Vista, is just a phase

[DuX]

Hey all,

I just recently built myself up a quad core system and installed . . . . .

Vista.

*Runs for cover*

[sarcasm] Good for you. Enjoy twice the speed [instead of triple], heaps of new hell[p]ful features, more productive environment [instead of simplicity], grandpa and grandma can use it, children too, all people smiling, having families as if those without windows haven't got smiling families [I don't... ] etc. Sheer joy. [/sarcasm]

and yeah, run for cover . Don't take this too serious, after all it's not my system, it's yours.. hehe

I can't understand people - 100's of programs aren't working well in Vista. It's demands are humongous and they still buy the MS crap?

p.s. Grymm you're using LiteStep? Me too! Since forever actually I can't get away from it, it's so good. the only time I see stupid *unproductive* windows interface is on my clients computers. Which version are you using?

Cheers!

[VitaminD]

I was just objecting to hseikens somewhat arrogant & condescending tone James, the suggestion that some of us 'others' who have tried Linux simply didn't have the technical know how, or patience etc. etc. )conveniently sidelining other reasons I made reference to there & below)

how much do you want to bet the wii superfan is also a unix admin in some distant corp basement?

hehe perhaps...

[grymmjack]

DuX: i was using the orig. with nonstep and some mods. i switched from that to bblean, but now i'm currently using explorer (still copying/installing crap over the lan). i don mind explorer too much, i dont use it for file management, just tasks and launching from startmenu. i use servant salamander for file mgt. i find explorer crashes much less when not using it for file mgt. i may go back to bblean tho. that was alot like fluxbox and did me fine.

[DuX]

I'm using last version of LiteStep with only a few necessary modules and Xplorer2 . Xplorer2 is really really stable and fast.

Cheers!

[Lunch Money]

Dunno why people keep mentioning Windows eye-candy, when Linux is just as guilty. Ubuntu wants Beryl as its default desktop, but Beryl isn't stable enough yet. <shrug> It's like, if Linux does something visually "cool" it's OK, but if Windows adds some transparencies, etc., it's just condescending and toylike...? Doesn't make sense.

I've seen some really pragmatic types (coders, who just want a nice text editor with syntax highlighting as their main app) who still gush over wobbly windows and the cubey-thingy. It's a crock of BS to assume the Linux is only "simplicity".

[John Vulich]

Vista will soon go the way of Windows ME. Apparently it has been a HUGE disaster for MS. They are already talking about releasing another OS, Vienna, in a couple of years...

http://news.com.com/Microsoft+looks+bey ... 29241.html

[DuX]

That's very true Lunch Money. I myself am currently using FluxBox, it's pretty good. There are so many nice minimalist shells for Linux like LiteStep for Windows. Can't understand all this fuss about eye-candy. it's just an OS for god's sake. Functionality, stability and speed should be top-priority, nothing else, but I don't know any long time Windows or Linux user who's using "eye-candied" shells for normal work. Sometimes just to show off a bit and that's it. Everybody I know uses some kind of minimalist approach to an OS.

Only newbies to computers fall for eye-candy. Some even for "ear-candy" [gosh!]. I should know, I was a newbie a few mill years ago .

Cheers!

[bullshark]

I've just spent an evening with Vista, which came preinstalled on my lappy, and I've got to say it's the most annoying OS I've ever used. EVERYTHING you click on the freakish thing ask you "are you sure you want to do that?" click yes "but have you really thought about it?" click yes "no, but I'm serious now, do you really really want to do that" click yes "You really have thought about all the consequences were you to do this, yes?" click yes "Ok, I'm about to open that email now, just click yes if your sure" Hm, not sure anymore, jumping off a bridge looked mighty appealing right about now...

Furthermore, if you turn all the eye candy off, it looks like crap, XP looks way better than that shit; then again I could turn all the eye candy on, looks swell enough but it makes my new core2duo feels like a old PentiumII.

Wasted a few hours installing and configuring this thing in vain, came with a French version but I wanted the English one, total waste of time as I'm formating that shit off and installing XP.

[DuX]

Most of the people I know that got Vista with the laptop have done exactly the same thing, Bullshark, and most of the people I know buy PC's that I've assembled and installed nLited XP, or they do it themselves so there's no chance they'd get Vista with it . Some people I know still run W98, and it's working for them for various reasons, some run w2000 or OS-X. There are plenty of other choices [kinda ], and the most optimal choice which gives you fast, most functional and stable results is the wisest one IMO. The choice of OS should depend upon one's needs, not the eye candy .

Does anybody, for example, know how to utilise more than 3.2 GB of RAM [depending on configuration] with Windows? Like 4 or 8GB? Install Windows Server 2003... nLited to the bone, of course, that's if you need to stay on the 32bit system. It works . But I still can't figure out why MS didn't provide it with normal XP Pro, because RAM is quite cheap and many professionals and "normal" people need huge amounts of RAM these days.

They [MS] give us the needed and best features through a straw, and throw at us bad and unneeded features with a shovel.

Cheers!

[spacefox]

errr ok you're maybe just too trusty, or not so experienced as others? I don't like offending people even if they deserved it... I mean, do you believe everything you hear in advertisements? You think they're honest? If you say "yes" I'll rest my case your honour... Every add is just a pack of lies to make some more dough, more and more, you have to think for yourself in this consumer society where everything is a lie in one way or the other and MS is one of the biggest and most profound liars anywhere.

Who knows. maybe we're all really leaving in a matrix? Who can deny that?

I'm not very trusting, no. As for ads - I don't believe what hear or see in them at all. Don't actually see or hear many ads because I don't own a TV. don't listen to commercial radio and do most of my reading online, with Adblock at full power. I wouldn't consider myself "inexperienced" too, somewhat of a power user for almost 20 years and also writing about technology and web for a couple o magazines (online and off line). I do have some limited Linux experience, nothing impressive, but I've installed a couple of distro and messed with them a bit. Nothing made we won;t to keep trying.
And no. I don't think MS are particularly honest/ Surely the ads are mostly lies (that what ads are), but what does this have to do with anything? Here's a shocker: I think Vista is nice not because someone told me so, but because I use it. I used it in beta (rc1) and liked it, and liked the final version even better. That makes me stupid, right?

But here's another thought:
As much as you like it to be - this is not a battle between good and evil. If it were, you were on the good guys side, for sure. But as greedy and violent as corporates can become (and MS is among the worst), this is just an OS. I use it because it suits my needs the best, so far. Just the way I choose my music software, actually. Though I rather work with exclusively with independent devs, my needs are best met currently with Cubase 4 Studio, made by an evil corporation, using lying ads and BS propaganda. Luckily, I can make my own mind about this stuff, based on the merits of the software, not some ideological apocalyptic battle. Crazy stupid, eh?

[intel]

I've just spent an evening with Vista, which came preinstalled on my lappy, and I've got to say it's the most annoying OS I've ever used. EVERYTHING you click on the freakish thing ask you "are you sure you want to do that?" click yes "but have you really thought about it?" click yes "no, but I'm serious now, do you really really want to do that" click yes "You really have thought about all the consequences were you to do this, yes?" click yes "Ok, I'm about to open that email now, just click yes if your sure" Hm, not sure anymore, jumping off a bridge looked mighty appealing right about now...

took me five minutes to figure out how to turn this off. this is no more annoying than any third party security software, and much easier to manage/configure/disable.

[DuX]

@Spacefox: Man you're really looking for troubles or just beta testing for MS and Steinberg? Vista+Cubase4=bug upon bug upon bug. But it's your choice, as you've said it. Maybe there's a reason for you to use the latest and not the greatest and best for you. I'd go for nLiteXP+Cubase 3.1 for more stability and Reaper instead of Cubase for even more stability, but hey - maybe you've got some reason for using that, I can understand that, as well as I can understand a friend who's running a Paris software on W2000 [he used W98SE for a very long time] and it's working for him, or a friend who's running W98SE and Cubase VST.

Quote Spacefox:"As much as you like it to be - this is not a battle between good and evil."

No it's not. It's the battle for "our" [consumer's] productive, stable and functional desktop. Not the one that gets in your way to do things efficiently and without any troubles in general. I was all for w2000 at the time SP4 was out, and usually saying to all the people how "MS finally got it right-excellent system-this is finally taking us somewhere etc.", but then they released XP which is a bloat upon bloat but it can be nLited and then you get those few features [like better ACPI support] and don't get to drown in bloat. My nLited XP is totally the same thing as my w2000 was, actually I managed to optimise the memory usage even more. It's really great and I don't remember any blue screens which I got from time to time with the default "test" install.

So instead of further bugfixing an OS that is clearly still bug ridden they chose to pack it with even more bloat than before and sell it as an "innovative new system"... what to say? If it was better I'd say that because I'm not a MS hater, just a MS critic.

I'm just trying to be objective and when I take a look at Vista I see a beautiful big SRV that wastes extreme quantities of gasoline and still can't go faster than a 100 miles/hour and to top it all it's got a lot of dodgy parts that break every few miles. On the other side I see nLited XP which is like an older Porsche 911 - not a very modern design but it's reasonably fast, doesn't use as much gasoline and goes and goes without a hiccup .

Cheers!

[Lunch Money]

Are you really getting bluescreens, or just crashes in your apps, etc.? Two pretty different things. I've never gotten an actual Blue Screen at home, using XP.

[DuX]

Oh it's definitely possible to get a blue screen on XP, but when you find the right combo of drivers and disable as much of MS code you can, it can be a really really decent and stable system.

That said, however, I haven't seen too many blue screens on XP or W2000 either . It's just that some drivers are written worse than others. No wonder, usually the biggest and the newest [or beta] drivers [in MB] are the "usual suspects" IME. Let's just say that, in general, I usually see a blue screen once in a while, usually on a newly assembled computer and very usually on a computer which is not "my baby" [my choice of parts]. Notice the word "usually" .

The main thing is - XP can be really rock-solid if you know your stuff, or if you just get lucky enough .

Cheers!

[quantize]

helped me mum setup a toshiba lappie with vista installed...gotta say, as an OSX and XP user, I thought it was kinda nice!

just sayin'...wouldn't be surprised if despite all the patronising geekery here it eventually does eclipse XP