(no subject)
Oct. 23rd, 2009 08:51 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
theweaselkingOooh, I can has desktop. And Your Momma jokes. How odd.
So: Install took *for fucking ever* and had multiple 20+ minute waits, at least one of which was a crash and it only fixed when I yanked the power and rebooted. For the rest, they mostly just lacked progress bars. I am *not* impressed, but I accept that this might be partially due to the fact that my machine is Weird Fucking Shit as far as desktops go.
So far, the desktop looks like Vista. Which is a bad sign, but not unexpected. Am running "Experience Index" score now.
EDIT: Rebooting was very quick and very spiffy. Didn't listen to me when I told it FUCK OFF NO SOUNDS, but got past that quickly!
So: Install took *for fucking ever* and had multiple 20+ minute waits, at least one of which was a crash and it only fixed when I yanked the power and rebooted. For the rest, they mostly just lacked progress bars. I am *not* impressed, but I accept that this might be partially due to the fact that my machine is Weird Fucking Shit as far as desktops go.
So far, the desktop looks like Vista. Which is a bad sign, but not unexpected. Am running "Experience Index" score now.
EDIT: Rebooting was very quick and very spiffy. Didn't listen to me when I told it FUCK OFF NO SOUNDS, but got past that quickly!
(no subject)
Date: 2009-10-31 11:29 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-11-01 03:50 am (UTC)What exactly do you prefer over XP? it has absolutely no big improvements. Even the file manager looks pretty much the same, behaves the same, etc. Waiting so many years just to get a sorta-stable-and-fast-64-bit-OS is just a symptom of how bad things are in the OS market.
The fact that Microsoft couldn't deliver WinFS although they had a total of a decade to produce it is just laughable. And $300 should include *something* like WinFS. And these are the makers of our mainstream OS? Give me a fucking break.
I think it's closer to $50 than $300.
I've got a few computers here, one of them with a quad core i7 and an nvidia quadro fx 1800, using it mostly for maya and 3D work. I see no reason to upgrade vista in that computer. I probably will, but that will not accelerate my render speed, will not fix the annoying file manager issues I have with vista, etc. I don't see any reason for paying extra, even after upgrading one of my notebooks.
I also have an iMac, and, to be honest, I see myself paying extra for a sensible file manager and operating system that is not a total joke (mac) in the near future.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-11-01 04:05 am (UTC)(And: You've got the price of Win7 wrong, too. But that's not the point.)
I think I just said, a minute ago, that there's no reason to update from Vista if you like Vista. I, on the other hand, loathe Vista, and can see a half-dozen security-alone reasons, leaving aside performance reasons, to upgrade from XP.
My other desktop options are Apple TinkerToy Childfriendly RetardOS, where I have no customisation or the slightest hints of semi-decent half-usable interface design, combined with *zero* usable software since all I can use are Mac-compatible (=crap) or BSD-compatible(=even the ultimate loser geeks abandoned it long ago) programs, or Linux, where, while I *could* make a second monitor work, I lack the desire to hand-edit config files to make it do so.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-11-01 07:57 am (UTC)The price of an upgrade is about $110, but that's even worse value - the difference between vista and 7 is less than that. Can't you see they barely touched the interface and kernel? Why do you loathe vista and not 7, if they are pretty much the same thing?
About Apple, I understand your reaction, and I won't discuss it.
The mere fact that there are no other options and that the main option is so crappy is, again, a comment on the state of the OS market.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-11-01 03:25 pm (UTC)The price of a full retail copy is *always* misleading, because nobody buys those. You buy an upgrade or an OEM. And you don't have to upgrade from Vista - your upgrade license works from XP Home/Pro, too.
Can't you see they barely touched the interface and kernel?
The kernel changes in Vista were largely a *good* thing, and a huge step up from XP. The interface changes from Vista-7 are significant - to the point where I doubt you've used both if you think they're "the same". Vista was *slow* and bloated. It took forever to boot and shut down. It made getting at settings and statuses, particularly for networking, a royal nuisance. It "helpfully" started a pile of programs I didn't want and didn't care about, and it ran the hardware ragged even when it was doing nothing.
Win7 is faster than XP, has the Vista security changes that were so important, and doesn't punish me for being a power user. In fact, it gets the hell out of my way and lets me do what I want to do, without argument. That makes it pretty much conclusively better in every way than Vista and better in a lot of important ways then XP.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-11-01 07:45 pm (UTC)I almost never restart the computer so I don't know how fast vista is restarting, but I could easily time it - and I would be surprised if it were more than 2 or 3 minutes. Still, just a slightly faster startup time is not worth a $100 upgrade. Maybe $10.
I don't know what you are talking about slow or bloated. I just don't see it - or how Windows 7 is faster. The UI is almost the same. Aero works almost the same. Where is it bloated, can you please show me one example? Just tell me what to do - I'll record it in my computer or something. Please I'm begging here.
I think you are deluding yourself. Win7 is Vista with a slightly touched up interface and kernel, nothing else. I also doubt you actually have a Nethalem processor if you think vista is "slow" in them.
Just *how* does vista punish you? Sorry, I don't see it. Just disable UAC.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-11-01 07:48 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-11-01 07:52 pm (UTC)I can record this if you don't believe me. With a clock nearby or whatever.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-11-01 07:52 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-11-01 07:57 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-11-01 08:12 pm (UTC)This is a dual core AMD machine, with 4GB of 667MHz RAM.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-11-01 07:55 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-11-01 08:02 pm (UTC)Except people aren't upgrading from Vista, because they don't *use* Vista. They're upgrading *from XP*.
Also: You talk about not seeing any bloat, and also about *using Aero*, at the same time. I do not think that means what you think it means.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-11-01 08:11 pm (UTC)Assuming you are correct, people are upgrading from XP to 7 for marketing reasons. It is my belief that you did, too. Vista is nowhere as different as you would like it to be.
Aero is one of the most visible bloats of vista. Turning Aero off makes a huge difference in usability and overall speed, especially with older computers that support it (the transparency etc are annoying to use in older computers cause the windows seem to DRAG, and they are still present in win7). Other than that, what visible bloat can you name?
(no subject)
Date: 2009-11-01 08:36 pm (UTC)Apparently you didn't read the initial post in the series that led up to this, which is to say that *my RAID ate itself* and XP wouldn't boot outside of Safe Mode. And since I needed an OS reinstall, and because I do this kind of thing for a living, I figured I might as well check out the new thing that's going to be making my life more difficult for the next 5-10 years.
And:
It's faster than XP.
It's cleaner than Vista, with a smaller memory footprint.
It doesn't get "helpful" with gadget bars, or demand that I actually *work* to kill Aero, or give me any shit about killing Windows Media Player the way Vista did.
In addition to being *faster to boot* and *making me turn off less shit* than Vista, I've found getting at Networking settings easier, I've found driver installs to be easier with the exception of the current NVidia fuckery that appears to be Nvidia's fault, and there are some excellent back-end things like swapping the user on a running process without restarting it.
All of these make it an attractive option. Vista was *annoying*. Physically aggravating. Unnecessarily difficult. Shiny, but stupid. Mac-like. 7, so far, has not raised my blood pressure nearly as much as Vista has, and while I had to tweak things to get it the way I like it, I had to do fewer tweaks than XP. Oh, and since it's not 3/4 of a decade old, the installer didn't give me any shit about my RAID or my disk drives or my graphics card.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-11-06 08:10 am (UTC)Windows 7 is not faster than XP. We can benchmark it if you want.
It may have a smaller memory footprint, I'll give you that - I'm not sure that's the case.
Helpful? Now I don't get you. The first thing I did was get rid of the gadget shit - I don't use it on Win7 either (where it's still present but in a slightly modified form!!!) That whole point is moot if you can just disable the gadget shit with 2 clicks.
I'm sure any half-competent techie could have fixed your RAID problem.
About Mac, it got to a point where its UI is faster than Windows'. I think that's pitiful - Windows UI was always much faster.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-11-06 12:22 pm (UTC)And your intimations that I'm incompetent because you didn't read my original explanation for why I reinstalled rather than bothering to event attempt a repair? Fuck you. READ THE POSTS.
You can *actually* read what people are saying and talk *to* them rather than grinding your axe against strawman versions, or you can go fuck yourself and not comment on my journal. Your choice.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-11-06 12:42 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-11-01 08:22 am (UTC)http://www.fcw.com/Articles/2009/10/26/GCN-Lab-Review-Windows-7-Vista-by-another-name.aspx
(no subject)
Date: 2009-11-01 08:21 pm (UTC)THANKS!