Educating the vistaboys> Why Bloat matters!

[Former captain of the Enterprise]

Vistaboys claim that its ok that vista is bloated since ram is cheap and
hard drives are big..
there is no problem... Sorry for another RANT.. but you vistaboys earned it
100%!

Now this is the stupidest thing I have ever heard ... and here is the proof
why:

There are programs that create ramdrives... these are virtual drives that
you can insert in there
any program or file you want and everything in there is loaded 100% in the
ram of course
since it is a ram drive.

Now take a portable program from www.portableapps.com say firefox,
stick it in the ram drive... and run it.

You would expect it to load instantly right? since its all in the ram?
WRONG!

It is faster than loading from the hard drive .. BUT....
Because there is some processing that must take place in order for the
application to load...
and that means CPU cycles.

Not take that portable firefox and bloat it to smithereens with
extensions... keep it still in the ramdrive, and run it..
it will take twice the time therefore twice the CPU power to load!

THIS is so apparent I just don't understand how people can use computers and
not know this. Guys when you do a Hibernation...
that takes everything from the RAM and puts it in the hard disk, then when
you boot again it does the opposite.... IT TAKES TIME AND CPU cycles
to transfer data from disk to ram! YET YOU STUPID FOOLS KEEP SAYING I HAVE
RAM LETS USE IT!

Its not about filling the ram with bloat.. the ram is there for applications
to use it .. for example if you use Photoshop and you load a 500 mb high res
image
you need that ram... ok Vista may start unloading its crap to make room for
that.. but still... vista DID load it at some time and DID use cpu to do
that!

Even if you have 4 gigs of ram there is a pipeline that all this information
is transferred in...

the fact that vista has 100 services working in the background doesn't help
either....especially the fiasco of all hidden services the horrid indexing!

THE ONLY real way to have a fast launch with current technology... is to
make an application LEAN and light.. remove the bloat and design it
intelligently...

things like readyboost, and superfetch are really not solutions... they are
idiotic efforts
to solve problems created from the bad design of the OS itself! And then
they call these
innovative features.. RIGHT! Only for fool vistaboys that eats everything
they are given!

Its like a doctor putting an obese person in a wheelchair and push him off,
and then declare that the problem is solved instead of
helping that person lose weight and regain his health

THAT'S WHY VISTA is the SUV of computers! Its darn stupid, yet because its
flashy people want it!
I dislike the strategy behind vista... its darnright stupid..... I like high
and advanced technology that is intelligently built..
not bloated buggy crap....

THANK YOU!

 

[Dustin Harper]

I agree that ReadyBoost and Superfetch are not solutions, they are
programmed workarounds. Work around a problem. So is adding RAM, you are not
solving the programming problem, you are working around it. And yes, it is a
problem with modern programming and compilers in general.

As for the RAM drive, I tend to disagree. I don't expect anything to run
instantly from RAM. It will run a lot faster than running off of a hard
drive, though. Take a look at Gigabytes iRAM. It goes in a PCI slot (I know
the PCI bus still slows it down, but with that aside), and you put DDR RAM
in it. It basically acts as a hard drive made of RAM (until you turn your PC
off). Tests have been done with it that show a big decrease in loading times
of the OS, etc. But, like you said, there are still CPU calls and processing
of that information that needs to be done. It won't be 100% instant. But,
it's still a lot faster than a hard drive.

Technology is making our computing faster every day. There are advances in
quantum computing, holographic storage, solid state advances, processor
advances, etc.. We are working on getting faster, and a by product of that
is that the software developers are going to take advantage of that extra
power. It may be bloated at times, or it could be super effecient, but it's
going to take advantage of the newer technology. That is what I expect.

The same arguement could me made for Intel or AMD. No matter what OS you
throw at it, they still increased the speed by making it faster (more MHz).
Only recently have they made them more effecient. Even with less MHz, they
are faster than other CPU's (a Core 2 Duo at 2 GHz is more effecient than a
P4 3.4). Same kind of gimmick: add more to make it faster. With the newer
CPU's, they add more, but its more effeciency, rather than more speed.

But, as it stands right now, if you have the RAM in your system, why not let
the OS use it when the applications aren't. When an app needs it, it can
take it. That is the workaround for here and now. It's not a solution to the
problem. The solution would be to rewrite an OS from scratch (or most of
it), drop backwards compatibility, and have the OS run only what it needs
and the app needs. But, you're a regular in this group. You know that could
NEVER happen. You have to have backwards compatibility, and you have to have
the apps working.

Great comments, though.

--
Dustin Harper
(e-mail address removed)
http://www.vistarip.com

--

 

[Guest]

I agree that ReadyBoost and Superfetch are not solutions, they are
programmed workarounds. Work around a problem. So is adding RAM, you are not
solving the programming problem, you are working around it. And yes, it is a
problem with modern programming and compilers in general.

As for the RAM drive, I tend to disagree. I don't expect anything to run
instantly from RAM. It will run a lot faster than running off of a hard
drive, though. Take a look at Gigabytes iRAM. It goes in a PCI slot (I know
the PCI bus still slows it down, but with that aside), and you put DDR RAM
in it. It basically acts as a hard drive made of RAM (until you turn your PC
off). Tests have been done with it that show a big decrease in loading times
of the OS, etc. But, like you said, there are still CPU calls and processing
of that information that needs to be done. It won't be 100% instant. But,
it's still a lot faster than a hard drive.

Technology is making our computing faster every day. There are advances in
quantum computing, holographic storage, solid state advances, processor
advances, etc.. We are working on getting faster, and a by product of that
is that the software developers are going to take advantage of that extra
power. It may be bloated at times, or it could be super effecient, but it's
going to take advantage of the newer technology. That is what I expect.

The same arguement could me made for Intel or AMD. No matter what OS you
throw at it, they still increased the speed by making it faster (more MHz).
Only recently have they made them more effecient. Even with less MHz, they
are faster than other CPU's (a Core 2 Duo at 2 GHz is more effecient than a
P4 3.4). Same kind of gimmick: add more to make it faster. With the newer
CPU's, they add more, but its more effeciency, rather than more speed.

But, as it stands right now, if you have the RAM in your system, why not let
the OS use it when the applications aren't. When an app needs it, it can
take it. That is the workaround for here and now. It's not a solution to the
problem. The solution would be to rewrite an OS from scratch (or most of
it), drop backwards compatibility, and have the OS run only what it needs
and the app needs. But, you're a regular in this group. You know that could
NEVER happen. You have to have backwards compatibility, and you have to have
the apps working.

Great comments, though.

Good Day

Jerryw

 

[Former captain of the Enterprise]

I want to dissolve the notion that you have to rewrite everything and break
compatibility...

Although what you say would of course change everything.....

I say with what we use today it can be done... only care is needed when they
are making
the OS

Care that Vista didn't get.. because.. they dont care! lol

 

[Former captain of the Enterprise]

We love windows.. we want it to be better.

Good Day

Jerryw

 

[Former captain of the Enterprise]

A notorious idea just passed my mind... lol

the MS developers should be given machines that are 50% underclocked.. all
new technology
but slow CPU speed, in order to make the things they make work as fast as
possible.

I think they give them such high end machines that they go ahead and bloat
without thinking to much...

 

[Bill Yanaire]

You just love posting all day long ranting about issues with Vista and how
wonderful XP and Ubuntu are. Don't you work?

If you do work, what do you do?

 

[Mike Hall MVP]

Something like a PIII 900, 256mb RAM and 20GB HDD?

A notorious idea just passed my mind... lol

the MS developers should be given machines that are 50% underclocked.. all
new technology
but slow CPU speed, in order to make the things they make work as fast as
possible.

I think they give them such high end machines that they go ahead and bloat
without thinking to much...

--


Mike Hall
MS MVP Windows Shell/User
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/

 

[Dustin Harper]

I love Vista. But, I'm not going to deny that it has issues. I always try to
be upfront about problems. I'm sure the Microsoft programmers would admit to
the many issues it has, too. And probably have a lot more to list than I
would.

I do light programming, and no matter how great my program is, it can always
be better.

If Vista is so great, why are they working on another version of Windows?
Making a better version? It can always be improved. I personally love Vista,
and think it is a lot better than XP. But, that doesn't make it perfect.

Heck, Steve Ballmer would admit that Vista isn't perfect.

I love Vista, and I will continue to use it. If Microsoft can make it better
by consumer feedback, that's even better.

--
Dustin Harper
(e-mail address removed)
http://www.vistarip.com

--

 

[Dave]

obviously, he's a Vista programmer....
;-)

You just love posting all day long ranting about issues with Vista and how
wonderful XP and Ubuntu are. Don't you work?

If you do work, what do you do?

 

[Former captain of the Enterprise]

well.. nah... 1000 mhz with 512 mb of ram is good. 40 gb disk IDE speed is
good enough for them! lol

they can be allowed to turn on a second core ONLY if the app they are making
will use it,
which in my opinion should be all.. but anyway..

MS talks about progress of vista taking advantange of multicores.. but is
it true.... what app built in vista uses true multicore code?

Just imagine.. if they were able to streamline vista on such a slow machine
(that however is only SIMULATING slow speed and not really a slow
machine)... then you would load vista on
a dual core with 2 gigs and it would be so fast it would read your mind and
do the function before you press the button on your mouse! lol

 

[Justin]

We love windows.. we want it to be better.

Someone suffers from Dissociative Identity Disorder

 

[Justin]

A notorious idea just passed my mind... lol

Hahahaha!!! I'm sure many things PASS your mind. Hehehehe.

the MS developers should be given machines that are 50% underclocked.. all
new technology
but slow CPU speed, in order to make the things they make work as fast as
possible.

Gee, there's a STABLE solution!!!

 

[mikeyhsd]

sounds like madam albright has assumed a new identity again.
just loves arguing with her self.

still get her knickers in a twist.



(e-mail address removed)



Vistaboys claim that its ok that vista is bloated since ram is cheap and
hard drives are big..
there is no problem... Sorry for another RANT.. but you vistaboys earned it
100%!

Now this is the stupidest thing I have ever heard ... and here is the proof
why:

There are programs that create ramdrives... these are virtual drives that
you can insert in there
any program or file you want and everything in there is loaded 100% in the
ram of course
since it is a ram drive.

Now take a portable program from www.portableapps.com say firefox,
stick it in the ram drive... and run it.

You would expect it to load instantly right? since its all in the ram?
WRONG!

It is faster than loading from the hard drive .. BUT....
Because there is some processing that must take place in order for the
application to load...
and that means CPU cycles.

Not take that portable firefox and bloat it to smithereens with
extensions... keep it still in the ramdrive, and run it..
it will take twice the time therefore twice the CPU power to load!

THIS is so apparent I just don't understand how people can use computers and
not know this. Guys when you do a Hibernation...
that takes everything from the RAM and puts it in the hard disk, then when
you boot again it does the opposite.... IT TAKES TIME AND CPU cycles
to transfer data from disk to ram! YET YOU STUPID FOOLS KEEP SAYING I HAVE
RAM LETS USE IT!

Its not about filling the ram with bloat.. the ram is there for applications
to use it .. for example if you use Photoshop and you load a 500 mb high res
image
you need that ram... ok Vista may start unloading its crap to make room for
that.. but still... vista DID load it at some time and DID use cpu to do
that!

Even if you have 4 gigs of ram there is a pipeline that all this information
is transferred in...

the fact that vista has 100 services working in the background doesn't help
either....especially the fiasco of all hidden services the horrid indexing!

THE ONLY real way to have a fast launch with current technology... is to
make an application LEAN and light.. remove the bloat and design it
intelligently...

things like readyboost, and superfetch are really not solutions... they are
idiotic efforts
to solve problems created from the bad design of the OS itself! And then
they call these
innovative features.. RIGHT! Only for fool vistaboys that eats everything
they are given!

Its like a doctor putting an obese person in a wheelchair and push him off,
and then declare that the problem is solved instead of
helping that person lose weight and regain his health

THAT'S WHY VISTA is the SUV of computers! Its darn stupid, yet because its
flashy people want it!
I dislike the strategy behind vista... its darnright stupid..... I like high
and advanced technology that is intelligently built..
not bloated buggy crap....

THANK YOU!

 

[Richard Urban]

That even I can like! (-:

--


Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
(For email, remove the obvious from my address)

Quote from George Ankner:
If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!

 

[HeyBub]

Vistaboys claim that its ok that vista is bloated since ram is cheap
and hard drives are big..
there is no problem... Sorry for another RANT.. but you vistaboys
earned it 100%!

Now this is the stupidest thing I have ever heard ... and here is the
proof why:

There are programs that create ramdrives... these are virtual drives
that you can insert in there
any program or file you want and everything in there is loaded 100%
in the ram of course
since it is a ram drive.

Now take a portable program from www.portableapps.com say firefox,
stick it in the ram drive... and run it.

You would expect it to load instantly right? since its all in the ram?
WRONG!

It is faster than loading from the hard drive .. BUT....
Because there is some processing that must take place in order for the
application to load...
and that means CPU cycles.

It's a shame you don't understand....

Millions of instructions can be executed in less than a second; it's NOT
instructions that cause the pausing.

A computer is only as fast as its slowest part and usually that slowest part
is disk access. Another slow part is handshaking with network or internet
servers.

In the case you mention, Firefox still has to hook up to the internet, load
preferences, a homepage, check for viruses, and perform probably dozens of
other housekeeping chores, each with up to hundreds of disk accesses and
hand-shaking operations.

It's NOT program "bloat" or too many CPU cycles that cause the apparant
slowdown.

 

[Adam Albright]

Hahahaha!!! I'm sure many things PASS your mind. Hehehehe.

At lease he HAS a mind, unlike you and several other kiddies.

 

[Justin]

At lease he HAS a mind, unlike you and several other kiddies.

I have no mind? As in no brain? How can I type if I have no brain? Yet
alone even sit here and read a computer screen.

You'll have to do better then that. Gees, you even fail at insulting
someone. That's low!

 

[Frank]

obviously, he's a Vista programmer....
;-)

hahaha...good one! :-D
Frank

 

[Mike Hall MVP]

It was called Windows 2000 Professional.. we have moved on since then..

well.. nah... 1000 mhz with 512 mb of ram is good. 40 gb disk IDE speed is
good enough for them! lol

they can be allowed to turn on a second core ONLY if the app they are
making will use it,
which in my opinion should be all.. but anyway..

MS talks about progress of vista taking advantange of multicores.. but is
it true.... what app built in vista uses true multicore code?

Just imagine.. if they were able to streamline vista on such a slow
machine (that however is only SIMULATING slow speed and not really a slow
machine)... then you would load vista on
a dual core with 2 gigs and it would be so fast it would read your mind
and do the function before you press the button on your mouse! lol

--


Mike Hall
MS MVP Windows Shell/User
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/