Vista overview

[MICHAEL]

My point was pertinently clear. This response aids no one.

Danny:

Your point was not clear, as my post proves.
You did not state which of the two defrag utilities failed to provide info
(one does, the other does not).
Did you even know of the command line defrag utility?

How many people even know what cmd is?

 

[Max]

This all has kinda turned into the FireWall2 Comedy Show, huh?

--
Maxwell Bluemeanie

FireWall2

You keep supplying the bullets, I'll keep on firing them !

The only posts I will read in future are yours,
absorbing their wisdom of mis-information,
for future reference..

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

"FireWall2" wrote:

<hilarity>

 

[ColTom2]

Hi Firewall:

Somehow I missed your point between OEM and Genuine Microsoft Software.
What has this to do with Sony issuing a new Vista driver for my Sony MPEG
Real Time encoder board so that I can upgrade to Vista?

To me I see no parallel between the OEM and Genuine Microsoft MCE2005
software versus a new Sony Vista driver. Hopefully you can explain.

Thanks

P.S. Yes retired USAF (41 years).

 

[Troy McClure]

after running vista rtm (ultimate and business), going back to xp feels like
a caveman OS. much like going back to 98 felt after using xp for a while.

 

[Danny]

My PC is no speed demon, P4, 2.53 GHz, PC800 RDRAM 1GB, two WD PATA
drives. As I said I have not seen any massive slow down with Windows Mail,
nor have I heard any one complaining about it loudly except for you.

There was a chap called Michael who has also contributed to this thread as
well. He feels the same about Windows Mail.

I accept that doesn't mean some haven't experienced a problem with it. I
just don't see this huge permformance problem you're indicating.

So, you're saying you go into Windows Mail, it instantly pops up and makes
itself available for use? Pray, how many emails do you have stored?

I don't see how that is an example of Windows Mail being an awful mess.

Because you like Windows Mail

I would like to see some control in this area, some setting. I can see
how this is a matter of personal preference, but again it's not a huge
issue, except for you it seems.

At least you concede it's flawed. We're getting somewhere.

Many?

Shall we poll this NG or the Mail one to find out?

It's not complex, it's flexible. It's just as easy to use. Yes it 's a
change but it's a very functional change. You can do so much more with
it, and do what was accomplished the the back button just as easily. As I
said before, and even more so after reading your reply, I just don't
understand the thinking.

And yet you concede yourself that people are annoyed by it. Who's right and
who's wrong...
(Answer, no one, personal preference; but I believe more dislike it than
like it. I mentioned it to a bud of mine and his word was 'stupid'. Hard to
disagree.)

I prefer having the updates in one spot with where they are now, under the
windows update section. The info give in XP's add/remove was useless.
There was no accuracy in when it was last used, etc. It did give you info
on the size, but so what. Changes were made to relocate the other options
that were on the left. I never used it much anyway, so I don't miss them
being gone from there.

So you agree the versatility is gone

Everywhere? Common, one of the problems I have with certain aspects of
your overview is the extremes that you go to in describing when something
doesn't work.

I would argue that I don't go to extremes at all. If I was going to extremes
I'd have been a lot more scathing.

UAC only comes up in certain situations. It does decrease after the
initial set up. Ok I can accept that it might irritate you like finger
nails on the black board,

You're damn right.

but I see it as a means of taking control. Those who don't like it see it
as the opposite

If I feel like doing a few tasks that require more UAC prompts I'll login

It certainly doesn't ask "to confirm your every move". Hyperbole again.

I disagree. On both counts. I was completely plagued by the damn thing.

We have to agree to disagree here. I see it as giving the OP control.

We do have to disagree. Big time.

I don't see it as a tolerance issue. It gives me control. There is
always a shift in how one has to work when changing programs and
especially with an OS change. Life changes. We well never get close on
this issue, which is fine.
Indeed.


I don't see what the time gap has got to do with this.

If you've used the same app for 6 years, it's a hell of a hard shift to
change when a new OS comes along. Whereas you could adjust more easily if
you spent less time using it.

More or less? I don't know. That is hard one to gage.

I'd suggest the evidence suggests the former. After all, like I say, the
kernel's been changed from XP in a way that XP didn't change from 2000 as
much, if at all. Meaning software compatible with 2k was more often
compatible with XP, where XP compatible stuff is nowhere near as guaranteed
to work on Vista.
I hope this makes sense.

But it goes with the territory of changing an OS. It has happened with
each new OS release. Why is it then more odious with Vista? I don't
understand your logic at all.

I didn't say it WAS more odious with Vista. I was simply pointing out that
it's a problem. And a massive one.

I don't see the logic in this statement other than some personal agenda.

You seem pretty obsessed with this 'agenda' hypothesis. I can assure you,
there is none.

But in any event 3rd party firewalls will be coming out. And anyway a
software firewall is not the end all of protection. They have their
faults and ways around them. There are those who argue that a software
firewall is a snake oil remedy.

If you want solid protection get a hardware firewall. But for most a
software firewall witih a NAT router with SPI, and some common sense works
just fine.

So correct. Painfully spot on.

You said, "I don't strictly blame MS for this." Implies they have some
blame in this. Maybe they do since it's their OS design but I see it as
square on the shoulders of nVidia.

Your argument is verging on semantics now.

I understand your argument. I haven't had hardly any BSODs in XP and only
one in Vista. Are there fewer in Vista? I don't think there is enough
data to say one way or another.

This is a point I've not actually raised. You're on a parallel street to the
one I'm on.
I'm unsure if you have understood my comment.

Can they be removed totally? I don't know, I'm not a system programmer.
It would be nice, but is it practical? I leave that to others.
Quite.


How can you quantify that? And it's a big step between saying something
is not necessary and saying it's erroneous.

And it's equally a big step to claim it's apparently necessary. You said it
yourself, you're not a system programmer.

I don't see it. If the defragger was extensively redone to provide bells
and whistles and the firewall was not, then use a 3rd party firewall and
the inbuilt defragger. I go with what works and suits my needs balanced
by cost.

I do suspect we're on very crossed wires in this debate. We're not really
understanding each other.

Same here, it was a discussion of views, not a rant or flame fest.

Very much so. Makes a change on Usenet.

 

[Danny]

Hi Firewall:

Somehow I missed your point between OEM and Genuine Microsoft Software.
What has this to do with Sony issuing a new Vista driver for my Sony MPEG
Real Time encoder board so that I can upgrade to Vista?

To me I see no parallel between the OEM and Genuine Microsoft MCE2005
software versus a new Sony Vista driver. Hopefully you can explain.

Thanks

Firewall seems to post utter jibberish. He/she has no point. Don't waste
your time trying to get sense from them.

 

[Max]

There is no point. And no sense.
Pay no attention to the man behind the FireWall2 curtain.

 

[Troy McClure]

"No 'up' button in Explorer. This is beyond ludicrous; going up a level now
involves knowing exactly where you are and choosing the next folder level up
in the address bar. I'd rather just press 'up' and always know I'm going up
a level no matter where I am than sit baffled choosing between folders."


huh? now, in the address bar, the full path is broken up into clickable
folders. if you want to go UP, just click the last folder in the chain....
if you want to go up several levels, now you dont have to click UP several
times... simply click once on the level you want to go.

im not sure how youre missing this... its an obvious improvement

 

[Danny]

"No 'up' button in Explorer. This is beyond ludicrous; going up a level
now
involves knowing exactly where you are and choosing the next folder level
up
in the address bar. I'd rather just press 'up' and always know I'm going
up
a level no matter where I am than sit baffled choosing between folders."


huh? now, in the address bar, the full path is broken up into clickable
folders. if you want to go UP, just click the last folder in the chain....
if you want to go up several levels, now you dont have to click UP several
times... simply click once on the level you want to go.

im not sure how youre missing this... its an obvious improvement

How odd. I already explained it, yet you're telling me it again and saying I
missed it.

Bizarre.

 

[Robert Blacher]

How about that? I found an answer to my own question! :-} And, here it
is:

"A customer in the public Windows Vista newsgroups recently asked us about
the -i and -w parameters in the command-line tool Defrag.exe. Georgi Matev
provided some helpful answers below:

The -i option means that unless the machine is idle, defrag.exe will pause.
If the machine is idle (no interactive user input) for a few minutes, defrag
will continue. The option is not documented since it was added late in the
Windows Vista development cycle when resource changes were not possible
(otherwise localization will be delayed). The option will be documented in a
KB article once Windows Vista is released. On a similar note, the scheduled
defrag task is configured to only start when the machine is idle.

Although it is documented, I thought I'd use this post to clarify the
meaning of the -w option. Without the -w option, defrag will perform partial
defragmentation, which means that it will only try to coalesce file
fragments smaller that 64 MB. Further coalescing of these extents is
expensive both in terms of defragmentation time and free space requirements,
while the performance benefit is small. At 64 MB, the additional seek time
associated with reading 2 disjoint fragments of this size is negligible
compared to the rotational latency to actually read the contiguous portions
of the extents. The -w option allows you to bypass the partial
defragmentation behavior and try to defragment all extents regardless of
size.

--Georgi"

 

[Rock]

I do suspect we're on very crossed wires in this debate. We're not really
understanding each other.

Lol..could be some of that.

Very much so. Makes a change on Usenet.

I think we have gone as far as we can on this exchange. I have enjoyed it,
Danny.

 

[Max]

I want to play a game.

Would you like to play?

 

[Roy Coorne]

after running vista rtm (ultimate and business), going back to xp feels
like a caveman OS. much like going back to 98 felt after using xp for a
while.

A strange feeling... comparing a going-back from NT 6 to NT 5.1 with a
going-back from NT 5.1 to Win98...
Or do you remember going back from NT 5.1 (XP) to NT 5 (W2k)?


Roy

 

[Dustin Harper]

I know what you mean. Win95/98 looks almost alien now-a-days. Try using a
Win95 or even a 3.11 machine... I had to the other day, and WOW. We've come
a LONG way in not only appearance, but with user friendliness.

 

[Guest]

Danny, I bought and installed "Vista-Ultimate" I regret it. I have bee having
constant problems and masssive frustration, including the driver problems you
mentioned (even updates from firms such as nVidia don't solve the problems),
as well as frequent Windows Explorer Crashes, rundll errors, loss of display
settings at virtually EVERY application change, complicated procedures to
configure Vista to run older programs which were designed to run with older
Windows versions (compatibility), and many others. My newest frustration,
although probably minor in effect, started after re-installing my original,
genuine copy of Ultimate. First I got a message that the activation (grace-)
period had expired and I needed to activate or operate with reduced
functionality. So, naturally I activated and successfully. THEN, suddenly, in
spite of successful activation, I have a message in the lower right-hand
corner of the desktop telling me my copy of Vista is not genuine. I am
seriously considering re-installing my (again, GENUINE, of course) XP-Pro.
The old system wasn't perfect, but it wasn't as AFU as Vista. The vitrtues
are very nice, but the problems are horrendous.