Do you like vista?

[robotskip]

Care to prove how the NT kernel is 'bloated' ?

[djpc47]

Care to prove how the NT kernel is 'bloated' ?

 

every time windows crashes and it isn't hardware related..... that is bloat stuff that wasn't coded properly or doesn't happen the right way infact the error correcting for that is even more bloat....

 

so unless its coded in an optimal way then its bloated and the more bugs and bug patching involved to cover it up the more bloated it becomes

[MadDoggyca]

this is actulyl some want ture those patches usely do bloat it allitle.. how ever I dont; remmber download a update for the nt.kernal file before... so far as I knwo the kena;l it self has never been patched jsut updated whe na new release of windows is out.

[robotskip]

every time windows crashes and it isn't hardware related..... that is bloat stuff that wasn't coded properly or doesn't happen the right way infact the error correcting for that is even more bloat....

 

so unless its coded in an optimal way then its bloated and the more bugs and bug patching involved to cover it up the more bloated it becomes

I want facts, not ramblings (What you said for the most part just doesn't make sense and isn't really very believable, especially the 'that is bloat stuff that wasn't coded properly' part) from some random who can't even change icons in Vista or claims the CP is completely different.

[Conroe Mac]

Almost everything about Vista feels better to me than XP. There are two things I don't like:

 

Media Center randomly crashes sometimes when it was incredibly stable in Xp

Parts of the OS feel a little more sluggish. (Granted I only have 1 GB of DDR2-800)

[sandmanfvrga]

Whatever track09. You are given examples or UAC problems, and ignore them. I spew NO lies. I know OS X is not perfect and I am not an Apple fanboy. But having two degrees and being a System Admin does give me more insight than alot, not saying I am better than anybody. If you think businesses, including the company I work for, avoiding Vista due to compatibility issues (no I will not list them, only to here YOU spew {censored} out about how wrong I am when Microsoft Certified Admins confirm said issues that make Vista not a viable option) then you are blind and love being blind. People like you can't understand the simple fact:

 

Nobody gives a SH*T about your fanboy ideas of Vista. People can and will disagree with you. Move on.

 

If you and robotskip would RESPECT others, then you would not be so disliked. Oh well, another fanboy on my ignore list. Fanboys. Got to love to hate them.

[djpc47]

I want facts, not ramblings (What you said for the most part just doesn't make sense and isn't really very believable, especially the 'that is bloat stuff that wasn't coded properly' part) from some random who can't even change icons in Vista or claims the CP is completely different.

 

think about it...... this goes with any thing.... if it is not fixed when it has issues then there are steps taken to create a shield around it to avoid its issue.... in fact if your gonna talk about OS related things then you actually can see re-occurrences of the same issues..... lets think about the blaster worm....... how many versions of it have you seen.....???? also last time I ran Windows x64 on my mini pc and had the firewall turned off..... nod32 warned me about some worm trying to come in..... so if things are in fact patched, no matter if its as simple as a firewall or as hard as adding a bit of additional code..... that is additional bloat.... one more thing to process for:P, this don't take a genius

 

hence where the word patch came from(you might also look at __place random virus scanner name here___'s database of virus

 

yes in a large case of this it isn't the kernel that becomes bloated and in many other cases even its not the kernels fault that the OS gets bloated but rather it just does

 

also you may look at difference between win2k and xp before updates and service packs and after.... my finds is that win2k nearly doubled in size and xp went from being from just under 1gb to about 1.5gb..... as far as win2k goes....... no person can honestly say there were no work arounds on issues rather then direct fixes.... its reality sometimes its easier to block off the issue then to fix it and assuming this reality is true then the idea your doing something additional in order to block it off is the bloat

[track09]

@sandmanfvrga,

You're the one showing disrespect, I'm stating facts, but you don't respond factually.

 

djpc, you're logic makes no sense, you know absolutely nothing about code, and you make your self look like a moronic 15 year old who suddenly got turned onto the looks of OS X, and jumped ship.

 

All you're saying is look at this, I think this, nah, couldn't be that. USE FACTS. PROVE TO ME. YOU really don't understand the concept of a kernel, and for god sakes you have no idea what the hell you're saying about Microsoft and coding. No evidence from your posts=waste of cyberspace.

 

"yes in a large case of this it isn't the kernel that becomes bloated and in many other cases even its not the kernels fault that the OS gets bloated but rather it just does"

 

Wrong, it does not take addition to the kernel to block vulnerabilities, you just change code in the kernel. Linux has a {censored}load of patches, no bloat there.

[djpc47]

@sandmanfvrga,

You're the one showing disrespect, I'm stating facts, but you don't respond factually.

 

djpc, you're logic makes no sense, you know absolutely nothing about code, and you make your self look like a moronic 15 year old who suddenly got turned onto the looks of OS X, and jumped ship.

 

All you're saying is look at this, I think this, nah, couldn't be that. USE FACTS. PROVE TO ME. YOU really don't understand the concept of a kernel, and for god sakes you have no idea what the hell you're saying about Microsoft and coding. No evidence from your posts=waste of cyberspace.

 

"yes in a large case of this it isn't the kernel that becomes bloated and in many other cases even its not the kernels fault that the OS gets bloated but rather it just does"

 

Wrong, it does not take addition to the kernel to block vulnerabilities, you just change code in the kernel. Linux has a {censored}load of patches, no bloat there.

 

explain me how I'm wrong.... I'm being really really vague..... but its cause I could give a {censored} less, I'm the type of person who if I know I know something I could careless if you believe me or not.....

 

bloat side of things your still ignoring the idea that windows 2k went from under 500mb to about 1gb and xp went from under 1gb to about 1.5gb

 

also your talking about fixes and fixes aren't always done right away.... if anything that would be what you get from service packs or major updates... or os changes:P

 

also I thought that kernel only changed each release for windows... how can this be same as linux:S.... could be my error

[BlackShadowWolf]

explain me how I'm wrong.... I'm being really really vague..... but its cause I could give a {censored} less, I'm the type of person who if I know I know something I could careless if you believe me or not.....

 

bloat side of things your still ignoring the idea that windows 2k went from under 500mb to about 1gb and xp went from under 1gb to about 1.5gb

 

also your talking about fixes and fixes aren't always done right away.... if anything that would be what you get from service packs or major updates... or os changes:P

 

also I thought that kernel only changed each release for windows... how can this be same as linux:S.... could be my error

 

I thought the windows kernel was changed during major releases and service packs O.o, I assumed also during critical updates if need be.

 

I just cant understand why when an microsoft application freezes like Word or Powerpoint it takes the whole system down for a few minutes. These are University owned computers, image built with correct drivers, and a protected system folder and registry so when a user logs out, all changes are erased :-/.

 

Windows XP isnt bloated when a lot of {censored} is removed through apps like nLite, can get it down to 64mb of ram used, same concept with Mac OS X. Installing lots of things that affect the system can slow things down.

 

honestly everyone just needs to take a chill pill and go outside and enjoy life before its gone due to global warming and humans in general.

[joe75]

I spew NO lies. I know OS X is not perfect and I am not an Apple fanboy.

 

If you and robotskip would RESPECT others, then you would not be so disliked. Oh well, another fanboy on my ignore list. Fanboys. Got to love to hate them.

 

sandman, you're the biggest Apple fanboy on this site You're so much so, that you never listen to any other views and constantly put down anything NOT Apple

[djpc47]

I thought the windows kernel was changed during major releases and service packs O.o, I assumed also during critical updates if need be.

 

I just cant understand why when an microsoft application freezes like Word or Powerpoint it takes the whole system down for a few minutes. These are University owned computers, image built with correct drivers, and a protected system folder and registry so when a user logs out, all changes are erased :-/.

 

Windows XP isnt bloated when a lot of {censored} is removed through apps like nLite, can get it down to 64mb of ram used, same concept with Mac OS X. Installing lots of things that affect the system can slow things down.

 

honestly everyone just needs to take a chill pill and go outside and enjoy life before its gone due to global warming and humans in general.

 

this is me trying to take it easy on you but just saying what I think.... the taking the whole system down thing I dunno cause linux when it crashes most of the time it just log's you out or something like that(thats what happen to me:P)..... osx I assume similar.... Amiga, you would have to insert the programs disk again but boot info would all be there still:P.... windows the computer restarts has to load everything again:P......

 

nlite and xplite.... take a original xp cd and cut the {censored}, you have less then if you take a xp sp2 cd and cut the {censored}... so anyway what I saw trying to say with that..... which isn't at all directed to you, was that I was trying to explain though NT kernel and Windows as a whole is really really holy and maybe even small..... you know big things can become lite weight if you punch holes in it;P...

 

as for the chill pill..... gulp..... peace have a good day.... no by no means am I basing this on 100% study'd fact however I'm basing this on what stuff I've tried and what stuff I've seen first hand:P..... hence why I might not know if its really the kernels fault or not but since we can't really attach the vista kernel to xp and so forth.... yet anyway that I know.... then it must come with other {censored} attached and there for become bloated

 

BlackShadowWolf, don't worry flame wars are based on {censored}..... and to this point I only care to prove one thing each person has their own preference... and only wanted to know one thing, how many people liked vista vs didn't like it based on first few months:P

[track09]

this is me trying to take it easy on you but just saying what I think.... the taking the whole system down thing I dunno cause linux when it crashes most of the time it just log's you out or something like that(thats what happen to me:P)..... osx I assume similar.... Amiga, you would have to insert the programs disk again but boot info would all be there still:P.... windows the computer restarts has to load everything again:P......

 

nlite and xplite.... take a original xp cd and cut the {censored}, you have less then if you take a xp sp2 cd and cut the {censored}... so anyway what I saw trying to say with that..... which isn't at all directed to you, was that I was trying to explain though NT kernel and Windows as a whole is really really holy and maybe even small..... you know big things can become lite weight if you punch holes in it;P...

 

as for the chill pill..... gulp..... peace have a good day.... no by no means am I basing this on 100% study'd fact however I'm basing this on what stuff I've tried and what stuff I've seen first hand:P..... hence why I might not know if its really the kernels fault or not but since we can't really attach the vista kernel to xp and so forth.... yet anyway that I know.... then it must come with other {censored} attached and there for become bloated

 

BlackShadowWolf, don't worry flame wars are based on {censored}..... and to this point I only care to prove one thing each person has their own preference... and only wanted to know one thing, how many people liked vista vs didn't like it based on first few months:P

 

 

You stated it yourself. You are not basing it on scientific evidence, which, and it's not correct, therefore, what you're saying is {censored}. The size in GB of an OS has nothing to do with bloat of the running OS, or kernel. Not all 15GB are loaded at all times of Vista. OS X takes more than Xp too. ntoskernel.exe doesn't get any larger. Just because an OS gets larger does not mean that it's kernel or performance will get bloated. This logic is flawed because OS X is a large OS as well, with tons of other things, including all that PowerPC code that just sits on your harddrive in all of your universal binaries. That doesn't affect performance either, as what space in the HDD takes, does not mean that's what gets loaded when the OS starts, or gets loaded into RAM.

 

"also your talking about fixes and fixes aren't always done right away.... if anything that would be what you get from service packs or major updates... or os changes:P"

Actually, Windows has the fastest turn around for flaws found and fixed per ratio. What I mean is, per each flaw, Microsoft has the fastest turn around of releasing a fix for it.

 

And you're unscientific study polls are irrelevant also. What geeks who generally don't use Windows think doesn't matter. For all the people I know that used Vista and aren't full blown geeks, they love it. It works seamlessly and easier than linux, and is still less of a hassle than switching to OS X. Geek's biggest gripe is they have to get out of their Mom's basement for a few hours and work to pay for Vista, something they don't want to do.

 

@Blackshadowolf:

That's a fair opinion. I personally like that it allows me to wait for it to recover possibly, and Vista, when I click close instead of wait, unlike Xp, it shuts the process right down, as if I did it through task manager>processes. In OS X, I get "X Application has unexpectedly quit", and everything is gone. A matter of preference.

[lilsiamboy]

The only reason I'm running Vista at the moment is because my computer can handle it, and it's new. But honestly, I don't see a need in upgrading from XP yet. It's eye candy and of course, more security bla bla bla, we all heard of it.

 

But bottom line is that i dont see why upgrade now when some softwares doesnt even support Vista (my anti virus and such)

[track09]

The only reason I'm running Vista at the moment is because my computer can handle it, and it's new. But honestly, I don't see a need in upgrading from XP yet. It's eye candy and of course, more security bla bla bla, we all heard of it.

 

But bottom line is that i dont see why upgrade now when some softwares doesnt even support Vista (my anti virus and such)

 

 

Not Quite.

 

Xp was like the jump base code wise to OS X (kernel, networking), and Vista is like the layer stuff that came a lot in 10.2 and later (accelerated graphics).

 

OS X breaks tons of software all the time, especially Leopard killing shapeshifter.

 

What people refuse to do is learn why Vista is more than eye candy and security. (The find every little thing for OSX, but ignore Windows for some reason).

Read around and learn why Vista is worth upgrading.

[djpc47]

You stated it yourself. You are not basing it on scientific evidence, which, and it's not correct, therefore, what you're saying is {censored}. The size in GB of an OS has nothing to do with bloat of the running OS, or kernel. Not all 15GB are loaded at all times of Vista. OS X takes more than Xp too. ntoskernel.exe doesn't get any larger. Just because an OS gets larger does not mean that it's kernel or performance will get bloated. This logic is flawed because OS X is a large OS as well, with tons of other things, including all that PowerPC code that just sits on your harddrive in all of your universal binaries. That doesn't affect performance either, as what space in the HDD takes, does not mean that's what gets loaded when the OS starts, or gets loaded into RAM.

 

"also your talking about fixes and fixes aren't always done right away.... if anything that would be what you get from service packs or major updates... or os changes:P"

Actually, Windows has the fastest turn around for flaws found and fixed per ratio. What I mean is, per each flaw, Microsoft has the fastest turn around of releasing a fix for it.

 

And you're unscientific study polls are irrelevant also. What geeks who generally don't use Windows think doesn't matter. For all the people I know that used Vista and aren't full blown geeks, they love it. It works seamlessly and easier than linux, and is still less of a hassle than switching to OS X. Geek's biggest gripe is they have to get out of their Mom's basement for a few hours and work to pay for Vista, something they don't want to do.

 

@Blackshadowolf:

That's a fair opinion. I personally like that it allows me to wait for it to recover possibly, and Vista, when I click close instead of wait, unlike Xp, it shuts the process right down, as if I did it through task manager>processes. In OS X, I get "X Application has unexpectedly quit", and everything is gone. A matter of preference.

 

 

scientific, whats scientific about windows or an OS as a whole:S... mathematical maybe.... but that don't matter..... and as for my highly non scientific study I did as much as I could to base it on a wide range of people as possible.... so sorry your comment on what geeks think is fairly dead in its tracks as only 3 of the forums were directly computer related and the rest were as computer related as paper has a relation with politics.... not to mention that good percentage of people on notebook related forums are end users and not that computer smart in a whole....

 

about the OS size.... one must also look at things in a reverse sense too... though not all is loaded at all time nor is all sitting being unused at all times....(except with vista, likely hood is sooner or later 90-99% of the stuff will sit there disabled and unused;))

 

as for the whole going to work to pay for the OS.... wake up.... I highly doubt many people even considered buying any windows OS or OS regardless.... it either came with the computer, was a copy from a friend, or was free....

[alexb17]

vista crashed on me every time i opened windows explorer and it started showing thumbnails. if you have any pictures or movies it's really frustrating (oh, and i don't really know why the thumbnails stopped working, they just did ).

 

also, for the first time in my life, a screens saver crashed. that just sucks, to be honest !

 

at the moment, vista just doesn't seem worth it, even though i think it's gonna be a pretty decent os.

[matulike]

I really like Vista Ultimate. It has Media Centre built in for a start. It's just as easy to use as XP, and to be honest, bitching about control panel icons etc is just so lame. You can switch back to 'classic view' 'just like that'.

 

I've had issues with installing VPN drivers, and turning the user account control off has to be done! Other than that, everything else works fine. I get a few 'issues with this prgram' etc, but they all work anyway.

 

It's a really nice GUI, not too different from XP, no, but nicer for sure. Icon size is pi55ing me off too, but I dont doubt that'll be sorted somehow, some kinda 'Tweak XP' type thing (for Vista, of course!)

 

It starts up and shuts down WAY quicker than XP. I've had NOT ONE CRASH OR BSOD.

 

To be perfectly honest, I never fully 'tust' an MS OS until at least service pack 1, preferably 2. Even though it's past beta 2 and onto RTM, it's still going tohave bugs. That's what service packs and updates are for.

 

Still, I much prefer my 'Hackintosh' OS X, but that has 'quirks' too on x86 hardware...at least vista has driver s for just about anything I've tried to install.

 

I'm quad booting my D610 laptop (OS X, XP, Vista, SuSe 10) with a FAT32 data partition shared. Using Acronis, I have the best of ALL worlds and I love it )

 

Admittedly, I've had my fair share of problems running all the OS's: re-partitioning, reinstalling when boot.ini gets corrupted .

 

That reminds me, I'm off to the Windows section now to ask about boot.ini, ntldr and how to fix them! All other 3 OS's have been fine, just XP pi55ing me off with certain things! And that should be the most stable one! Well, except SuSe Linux I guess!

 

Anyway, that's my 2 cents. ANd anyway, when you got cracks that work 100% and can have ultimate edition WITH Media Centre built in, why complain! ;o)

 

Also: if you're on this forum using OSx86, and you cant find your way arond Vista...welll....nuff said!!

[track09]

@alexb17

 

When explorer crashes looking at thumbnails, it's usually only one file. .avi and .wmv files show live previews in tile mode, look for the ones that have that extention, and DONT show a preview. Move these to a seperate folder and set the view to something like list view. This is all on the speculation that you were getting the same "Com Surrogate has stopped responding and needs to be closed" error that I was getting.

[Tech607]

I voted NO! And I wrote an article of why I voted this way.

 

http://homepage.mac.com/fklittle1975/weeko...Personal21.html

[junkshow]

My favorite Windows OS yet. I hate the bloatware that comes with it. I hate that it ignores settings (like disabling access to IE). It is still very "microsoft". It is REALLY good by their standards, though...I'm actually pretty impressed. In fact, it is so good, that I finally am starting to notice things in Windows that I wish the MacOS did, and that never used to happen.

[EtherealRemnant]

No, I don't like Vista.

 

I am fine with XP.

 

The only possible draw to Vista for me is DirectX10 since I have an 8800GTS. Other than that, no thanks. I hate my computer asking me for permission to do everything that I want it to.

[TheND]

Well, like it or not. I will have to use Vista on my HP dv6226us. I got everything installed and configured in OS X except sleep and my NIC (Intel 10/100 Pro, none of the tuts worked), and @ work I have to have a physical connection to our LAN, so back to Vista it is for me. Bootup and shutdowns aren't as quick, but battery seems to last longer, since Vista lets it sleep and wake fine.

 

Guess I'll try installing OS X into a VM. My eMachines desktop still has (and always will have) 10.4.6, but *sigh* I guess Vista stays by my side.

 

Nd

[djpc47]

Well, like it or not. I will have to use Vista on my HP dv6226us. I got everything installed and configured in OS X except sleep and my NIC (Intel 10/100 Pro, none of the tuts worked), and @ work I have to have a physical connection to our LAN, so back to Vista it is for me. Bootup and shutdowns aren't as quick, but battery seems to last longer, since Vista lets it sleep and wake fine.

 

Guess I'll try installing OS X into a VM. My eMachines desktop still has (and always will have) 10.4.6, but *sigh* I guess Vista stays by my side.

 

Nd

 

demonoid, search for "x64 sp2 corp"

[f#a#oo]

I got a free copy of Vista from the Power Together promotion so I really don't feel obligated to use it

 

It's an alright operating system, the only reason I would ever reinstall it is for its media center with my 360. But with the release of the appleTV and all the hacks floating around, I might just have to get one of those.