Vista - Windows Vista is pure horror

Windows 95 was extremely unstable and sluggish. From Windows 98 up to
Windows XP, it seemed like Microsoft had gotten the clue and started
to develop the OS in the right direction.

Windows Vista has been out now for 1.5 years, and XP is still more
than three times more popular than Vista (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_s...rating_systems
).

I don't wonder why, as the main difference between XP and Vista is the
fact that Vista takes several times more time to load itself or
whatever application or file than XP does. Vista is slow even on a
modern computer with 4 GB of working memory. Personally, I would
definitely prefer practicality and functionality over fancy graphics
and animations that eat up your system resources.

Vista is unstable, which is no surprise considering we are talking
about complicated bloatware with more than 50 million lines of
programming code. The programmers cannot possibly be able to identify
even a small part of the bugs in Vista or fix them. Complexity is
waste. Simplicity is efficient, less is more.

Vista has no support for many modern computer components and
appliances, and much of the software on the market or downloadable on
the Internet doesn't run on Vista. How is Microsoft going to fix this?
Should we wait for some years and try Vista again then?

Vista is not user-friendly. You try to run a program, and Vista
demands to know if you double-clicked on the correct icon. Whatever
administrative task you're attempting to do, you will have to give the
command twice. I don't want my computer to nag at me.

Why do computer magazines praise Vista? Do the editors get paid for
marketing new software? Everyone with some common sense can see that
Vista is inferior to XP.

Lately, I have found Vista somewhat familiar. Clicking an icon under
Word 2007 sometimes gives the circle going around - or whatever it is
called - for a couple of seconds. This reminds me of the hourglass in
previous versions of Windows.

Vista does have its share of problems however XP was just the same. XP SP2 was really the first 99% stable release.

I dont know where people get the idea that a program has to be specifically designed for Vista. I have not come across one single program, (out of about 200) that were built when XP reigned, that does not function 100% properly on Vista (Ultimate).

Note: You can disable UAC or User Account Control (UAC is the program that makes all of the confirmation messages come up when you run certain apps)

mattinahat wrote:Oh, they are out there, and they must be dealt with from a software
developer's standpoint.

http://www.developer.com/net/net/article.php/3695651
Or you can run as Super Admin on Vista, a hidden account on Vista that
has full admin rights on Vista. UAC can be left enabled for Standard
user, because running as Super Admin on Vista with UAC enabled, no UAC
prompts are presented.

"Paul Montgumdrop" <Paul@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:OA$wNasIJHA.3816@xxxxxx
Interesting. The two major factors in the proliferation of viruses for
Windows are: bad software developers who write software that can only be run
as Admin., and users who insist on running as Admin for "convenience".....

Gordon wrote:Wrong, it is MS that gave the software developer dubious or not the
means to run COM solutions that run under the context of the user's
account permissions like ActiveX COM controls that can do anything when
executed and other such COM component technology.

For Windows ME and down, the user always runs with root admin rights.
For Win NT and up, the user will run with full admin rights, because
that's what they do make no mistake about it.

It's MS's inability to force the software developer to not write code
with full admin rights needed, until Vista hit the scene, with UAC and
UAC compliant software, which only needs Standard user rights to execute.

However, until such time that MS eradicates COM technology off of the
Windows platform, which it is trying to do with .Net and it's going to
take some time nothing happens over night, for backwards compatibly with
legacy COM technology that's still alive and well being used in the
world of MS, MS is going to continue to face and lay in the bed it has
made.

"Paul Montgumdrop" <Paul@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:%230lNmKwIJHA.2580@xxxxxxEh? I'm running Vista as a Standard User........that's what it's designed to
do.....

Gordon wrote:No, I am running on Vista as user/admin with the user/admin having two
security tokens. One is an admin full rights token, and one is a
Standard user rights token. The default token that is assigned to the
user/admin is the Standard rights token.

The user/admin on Vista with UAC is escalated to use the admin full
rights token only for the moment of escalation, and the user/admin is
returned to using the Standard user token.

So user/admin on Vista with UAC enabled, I am a Standard user for the
most part.

One can use that hidden Super User account that is an admin account that
has full rights all the time, no escalation is required, which is
actually the Administrator account that is used on XP and Win 2k. But a
new user/admin account on Vista does not inherit full rights from the
hidden Administrator account, like a new user/admin that inherits full
rights from the Administrator account on the other platforms.

And on the other platforms, users are running on the platform as
user/admin with full rights, make no mistake about it that it is what
they are doing.

But not on Vista are they doing it if running as user/admin. There are
some other ways you can tell that you are not an user/admin on Vista and
you do not have full rights, and you will never have full rights even
with UAC enabled or disabled.

The only one that could possibly do certain things in that situation is
the hidden admin account, but I have not tested it.

Can I pull you back to the runway?

In article <0dfd0a2b-758b-47c0-b3ad-3d6bcf02224d@xxxxxx>,
Pekka Numminen <p.numminen@xxxxxx> wrote:[wrat@xxxxxx ~]$ which gcc
/usr/bin/gcc
[wrat@xxxxxx ~]$

lol :-)

In article <#0lNmKwIJHA.2580@xxxxxx>,
Paul Montgumdrop <Paul@xxxxxx> wrote:You mean like the software developers who wrote the code foe
Microsoft Office?