Author Topic: Stay Away From Microsoft VISTA (Read 69793 times)

MrCrispy · « **Reply #50 on:** September 09, 2007, 04:07 PM »

Imagine a legacy notetaking program.
It starts out when installed with a data file called Notes.data in its program directory.
As user adds notes, they get added to this Notes.data file.

Good example. I don't know what the best way to deal with this would be, but one idea is that the program should have a way of exporting its data and thus the user can save it somewhere else? In this case, the program will trigger UAC since its writing to a system directory and thus the user will know that something is going on.

Here is a good description - http://blogs.msdn.co...cy-applications.aspx

mouser · « **Reply #51 on:** September 09, 2007, 04:14 PM »

However, for those people who call his extension, the company puts in place a redirect in the PABX system, so that anyone who calls Steve is actually transferred to Lisa. The same applies to his email. Steve is now virtualized.

The reason this works is that people don't want to talkt o Steve, but the CFO. And apps should also not write to hardwired locations.

Yeah but what if Lisa is not the new CFO, but in fact is some flunky temp with no authority, even though the PABX redirect told you that you were being transferred to the new CFO. After 10 calls to Lista you finally figure out that you have been trying to get tech support from someone who doesn't know anything about anything. You might not be too happy.

Innuendo · « **Reply #52 on:** September 09, 2007, 05:08 PM »

While all this talk of virtualization stuff is fascinating, I'm going to throw in my two cents closer to the subject of the OP rather than the virtualization argument.

Vista sucks. Look at all that we were promised compared to what we got. We were promised a revolution. What we got was the equivalent of an XP service pack with some third-party grade programs tacked on. I've read the dissection of the road to Vista. I've read about all the problems & missteps the Vista programmers encountered & while I can sympathize to a point the fact remains at the end of the day my final response to their whining is a resounding, "Wah."

Look what we got in the time it took to go from Windows 2000 to Windows XP. Very few people will argue that what XP gave us over 2K is at least the equivant or more than what Vista is giving us over XP. I won't even get into what Vista means for gamers. Despite all the DX10 bravado Vista is the bane of gamers everywhere. Do we even need to discuss the "really stupid, how did this guy get a job as a programmer" bugs like the slow-copy bug or the network-performance slows to a crawl if you play MP3s" bug?

I'm sorry I can't remember for the life of me where I read it, but one blog writer summed up the disaster which is Vista perfectly. He stated that the United States started from scratch at ground zero and put a man on the moon in the same amount of time that Microsoft took to release Vista & they (MS) were starting with a solid base (XP) that had nothing really serious flaws to begin with.

Unless MS gets their collective finger out of their collective arse Vista is doomed to go down in history as the Windows ME of the 21st century.

f0dder · « **Reply #53 on:** September 09, 2007, 05:23 PM »

the slow-copy bug or the network-performance slows to a crawl if you play MP3s" bug?
-Innuendo

In all fairness, the thing that causes this slowdown actually makes sense - it should just have been fine-tuned better (like, only kick in when HD content is being played). And it's also not going to affect many people; you're not going to be playing media files on a file server, and I do wonder how many people are doing full-speed file transfers on a gigabit network (as far as I can tell, 100mbit LANs shouldn't be affected by the interrupt moderation imposed).

But yes, that feature should have been tested better, should only kick in when necessary (shouldn't be that hard to detect programmatically; or at least only activate on HD content), etc. I do think it's funny how everybody are overreacting about an issue that's only going to affect a small number of people, and is a pretty easy fix.

Mark's Blog has some sense about all this.

Darwin · « **Reply #54 on:** September 09, 2007, 05:25 PM »

I'm sorry I can't remember for the life of me where I read it, but one blog writer summed up the disaster which is Vista perfectly. He stated that the United States started from scratch at ground zero and put a man on the moon in the same amount of time that Microsoft took to release Vista & they (MS) were starting with a solid base (XP) that had nothing really serious flaws to begin with.

This is a bit confusing - I've worked it through, I think, but stating the "US started from scratch at ground zero and put a man on the moon"... made me first think of the US War of Independence as starting from scratch. Then "ground zero" made me think of September 11th and the World Trade Centre. Finally I arrived a this: the US implemented a plan to land a person on the moon and saw the plan from realization through to completion in the same amount of time as M$ took to roll out Vista. Makes sense. Have I got it right?

Armando · « **Reply #55 on:** September 09, 2007, 06:08 PM »

[Edit : interestingly, my post was not sent when it was supposed to be sent... Sorry if it seems out of sync

]
Interesting debate.

If an app depends on that, it is wrong.
-MrCrispy (September 09, 2007, 04:01 PM)

In my non-programmer opinion (IMNPO), only If the OS concoctors "decide" so. Right? It cannot be “wrong” a priori, but only because of some more or less arbitrary decisions. But, anyway, this does not seem to be the main problem.

The main concern, if I understand mouser's point view well enough, is that Vista is letting the user think that a specific app is "right and compatible" (behaving properly, functionally fitting...), when it (Vista) actually and secretly treats it like an outlaw,— virtualizing it and... potentially jeopardizing important user data and settings!

Things SHOULD be more transparent. I, the user, want to always know what’s happening with my data, settings, etc., if possible . The registry is already a semi-mess (app. settings are often hard to backup)… it shouldn’t become even more complicated!

Let me use an analogy - say you are an analyst and call a company to talk to their CFO. You always say to the receptionist - 'can I talk to the CFO' and she transfers you to Steve. Well after a few calls, you just get Steve's personal number (instead of his extension) and call him directly. A few years later, Steve is fired (all those millions he embezzled!). So now you can't reach him because you are not going thru the proper API (interface). However, for those people who call his extension, the company puts in place a redirect in the PABX system, so that anyone who calls Steve is actually transferred to Lisa. The same applies to his email. Steve is now virtualized.

The reason this works is that people don't want to talkt o Steve, but the CFO. And apps should also not write to hardwired locations.

I'm not sure if that is a good analogy. Having your data being virtualized (God knows where and... when!) is not the same thing as having a phone call being redirected "to the new CFO".... 1st : what kind of data would you lose in the process? If the company is well organized : none. 2nd : I’d be very stupid if, while talking to Lisa, I’d think I’m talking to Steve… While in fact, Vista’s virtualization would try to fool me by cloning Steve and making me believe that I’m talking to the same… Steve, and even more frightening, would store what I said in a different file than usual, where nobody can find it.

IMHO, what you’re describing seems more like a metaphore of, I don’t know… the WINE implementation for Linux (where data is not virtualized, but where Windows API are implemented on top of X, OpenGL, and Unix.)??

Innuendo · « **Reply #56 on:** September 09, 2007, 06:42 PM »

this: the US implemented a plan to land a person on the moon and saw the plan from realization through to completion in the same amount of time as M$ took to roll out Vista. Makes sense. Have I got it right?
-Darwin (September 09, 2007, 05:25 PM)

Yes, you have it right. I'm sorry if I was too convoluted for people who are not native English speakers.

In all fairness, the thing that causes this slowdown actually makes sense - it should just have been fine-tuned better (like, only kick in when HD content is being played). And it's also not going to affect many people; you're not going to be playing media files on a file server, and I do wonder how many people are doing full-speed file transfers on a gigabit network (as far as I can tell, 100mbit LANs shouldn't be affected by the interrupt moderation imposed).

But yes, that feature should have been tested better, should only kick in when necessary (shouldn't be that hard to detect programmatically; or at least only activate on HD content), etc. I do think it's funny how everybody are overreacting about an issue that's only going to affect a small number of people, and is a pretty easy fix.

Mark's Blog has some sense about all this.

-f0dder (September 09, 2007, 05:23 PM)

The problem is that the problem is not an easy fix and it is not affecting a small number of people. Despite the damage control attempt in Mark's blog real world tests are showing that this flaw is kicking in when the network speed is reaching over 7.5 Mbps or so. As a person with a 10 Mbps internet connection that means I can't perform any substantial downloads or file transfers while listening to something as trivial as an MP3.

To put it another way, XP has no such problems with high-speed network transfers and media playback. Win2K doesn't either. I highly suspect if I took the time to reinstall Win98SE there'd be no limitation there, either. My point is it's an artificial limitation in Vista and isn't the whole point of upgrading to a new OS is to move to something that is more capable than you had before instead of less capable?

Lashiec · « **Reply #57 on:** September 09, 2007, 06:49 PM »

Guys, I updated my post back in the first page to reflect a possible solution and why it would not happen, unless some creative mind there noticed the flaw in the whole redirection thing (maybe Russinovich?) and they decide to implement the given solution in Vista SP1 (hey, they're going to add support for exFAT). The link, to avoid you the hassle of searching around.

I also updated it to prevent someone entering the discussion and reading my misleading first paragraph. Shameless plug over

Armando · « **Reply #58 on:** September 09, 2007, 07:19 PM »

thanks Lashiec!
(BTW : reply #55 (mine) is... out of sync -- it was not sent when it was supposed to be sent -- i.e. after reply #49... Why? I don't know!

)

f0dder · « **Reply #59 on:** September 10, 2007, 04:00 AM »

Innuendo: sounds like your connection is using too small packets then, or the interrupt moderation is being done at a different rate than the various documents say. Or that there's some additional problem.

I stand by my claim that it should be a very easy fix (unless implemented retardedly) - probably as simple as changing a constant (apart for fixing the multi-adapter bug), and that it's a generally good idea for HD video content.

Innuendo · « **Reply #60 on:** September 10, 2007, 09:11 AM »

f0dder, it's not my PC that's the problems. I didn't run the tests. Lots of people all over the internet have, though. I doubt they *ALL* have 'additional problems' with their PCs, especially since there are very reputable people who have conducted these tests and revealed their findings. And as for it being easily fixable, Microsoft has stated that this behavior is by design. So much for a fix coming anytime soon. People have tracked down which service is causing this slow-down. Disable the service and you can't perform any media playback at all. A retarded implementation does look like an accurate assessment at this point, IMHO.

You keep mentioning this is a good idea for HD video content. While I agree, why does this thing kick in when someone plays an MP3...a task that takes up 0.02% CPU load on a modern system? Or when someone plays a 320x200 resolution video file they downloaded off the net 5 years ago? Or...and this may be a more telling question, why am I able to download HD video trailers from the internet, play them, and my network speed isn't affected at all? Microsoft tried to fix something that wasn't broke.

While you are apologizing for MS, though, would you mind letting us in on what happened to that "instantaneous booting" technology Vista was supposed to bring us as well? I can cold-boot an XP system, wait for it to reach the desktop, wait for all my system tray apps to load, and then shut the XP system down and it'll shut off before a Vista-based system cold-booted at the same time will reach the desktop. Of all the new technologies Vista was to bring us & Microsoft promised us all we got was a pretty desktop.

No, while there's a lot right with Vista, there's a lot wrong with it, too, and the complaints about it on the internet go beyond the usual complaints that are common when MS releases a new OS.

f0dder · « **Reply #61 on:** September 10, 2007, 10:13 AM »

Innuendo: by "additional problems", I meant with the service, not people's computers. Easy fixable should perhaps be "easy to workaround", just increase the rate interrupts are being throttled at (I wouldn't be surprised if there's already a hidden registry entry to control this). Yes, would be better only to do the throttling if it's necessary (measure if video isn't decoded fast enough), but it's a nice feature to actually have.

You keep mentioning this is a good idea for HD video content. While I agree, why does this thing kick in when someone plays an MP3...a task that takes up 0.02% CPU load on a modern system?
-Innuendo

Because the thing wasn't designed well enough (seems to be a reocurring event with Vista), and probably because the designers didn't think people running fileservers would use the fileserver for media playback

(with normal framesize, it really shouldn't kick in unless you're on a >100mbit connection, so there's "something wrong" either with people's frame size or the ndis code handling throttling).

why am I able to download HD video trailers from the internet, play them, and my network speed isn't affected at all?
-Innuendo

Well, try full 768p or (ouch!) 1080p H.264 playback... that's a bit different from the normal HD trailers, especially if it's a full-quality codec being used... apperantly the commercial (and fast!) CoreAVC codec does some tricks that speeds up stuff massively, but reduces quality somewhat.

No, while there's a lot right with Vista, there's a lot wrong with it, too, and the complaints about it on the internet go beyond the usual complaints that are common when MS releases a new OS.
-Innuendo

I fail to see much of what's right with Vista, to be honest

- I'd love to have some of the kernel improvements, but all the extra crap they added... well...

Lashiec · « **Reply #62 on:** September 10, 2007, 11:19 AM »

Regarding HD video, the new chips built into the Radeon 24xx and 26xx (Universal Video Decoder) and the GeForce 84xx and 86xx (PureVideo2) contribute in a BIG way to reduce CPU usage when playing high definition video. Particularly the Radeon achieves really low figures without sacrificing quality. And no, their high-end brothers lack this kind of acceleration.

Innuendo · « **Reply #63 on:** September 10, 2007, 11:27 AM »

f0dder, you and I seem to be saying basically the same thing just in different ways. I think the problem with Vista acceptance is a serious one. In times past when MS released a new OS there were always the grumbling curmudgeons stuck in the past who didn't want to do things the new way. This time around teh people grumbling are the programmers (a la Mouser) and the 'experts'.

What disturbs me the most of all the reactions to Vista is my own. I started out with MS-DOS v4.01 and come every MS OS released I upgraded the first day it was available. In some cases I was a beta tester for their OSes and I stuck with the 'new stuff' all through the beta cycle. I love new programs & adore new OSes. In times past I was the guy you'd see on the forums on the net championing MS's latest release. Not with Vista. I tried Vista Beta 1. Then Beta 2. Then RC 1. Then RC 2. Then the release version. Each time Vista has lasted less than 48 hours on my hard drive before I went back to XP. No one wants to love & champion Vista more than I do. I just can't do it. Microsoft has missed the mark this time.

Don't even get me started on pricing. No way is Vista in its current form worth what MS is charging for it.

I've got high hopes for SP1. I hope they fix all the problems & I will be able to back to telling people that Microsoft's latest & greatest is truly the latest and the greatest.

scancode · « **Reply #64 on:** September 10, 2007, 01:11 PM »

I bet this pic explains it all... [source: uncyclopedia]

Innuendo · « **Reply #65 on:** September 10, 2007, 02:59 PM »

scancode, that's similar to one I saw. Same Aero dialog box, but it read "Windows has detected the mouse cursor has moved. (Restart|Cancel)"

darklight_tr · « **Reply #66 on:** September 10, 2007, 03:31 PM »

While I empathize with the issues you are having as a programmer (I can't program at all), I have to say that I LOVE Vista. My Gaming PC and HTPC now run it and it works great.

I don't miss XP at all!

GHammer · « **Reply #67 on:** September 11, 2007, 06:26 PM »

I use Vista, I like it. I will not return to XP.
I had a few apps that did not play well, I cut them loose after a reasonable amount of time after Vista's launch. Reasonable being 2 months. At work, we look forward, we do not buy apps that are not Vista-able, though most the systems are XP for today.

I play a few games, watch a little video, play LOTS of music. I haven't seen all these difficulties that others report. I'm sure they exist, but I don't see them here.

I had a FAR worse time moving to XP than I did moving to Vista. XP did not do well for me until almost SP2 when patches had taken care of most the oddities and stable drivers had appeared for my devices.

Which reminds me, there are still those who will not install SP2 because "All it does is add a lame firewall."

Get on down the road, take the time to get familiar with Vista, spring for new hardware if what you use is not supported in Vista. But get with the 21st century.

f0dder · « **Reply #68 on:** September 11, 2007, 06:30 PM »

Get on down the road, take the time to get familiar with Vista, spring for new hardware if what you use is not supported in Vista. But get with the 21st century.
-GHammer (September 11, 2007, 06:26 PM)

That's so lame - "get with the 21st century". Since everybody loves car analogies... would you buy a flimsy car that travels half the distance of your current car per gallon of gas, just because it's the new model?

Carol Haynes · « **Reply #69 on:** September 11, 2007, 07:35 PM »

Personally I'd prefer any car other than the one I've got at the moment (I just paid £850, ~$1800, for a service as a suspension spring had snapped and I needed new brake pads - JEEEEZ)

Josh · « **Reply #70 on:** September 11, 2007, 07:36 PM »

Exactly, a car can be compared to a computer in that, the longer you keep it, the more it costs to maintain. For a computer, the longer you keep it without upgrading, the more of your TIME it takes to maintain. Upgrading is something everyone must do at one point (when the costs outweigh the benefits).

rssapphire · « **Reply #71 on:** September 11, 2007, 08:53 PM »

I had a few apps that did not play well, I cut them loose after a reasonable amount of time after Vista's launch. Reasonable being 2 months.
-GHammer (September 11, 2007, 06:26 PM)

I still have programs from the 1990s I use. They do the job. They are paid for (both in money and in time to learn them). In some cases they work better for my needs that the latest and greatest versions. In one case, there is no replacement. It does not make good business sense to cut loose something paid for that gets the job done well just because there is something new out there. I run applications on my systems to get my work done. I select my operating systems to run the applications I need -- not the other way around.

Get on down the road, take the time to get familiar with Vista, spring for new hardware if what you use is not supported in Vista. But get with the 21st century.

I run XP and Kubuntu 7.04, both released in the 21st century.

However, I still prefer books to e-books even though printed books are so 15th century. Just call me a Luddite.

rssapphire · « **Reply #72 on:** September 11, 2007, 08:55 PM »

Exactly, a car can be compared to a computer in that, the longer you keep it, the more it costs to maintain. For a computer, the longer you keep it without upgrading, the more of your TIME it takes to maintain.
-Josh (September 11, 2007, 07:36 PM)

My current computer is 4 years old. It takes about the same amount of monthly maintenance time today that it did the month I bought it. I don't expect this to change much.

Armando · « **Reply #73 on:** September 11, 2007, 09:26 PM »

Upgrading is usually sooooooooooo time consuming -- how many times have I made the mistake of upgrading when I should've just use my old apps-OS-computer... Not that this is always the case, but... Josh : I'm not sure your car analogy really works

f0dder's one makes sense though...
And, yes, me too, my old computers do take the same amount of monthly maintenance today than they did before... they just don't run as fast. But we're talking OS here... Not computers...

Darwin · « **Reply #74 on:** September 11, 2007, 09:42 PM »

Get on down the road, take the time to get familiar with Vista, spring for new hardware if what you use is not supported in Vista. But get with the 21st century.

XP is a 21st century OS!