|
Had no problems with Vista, looking forward to Win 7. I hope Win 8 has a more radical UI.
|
|
|
|
|
I am already with Windows Visa, but most of my friends pointing other then the rich UI, Windows XP prof with SP2 is more better. Yes.. Its correct, I also feel some performance problem with Vista.. 
|
|
|
|
|
SP2? o_O
I hoped you meant SP3...
-= Reelix =-
|
|
|
|
|
Where it's SP2 or SP3, both works fine for me.
I still prefer XP with SP3 rather than Vista with SP1. Vista is very slow when viewing folders and files. It crashes most of the time when viewing folders or surfing with IE7.
In fact, if I know earlier that vista had this kind of problem. I would stick with XP Pro when I bought my Dell Laptop.
Vista's introduction ( ). Now (:-C)
|
|
|
|
|
Thirumalai M wrote: Windows Visa
Wow cool, you must be working for Microsoft. Do you you multitouch screen to program with - like Miniority Report?
|
|
|
|
|
|
So what? Stable systems don't require support.
|
|
|
|
|
I haven't booted to my Windows XP partition in months. I never used Vista in my life. I tried Windows 7 on a VM and it sucked (it felt "annoying"... like Office-Paperclip-annoying level).
Why'd I "upgrade" from Kubuntu to Windows 7?
|
|
|
|
|
Member 4134890 wrote: it felt "annoying"... like Office-Paperclip-annoying level
Almost as annoying as CP members that don't take the time to come up with a user name?
Harvey Saayman - South Africa
Software Developer
.Net, C#, SQL
you.suck = (you.Passion != Programming & you.Occupation == jobTitles.Programmer)
1000100 1101111 1100101 1110011 100000 1110100 1101000 1101001 1110011 100000 1101101 1100101 1100001 1101110 100000 1101001 1101101 100000 1100001 100000 1100111 1100101 1100101 1101011 111111
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As a developer, I am bound to follow my customers. Most use XP SP2, some use NT, some other versions. I want to be sure my software is compatible with their systems.
|
|
|
|
|
Wouldn't maintaining compatability also mean making sure its compatible with the modern, as well as the legacy? Windows Vista and Windows 7 provide some interesting compatability points themselves...namely in the area of security and compatability with how security now works in Windows since Vista.
|
|
|
|
|
When my customers start to deploy Vista and Windows 7 so will I. BTW, they are banks, and they have currently no intention to do so, because it would entail upgrading thousands of PCs and retesting all their applications.
|
|
|
|
|
We're using our favorite OS for development (personally, I'm using Win7) and to ensure compatibility with other systems we use VMs.
So, I refuse to see this statement about compatibility thing as a valid argument against using other OSes.
|
|
|
|
|
Like many others, a lot will depend upon the price. It is my feeling that Microsoft has redefined PC to be something like "Proprietary Computer" and they are the controller. Even operating systems designed for home users take away so many options from the user that we can no longer feel that we can do what we want the way we want. Email and internet options are restricting (as a security measure to protect us from hackers) to the point I wish I could cut off both operations and run my computer independent of both. However, I like being able to email friends and surf the internet.
It's too bad someone can't figure a way to include security options without forcing the user to surrender their freedom to use their computer the way they want. I'm not saying that computers in corporate networks shouldn't be restricted; I'm talking about privately-owned computers and home networks. I wish they were considered two entirely different entities and treated as such. I also wish that the software for home computers was priced for individuals who don't have large budgets and yet allowed some of the same capabilities as business or enterprise software (perhaps scaled down and easier to use).
I also would like to see development software and training programs for home users that didn't cost as much as the corporate versions. Again, maybe they could be scaled down as appropriate for home users and also not assuming that the user understood the abstract explanations found in so much of the development documentation (help files?) available.
|
|
|
|
|
I suggest trying out other operating systems. There's good choices out there that cover each point. And that also goes for 3rd party software like development tools.
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" -Arthur C. Clarke-
|
|
|
|
|
Glenn A. Russell wrote: Email and internet options are restricting (as a security measure to protect us from hackers) to the point I wish I could cut off both operations and run my computer independent of both.
There have always been third-party alternatives to IE and Windows Mail. Try Opera...its an awesome browser with full internet standars support, an email client, an IRC chat client, bittorrent client, RSS reader, widgets, and much, much more.
Glenn A. Russell wrote: It's too bad someone can't figure a way to include security options without forcing the user to surrender their freedom to use their computer the way they want.
Windows 7 made UAC considerable more configurable. Security options arn't as restrictive, and security prompts are far less intrusive (rather than getting one or more additional security popups, Win7 just presents you with a UAC button that, when clicked, elevates your priviledge and executes the requested action).
Glenn A. Russell wrote: I also would like to see development software and training programs for home users that didn't cost as much as the corporate versions.
Microsoft offers free versions of most of its development tools (Express versions of C#, VB.NET, Web Developer are all available). There are also many sites provided by Microsoft geared towards teaching software development to the uninitiated. Most of Microsofts latest initiatives, such as ASP.NET MVC, Data Services, Asure, etc. all have large libraries of video tutorials that introduce you to these frameworks and take you through the most common and critical tasks in an easy to follow way.
I think Microsofts biggest failing isn't the quality or capabilities of their products. Its educating its users (or potential users) to the vast body of resources and free tools out there to help get them started. Everything you asked for is available in Windows or a Microsoft product.
|
|
|
|
|
For some odd ball reason my XP SP3 bridged network (needed for an older version of virtual box) decides to release its ip address and this triggers the 15 year old bug. I mean after the release of the ipaddress, all of my network drives on the gigabit network (we have a gigabit private + 100MB internet connection to every machine) will not be able to connect. So the bug is that with the disconnected network every time I open a My Computer window it locks up trying to connect to the drives that it could not possibly connect to because the network is down. I end up waiting several minutes while this bad behavior manifests itself. This even happens sometimes if I only choose to browse local drives, open save boxes ... I know for a fact that this bug existed in windows NT in 1994.
BTW, I will shut up if this was fixed in Vista. I do not have any vista/windows7 boxes on the corporate network.
John
|
|
|
|
|
For home use, i have Vista x64 Ultimate and would love to go to a system which has the features of vista (ie the nice n shiny looks, instant searches etc) but with a much lower required spec and heopfully wider driver support. My wireless driver crashed too often, the display driver crashes from time to time, and now IE has developed a stange fault where openeing new tabs or windows from links just crashes the browser.
But then it all comes down to price for the vista users like myself who probably feel a little shafted by the problems of vista.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Simone Serponi wrote: God, it too much asking for an OS that works Fine and does not force you to buy a 3K+ $ /Euros Computer? D'Oh!
From Microsoft? Of course it's too much to ask!
|
|
|
|
|
|
The main reason is at work I really need a 64 bit windows box. We have tried xp64 with some success but also some bad behavior. And then vista and its poor implementation of UAC, I really do not want to go there.
I have been using windows7 on the laptop for a few months and it generally works great except for yesterday when I had to boot my machine to linux so that I could put an executable in C:\Program Files. For some reason windows was doing everything it could (paste was not an option from explorer and the command window gave me access denied) to stop me from doing so. So where else am I to install applications (that do not have installers)? It would have been nicer to see a prompt that told me that installing an application may be dangerous and ask me if I want to continue?
[EDIT]Perhaps the folder I was trying to write to (under C:/Program Files(x86)/) was read only. I did not check, because this is not something you see on XP or lower. [/EDIT]
John
modified on Monday, April 27, 2009 9:55 AM
|
|
|
|
|
Windows Vista and Windows 7 both protect critical system folders, such as Program Files, Program Files (x86), Windows, etc. You need to be an administrator to copy stuff there...and depending on how your copying, you may need to explicitly elevate the program your using to "install" to administrator level first. (i.e. Your trying to copy with the command prompt, which defaults to a normal user level...run it as admin first, and copy will work fine.)
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
)
... 
