Vista just doen't do it

[Stephan Rose]

Yes I do. I believe Symantec just released a document stating as such.
Correct me if I'm wrong.

UAC is a pain in the arse. I turn it off. But it's good for some.

That's the thing though. Those who don't need it like you just turn it off.
Those who need it, that it is good for, will inevitably screw it up. It may
prolong it sure...but it will not prevent it.

So, OSX is bound for failure as well?

I haven't heard anything about it, what you've told me so far is about the
only thing I know about it. Can't say. =)

OSX? OSX asks you for a password every time you want to do something.

Change a system setting
Install something
....

Yea I have those two as well. But seriously, how often does someone install
something or change system settings?? I guess some people 10 times a day?

Only times I generally touch my system settings, in any OS, is when I first
set it up. Period.

Install all my software I need...done there too.

And actually, the only system settings that I need administrative privilege
for are things like video drivers and such.

So I dunno what some peoples deal is. I guess they are compulsive system
settings changers and like installing calculator over and over again. =)

--
Stephan Rose
2003 Yamaha R6

å›ã®ã“ã¨æ€ã„出ã™ã²ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯
å›ã®ã“ã¨å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸæ™‚ãŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰

 

[Justin]

Yea I have those two as well. But seriously, how often does someone
install
something or change system settings?? I guess some people 10 times a day?

The only time I'm ever in front of a Mac is to do those things.

My Vista users never see this security problem. Once it's setup and they
run the apps they need to run to do business, there is no real reason to
ever see UAC.

 

[Stephan Rose]

The only time I'm ever in front of a Mac is to do those things.

Must be a Mac thing then. =)

My Vista users never see this security problem. Once it's setup and they
run the apps they need to run to do business, there is no real reason to
ever see UAC.

There is no real reason to ever see it...period. =)

--
Stephan Rose
2003 Yamaha R6

å›ã®ã“ã¨æ€ã„出ã™ã²ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯
å›ã®ã“ã¨å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸæ™‚ãŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰

 

[SysAdminTH]

We're talking about XP versus Vista. Linux is not a part of the
convo...not yet ;p


It's not just about files. It's about files, files inside emails, files
inside zipped files, tens of thousands of files or not knowing if the
info you need is in a file or in an email.

I have one machine that houses all our EDI data. It maintains the
original TXT files that are received and sent. It archives anything
older then 90 days into zip files. To date it has over 350,000 files.
When I tell Win03 to search this massive structure it can take up to 6
minutes to give me results. Sometimes, those results are empty. Oops,
gotta do it again! I've been syncing these files to a Vista machine
where I can search instantly.

Although I've had to learn to PASTE my search into the field all at
once. Doing it one character at a time was slowing it down.

Isn't this feature available in Windows XP as a free download?

 

[Justin]

Isn't this feature available in Windows XP as a free download?

Absolutely not. Windows Desktop Search is a piece of junk! There is
nothing instant about it.

 

[SysAdminTH]

Absolutely not. Windows Desktop Search is a piece of junk! There is
nothing instant about it.

Can you elaborate on the 'piece of junk' comment?

 

[Consultant]

he claims it is not instant, read his post

Can you elaborate on the 'piece of junk' comment?

 

[SysAdminTH]

he claims it is not instant, read his post

I read his post and wanted more details (if that's okay with you). Not
instant is not very helpful, if we're talking about a few seconds then
many people who want this feature may decide to give it a try before
upgrading to Vista just to get it.

 

[Consultant]

fair enough, but i doubt he took accurate measurements to conclude its
speed. besides, saying instant is like saying perfect, neither exist.

 

[Justin]

saying instant is like saying perfect.

That is false.

I read his post and wanted more details...

Sure. WDS (not be confused with Windows Deployment Service) more times then
not, turns an XP machine to jello. It takes much longer to index then other
solutions and uses a lot of resources doing it. I've found it re-indexing
for no good reason. Then the time it spends re-indexing leads me to believe
it's doing it from scratch. A good week after using it and I find the
windows installation to be much more unstable then it was before the
installation. Frequent crashing, hang-ups, long wait times.

Uninstalling WDS removes all mentioned problems.

These are my findings using 6 different machines (5 test lab, 1 @ home) and
many different installations of XP.

 

[Adam Albright]

WDS (not be confused with Windows Deployment Service) more times then
not, turns an XP machine to jello. It takes much longer to index then other
solutions and uses a lot of resources doing it.

"I've found it re-indexing for no good reason."

So funny, now Justin pretends he knows better than the software
engineers that wrote the application. Come on fool, can you tab dance
and chew gum at the same time? Well then show us!

Then the time it spends re-indexing leads me to believe
it's doing it from scratch. A good week after using it and I find the
windows installation to be much more unstable then it was before the
installation. Frequent crashing, hang-ups, long wait times.

Translation: Justin doesn't have a clue how to install or use the
software.

 

[Justin]

"I've found it re-indexing for no good reason."

So funny, now Justin pretends he knows better than the software
engineers that wrote the application. Come on fool, can you tab dance
and chew gum at the same time? Well then show us!

I never said I knew better. Only YOU claim such things. If the indexing
service is done, then it stops. MAking changes to your data will cause an
UPDATE. However at time that nothing is being on the machine and WDS
decides to start indexing for another couple hours then yeah....no good
reason.

Translation: Justin doesn't have a clue how to install or use the
software.

You're absurd at best.

However, I like the fact that you purposely search for my name just to
respond with crap. Don't worry, I wont return the favor. I'm not that
pathetic.

Ok, go ahead and spin that whole thing. It's what you do best.

 

[Adam Albright]

You're absurd at best.

However, I like the fact that you purposely search for my name just to
respond with crap. Don't worry, I wont return the favor. I'm not that
pathetic.

So I suppose you want everyone to conclude there are TWO Justins
posting from your ISP, since I see JUSTIN responding to every post I
make and oh my goodness the headers are the same. You redefine dumb.

 

[Justin]

So I suppose you want everyone to conclude there are TWO Justins
posting from your ISP
Nope!

, since I see JUSTIN responding to every post I
make and oh my goodness the headers are the same. You redefine dumb.

Hum...seeing as how you are replying to old threads of which you NEVER took
part in before just to reply to me...YUP! That's where I get my info.

Did I reply to your BIOS thread? Nope! OOOOOHHHHH!!! adam is WRONG AGAIN!

Damn dude, I've proven you wrong so many damn times it's ugly!

Ok, now spin it! Tell me how ugly I am....Whoever stamped that "L" on your
forehead hit you pretty hard!

 

[Adam Albright]

Hum...seeing as how you are replying to old threads of which you NEVER took
part in before just to reply to me...YUP! That's where I get my info.

Get a clue kid... I don't need your permission to start responding to
a thread. Neither does anyone else. How long you had your Napoleon
complex?

Let me clue you in on how you're perceived by many.

In the field of psychoanalysis, a Napoleon complex or Napoleon
syndrome is a colloquial term often used to explain somebody suffering
from an inferiority complex. It was named after Napoleon because he
was pissed off he was a short little runt and he tried to over
compensate to make up for his self-loathing of his height.

In modern day the term is often used more generally to describe people
who are driven by a perceived handicap to overcompensate in other
aspects of their lives. You obviously like to portray yourself as a
expert on various computer topics which is why you hang out in this
newsgroup. So you pontificate day after day. Such people are also
driven to extremes by a deep psychological need to compensate for what
they see as a handicap, in your case your obvious lack of any real
computer releated knowledge or experience, so you desperate try to
fake it, only to fall on your face over and over.

What's REALLY bothering you?

 

[SysAdminTH]

That is false.



Sure. WDS (not be confused with Windows Deployment Service) more times
then not, turns an XP machine to jello. It takes much longer to index
then other solutions and uses a lot of resources doing it. I've found
it re-indexing for no good reason. Then the time it spends re-indexing
leads me to believe it's doing it from scratch. A good week after using
it and I find the windows installation to be much more unstable then it
was before the installation. Frequent crashing, hang-ups, long wait times.

Uninstalling WDS removes all mentioned problems.

These are my findings using 6 different machines (5 test lab, 1 @ home)
and many different installations of XP.

Thanks for the extra detail, I'm going to test it anyway and will keep
you updated on the results.

 

[Justin]

Get a clue kid... I don't need your permission to start responding to
a thread. Neither does anyone else. How long you had your Napoleon
complex?

Wow, you really are stupid. I never said you needed my permission, nor did
I state you couldn't post. I stated FACT that you are just now going
through old threads that you NEVER took part in just so you can reply to ME
with garbage.

Once again, as usual, you FAIL to address the issue at hand. You side step,
back peddle, do everything and say everything BUT what's being addressed.
You are the worse kind of weakling.

Let me clue you in on how you're perceived by many.

OH!!!! Damn! Check it out! Even though I never have, adam has MANY TIMES
told me NOT to speak for others. Here he is speaking for "many" other
people!!!!

HILARIOUS!!!!!

Hypocrite!

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That was GREAT!!!!

 

[Justin]

Thanks for the extra detail, I'm going to test it anyway and will keep you
updated on the results.

Awesome! I look forward to hearing about it. I expect it to go either way.
People in the beta (MS NGs) either really liked it or really hated it. I
think what pushed it over the edge was having a lot of files for it to
index. The fewer the better.

 

[SysAdminTH]

Thanks for the extra detail, I'm going to test it anyway and will keep
you updated on the results.

Findings with Windows Desktop Search 3.01

Kit Used IBM T43 1.86GHz P4 Mobile, 1GB DDR RAM, 80GB HDD, Radion X300
Running Windows XP SP2 with all updates and patches
Connected to Windows Server 2003 RC2 Domain
Indexed Files 61,000 Approx 50% on network share over slow WiFi link.
Indexing Speed Approx 10,000 files per hour
System Stable = Yes
Reboot After Shut Down = No Errors
System Speed = No Change
Time Taken to Search 60,000 files for "project fees" = 0.34 sec
Results Returned = 224
Doc Types = .doc, .xls, .html, .txt, .ppt, .prz

"Absolutely not. Windows Desktop Search is a piece of junk! There is
nothing instant about it."

Justin I think your earlier comment was somewhat inaccurate, admittedly
I have not stress tested WDS yet but still had nothing like your bad
experiences with it. Are you sure you had the kit setup correctly and
was using reasonably modern hardware? I admit the Vista search
interface is nicer but in a costs benefits scenario a 2 minute install
of free software vs. all the planning and headaches associated with
rolling out a new O/S is not in Vista's favour, at least as far as
Search capability goes.

 

[Justin]

SysAdminTH wrote:
Justin I think your earlier comment was somewhat inaccurate, admittedly I
have not stress tested WDS yet but still had nothing like your bad
experiences with it. Are you sure you had the kit setup correctly and was
using reasonably modern hardware? I admit the Vista search interface is
nicer but in a costs benefits scenario a 2 minute install of free software
vs. all the planning and headaches associated with rolling out a new O/S
is not in Vista's favour, at least as far as Search capability goes.

Fair enough. If your findings are better then mine then I can accept that.
However, use it for a week

Against my better judgment, I'll use it again. My current XP installation
is a little old, however it has never had WDS on it. I'll install it right
now. Also as a benchmark, my system has 518,875 files in 50,273 folders.
Much more then last time.

The kit? You mean the computer? Yes.