What do you hate most about Vista?

The only thing that I don't like about vista is that when I have an explorer window with files with really long names open and in list view and I press the down arrow to scroll down, the cursor scrolls down one but the window for some reason also scrolls one column over to the right so I can't read the file names; if I press down again, the cursor scrolls down one and the window scrolls one column back again..

 

Oh great, here we go again. Do you understand the difference in the way XP handled memory versus how Vista does? Here is a reply I wrote from in another thread:

As for the slow boot time, take a look at my signature line for a trick that might help you improve that.

Gary

 

XP behavior: "OMG! you ONLY have 4GB of RAM, QUICK EMERGENCY put EVERYTHING on the HDD... no MERCY!!!!!!!"

Vista behavior: "Hey cool you have 4GB of RAM, this is really nice, I am not going to use the HDD and keep everything on the RAM instead, because as we all know RAM is significantly faster than HDD and SSD. Like this, response rate is up to the roof and applications are always ready to come back for my user. And if you run out of memory, then and I am going to use a bit of your HDD, BUT first I'll free up to space by reducing the size of my Superfetch technology. I do my best to use the HDD the least possible."

What is SuperFetch?
SuperFetch is a system with Vista and WIn7, that watches your memory, and learns on the data that arrives there from loaded applications, and the time it happens so that it can load to your RAM teh application before you start the application for an increase in startup speed of 1.5 to even up to 6 times faster. Space "taken" is not reserved, if you need the RAM it will be freed for you, instantly.

Vista actually takes about 350MB of RAM, Windows XP takes about 300MB of RAM. Out of tour 4GB of RAM, you should not complain.

Windows 7 and future OS from Microsoft will be mainly the same with optimization in how it managed the memory (so no significant reduction in memory). So get used to it. If you are not happy then I am afraid your are stuck with Windows XP or older version of Windows, because Linux and Mac OS won't help you there as they both have the same behavior as Vista (just without superfetch).

Microsoft acknowledged that Windows XP memory management was abysmal, as it was said since day one, because of the mentioned behavior. In result, XP perform correctly when you are low in memory, as back in the days memory was expensive and low in quantity compared to now. However, if you have like 512MB of RAM for instant, then XP behavior is just plain stupid. You got the RAM, you expect to have a faster system over 256MB, but you don't, because XP still puts everything on the HDD like if you are low in memory. You got the extra RAM for what? decoration?. Microsoft didn't really focus on solving this with a service pack, because they had Longhorn (which has Vista behavior) in the making and set to be release in 2003, so it would have been just in time.

XP barely increase in speed when you double the quantity of RAM. But in Vista, big difference, because the RAM is used, not your HDD. If you wanted increase in performance for an XP system, than you should increase HDD speed and quantity of the page file, but not your RAM after 512MB. Don't believe me? Remove the RAM stick of your XP machine, performance will not degrade

 

My least favorite things about Vista are (and these are probably repeats because I haven't read the entire thread):

- User Access Control always popping up. I turn it off but then have to see the Security Center saying that I'm insecure.

- Admin rights. I am the system administrator but still can't do stuff. I was trying to move an MP3 into a folder in my Program Files for a game but it said I didn't have permission to do it. I don't know what the source of my admin problems are, but I'm fed up with all of it.

Otherwise, I really like Vista.

 

check my sig to learn how to handle uac.

this can fix both of your problems. and i still like people stating UAC pops "always" up. like, each second, or so?

for the admin rights, check my sign, it shows how to fix it for that game.


and the reason why uac pops up the way it does: that way, only you (with mouse or keyboard) can click on that continue-button. no program can, so no virus can. it has to be that way, even while it's quite ugly, i agree.

but uac is that save that you don't need a virescanner for the system, as you can't affect the system without agreeing on a uac prompt. you still need a vire-scanner for your own files, though. maybe. i don't have one anymore since i moved to vista..

 

the main requirement for vista to work perfect

its a heavy Operating system

 

hm. fully working system that performs well: 250$ or so. not that heavy.

intel atom, 2gb ram, a fast hdd (size doesn't matter) is the minimum.

not really heavy. (but it could be much more lightweight of course).

we successfully use it on non-high end systems like

core2duo 1.2ghz
core2duo 1.06ghz

p4 2.4ghz with HT

intel atom 1.6ghz with HT

it performs well on all of these. the only important thing: 2gb ram or more. cost: 10$

 

The amount of rescources it uses (In comparison to XP).

Ive got my xp running fine off 200 MB Ram hehe.

I do like vista's look and customisability though.

And i couldn't stand UAC.

 

learn what UAC is and you love it.

there is no xp + apps running "well" on 200MB ram. no. at least not an up to date xp. if you run apps on it, they alone will consume up to 100MB. here, the work computer needs 1.5gb, no chance else as xp goes to disk all the time.

and even then, you're <10$ away from 2gb ram, and then everything runs fine. so i don't care AT ALL about that "it uses much ram". most apps do so, too, so you don't want to limit yourself anyways. and vista is much better at using and managing the ram.

 

Yay me too! I prefer to have these UAC prompt like under Linux (Linux being more annoying as sometimes you need to used the terminal, and you can't start it using Admin rights, you need to type "sudo", and forced to put the password in every time), and not use any anti-virus program. then the reverse. Anti-virus program slows down so much your computer (even the best ones).
You can have 20 malwares, virus on your computer and they wont' be able to do anything until you hit on that "continue" button to screw up your system

 

Can I just say it? The one thing I really, really hate about _Vista is the utter confusion most people seem to have about how much RAM _Vista is supposedly "hogging" or "using" or whathaveyou. The fact of the matter is, _Vista does not require that much more RAM than XP does for its own internal operations. All the rest of the RAM that _Vista appears to be using is, in reality, being populated with the code and data that the algorithms of the superfetch functionality tell the OS you, the user, are most likely to be using in the immediate future.

In other words, _Vista is more efficient in its usage of RAM than XP is because _Vista doesn't let your excess RAM sit around getting fat and lazy but rather makes it earn its keep by keeping it loaded with stuff you're almost certainly going to be using next.

Of course, no computational algorithm is perfect - too much irrationality in human behaviour - so occasionally the stuff _Vista prefetches into RAM for you will not be what you use next; however, that's not a problem, because as soon as you call up that unexpected app that _Vista didn't prefetch ->BAM<- some of that prepopulated RAM is instantly filled up with the code and data for that app - nothing easier than unceremoniously overwriting data in RAM that you have no need to save or otherwise preserve (which is precisely the case with stuff preloaded via superfetch because, by definition, it's just a copy of what was stored on disk, so nothing is lost if the copy preloaded in RAM is simply dumped).

So, to put it in a nutshell, most of those resources that everyone seems to think _Vista is "hogging" for itself are, in reality, being put to your personal, individualized service - without your even having to say please - and are not in any sense being wasted or otherwise not available to be toyed with at your every whim and fancy.

Finally, if you really are such a maverick that no prefetching algorithm could ever keep up with you , you can always turn it off.

That is what I really hate about _Vista - the ignorance of so many concerning what _Vista does, or doesn't, do.

 

The source of your Admin problems is you have turned off UAC and circumvented the virtualization of the program files directories. This virtualization of those directories creates a "virtual" directory for each application you installed. And it does this for each individual user, with the user having FULL PERMISSIONS. Those user directories are wide open for you to add MP3 files or whatever you'd like and the game or other application will be able to see them just as if they were actually in the program folder itself.

Next time before you start turning off features and blaming the operating system for the results of you actions, dig into the situation a bit and find out what is going on. For now Google UAC and VIRTUAL or VIRTUALIZE. You should be able to quickly find the answer to your problem.

Gary

 

One very minor thing with Vista (and Windows 7 as I just found out) is that really long path's are not supported. I have a path that is upwards of 200 or 300 characters in length that causes issues when copying files out. Vista/W7 complain that the full path is longer than is supported, yet how did it allow it in the first place I wonder?

 

That is not really new it existed back in WinXP as well. I have a client who created folders in folders in folders ad nauseum resulting in path names that the backup software knew were there and needed to be backed up but could not. Took me three days to figure out it was a path limit. As to HOW it is allowed to happen. I think the OS is not checking when you add a file to a folder how long the resulting path actually is. Only when you try to reference the file via a full path name does the "error" occur.

Gary

 

That is because you are too organized.
Windows 2000 and XP has this issue as well.
But this is like impossible to reached unless you have a great obsession in creating folders, like you
In any case, you should report it Microsoft Windows 7 feedback and blog to be lucky enough and have it fixed. 'cause the last place Microsoft look is in such forum.

 

This is how a modern operating system is suppose to work. Normally, you would use an "user" level account as your everyday account and then a system admin account to do all the admin work.

UAC allows you to elevate your user account, on demand, to an admin level. Like sudo on Linux. It also protects you from malware that may try to take over your account. Lets say a program DOES compromise your account. They still have to get past the UAC prompt to do any kind of damage.

In the old days, you had to use the RUNAS command to get this kind of functionality. Now you can pretty much run with just one account and enjoy the protection of an user account while still have the powers of an admin account.

 

Actually, I stumbled on this when I was extracting the files out of the Windows 7 Beta 7000 ISO to copy over to a USB thumb stick... now that I think about it, the thumb stick was formatted as FAT32. I wonder on if I'd get the same problem if it was formatted with NTFS. I'll play around with it when I do the same again with build 7057 to update my netbook with tonight.

Thanks for the info.

 

Ah, maybe. I never fell into it, just read about it, but you have a very good point, that should be looked into. Try also exFAT.

 

I do not like the UAC so I immediately turn it off.
I do not like the search system in Vista. It never seems to be able to find anything. They never should have modified it from XP.

 

Thanks for the clearup for the ram, one thing i dont like is the "shadow copyy" thing. When ever i turn my computer off i would have 135GB then turn it on the next day or so and some how go up to 140 or less than 130..So i really never know how much space have varies at times to with extem numbers..

 

I'm all about the search engine. Heck. I hardly use the file folders view now. I can type "Images" and the network folder "Images" shows up on the results.

Screw expanding my computer, scroll, expand network drive L, scroll, expand Archives, Expand Images.

At first I use to keep all these favorite links, then that started to get full and scrolling those start to become a pain.

edit:
I'll admit this is slower on the HP laptop I have vs the Q6600s I run.

 

you can configure your shadow copy "thing". to have a fixed, small amount. like say, 3gb or so.

google for configure size windows vista system restore, and you should quickly find the info. i personally have it disabled, as i backup with the homeserver.


xarthos: you drive without seatbelt, too, do you? uac is great and makes your life much more easy, and your os much more trustable. learn to like it.

 

It's big, slow and just won't let you do as much (Or it has a different way of doing the same thing but I don't feel like re-learning all I know) as Windows XP will let you do.

I much prefer XP, but now that I have been using my Mac, I much prefer OSX.

 

Ok. Next time how about using Vista for real for a month, instead of saying lies.

 

you don't like relearning, but got a mac.. how ironic

and yeah, don't spread fud.

 

I'd be interested in hearing if you get your USB thumb stick formatted to NTFS - I've tried (with an admittedly older stick drive), but all I can get is FAT or FAT32.

 

I have the Corsair Flash Voyager 16GB thumb drive, which in Vista shows me an option to format in one of 3 flavors: FAT32, NTFS, and exFAT. I'm not sure, but maybe the choices available is dependent on the size of the stick, or maybe the stick tells the OS what formats it supports.

 

Probably since NTFS only matters at bigger sizes anyway.

 

You'll be glad you have Shadow Copies when one of your files is corrupted or lost by the system, and you can go right to your Shadow Copy to retrieve it. I have Vista Home + Student, which doesn't include Shadow Copies -- and every time the system does this to me, I am so sad there's no Shadow Copies!!!

 

Once I 'tamed the beast' I began to like the Vista search system a little better. Here's what I found is the best way to utilize the Vista search process:

From anywhere in Vista, press the Windows Logo Key + F (or go into the Start Menu, and from inside the Search pane, press F3).
That brings up the Search page - click the Advanced Search button to the far top-right, to open the search Set Up page.
On the Set-Up page, check the 'Include non-indexed, hidden, and system files' option.
Under Location, select C Drive, or Computer, or Everywhere, and in the Name box, fill in the name of the file you’re looking for, or some text from within the file. (After this first search is completed, if it was unsuccessful, do additional searches for any other key words you think might be associated with that file.)
Run. That's it.

The search could take 10 seconds or 10 minutes, depending on how many files/folders there are to go through, but you'll eventually see extensive search results.

 

I am curious, what are you searching for that forces you to need to extend the search outside the indexed files? I have to do this once in a while, but it is quite rare. If you use search this way all the time, you might want to reconfigure the directories that search is actually indexing. That is easily done via the Search functions in the Control Panel. It's not a bad idea to review this as sometimes it is indexing things you really don't need indexed. I have seen folks machines set up to index the entire C: drive which is a HUGE waste of time and often the real culprit in folks saying how indexing thrashes the hard drive all the time. All you really want it to index are your data files (for obvious reasons) and the start menu (so you can use search as a quick way to open your favorite applications). You certainly don't want it indexing the Windows directory, your Windows temp files or your IE temp files.

Gary

 

That's probably the case, since the stick drive I have that I tried to format to NTFS is an old 2GB Optima Attache.

 

You know that you tell Windows where to index and where to not index your files, also say which file format you whant windows to look inside them or just read the file name.
All these options are in the "Indexing Options" found in the "Control Panel"

 

Maybe I'm not counting my services right, but my XP config is about 100MB. When I used (suffered?) Vista, it was closer to 400-500MB (not counting cached).

 

then you're not counting right. or never have installed any update and service pack.

and when you used or suffered vista, have you really learned how it works or just cried around like some of the babies in here?

because you don't care about that ram usage except when you ever reach the limit of your system, and in case of reaching limits, vista is much better at managing the ram for it (and that's what goodbytes talks about).

 

Not counting right? Just checked, my XP config is definitely 110MB.

Cried around like a baby? lol. Are you unable to keep any 'prefer XP' response technical and civil? I suggest we respect each other's experiences and opinions without kindergarten name calling? Do you think you can manage that?

 

i haven't said you cry like a baby. but i've seen enough of them. some of them where crying at me how vista is the worst thing that happens and he has to know as he knows someone who sais the same and such

then your xp config is massively tweaked. a default xp installation with sp3 and all is not 110MB.

and the op above never really wanted to talk about the footprint of the os'es. vistas foot print is bigger (makes around half a $ difference at most in ram cost, terrible).

what he talked about is how bad xp is about managing memory, and caring about making your programs available in ram, not going to disk if not needed.

xp does, even if it has more than enough ram, pagefile all down onto disk after a while of non-usage. you just can't change that fact, and it's terrible when you go for lunch, and afterwards your pc crawls again like he never has seen the programs that are STILL OPEN before.

there, vista is MUCH better. at managing the memory for your PROGRAMS. for your USAGE, and, for YOU.

enough kindergarden name calling, yes. but learn what matters to your system: that it performs well. the memory footprint of an os may be an indicator, not more. in case of xp -> vista, a really bad one.

 

Eventually, we all won't be such control freaks and let the OS do it's job of managing the system's resources. This would help the vast majority of users. Its great to tweak a system, but you need results.

I recall a thread where the guy was tweaking his boot times cause he couldn't get hibernation to work on his laptop. The time he spent tweaking the boot times would have been better spent on a real solution, debugging the hibernation process. Tweaking the boot times is just temporary at best in his case.

Here, we can tweak UAC/search/Vista all we want. 2 years from now, UAC will still be necessary. Search will be improved to the point where everyone will be using it. I remember when Windows 95 came out and everyone complained about the sluggishness of the GUI. Remember when XP first came out? Everyone was whining about NTFS, since XP defaulted to NTFS.

Its ridiculous how much effort people put into resisting change. That same effort could be used to adapt. And the sad part is, this will never change. People had to be dragged kicking and screaming into each age of change. Heavy Cavalry, gunpowder, banking, cars, etc etc etc.

 

I dunno, with the amount of time and effort that goes into these _Vista/XP threads, we could probably have collectively developed an OS that did exactly what the majority of posters here wanted it to do!

 

yeah, it's called xp for the old-brainers, and vista for the ones that learned why it's better...

people's habbits are terrible slow to change. check the partition-threads for points on why it's useful. because they learned 10-15 years ago that it is they never had a reason actually for it, they just learned it blindly from some "guru"..

 

lol had to quote this for truth, let them keep their XP, they will really be crying when they are left behind. XD

On Topic, what I hate about Vista is how it blocks malicious code from executing without my permission from the net. I really miss how XP would allow any active x code to execute in administrator mode no less without any warning. Damn I miss that. I also miss how XP kept vital system files in the same location on every load, I like hackers to know exactly where my vital files are and how to exploit them with minimal effort. As opposed to Vista Ultimate moving them to random locations.

 

You call missing out on Aero 'left behind'? Really? It means that much to you? OK, how old is your car and your refrigerator? Then we'll see who needs to be dragged screaming and kicking into 2009 ...

ActiveX is a browser issue . Most people know MS could easily have incorporated the same sandbox into an XP patch, but decided not to ...

 

aero is a huge gain. and the technology behind aero (the gpu-can't bluescreen os for 90%+ of the driver-code) is awesome.

you may not know that, nor care. doesn't make it wrong.

 

As if Aero was the ONLY thing new in Vista. Let me guess you are still using XP and refuse to use Vista, right? Or you tried it for fifteen minutes and hated it.

Gary

 

Hey you!!! Go get some sleep already...

Gary

 

can't. have to post. have to post.

no actually, i'm testing out a bit how you can reinstall with original activation using ABR. quite cool.

 

What I hate about Vista, is how now I don't have to epic advanture in re-installing my XP SP1... ahhh... Goof times. Getting out the floppy drive, buying super expensive floppies because the others one are broken. And then open the case plug that floppy, put in teh SATA drivers, start XP setup install the SATA drivers, continue the setup. Then once everything is setup, do the several GB of update, waist my monthly bandwidth, to finally reach SP2.. then do it's set of updates to reach SP3. And then I can install all my applications, including DirectX 9. 2 days of work.

Now it's stupid, 25min and your done. Where the fun in that?! And have a setup with a cursor and friendly UI! This kills jobs, as stores like Best Buy looses money as people can do it themselves. It must be complicated by having every instructions on the screen in hex codes, like the error messages!

 

omg, vista makes life more easy! NEWS AT 11!!

i love the new setup of vista, it's for me the main reason to not even bother about xp (i like it, else). the fact that you can simply setup a usb stick to be bootable with vista-builtin tools (diskpart), copy over the files from disk, and start and install is just awesome.

btw, 8min here for a fresh installation

 

Your lack of any real knowledge is shining through in your post, explains your continued use of XP I suppose. ActiveX controls allow web pages to execute program code on your machine. There is no way for you to know ahead of time whether that code is harmless or a malicious attack on your computer.

Here's some reading for you as you appear to need it.

About UAC which blocks or at least controls the execution of malicious ActiveX depending on the users knowledge of UAC.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/922708

About ActiveX as it relates to business, but has info on how it can contain malicious code
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,1979549,00.asp

The Dangers of ActiveX Also pertains mainly to business but has some good info in it.
http://searchsecurity.techtarget.com/expert/KnowledgebaseAnswer/0,289625,sid14_gci945838,00.html

Small list of known malicious ActiveX.
http://www.tenebril.com/src/spyware/malicious-active-x-components.php

 

Good links. Now I see the wisdom behind UAC. I turned it back on.