prove that Vista swaps memory in and out of a 640k memory space.

You seem to have missed the point. It was meant to be all in fun, but you kept biting. Couldn't help meself. : It was a boring day at work. You brightened it.

[johnydep]

Originally Posted by Hunter

I'm not suggesting that XP is perfect, not by a long shot, but Vista doesn't, yet, seem to be a step forward.

Well, from what I have seen, its a *lot* more IO intensive than XP ever was, particularly at boot. Maybe the machines more than 2 GB of RAM but our test boxes seem to be doing an awful lot of IO operations when sitting idle.

I agree with you that its not necessary but our organisation (a university) has always run XP with the default theme and using the XP start menu, etc... I personally run the classic theme because I can't stand all the extra crap (and I like to run my systems as lean as possible). The reason they have kept it so bog standard is so that joe bloe can come from home or whatever and not be confused. I know its ridiculous but people are by and large dumb and don't want to learn new things. Most of the people I service would complain how 'different' everything is if even one icon moved or they had to do one thing differently.
.............

You had me until you got to this stage :nutsycuck

I suggest you find some new friends, no point being the smartest one in the group. There's a saying "stand still long enough & you find yourself going backwards" :

I personally run the classic theme because I can't stand all the extra crap

Didn't a group of people say the same thing when XP was released? Actually it's probably happened everytime Microsoft released a new OS
:lookedat:

[Hunter]

Originally Posted by johnydep

You had me until you got to this stage :nutsycuck

I suggest you find some new friends, no point being the smartest one in the group. There's a saying "stand still long enough & you find yourself going backwards" :

I've spent far too much time dealing the general public, and with various other groups of people to start giving them any credit. I don't know if you've ever worked on a helpdesk but you will meet some of the stupidest people by doing so. I stand by what I say - most people are ignorant and don't like change. That is not to say all - there are plenty of smart people, but they are certainly outnumbered by the dumb people. If you don't believe me, try dealing with users or the general public for a couple of weeks. After explaining for the 20th time what a 'right click' is or trying to reason with a 70 year old man who insists you're wrong and that the sky really isn't blue, you might think differently.

Didn't a group of people say the same thing when XP was released? Actually it's probably happened everytime Microsoft released a new OS

I run XP on my desktop unit at home (well one of them).... I've always run my systems without unnecessary shite. Pretty graphics don't usually make much difference to how I use the computer or what it can do... When XP came out, I looked at the new interface, decided it wasn't really necessary and turned it off. If I am forced to use Vista, I will probably do the same. I know how to use the new interfaces. Users on the other hand, don't even make any attempt to learn how to use them, and then expect me to 'make it work'.

[Quasi]

Originally Posted by Hunter

I know its ridiculous but people.....don't want to learn new things.

I stand by what I say - most people are ignorant and don't like change.

Seems to include some IT Support people too......pretty sad really.

[Hunter]

Well those some aren't me, so stop implying that I am against change. I like trying new things, and as much as possible objectively analyse them. XP has a 'fancy interface' but at the end of the day its not necessary. As in you don't need it to use the operating system. Vista is the same. I only really keep my Windows box around to play games on but seeing as I generally don't get time to play games anymore (or have the money to keep buying new hardware), I think I will use my BSD boxes as my mainstays and keep a bootable Windows drive for the occasional odd job.

[johnydep]

Originally Posted by Quasi

Seems to include some IT Support people too......pretty sad really.

lol.

Especially the ones that think that they're "holier than thou" e