Jump to content

Windows Vista rants...


epp_b

Recommended Posts

Looking over the upcoming Windows Vista...I am more than just a little skeptical.Seriously, am I the only one who 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.Honestly, I like the flat grey look. It's simple, not overdone, elegant, efficient and intuitive. The My Computer window looks like a clown exploded.Next, what is with that annoying transparency on the title bar? I'm going to have to be distracted with that all the time? Whatever happened to "focusing on what you want to do in life" mumbo-jumbo or whatever that uber-cliche phrase was? This is the farthest thing from it.Those MIN/MAX/EXIT buttons on the top-right look uneven and ugly. And the file/folder icons? Too fancy for my taste and, again, distracting. I could go on, but I think I might puke soon...And those Virtual Folders? What is this, for the organizationally declined? Seriously, if you don't know how to organize your files properly, then learn how. This is also the problem with digital security: too many people don't have a clue what they're doing and just expect things to work without any effort (ahem, "AOL users"...). If that's the case for you, do the world a favor and go buy WebTV. A computer is an infinitely-flexible piece of technology that is far too complex to just "work".The breadcrumbs only go further to show how much more non-technical Windows is becoming. Hello dumbed-down-system, goodbye security and efficiency (I want my standard filepath with slashes!). This dumbed-down (and slowed-down) approach already began when that annoying cartoon character became part of the Windows search feature (which, by the way, is near completely useless for any efficient and quick extensive searching by now).And don't get me started on the start menu. If/when I finally upgrade (I use that term loosely) to Windows XP, I will immediately revert to the original start menu (not to mention, remove the blue-balloon-bulgy theme, stop unecessary services, kill MSN messenger with a machete, etc.).This is my main beef: the stupid one-fits-all ideal that causes the OS to be unnaturally bloated. Auto-backup? I have my own backup solution, thanks. Ugly-as-a-mutt Windows themes? If I want themes, I'll install them myself. Stop filling Windows with crap that most people will never use!An operating system is NOT a one-fits-all solution in computing. It was, and still should be, a basic piece of software that allows for expandability via add-on software. At the very least, included bloatware should be easily removable without causing problems with left-behind-files, the registry, etc. (oh wait, that's called a Mac). In fact, I think most software should be this way, unless it is highly customized for a specific field. Firefox is a shining example of this. It hosts all of the basic features you'd expect from a browser and is specifically designed to be capable of easily creating and adding on new features via pluggins ("extensions"). Now that's the way things should be.It's been mentioned before, and I'll mention it again: there needs to be a seperate "Technical User" (barebones, made for people who know what they're doing) and and "Average-Joe User" (bloated with all the junk people just love B)) version of Windows.And then there's the DRM side of things... B) ...sigh...[/rant]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 81
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • epp_b

    19

  • Tushman

    13

  • lewmur

    11

  • Rons

    6

Top Posters In This Topic

epp_b, how do you put up with Windows 98's system resource limitations? I was so happy to move to XP from Windows 98. XP has been stable, crash-free, and more rewarding to use than Win 9x for me. In the 3 years I've been using XP I can count on one hand the number of times I've had to reboot because of a bad application. With Windows 98 it was at least twice a week sometimes a day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

epp_b, how do you put up with Windows 98's system resource limitations? I was so happy to move to XP from Windows 98. XP has been stable, crash-free, and more rewarding to use than Win 9x for me. In the 3 years I've been using XP I can count on one hand the number of times I've had to reboot because of a bad application. With Windows 98 it was at least twice a week sometimes a day.

Since I am using my computer continually throughout any given day, I just reboot whenever I get up to go to the washroom, go for lunch, have a short break, get a glass of water, let the dog out, etc. It's really not that bad.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

epp_b, how do you put up with Windows 98's system resource limitations? I was so happy to move to XP from Windows 98. XP has been stable, crash-free, and more rewarding to use than Win 9x for me. In the 3 years I've been using XP I can count on one hand the number of times I've had to reboot because of a bad application. With Windows 98 it was at least twice a week sometimes a day.

I have to agree with Peachy on this. Windows XP may have it's faults, but it is stable compared to 98 or Win2k. :) I've been using Vista Beta 1 since it became available for download. As with any new OS, it takes some time to learn how to navigate the system. And yes, the folder icons when first viewed, are strickenly different. As is the way needed to navigate the system. And 'eye candy' abounds. But this doesn't mean that ALL of these features will be in the final release. B) epp_b - And I agree with you. There should be two versions of Windows - diet and full flavor! B)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

epp_b, how do you put up with Windows 98's system resource limitations? I was so happy to move to XP from Windows 98. XP has been stable, crash-free, and more rewarding to use than Win 9x for me. In the 3 years I've been using XP I can count on one hand the number of times I've had to reboot because of a bad application. With Windows 98 it was at least twice a week sometimes a day.

Seems to me that it is a very sad commentary when your greatest praise for a M$ OS, after close to 20 years of trying, is that it doesn't crash as often as its predecessors. But at what expense?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seriously, am I the only one who prefers the look, simplicity, and feel of Windows 98 over any subsequent Windows operating system?
So it would seem. B) Personally I thought Windows 3.11's look was cleaner and more functional. B)
Since I am using my computer continually throughout any given day, I just reboot whenever I get up to go to the washroom, go for lunch, have a short break, get a glass of water, let the dog out, etc. It's really not that bad.
I used to also but not quite as frequently. With XP I only boot in the morning. It's rare that it crashes. The other day I was creating a bootable CD and rebooting repeatedly to test it and I thought I haven't rebooted this frequently in YEARS!! Not since I upgraded to XP. The hardest part with upgrading to XP was I knew all the various functions I wanted existed in it I just couldn't FIND them. It took me about three days to adjust to it. And I backed out of it twice due to compatibility issues. It was not a smooth upgrade but I'm glad I did upgrade.As for bloated systems, buy a new brand name pc. Good grief!! A diet version of Windows is buying a mainboard, a hard drive and a Windows CD and installing what you want/need clean. Preconfigured machines have so much "free"/sample/trial stuff on them it's unbelievable.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

epp_b, how do you put up with Windows 98's system resource limitations? I was so happy to move to XP from Windows 98. XP has been stable, crash-free, and more rewarding to use than Win 9x for me. In the 3 years I've been using XP I can count on one hand the number of times I've had to reboot because of a bad application. With Windows 98 it was at least twice a week sometimes a day.

Exactly what I was wondering. I read Scot's latest (Aug) newsletter and was surprised to see that there were a few remnants of W98 users out there clinging onto their beloved OS. My guess is that for these people their PC usage/needs are so basic that they haven't felt the pain of using such an outdated OS. I went from 98 SE to ME and hated every minute of it. In 2000, I upgraded my OS to Win2K and have been using it up until a month ago. I now have XP, and like it even more than 2000; if I had the money in my budget, I would have made the transition sooner.I agree Vista may not be perfect yet - but it's still in Beta 1 for crying out loud. The smart thing to do is be patient and wait for the final release before you pass such harsh criticism. Edited by Tushman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Win98 is still useful for more than just basic tasks. I use a lot of appliications for programming and web development that Windows XP would have no advantage over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Win98 is still useful for more than just basic tasks.  I use a lot of appliications for programming and web development that Windows XP would have no advantage over.

You can believe that but it would be a day when 'pigs fly' before you can prove to me that W98 is equal to XP in terms of it's capability of managing memory and system resources.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Win98 is still useful for more than just basic tasks.  I use a lot of appliications for programming and web development that Windows XP would have no advantage over.

I agree. In probably 90% of businesses, there is nothing they can do in XP that they couldn't do in 98. The same can be said for home users. The exception being diehard gamers. Other than making snide remarks about people using "outdated" software, I'd like the XP proponents to name some real FUNCTIONS that XP furnishes to the normal user. And if they say "stability," then had M$ FIXED the BUGS in 98, rather than forcing their users to buy another product, then even that wouldn't apply.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can believe that but it would be a day when 'pigs fly' before you can prove to me that W98 is equal to XP in terms of it's capability of managing memory and system resources.
I never meant to imply that Win98 handles memory and system resources as well as or better than WinXP. I've seen myself that XP can go for a considerable time longer between reboots. There's no argument there.What I was explaining is that -- at least for my needs -- there is no software or application that I cannot have because I am using Win98 instead of WinXP. ...And even if there was, there are more than enough compatible alternatives.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Umm, Photoshop. :D Running applications as services. And yes, better memory management is a big deal. You couldn't run something like VMware without the underlying memory management of Windows 2000/XP. NTFS has better disk management, i.e., working with partitions is a lot easier and flexible than with FAT32.The fact that I don't have to reboot the system after I install an application for the majority of XP software.Better network management tools such as ipconfig, nslookup, etc.Say what you will about IIS, the fact that you can have a HTTP/FTP server running natively in your OS is a boon to web development. Sure beats PWS.The fact that there is a security model in XP, however deficient, is better than not having one in Win 9x. We must remember that the Internet was an afterthought for Microsoft when Windows 95 came out: the default networking protocol was NetBEUI, not TCP/IP!!!!The ability to use HyperThreading processors natively. Not that there's much software to take advantage of it, other than Photoshop.Native remote desktop capability. I love this feature. The fact that I can multitask and run two dozen processes and applications without a hiccup or slowing the system down is worth the upgrade price. I can burn a CD in the background, have WinAMP playing MP3 files, run VMWare, and web browse at the same time is normal usage for me. I couldn't do that in Windows 98. :zorro:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Umm, Photoshop.  :zorro: Running applications as services. And yes, better memory management is a big deal. You couldn't run something like VMware without the underlying memory management of Windows 2000/XP. NTFS has better disk management, i.e., working with partitions is a lot easier and flexible than with FAT32...
Like I said, I don't currently need XP. I can see that you do.Oh, and I hate Photoshop. I use Micrografx Picture Publisher (a.k.a. Corel PhotoPaint). Cheaper, and just as good. Edited by epp_b
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure there is wireless hardware that supports Windows 98.

The whole point is that everything he has mentioned are improvements that would have occuirred as a matter of course had M$ not abandonned 98. No, Win98 doesn't have support for some of the things he mentioned. For the simple reason that they didn't exist at the time when M$ stopped supporting it. Poor memory mangagement was a flaw that could have been fixed without the bloat and overhead that plagues XP.Yes, USB and wireless support aren't native to 98, but drivers are available for both. I use them. But did it require 2.5 gb of bloat to accomplish it? NO!!! Edited by lewmur
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should of said the EASE of wireless connectivity.  :D
OK, perhaps you have a point there. I've never used Wi-Fi on 98, so I wouldn't know.
Anyway, enjoy 98.  :zorro:
Was, is, and will :D
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole point is that everything he has mentioned are improvements that would have occuirred as a matter of course had M$ not abandonned 98.  No, Win98 doesn't have support for some of the things he mentioned.  For the simple reason that they didn't exist at the time when M$ stopped supporting it.
You're kidding, right? :D Remember that Win 9x is built on top of DOS. I would argue that to get the functionnality of the NT kernel would have bloated Windows 98 even more. BTW, XP only requires 1.5GB of bloat! :zorro: Win 9x is a hybrid 16/32-bit operating system. That's its Achille's Heel. Do you really think developing support for 48-bit LBA for hard disks in DOS would be a trivial task? Microsoft realised these limitations back in the early 90s when it was developing NT. It had to create an operating system that borrowed concepts directly from UNIX in order to have extensibility, which XP inherits.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're kidding, right? :D Remember that Win 9x is built on top of DOS. I would argue that to get the functionnality of the NT kernel would have bloated Windows 98 even more. BTW, XP only requires 1.5GB of bloat! :zorro: Win 9x is a hybrid 16/32-bit operating system. That's its Achille's Heel. Do you really think developing support for 48-bit LBA for hard disks in DOS would be a trivial task? Microsoft realised these limitations back in the early 90s when it was developing NT. It had to create an operating system that borrowed concepts directly from UNIX in order to have extensibility, which XP inherits.

Didn't M$ just upgrade XP from 32bit to 64bit in a matter of a few months? And the DOS bit was just so a few people could still play old games. OS/2 solved that problem by giving them a "DOS Box." And XP will run on Fat32. So it isn't the file system that is using the resources. I still say that M$ should have been able to solve their lousy memory management in Win98. Other OS's, such as Theos, Pick and OS/2, did that years earlier.And though you might get a minimum XP installed with just 1.5gb, by time you install a few apps your Windows directory will be consuming 2.5. Not to mention what is being used by Program Files and Documents and Settings. I ran workstations with 98, for years, on 1gb hard drives with room to spare. I have W2K and Office 97 running right now on 2gb drives. By way of contrast, the Live CD for DSL takes less than 60mb and it NEVER gives a BSOD. Edited by lewmur
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And though you might get a minimum XP installed with just 1.5gb, by time you install a few apps your Windows directory will be consuming 2.5. Not to mention what is being used by Program Files and Documents and Settings. I ran workstations with 98, for years, on 1gb hard drives with room to spare. I have W2K and Office 97 running right now on 2gb drives.
No kidding! I've installed Win98SE on a < 500 MB drive plus a 50 or so MB program for rental scheduling.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I recall this thread began as a rant as the original poster claimed there were things he like better about W98 better than Vista (which is still in Beta 1 stage). That's all fine and dandy - although I disagree with his personal views of Vista - he's entitled to them.But what does stink is that this thread has become convoluted to the point now where some people are praising Win98 for it's ability to run on small hard drives. As if they can't find enough merits about Win98 - boy talk about grasping for straws. :zorro: Who the heck cares about small hard drives?? These days, a 20 GB HDD is considered to be on the small side. IMHO, all this talk about WinXP being "bloated" and Win98 being better cuz it can fit on a small HDD is complete bull. The features and security measures built into XP are there for a reason - it's called market/ consumer demand. Call it what you want - you can't possibly have all these features and still have it fit on a 600 MB HDD. Complete nonsense!

And though you might get a minimum XP installed with just 1.5gb, by time you install a few apps your Windows directory will be consuming 2.5. Not to mention what is being used by Program Files and Documents and Settings. I ran workstations with 98, for years, on 1gb hard drives with room to spare. I have W2K and Office 97 running right now on 2gb drives.

What do small HDD have to do with anything? I don't ever recall reading anywhere that Vista claimed it was the "slimed" down version of XP or that it could perform a magic act and somehow fit on a toaster oven hard drive. Edited by Tushman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I recall this thread began as a rant as the original poster claimed there were things he like better about W98 better than Vista (which is still in Beta 1 stage).  That's all fine and dandy - although I disagree with his personal views of Vista - he's entitled to them.But what does stink is that this thread has become convoluted to the point now where some people are praising Win98 for it's ability to run on small hard drives.  As if they can't find enough merits about Win98 - boy talk about grasping for straws.  :zorro: Who the heck cares about small hard drives??  These days, a 20 GB HDD is considered to be on the small side.  IMHO, all this talk about WinXP being "bloated" and Win98 being better cuz it can fit on a small HDD is complete bull.  The features and security measures built into XP are there for a reason - it's called market/ consumer demand.  Call it what you want - you can't possibly have all these features and still have it fit on a 600 MB HDD.  Complete nonsense!What do small HDD have to do with anything?  I don't ever recall reading anywhere that Vista claimed it was the "slimed" down version of XP or that it could perform a magic act and somehow fit on a toaster oven hard drive.

Anyone who dislikes bloat. Bloat doesn't just eat hard drive space, it slows down operation and opens up holes for malware exploits. Everytime there is an advance in hardware, Windows finds a way gobble it up and ask for more. This time around, M$ is even telling people in advance that they'll have to buy the "latest and greatest" to even run Vista.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone who dislikes bloat.  Bloat doesn't just eat hard drive space, it slows down operation and opens up holes for malware exploits.  Everytime there is an advance in hardware, Windows finds a way gobble it up and ask for more.  This time around, M$ is even telling people in advance that they'll have to buy the "latest and greatest" to even run Vista.

There's so many things wrong with that line of reasoning I don't even know where to begin. :zorro: But lets start w/ your last comment - where did you read that MS is forcing people to upgrade their hardware to even run Vista?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still say that M$ should have been able to solve their lousy memory management in Win98.  Other OS's, such as Theos, Pick and OS/2, did that years earlier.
You do realize that OS/2 and Windows NT were developed together at one point and shared the NTkernal yes?At some point it's better to stop spending money repairing an old vehicle and simply start over with a new one. That's basically what MS did with Win98 / Win XP.
No thanks :thumbsdown:I want to control that myself.
I'll bet you drive a standard transmission vehicle for the same reason. Yes? Edited by EdP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll bet you drive a standard transmission vehicle for the same reason. Yes?
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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...