Just can't get over XP! I LOVE IT

I couldn't agree more; but how many Subzeros have spent the extra money to get the Enterprise version rather than the consumer version? And all I can say about the "hopes" based on the pitiful little chewed over bones subzero keeps dredging up from Microsoft is - you can count on that just as much as you can count on "MXM" meaning you'll be able to upgrade your GPU to nVidia's soon-to-be-released GPU. In other words, it's theoretically possible - just as, under quantum physics it is theoretically possible that every particle in your body will suddenly leap to the far side of the moon, giving you an incredible glimpse of infinity - before your head pops from too much internal pressure - it is, however, vanishingly unlikely in practical reality.

 

Please Read Shyster1 said this a while back as clear a possible on this thread.

 

I think everyone in this thread fails to realize how far away 2012 is.

I'm hoping for my own personal rocketship by then.

 

About two years and eight months?

 

That's overstating it a bit, isn't it? As I count, there're two years, six months, and 16 days left until 2012 (at least, until Jan 1, 2012 ).

 

Absolutely right! I'm still living in April. lol

 

WIndows xp was the death of xp xp drove me to linux based operating systems vista drove me to dream linux now after almost 10 years its took windows 7 to return me to microsoft and i must say i think they got it right

 

Just a little follow-up to those who might be banking on Microsoft pulling another XP with _Vista and extending _Vista's use-by date: not only do I not think that happen, apparently neither does Microsoft. To wit, as reported in a Computerworld article by Gregg Keizer:

Now, I may not have majored in the art of interpreting the speeches of officials from the Soviet, Chinese, or North Korean governments, but even I can read between the lines on this one - Microsoft has as much as said "What?! Are you crazy or sumptin'? What's a madda whitchya?" to every company currently in the planning or early implementation stages of deploying _Vista.

So, who's going to be making book on this supposed extension to the lifecycle of the consumer versions of _Vista? I'd like to put a whole heck of a lot of money down against that proposition.

@Matt is Pro: I just included you in because you're an example of one who made the right choice by going with the business version.

 

*cough*

You forgetting someone...?

 

Apparently I am; oops! What can I say, I'm an over-the-hill geezer, and I guess the memory is going as fast as the eye-sight! Sorry!

 

Hey, hold on a second. I am the certified geezer around here you young whipper snapper!

Gary

 

Well, I won't disagree with you on the point that you are certifi able.

 

Grrrrrrrrrr.......... grin.

Gary

 

Can you please elaborate on what you mean by this? I used Vista Ultimate x64 for about 3 months until the lagginess and the fact that the WinSXS folder was 30 gigs drove me to XP (before Vista, I was pure linux).

I can get Vista Business easily. Will Business have less of those problems than Ultimate?

 

http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2008/11/19/disk-space.aspx

As far as lagginess, you would need to be more specific. I have Vista x64 on a few machines and do not experience "lagginess."

 

It's not just the lagginess of Vista; in fact, in new computers there is no trace of lag. I use Vista x64 bit and it is very bothersome. I can't use Peerguardian 2 without having to manually press F8 every time I boot to disable the useless "Driver signature enforcement". Lot of programs I have seem to be incompatible with Vista and requires certain tweaks to get it to work (like tweaking with the registry). The UAC and administrator privileges are also very troublesome. I often spend hours trying to find out why I can't open a program just to discover I need to run it as an administrator.

To top it all off I have heard that Vista tracks you and your computer by collecting identifiable information. I didn't believe this at first, but after downloading that so called DRM "upgrade" for wmp, I have no further doubts in my head. Microsoft is officially watching you. ?

 

I frequently put my machine to RAM suspension. In Vista, I had to wait about 6 seconds for it to come back on fully, and an additional 3 for my fingerprint reader to become functional. I only have to wait about 3 seconds in XP before I can swipe my finger.

"Lagginess" is a relative term. I tend to compare things to my minimalist linux work setup, which sits on 97 MiB of RAM and is 64-bit so it can use the rest of the 3,800 MiB RAM to cache the system. In this regard, I've found XP, by experience, to have less "lagginess".

Don't get me wrong though, I would love to use Vista.

But back to the origin of my question. Does Business x64 assume significantly less space?

 

which you should've learned is the default to do if something doesn't work. tweaking uac for specific apps? check my nick.

i don't know peerguardian 2, sorry. but you should be able to boot without driver signing by enabling it in msconfig (but i don't use x64 yet, so i'm unsure).

no, they just deploy you some DRM stuff so that the movie industry and music industry lets you watch / listen to copyrighted stuff they only want to give you in certain ways. it's definitely something i'm happy microsoft does for me, and angry that the music / movie business dictates it both to me and microsoft.

 

two secs here, max 3 secs. sometimes wlan takes a while. i don't use fingerprint software but i've seen it to be terribly slow.

as vista actively uses and caches the system into the 3.8gb ram you have, actually, it should be less laggy than your xp. but the results vary between systems. what i noticed is, vista is much more constant than xp. xp is sometimes very snappy, then suddenly it gets blocking and very slow, then fast again. vista is pretty constant. this constance gives me more snappiness in the end as i know how long something goes.

to love while using any os you may ever want, get an ssd. every problem i see/saw with vistas performance (as well as xp's performance, any performance actually) are about solved by having a good ssd. it's pricy, but worth more than a new pc/laptop.

x64 uses much more diskspace in general compared to x86, you may consider that (and i continue to use that as storage on an ssd is not cheap).

but besides that, vista is trained to "eat away" around a 3rd of your hdd space for backups and such. and winsxs grows terribly, too. that's what we get for stability, restorability, and compatibility.

but you can configure system restore to use less storage, or disable it when you have a full trustable backup system. winsxs on the other side will be a strange beast for some time. till we have full virtualisation of the old os in a new os (similar to virtual xp mode in win7). then we can drop winsxs maybe, one day, when switching to "pure mode" of the os (disabling all virtual compatibility)

 

I purchased Ultimate when it first came out and used it a few times ( "a few" because I mostly stayed on XP due to some issues). Except when Vista was full of garbages and issues before SP1, I think Vista is an ok-product, but not strictly necessary. However, since most of my complaints on Vista are easily solved by just switching back to XP, I'm staying with XP probably until Win7 is released.

Don't get me wrong though, I'm no near the crowd of Vista-haters.

 

That sort of compatibility is not why WinSXS exists. I think the way WinSXS is implemented sucks and what is worse is that the size of the folder is not REALLY the actual size of the folder. It is usually less, as many of the files in it are symbolic links but WindowsExplorer treats them as if they were real files when calculating the folder size. But still WinSXS is too damn big. Bigger than it ought to be.

See the link in my signature line for more details.

Gary

 

It's not possible to do it using Windows. There used to be a registry edit that could allow for this, but Microsoft patched that. Now the only way you can avoid having to press F8 everytime I boot is via a third-party crack from the developers (which I don't use)

http://drmlicense.one.microsoft.com/Indivsite/en/indivit.asp

This is the upgrade I was talking about. If you read the private policy, what I really want to know is what could Microsoft be doing with the hardware information they will take rom your computer?

 

Here's a thought, instead of pushing a third party crack, maybe the developers should get off their butts and fix their code. Hello developers, just sign the damn drivers already, how freakin hard can it be? Their mistakes are the ONLY reason why you are being annoyed. This has NOTHING to do with Vista, it is an ill behaved application. Plain and simple.

The REAL question is what are YOU afraid they are going to do with it? I could care less how much info Microsoft wants to gather about the equipment so that they can improve the next round of software they deliver. Sounds like smart R&D to me.

Gary

 

http://phrosty.phoenixlabs.org/pg2-rc1/#vista64

I made a mistake in my second post; the developers did not develop the crack, somebody else did (i forgot who, but I would guess a user of the software).

However, this problem has everything to do with Vista 64 bit. Keep in mind that there are small time developers of software who cannot pay the 300-500 dollars a year to license their product to Microsoft, not that it would make a difference anyway....

If I was working on a new security software for others to try does that really mean I have to pay 500 dollars just to license it?

 

The cost of "signing" is about $500 a year. As difficult as it must be for you to believe, there are software developers out there who distribute their products for free. They support themselves with ordinary jobs and ordinary paychecks. Not all of them can afford to "just sign the damn drivers."

Please be considerate for other people's positions before lashing out like this.

 

No, you did make it clear that a third party developed the fix. But my beef would still be with any developer who writes a driver and then doesn't sign it. That's just stupid. I am fairly certain that there are cheaper ways than the $500, but even if there aren't to force your users into needing admin rights at boot up is unconscionable. If you can't pay the fees necessary don't sell your software.

And the answer to your final question is YES, if you are writing a piece of software that REQUIRES a digital signature then, pony up the money or don't release the software.

Gary

 

Considerate of what? There are plenty of drivers who just cannot deal with the day without a little something ... extra ... on the side; please be considerate of their positions before you lash out at them for driving under the influence.

 

Hmmm, seems to me the developers ought to have the same consideration for their users that you are asking me to have of them. I am a developer. I have no pity for ANY developer who knows that the application he will be releasing will require a digital certificate and then decides to release it any way and force the users to have admin rights because the developer did not get it signed. The developers freely made the choice to enter into an area of development that REQUIRES a signature and then play the "well I'm doing this for free, so I don't care what the consequences are to the users." I too support myself with an ordinary job and an occasional paycheck. But I would NEVER make a conscious decision that I knew would have this affect on my users.

I am not allowed to jump into the cab of a 18 wheeler and drive it cross country without being certified even if I do it for free. Why should I expect that I should be able to develop a driver KNOWING that there is a requirement that I get it certified even if I am doing it for free?

Gary

 

Much better analogy than mine - since older = wiser, and since you're obviously wiser than I, you must also, as you've said elsewhere, be geezier than I!

 

Man, he just destroyed your ankles.

 

Have you considered why they made this requirement and whether or not it's rational?

If you think that just because it requires a signature that means it's safe, read this excerpt from the previous link I gave you:

"New in Vista x64, Microsoft requires all drivers to have a special code signature, or they won't load. They call this a security feature, but we believe this is basically snake-oil: although code signatures let you verify where the driver came from, it does not protect at all against a malicious driver (such as a virus). "

And why not? The developers want to distribute their product, and the users want the product. I see nothing wrong OR illegal. The users, like me, are annoyed. Not at the developers, mind you, but at Microsoft for their folly.

Microsoft is not God, it makes mistakes too and this is one of them. Heck, I wouldn't hesitate to say that the whole Vista is one of them. Sure, the digital signing is a requirement, but does it mean that it's thoroughly thought out and satisfactory? Does the signature really do anything? Well, other than filtering out the poorer developers I really see no other consequence.

Peerguardian has
-been around for seven years (a lot longer than Vista)
-been and continues to be open source (other people can edit)
-a dedicated fan base
-been used by many people with no problems whatsoever

Here, check it yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PeerGuardian
http://download.cnet.com/PeerGuardian/3000-2144_4-10438288.html
http://phoenixlabs.org/pg2/

So basically everything was running fine, everyone was happy, and nobody was harmed using PeerGuardian when suddenly Vista 64 bit comes along and begins charging for this "code signature", which does nothing for security and costs $500 a year for the poor developer. Keep in mind this program has been used for years. They just can't sign it because they can't afford it, that's it.

You can't use this ridiculous analogy of you driving the 18 wheeler because that is just illegal and there really is nothing irrational about the enforcing law. Peerguardian isn't illegal. You can still use the program, but you have to bothersomely boot while pressing F8 every time. A better analogy is that some broke truck driver with a legitimate license has been driving that 18 wheeler for years now, but then his company takes away his truck seat and backrest unless he pays $500 a year. He can't, so he drives his truck achingly without a seat. This is legal, but it is also irrational.





P.S. You know what this reminds me of? DRM. This useless feature has been on CD's for a while now and while hackers are still ripping and distributing music freely across the internet it is the consumers who are the ones suffering. Turns out that the DRM software from each CD installs a rootkit that can jeopardize a computer's security. They call it copyright protection, I call it BS. Big, rich companies always know what they're doing, huh?

 

10chars....

 

Enough with this "i love xp" crap already please!!!!!

It's almost like saying I love my 1965 mustang. Sure a great car, but not modern anymore!

 

I dunno; that Mustang's gonna fetch a lot more on eBay than those dinged up XP installation disks will ever fetch!

 

I'm happily running Vista Business on my Latitude XT2(in sig).

Runs great, even on the low end hardware.

 

But you have Samurai Jack's support!

 

Good point, Silas!

I've had Samurai Jack on my side for years now.

 

Ahh, the 1965 Mustang. Hey, wasn't that back when the auto companies were turning a profit?

Funny thing about auto companies and OS companies.....................................................lol

 

Well u name one thing that Vista/Win 7 can do that XP isn't able to and I'll switch! Heh I used Win 7, much much better than Vista and snappier, but not as snappeh and user friendleh as teh XPeh!

XP FTW!

 

I for one LOVE the fact that you can safely eject flash drives from the "my computer" window. I like the fact that my documents are not buried in C:\Windows\Documents and Settings\... . It's also considerably safer out-of-the-box.

I like Vista over XP, but also bear in mind that I won my Vista edition on a contest. I don't think I would want to pay more than 50 euros for it.

 

UAC
Superfetch

 

Why?

You seem to be fine with XP. If XP works for you, then hey, run with it. Why would anyone here have any say as to what YOU use?

 

wont leave xp until better x3100 drivers are released. commands in games are sometimes unresponsive/late in win7 and vista. fps is more or less the same.

 

DO IT!!

 

Don't forget about ReadyBoot, better resource management, a GPU-accelerated window composer, sandboxing features, and much more...

 

all of that meants nothing infronto f the almighty responsiveness of XP

 

MaXimus, the user name you have is the same of my all time favorite character, and I am 99.9% sure you chose it for the same reason. Now be a man and install Windows Vista, or change the user name.

 

Don't spam.

 

That man is full of brains / character. Vista makes my top of the line laptop perform like a celeron man. thank u bye

 

If you can't keep your word, stop spreading it kthxbai.