It seems vista is going to be replaced by Windows 7

[full_empty]

IS this Windows 7 stuff serious cause I paid good money for vista and if they're gonna replace it... im IM IM!..... going to my room *BAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWW*

 

[xitel]

I actually don't have many problems with Vista that I notice, more just moans and gripes. The biggest annoyance for me is actually the lack of a "New Folder" button on the Windows Explorer toolbar. I don't like right-clicking when I can avoid it.

No, what we need is a new OLD Office. Honestly, 2k7 is one of the worst software suites I have ever had the misfortune of experiencing. It takes forever to load, and the Ribbon is worthless. WORTHLESS. Honestly, who thought 2k3 wasn't working, so they needed to change it to the point where I have o spend 10 minutes finding the button to change my paragraph orientation?

 

[xitel]

I actually don't have many problems with Vista that I notice, more just moans and gripes. The biggest annoyance for me is actually the lack of a "New Folder" button on the Windows Explorer toolbar. I don't like right-clicking when I can avoid it.

Organize -> New Folder

No, what we need is a new OLD Office. Honestly, 2k7 is one of the worst software suites I have ever had the misfortune of experiencing. It takes forever to load, and the Ribbon is worthless. WORTHLESS. Honestly, who thought 2k3 wasn't working, so they needed to change it to the point where I have o spend 10 minutes finding the button to change my paragraph orientation?

Apparently the Ribbon is a huge boost to workflow if you actually stick with it :\

Of course, if you aren't actually doing work that is dependent on workflow and thus don't have the patience or desire to learn a new interface (office work is an example of workflow dependent performance), then chances are you don't need all the power of Office 2007 anyway.

Why not just use Google Documents?

I don't use Google Documents or Open Office because I'm lazy and stubborn. And lazy. Mostly, because I'm lazy. As to the Organize -> New Folder, I was referring to the fact that XP had a button that you could click and make a new folder, instead of having to right click and go through the menu or going through the Menu Bar's drop down menus. For someone as overly-organized when it comes to computer files as I am, that's really aggravating.

 

[crimsondynamics]

I've had my share of good and bad experiences with Vista: My wife's Vista Basic is rock-solid, as well as one of my work PCs, which uses the Enterprise edition.

I recently decided to upgrade from XP32 to Vista64 for my gaming PC - and make use of 8gb of ram - so I bit the bullet, bought two new hard drives, and set about installing a spanking-new 64-bit OS into my rig.

Two weeks and a handful niggling issues later, I'm back with my previous XP32 install.

All I want in Windows 7 - and seeing how the Dreamcast was running Windows CE with only the required kernels, this is well within the realm of possibility - is a version specifically targeted at gamers. Keep it lean and mean, thank you Microsoft. Don't make me go into the OS to disable services and remove gigabytes of bloat that I don't need (I've cleaned out and optimized my XP so that it occupies 480mb on the hard drive with only 40 processes loaded at any given time.

What gigabytes of bloat exactly?

There is only one service I've had to disable (and that's because it interferes with my DAW and not my games) on my Vista 64 machine.

Well, first off, if I can trim the install to under the size of the CD that XP ships with and still retain all the functionality I seek in the operating system for my gaming rig, then there must be bloat somewhere!

Anyhow, I think I gutted XP at least nine months ago so I can't recall everything I axed out, but here's what I remember off the top of my head:

Internet Explorer - out (I use Firefox)

Outlook Express - out (I don't use an email client)

IIS - out (don't need to run servers on my gaming rig)

Media Player - out (I use VLC)

MSN - out (don't use it for anything)

Messenger - out (I use Trillian)

Messenger service - out (no popups for me, thank you!)

Help and Support - out (the help rarely helps me at all and if I really need help, I can find more relevant information online)

Accessories folder - most everything out (apart from some useful applications such as Character Map and Notepad)

Games folder - out (Minesweeper? Solitaire? Nah...)

Services - some disabled, some manually enabled, some axed)

And so forth, and so on.

That's what I meant by Dreamcast's Windows CE: I doubt Microsoft included the IE, Outlook or Messenger kernels in that specific operating system because it's simply not used and not needed. I adopted the same draconian principle for my gaming rig: if I don't need it, I don't want it on my hard drive. That, a bit of research and XPLite helped me trim down the operating system to the 480mb installed size.

And you know what? I have no regrets; I miss nothing I've axed out and the end result is a very snappy machine. If I ever get around to tackling Vista 64 again, I'll probably download VLite and do it all again.

 

[Not Good]

Personally what I'd like to see out of 7 is more code cleanup. Making things run faster and, obviously, better compatibility with past versions. As well I also hope that Windows focuses more on internal improvements rather than caking on more and more and MOAR beauty touch-ups, as it was the main factor, along with a lot of negative criticism, that has made Vista so unpopular.

Of course, to the satisfaction of some people that might read this, Microsoft has again asked the question "How can we look more like Machintosh?" the photo gallery is full of small obvious implementations that, to the trained eye, look suspiciously like the Dock feature and the Dashboard on a Mac.

 

[crimsondynamics]

I guess being able to use more than 3 gigs of memory with the most hardware support ever for a Windows OS is something I count as a massive functionality bonus for Vista.

The problem that many pseudo-enthusiast computer gamers have is that they don't realize that on a modern rig, just having these programs lying around on your hard drive is not going to make a dent in your FPS (or the efficiency of content creation programs).

By removing all those programs, you've saved yourself a couple cents of of your hard drive...Maybe even half a dollar of gigabytes. But as you've mentioned, this is a gaming rig. Why exactly would a gigabyte even matter?

Anyway, let's look at what a game's performance is really hindered by:

1) Lack of memory (almost always caused by memory leaks in a game or assorted software)
2) Hard drive thrashing (poorly written antivirus software)
3) CPU thrashing (see #2)

Just about all of those things you listed (including many of the services) is going to be completely negligible to your performance.

Besides, the only real way to clean up the code and bloat is to completely break compatibility and virtualize. But then all of you shortsighted dual core PC gamers would whine and whine and whineeeeee

Well, for starters, I'm not going to install Vista 64 with 8GB of RAM if it will run slower than my XP with 2GB of RAM, especially when it presents me all the problems that it did (and it was updated to SP1 and all the hotfixes). Having an extra 6GB of RAM for me is meaningless if I have to wait a considerably longer time for the OS to boot and run the applications.

Here's an example: I run VLC on my XP, and it takes one or two seconds to load after the splash screen. On my clean, SP1'd and hotfixed Vista64 install the splash screen disappears and I am left waiting for over a minute to load. My friend's Vista64 cannot even run GRiD with the latest drivers and patches with his rig (C2D 2.8 with a 4870) without the game suffering massive, random slowdowns that makes the game downright unplayable.

I never adopt early; I waited for XP SP1 before ditching 98, and I waited for Vista SP1 before taking the plunge. I waited, and the initial experience was dreadful. You may have had a good experience with Vista64, but not me. XP still serves me just fine for my games. The only game I cannot max out is Crysis, but that doesn't have to do with the operating system as much as the fact I have a lowly 3870.

I can say that regardless, you can gain performance by cleaning out these programs because:

a) they no longer reside as keys in an otherwise bloated registry
b) there are no more unwanted processes or services taking away my ram or cpu cycles
c) a smaller registry and less processes eating away at my available ram or cpu cycles means a snappier rig

I'm not preoccupied about saving the gigabytes: I have 1.5TB in my rig - I think I can spare a few hundred GB, not just one or two.

Anyhow, I'm happy with whatever I can clean up. I only install what I strictly need to install - all other applications are portable by nature so as not to clutter up the registry. The machine runs fine, doesn't give me problems (unlike Vista64) and according to benchmarking tools, boot and loading times, it does make a difference.

Your mileage may vary, but I get good mileage out of my rig. And I'm not exactly sure who you are referring to by pseudo-enthusiasts. Sorry.

 

[crimsondynamics]

Well, for starters, I'm not going to install Vista 64 with 8GB of RAM if it will run slower than my XP with 2GB of RAM, especially when it presents me all the problems that it did (and it was updated to SP1 and all the hotfixes). Having an extra 6GB of RAM for me is meaningless if I have to wait a considerably longer time for the OS to boot and run the applications.

Here's an example: I run VLC on my XP, and it takes one or two seconds to load after the splash screen. On my clean, SP1'd and hotfixed Vista64 install the splash screen disappears and I am left waiting for over a minute to load. My friend's Vista64 cannot even run GRiD with the latest drivers and patches with his rig (C2D 2.8 with a 4870) without the game suffering massive, random slowdowns that makes the game downright unplayable.

...VLC has a splash screen? It loads in under a second (~.75 using my phone's stopwatch app) for me.

Yes it does. That's swell if your machine loads it in under a second. On my Vista64 it takes over a minute.

And I had no problem playing GRID a couple months back when I was still on a clunker of an 8800GT :\

That's swell if you can play GRiD. My friend's Vista64 with 4GB of RAM can't.

I never adopt early; I waited for XP SP1 before ditching 98, and I waited for Vista SP1 before taking the plunge. I waited, and the initial experience was dreadful. You may have had a good experience with Vista64, but not me. XP still serves me just fine for my games. The only game I cannot max out is Crysis, but that doesn't have to do with the operating system as much as the fact I have a lowly 3870.

Like you said, everyone's mileage varies.

Exactly. Hence I am trying to comprehend why you are so adamant about defending Vista64 and undermining another perfectly functional operating system.

I can say that regardless, you can gain performance by cleaning out these programs because:

a) they no longer reside as keys in an otherwise bloated registry

Negligible.

Maybe on your machine. Not on mine. Besides, even if negligible, it still is at least an iota of improvement, right?

b) there are no more unwanted processes or services taking away my ram or cpu cycles

How can a program take up cycles if it's not running?

It doesn't. Since it's not there it won't ever run, hence it will never take up cycles. Even if gets accidentally activated, which it won't because the service isn't there to start with - and that's good.

c) a smaller registry and less processes eating away at my available ram or cpu cycles means a snappier rig

If you were forced to do an ABX test between two such machines, you would fail it miserably.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. That's irrelevant to me, because I don't need to run ABX tests. I can rely on benchmarking software to help me eliminate perception or unconscious bias.

I'm not preoccupied about saving the gigabytes: I have 1.5TB in my rig - I think I can spare a few hundred GB, not just one or two.

Anyhow, I'm happy with whatever I can clean up. I only install what I strictly need to install - all other applications are portable by nature so as not to clutter up the registry. The machine runs fine, doesn't give me problems (unlike Vista64) and according to benchmarking tools, boot and loading times, it does make a difference.

Your mileage may vary, but I get good mileage out of my rig. And I'm not exactly sure who you are referring to by pseudo-enthusiasts. Sorry.

People who v/nLite for gaming rigs ;]

Don't you ever wonder why all the sites doing the most OS-sensitive benchmarks for Intel's newest processors are using Vista 64?

Why would I wonder? It's obvious that Vista64 (apart from Vista being the only operating system that runs DirectX10 - I'm sure that has to be a factor as well as the fact that they can't forever keep running benchmarks for XP, an operating system that they've benchmarked ad nauseum; they've got to keep the page hits and site rank up, don't they?) runs fine for them, perhaps after a bit of tweaking, perhaps out of the box.

I'm sure if my rig ran Vista64 the way it should I wouldn't be bothered to switch back to XP. But it doesn't run as it should. Despite having the latest drivers, patches, hotfixes and service pack - and 4x the RAM, it runs slower. If it ran faster or even on par I would keep it as I think it's pretty slick. But it doesn't. On my rig. Your machine runs fine. Congratulations. I hope you have many happy returns with Vista64. Me? I'll pass, and perhaps take another stab at it if SP2 comes out.

Don't you ever wonder why people prefer to downgrade to XP simply because it doesn't cause them any problems?

Look, I'm not saying my word is the Gospel. Other people (my wife's notebook included) can run Vista perfectly fine and it's stable as a rock and responsive as a well-trained dog. However, that isn't my case. I've had numerous problems with Vista64 Premium on my gaming rig. On my work computer, which has Vista 64 Enterprise, it's solid as a rock. I'm not bashing Vista, I'm just relating to others my personal experience.

Why is that so hard for you to understand or accept?

My XP benchmarks show that it is faster than a normal XP install. It's solid as a rock, with months going by where I don't even bother to reboot. That's a pretty nice thing to be able to say about a Windows operating system, don't you think?

And VLite and XPLite are great if you know what you are doing. It's worked out fine for me. ;]

 

[Galletea]

Thank you for bending me over the counter, Microsoft. I didn't want Vista on this laptop, and neither do you anymore.

Pricks.

This.

 

[HydraZulu]

I quite like vist though...

as do I, but can you honestly say that Vista is a good OS?

I quite like a number of the features but even I have to admit that asking if we're sure every tiem we do anything gets old. and while I like the graphics DX10 gives us, the fact that vista runs graphic drivers so crappily that I crash to desktop and then crash the whole computer trying to get back to the desktop from the game is just lame. sure, the crashes aren't THAT numerous and there are only certain things that vista asks for permission for, but seriously, the fac that these major problems exist AT ALL is a black mark against the OS.

I'll be glad for an OS that runs well as opposed to Vista, which runs MOSTLY well.

I crash to desktop every time i leave Oblivion. It's actually very convenient, because it crashes a lot faster than it shuts down, and since i already have everything saved when I press the exit button, there's no loss. I understand that Oblivion isn't officially supported by Vista, and that's the only thing that goes wrong with it, so i should consider myself lucky, and luckier that the only thing wrong actually helps me.

This could be fixed when I reformat fairly soon (month or two. I promised myself a couple months ago that i'd do it...a couple months ago, but im putting it off as long as i can cause i dont want to reinstall everything.)

 

[BlueMage]

Personally what I'd like to see out of 7 is more code cleanup. Making things run faster and, obviously, better compatibility with past versions. As well I also hope that Windows focuses more on internal improvements rather than caking on more and more and MOAR beauty touch-ups, as it was the main factor, along with a lot of negative criticism, that has made Vista so unpopular.

Of course, to the satisfaction of some people that might read this, Microsoft has again asked the question "How can we look more like Machintosh?" the photo gallery is full of small obvious implementations that, to the trained eye, look suspiciously like the Dock feature and the Dashboard on a Mac.

No. No. No! NO! NO!!

Legacy applications - like legacy hardware - are a fucking CANCER that needs to be excised RIGHT THE FUCK NOW.

The new Windows should have absolutely ZERO backwards compatability for precisely that reason - we need to move on from the legacy crap that's holding us back. If you absolutely MUST run a legacy app, use a damn virtual machine.

I will say though, if you want a Mac-like interface on Vista ... check out the new HP Touchsmart. I saw it last night and was blown away. A genuinely intuitive touch-interface? Amazing!

 

[Uncompetative]

No mention of a replacement for NTFS. Boring!

-- Alex

They were meant to include a new filing system in Vista, but it got axed. It doesn't even appear to be included in Windows 7. Check out:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=HcfLONH_Yrk

Microsoft is such a large company that it has entire departments working on whizzy demos for core OS innovations the marketing department has decided to shelve. Google is apparently less in touch with what it is doing in all its R&D departments. Go figure...

 

[Alex_P]

They were meant to include a new filing system in Vista, but it got axed.

I know! I was looking forward to seeing what they did. But then they didn't show us anything. It was totally a Molyneux Moments!

Did they eventually get the "power shell" they promised? (I've heard something was released but stopped caring about it by then.)

-- Alex

 

[Uncompetative]

They were meant to include a new filing system in Vista, but it got axed.

I know! I was looking forward to seeing what they did. But then they didn't show us anything. It was totally a Molyneux Moments!

Did they eventually get the "power shell" they promised? (I've heard something was released but stopped caring about it by then.)

-- Alex

Sorry, I don't know about that. I only run Leopard now.

 

[Ameatypie]

Will the Vista be obsolete, then?

HAH! XP is not obsolete, and that is like 7 years old. BUT because vista sucks more then.... various other things which i do not care to name, YES it will be OBSOLETE

 

[Radelaide]

Thank you for bending me over the counter, Microsoft. I didn't want Vista on this laptop, and neither do you anymore.

Pricks.

This.

When I get my laptop, it's coming pre-loaded with Vista. My tech support guy/best friend is gunna let me see if I like Vista (Which I really don't) then put XP on it. Although, since Win7 will be coming out in the near future, I might just put up with Vista until Win7.

I won't enjoy it.