Windows Vista rants...

[lewmur]

You do realize that OS/2 and Windows NT were developed together at one point and shared the NTkernal yes?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh, yes I realize that. That was IBM's second biggest mistake. But not one of the three, OS/2, Windoze or Apple were the "top of the line" at the time. Bill Gates used IBM's reputation to build M$ and then cut IBM's throat. But from a technical stand point, his OS stunk to high heaven. IMHO, it smells even worse today.IBM's biggest mistake was in thinking that a "Personal Computer," was one that sat on a desktop in a Fortune 500 company and relieved the MIS department from having to waste "valuable mainframe time." It was deemed a "Personal Computer" because it was for the executive's personal use. They considered it so insignificant that they broke one of their own cardinal rules. They not only "outsourced" most of the components of the PC to third parties, they did it with "single vendors." And in the case of the OS, allowed the vendor to maintain the copyrights and patents. Both T. Watson JR and SR must have been turning over in their graves!!

[Rons]

BINGO.  My car doesn't have ABS either.  I'm the driver, I control the car.  I'm the user, I should control the computer.  Not the other way around.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Did you disconnect the airbag and remove the sealt belts from your vehicle as well? After all, it just adds 'bloat' to the driving experience. :'(

[epp_b]

Hardy har har

[Rons]

Dell Dimension 2400, Celeron 2.4 GHz, 256MB Ram, 80G hard drive, CD-RW, 17 in. CRT monitor, keyboard, mouse, speakers, and a printer...........oh yeah - they give you Windows XP as well. http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/con...oc=D24VB1&s=dhs$299.00 Food for thought.

[epp_b]

Awk, I would never buy a Dell for myself. At least not until they...A hire support reps that can speak english better than the average parrot, B stop using restore CDs filled with all sorts of junk and locking the XP disc to the machine with the BIOS; and C use standardized equipment instead of their proprietary hardware....speaking of Dell & WinXP, however, I just finished installing XP a customer's computer using this guide on extracting a clean copy of XP. I have to admit, I was rather impressed with how cleanly the entire installation process went and the fact that I had to install NO DRIVERS -- they were all installed at first boot. Now, I don't know if this has something to do with the fact that this was extracted from a Dell restore CD (perhaps this installer isn't as "clean" as I thought), or maybe it's that the drivers for this machine happened to be bundled with the standard XP disc. Either way, I was farily impressed (I'd be more impressed if it were the latter).BUT...after all this raving (yes, I said "raving"), there's a rant coming: this whole thing takes up 2.5GB!!. In comparison, my base installation of Win98SE with drivers 233MB! Now there's some proof of bloat

[Guest LilBambi]

Another XP benefit, wireless connectivity and extended laptop battery life. 

Actually from what I have seen with some of the not so well integrated Wireless Utilities, you often have to let Windows handle wireless connections and the do a very poor job of it unless you are using wimpy 30mW cards and routers, wireless is a disaster in XP.Win98SE works much better with things like 200mW based on say a Proxim chipset. XP notoriously has done a poor job on taking full advantage of signal/quality in many cases...unless you have Seimens Speedstream which handles the wireless side entirely and Windows 'thinks' its a normal network connection, which XP does very well indeed.However, some of the newer Atheros work very well with it ... except that distance issues are still are a problem in rural areas because of XP's poor job of handling getting the most out of wireless signal strength/quality. Yeah, it will hook you up to anything that's available on DHCP, but it may or may not give you good quality/signal strength and will cut in and out being a real nuisance in rural areas.I love that XP is more stable and runs huge bloated programs that I really do love and does it better than Win98SE memory wise. But you can still do most things much faster including booting, in Win98SE ... on an even slower system too.But I would miss things like Konfabulator, TCPView and other things that only run on XP.

[b2cm]

BUT...after all this raving (yes, I said "raving"), there's a rant coming: this whole thing takes up 2.5GB!!. In comparison, my base installation of Win98SE with drivers 233MB! Now there's some proof of bloat

You can customize your XP setup files to be less than 200mb and have an XP installation of only 700mb (less pagefile) drivers included. You'll also have the best-looking classic Windows style/color scheme.

[Tushman]

[lewmur]

You can customize your XP setup files to be less than 200mb and have an XP installation of only 700mb (less pagefile) drivers included. You'll also have the best-looking classic Windows style/color scheme.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It can be done but NOT by the average user. This site was posted in the Water Cooler forum:http://www.litepc.com/xplite.htmlThey claim their software will get the XP install to less than 250mb. Which just goes to prove my point. XP IS OVER 90% BLOAT!!!

[lewmur]

my understanding (he he) is that most of microsoft's products have hoards of 'old' code that they've not removed; it doesn't do anything, but fear that it might leaves it in.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, but Temmu, it can't all be "old code" if the "old code" was only 250mb and the "new code" is 2.5gb.

[lewmur]

You can customize your XP setup files to be less than 200mb and have an XP installation of only 700mb (less pagefile) drivers included. You'll also have the best-looking classic Windows style/color scheme.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I just did a fresh install of XP Pro, installed SP2 and the latest M$ updates. Nothing else installed at all. Total disk usage? 4,717,871,104 bytes!!!

[ross549]

my understanding (he he) is that most of microsoft's products have hoards of 'old' code that they've not removed; it doesn't do anything, but fear that it might leaves it in.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That "old code" is there for compatibility, so Grandma can use WordPerfect 5.1 for DOS!This is actually quite true- MS puts a lot of code in the system simply to make old apps (and obscure ones too) work in the new version of Windows. Bad idea, IMO.

[b2cm]

It can be done but NOT by the average user.

I know what you mean and agree. But then anyone who knows what bloat is and want to get rid of it isn't average.I use nLite to customize XP setup, eliminating drivers, components, services that I don't need. You can also use nLite to slipstream service packs/hotfixes, integrate drivers (the ones that comes with the hardware or their latest versions), set many tweaks, and set up unattend installation. Very nice and simple tool for the somewhat above average user.

[lewmur]

I know what you mean and agree. But then anyone who knows what bloat is and want to get rid of it isn't average.I use nLite to customize XP setup, eliminating drivers, components, services that I don't need. You can also use nLite to slipstream service packs/hotfixes, integrate drivers (the ones that comes with the hardware or their latest versions), set many tweaks, and set up unattend installation. Very nice and simple tool for the somewhat above average user.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

One of the reason for doing the fresh install with no apps was so I could test both nlite and xplite to see which does the better job. I'll post the results but it'll take a few hours.

[b2cm]

I'll post the results but it'll take a few hours.

Please do. I haven't tried XP lite (although I was an 98lite fan and its shell-swap feature).

[lewmur]

Please do. I haven't tried XP lite (although I was an 98lite fan and its shell-swap feature).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Weellll, nLite is much better than XPLite's free version. The prime difference is that it is a "before" app while XPlite is an "after." e.g. nlite is used to create a "Setup" CD with only the "features" you choose NOT to remove. The ability to "slipstream" SP2, Hotfixes and Patches is a very nice feature. I was able to cut the required disk space in half without really researching what I could safely remove.XPLite, on the other hand, lets you "remove" stuff from an existing installation. The 'trial version" didn't allow me to remove a whole lot. (700mb) But the claim is that the "Pro version" will remove all but about 250mb.In conclusion, XPLite might be worth buying for a business that has a few existing workstations it would like to "cleanup." But nLite would be the better choice for someone who builds new boxes or does "from scratch re-installs." Both require some sophistication in knowing what can safely be removed.

[FuzzDuckie]

regarding the comment about those who "hang onto" Windows98....in my father's case...he has no choice BUT to. His machine is over 6 years old (some of you have read my posts regarding various probllems with it). He'd love nothing more than to get a new machine. Problem is....the money isn't quite there and his wife won't let him lol (that may change...I've caught her playing chinese tiles on the Mac here...) Ross why would it be a bad idea to have "Backward compatibility" in Windows for older programs? What should people do when they update their OS then find out that 99% of their programs won't work...go out and buy the SAME programs AGAIN? It would get mighty expensive to have to do this every couple of years.

[DeafBug]

If you have a problem how bloated XP is, then why don't you run XPLite. Fred Langa mentioned it in Information Week one time. He really got it slimmed down.

Edited August 16, 2005 by DeafBug

[ross549]

  Ross why would it be a bad idea to have "Backward compatibility" in Windows for older programs?  What should people do when they update their OS then find out that 99% of their programs won't work...go out and buy the SAME programs AGAIN?  It would get mighty expensive to have to do this every couple of years.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is not the backward compatibility that is the issue......Let us say you have a very old program, such as Publisher 97. Let us also assume that newWindows is slightly incompatible with that particular program, even though Microsoft says that all programs written for win32 will run on newWindows. Microsoft will build a special patch for that ONE program to make it run on newWindows! I do not know how many patches for program compatibility exist, but I bet it is at least in the hundreds. Imagine how much bloat is added that way! It is not the backward compatibility.... it is the really old windows and DOS programs that people hang onto that cause the problem. Microsoft will not make those old programs obselete, because that would end up costing them in sales. Think of the changes that have occured in the windows platform since Windows 95. We have even gotten an entirely new kernel- imagine the incompatibilities that exist, and the patches that must be there to make older programs work! Edited August 16, 2005 by ross549

[Tushman]

Ross why would it be a bad idea to have "Backward compatibility" in Windows for older programs?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Backward compatibility itself is not a bad thing. You misinterpreted what Ross was saying.First you have to understand that Win3.x was a 16-bit OS - Win9X was a hybrid of the two (16 bit/ 32 bit) in essence because MS wanted users to be able to run their 16-bit applications. Win98 has a translation feature that can interpret 16-bit code into 32 bit data bits that the OS can understand and visa versa. But that backward compability comes at a price - it makes for a much less efficient program and things can go wrong.Another reason why Win98 is not so great has to do with the inherent limitations in Win98 related to memory management and system resources and again - it all relates back to backward compability. The fact that Win98 can only retrieve a certain amount of data from RAM at a given time, and manages user heaps with a fixed 64 KB, it all boils down to the fact that Win98 is a limited OS when you compare it to Windows 2000 or XP. What I've given you is a very basic/ simple outline - there's much more detailed information you can find on the internet if you search on Google.In an ideal world, you want the backward compability plus the stablity and robustness of Windows NT. Hence, XP was born. Edited August 16, 2005 by Tushman

[Scot]

I realize that this thread has moved away a bit from the original complaint, but as someone who is running Windows Vista, I think a few words may be in order:1. The Windows UI has not changed dramatically since Windows 95. The differences between Win 95, 98, and ME are completely minor. Windows XP was the first OS to merge things going on in Win 9x and in NT/2000. I think Microsoft messed up the network stack UI pretty terribly. I told them so at the time. But, besides that, you quickly adapt from 98 to XP. Millions of people have done it. It has not become the huge support/training boondoggle that some people predicted. When you actually use all these variants of Windows, as I have, and many others have, it's ... really ... no big deal.2. Before you fly off the handle about Windows Vista based on screenshots (and I'll be doing some screencasting on this in the near future), it is very early days for Windows Vista UI. Many of the user features haven't even been detailed by Microsoft yet, nevermind incorporated in the current code. From that perspective, Beta 1 is more like a late alpha. Don't draw conclusions yet. I presume you have seen my August newsletter preview of Vista. Read it yes, but this ain't the final deal. And some of the crazy stuff will get pushed off the side of the boat.All that said, I do think that Windows Vista has the potential to truly piss off some of us who've been at this for a while. For example, in Beta 1, you can't search any files but your data files. You can't search the Windows directory or any of its subdirectories. That had *better* not be the final workings for search. I don't think it will be.There are some more advanced interface structures, virtual folders, stacks, lists, and auto-lists. These are data visualization tools, and you can find stuff like it in products like X1 and Blinx and other desktop search products. Microsoft is going to have to work these things into the user interface in a way that isn't going to get in our way.There are already, though, a lot of minor usability fixes in Vista that you won't see written about. Little things, like, when you click, pause, click (or press F2) to rename a file, the File extension part of the filename (if visible) isn't automatically highlighted. So it's not a PITA to rename the file without renaming the extension. Vista will be the most ambitious UI upgrade since Windows 95. And you need this kind of change every 10 years or so. But that doesn't mean you'll necessarily hate it. But what we see now -- it's not even close. It's not close enough to even have a real opinion about.And for all of you who think it's a sad comment that a 20-year-old desktop OS's main claim to fame is that it finally became reliable? The alternatives have either all disappeared, or haven't been on the desktop for 20 years. When Windows was first being developed in the late 80s, our choices on the the desktop were CP/M, TRS-DOS, Apple OS, DOS, Atari, and well before Windows 3.0 launched, the Mac. DOS was pretty D*** reliable, actually. You just weren't productive in it. And that describes most of the others.So long as there are two or more computer users on the planet, there is no perfect OS. It's personal preference. Vivre la différence!-- Scot

Edited August 22, 2005 by Scot

[Tushman]

Good post Scot.I gave up trying to bring the thread back on focus as some people were quite insistent upon steering this thread into a direction which I felt it wasn't anywhere near pertinent to the original topic. Whatever, if they wanna keep using it [Win98]- to each his own - as you say.Compared to some of the MODS here, I am a 'youngin' as you might say to the world of computing. Although I started using PCs at a very young age, I didn't own my first one until 1999. Over time, as I started participating on these types of forums, I soon learned that there were many users out there who lashed out at MS for no good reason other than the fact that it was popular to jump on the "Lets bash MS" bandwagon. After all, when you're #1, everybody wants a piece of you. Because of this, I do think MS gets a fair amount of undue "bashing". Of course MS isn't perfect, nor have they always listened to their customers. Certainly I have my own personal list of grievances against MS - but it's not based on irrationale or just because someone told me their PC crashed. For example, its only because I've started to officially work on PCs as a technician that i've come to realize how woefully lacking Win ME is compared to the other Windows flavors. Prior to that, i didn't like it because of all the freeze up and sluggishness I experienced as an end user.There's a big difference in evaluating an OS as an end user vs. programmer vs. system admin vs. ...the list goes on. You get the picture. Despite the flaws in XP, I do believe XP was the biggest boon for MS proving they could get Windows RIGHT for a change (with W2K being a very close 2nd). I sincerely hope MS keeps the train moving int he right direction with Vista as far as progress goes.Personally for me, i've been reading so much about this past couple of years that the bubble has burst for me a bit. I'm more interested in what the next OS - after Vista - will be like. The new file format (WinFS) is definitely gonna be interesting to see.

Edited August 17, 2005 by Tushman

[havnblast]

I agree, winXP finally made the OS for microsoft.

[b2cm]

some people were quite insistent upon steering this thread into a direction which I felt it wasn't anywhere near pertinent to the original topic

The 'original' topic was UI and 'bloat' (with Windows 98 as reference). Epp's preamble:

prefers the look, simplicity, and feel of Windows 98 over any subsequent Windows operating system? (OK, maybe with the exception of Windows 2000). Don't get me wrong, Windows 98SE has it's share of bloating, but it's nothing compared to the craving for Tums that Windows Vista induces.

[epp_b]

1. The Windows UI has not changed dramatically since Windows 95. The differences between Win 95, 95, and ME are completely minor. Windows XP was the first OS to merge things going on in Win 9x and in NT/2000. I think Microsoft messed up the network stack UI pretty terribly. I told them so at the time. But, besides that, you quickly adapt from 98 to XP. Millions of people have done it. It has not become the huge support/training boondoggle that some people predicted. When you actually use all these variants of Windows, as I have, and many others have, it's ... really ... no big deal.

I will have to respectfully disagree. I'm pretty sure that Windows XP's UI is formed no differently than Windows 95, 98, ME or 2000. The only difference it (and Windows 2000) has from the 9x line is that the "grey" UI is a subtle tone brighter. The blue bulgy UI is nothing more than a theme Micro$oft happened to implement and use as the default. Is it any wonder using the "classic view" causes everything to magically run faster?

some people were quite insistent upon steering this thread into a direction which I felt it wasn't anywhere near pertinent to the original topic

....

I realize that this thread has moved away a bit from the original complaint, but as someone who is running Windows Vista, I think a few words maybe are in order:

Hmmm...somehow my rant threads always seem to turn into Windowz warz :DOff topic (yes, I know...): I am away from home now and using an eMac with OS-X, and I will give credit where it is due. Mac is form over function. For example, if I were not in a public setting right now, I would give into my sudden urge to yell at the top of my lungs: "I WANT MY BLINKIN' KEYBOARD SHORTCUTS!!!". Whatever keyboard shortcuts there are make no logical sense. I'm using Safari now and everything in this browser has slowed to a crawl just because of a few animated GIFs (the smilies). The UI is too much and just plain distracting. The icons are huge, ugly, and over-detailed...for goodness sakes, I'm not blind! Simply put, it takes twice -- make that quadrupal -- the time to do something the same as I would do on my 98 box at home. Oh, and I hate this stupid oven mit mouse.If there's one thing Micro$oft did right, it's function over form. Windows Vista seems to be adding too much form -- Scot, can you say if there is at least going to be an option to revert to "Classic View"?

[Guest LilBambi]

Hey Scot! Great to see you back from the early new baby days Baby's sure are wonderful things ... but it's always an interesting time too, huh? ;)I hear you on all the items you posted about. I have only one small quibble ... OS/2 was a very viable option for quite awhile too. And it was if I remember my reading about it, and I did try it in the early 90s (and was impressed with it except for the price tag), it was the first true 32-bit multi-tasking operating system. Quite an accompishment and I am sorry to hear they have done away it it ... it was on all the ATMs for many years till they, IMHO, foolishly moved to Windows for ATMs.

Edited August 18, 2005 by LilBambi

[b2cm]

It's better to suspend judgment until at least the Beta 2 folks have taken their good look.

[Tushman]

It's better to suspend judgment until at least the Beta 2 folks have taken their good look.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Beta2? More like RC1 or 2 in my eyes.Considering how many changes "Longhorn" (now Vista) has gone through already my feeling is that MS will be feverishly working on this right uptil the very moment it releases the final version upon the mass. Edited August 19, 2005 by Tushman

[sarah Tu]

I've been using Windows XP since the day it came out. I never got into Win 98. I jumped from 95 to XP and never looked back. I'm getting into Linux - but I'll always have XP in my toolbag - because it's just too useful and too good to give up, and because I 've got 4 years invested in it.XP has improved too. From XP through SP1, then SP2 - I can't remember when I last had a crash or a BSOD. There's talk of an SP3 by year's end. I love my XP and can't see me going to Vista for a long time - if ever.(The hype before the release of Win 95, should have been saved for XP. In future, I think XP will be seen as Microsoft's crowning achievement - before the fall...).

[greengeek]

All this fuss about an OS that's not even released yet!!! OK, I'll shutup and go back to my Mac and Linux machines.