Save XP! - Page 5

Last message on previous page:
How about DRM DRM DRM. Enough said. If you like it, then use it. It offers me nothing but bloat. I did use RC1 and it ran fine, the little I used it. I don't buy OEM PCs so I don't have to worry about them foisting Vista on me. Since it offers nothing at all over XP and does have plenty of negatives, then I choose not to use it. If you really want to understand Vista then see this video, it explains it all in great detail. Make sure you watch it to the end.

Important Vista Information

And you think windows 7 won't have DRM? Think again.

It was a joke. Get it? I can't believe you analyzed it. Although, truth in humor.

Defender is better than antivirus? Are you kidding? That is exactly why I would never ever ever go to the Geek Squad for advice. And now you understand the joke about the Geek Squad, you gave me the punch line. I will agree Norton is crap, but I bet the Geek Squad recommends it all the time, or do you guys recommend Mcaffee, worse crap. Have you ever looked into alternative Antivirus software? Maybe you could try AVG. It is free for personal use, has a small footprint, and works quite well. There are several other excellent free antivirus programs as well.

Free AVG, are you kidding? That POS has made a ton of money for Best Buy/Geek Squad. 90% of the people who come in for Virus/Spyware removal are either using AVG (free not pro) or nothing. I'm not sure which is worse. We ALWAYS recommended Trend Micro AV as far as AV software that we sold (obviously BB is not going to recommend something it doesn't sell). Near the end of the time I was working there we started to carry Kasperspky and there was a big push to make to start recommending that. The only draw back to that was that it was difficult to keep in stock and was a little more expensive then the software we bundled with various services. As far as Norton and McAfee even us unfortunate souls at Geek Squad know how much they suck. We'd even tell their sales reps that when they came in. They usually agreed with us. Anyways like I said I never use any of that crap anyways. Isn't that one of the great touts of Linux/Mac users - that they don't need it? With XP I would run into an occasional problem and would have to clean up. But between Defender and IE7 I've yet to have a single issue and with no noticeable foot print. I didn't even release that I had defender on for a while. I've turned it off for benchmarking and like Windows Sider bar there's no difference on or off.

Gotta love the the personal attacks from the guy with the screen name BBKNIGHT, one of the biggest scum bags in US sports. Might as well just call yourself JOHNROCKER. If that's your real name I'm sorry but I'd seriously consider getting it legally changed just to avoid any confusion.

Hey bobbknight, since this is all way over my head maybe you can fill me in on how we're all supposed to think in online forum land (or at least pretend to think to avoid ridicule).

Is it ok to hate Vista but still like XP? or do we have to hate anything MS?

Is any comercial software acceptable, or should we only claim alligence to open source?

Which CPU manufacture is ok to like this year, AMD or INTEL?

Is it ever acceptable to us a GeForce 8600? What about *gasp* aa 8500 or 8400?

I use an cheap Ultra PSU, am I going straight to hell?

I play EA Sports games, does that automaticly revoke my gamer identity?

I drive a domestic car ... oh wait that's another forum.

Totally hear you there killer. Just for fun I made a video of doing something similar to what you described, albiet on a kind of crappy system. here's a link.
http://www.purplerat.net/?center=vista_doesnt_suck.php It gets a little choppy, but only when recording with fraps. I haven't gotten around to doing the same on my main system.

Considering that it was well known that DX10 games weren't coming out unitl the end of 2007, and those would still mostly be DX9, buying Vista for that reason alone was pretty foolish on your part.

You don't have to be a mind reader. I thought you had it wrong so I checked the previous posts to be sure. Don't believe me, read them yourself. It is glaringly obvious. I'm just saying that you appear to be a little overly sensitive about your avatar.

My AVG updates once a day sometimes even more if you manually check, which I do. So I don't understand why they would have been out of date. I'm guessing that the people you dealt with probably don't know how to turn the update off. My old Norton, God help me, would only update once a week on wed or thu I think.

You really should download a copy of free kaspersky or AVG or something. You can get viruses from anywhere, although I haven't gotten a virus, or notification thereof, in years.

Also, Linux and Mac are not immune to viruses, there are just less viruses for them. Less bang for the virus writing buck. I do admit, as a result they are safer than Windows. Macs no longer immune to viruses

What truth is in that video? The implication that Norton and McAfee are good? Really don't see much off what makes one browser better then another, as long as they display pages, which I've had more issues with Firefox then IE. For some reason when I've recently used Firefox on Linux, it doesn't really seem to like youtube, or really any imbedded video for that matter. But I really don't use it so maybe it's something else. Never have any issues with IE not doing what it's supposed to. I'm not quite sure why people think it's so bad or Firefox is so much better.

to bad that trick only works on some sites. All it does is to save you the hassle of having to click the top result of the search page and takes longer then just typing the correct URL. I prefer actually having a choice when I mis type a url rather then being forced to whatever. Try missing a P in APPLE. It niether takes you to apple nor to a search page.

typing microsoft doesn't even get you to www.microsoft.com
'google' only takes you to Google in the sense that it's a search page for google

C'mon that's a funny twist on that line. Yes, you do have to get the name right or how the he!! is it going to know where you want to go. It's not psychic. I loathe being redirected because I didn't type .com at the end. I'm so use to not having to do that, it pisses me off when I am forced to use IE. I didn't get my understanding of Defenders efficacy as an antivirus program from that video, but that is one of it's truths. Defender use to be called Windows AntiSpyware it is an adware/spyware program. I'm getting tired of the Defender argument. Use it if you want but don't think for one second that it is an antivirus program. Here is a link, I hope this puts the issue to bed.

PC World - Windows Defender 1.1 Review

Ya know that song from "Annie Get Your Gun" ?

"Anything you can do, I can do slower" should be the theme of every new MS OS. It's always been the case.

Win95 was 40% slower than W4WGs; nothing has has changed since. Win2k was slower than NT4 on same hardware, XP was slower than Win2k on same hardware, Vista is slower than XP on same hardware. Sure, if you have the hardware horsepower, you can get Vista to run acceptably, but the simple fact remains, that same hardware will run XP faster than Vista.

Of course MS has gotten slick to make it not appear to be slow.....the "learning process" (superfetch) for example....all it does is preload parts of programs before you are ready to use them....the same way everything since WinNT loads part of IE during boot up so it appears to load faster when you have finally clicked the button....smoke and mirrors. So if it expects you to load up Adobe Photoshop it will preload part of that....so when you go to load PS, you are amazed at how fast it starts.....but if instead you open up AutoCAD, now it's gotta unload Photoshop outta of memory and load AutoCAD making that take longer than it normally would. Why not put every program you might use in your startup folder.....no waiting !!!!! Just don't try to do much with any one program while all the others are open.

Think about reality.....RAM and available system resources is a zero sum game....if superfetch is going to preload parts of your programs cause it thinks you might want to use them, what's happening ? the same thing that happens with IE in Win2k and XP......IE loads fast cause half of it's loaded already when ya push the button. But meanwhile your whole system is dragged down because memory and other system resources are being consumed by a program you are not even running. If you are a robot and do the same things each day at the same time each day, then superfetch works for you. If not, turning it off will undoubtedly test better no matter what bench you run as more system resources will be available. More about how much resources it consumes and turning it off here:

http://www.mydigitallife.info/2007 [...] uperfetch/

Vista may shrink the difference if and when hybrid HD's ever start providing their promised performance boost but so far that hasn't quite happened. But as of yet, I have not found a single site which has published benchmarks showing Vista outperforming XP on the same hardware.....any hardware.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/0 [...] page4.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/0 [...] age11.html
\http://www.regdeveloper.co.uk/2007/12/04/vista_vs_xp_tests/
http://www.news.com/Windows-XP-out [...] 20201.html

BTW, that last link states:

"Microsoft has had to allow PC manufacturers to continue to sell XP on new PCs, setting a deadline for the last sale at January 31. However, the pressure from manufacturers and consumers has been so great that Microsoft has been forced to extend the deadline another five months, until June."

This isn't anything to pick on Vista about...each new OS adds more services running in the background which simply leaves less resources left for applications. Let's look at what's running in each version:

Home Basic ~ 121 services
Home Premium ~ 125 Services
Business ~ 125 Services
Ultimate ~ 130 Services
\
120 - 130 services ? doing what ? Who need all these things running ?

Well the answer to those questions is here:

http://www.blackviper.com/WinVista/servicecfg.htm

they provide a good listing of what can be kept, what it does and what can be disabled including utilities to do it all for you depending on your particular situation.

The deal with OS upgrades is simply......if you buy hardware that is 100% more hardware horsepower with your new OS, you will go 20% faster than your old machine.

While I admit that Vista does look pretty, everyone I know who has Vista, has had a lot of hassles with it, especially hard core gamers. Of course, whenever a new OS comes out, there are bound to be glitches. XP had its fair share, but they are for the most part ironed out now. A very common comment from Vista apologists is that if you have problems with Vista, you must be using outdated hardware. Well, of course. If you want to have current, state of the art hardware, you have to be constantly rebuilding your system to get all the latest parts. But guess what! Not everybody needs to, wants to, or can afford to spend all their time and money constantly upgrading computer hardware. Some of us just want to play Oblivion at 50 fps, with ultra high rez, and don't need to be at the bleeding edge all the time. For some of us, good enough is just fine. So now Microsoft comes out with a bloated glitchy OS and expects that everybody will just go out and buy that $500 DirectX10 graphics card, so the game they played just fine last week, will still run at the same speed. Large organizations just love spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to buy liscences for a new OS after having just upgraded their computers last year. Sure, what the hell, just chuck some more money at Bill Gates. Eventually, everyone will naturally move over to Vista, but Microsucks is impatient. They want to kill XP so you have to chuck some more money at them right now. And they wonder why people pirate software, switch to Linux, buy a Macintosh, etc.... oh, and don't get me started on Mac computers.......

It's funny how there's very little push towards upgrading to Vista, but yet so many people are so offended by it's very existance. If your hardware is not good enough for Vista then use XP. It's still around and easy to find and it will be supported until Windows 7's successor is released. I play Oblivion at 60fps (would be higher w/o Vsync) at max settings on Vista, but yes I do have decent specs. But as a "Vist apologist" I've never once recommended that somebody upgrade an XP system to Vista. Even while working at Best Buy and could have made a sale I've talked many people down from trying to upgrade old systems to Vista. But that doesn't make Vista bad. It is what it is - an OS for new and future PCs.

Also to the "Vista uses a lot of your memory": True it does use a lot of RAM while idle, but with 2GB of RAM you'll still almost never use a 100%. 4GB - forget about 100% usage for any normal app. So it really doesn't have much impact on performance.

I'm running Vista Ultimate 64 with an X2 6000+ and 4gig of ram. It runs great, looks great, and doesn't crash.

Automatic startup services: 49. That includes 3rd party stuff like AVG and what not. 60 running currently.

If you want some insight into Vista from the people that actually made it, check out http://channel9.msdn.com/ and you'll get it straight from the horses mouth. Lots of good video interviews with the developers/architects ect.

Enough with the video.

I believe that there was a moment when everyone thought Vista was going to have an antivirus and then they decided to release it through Windows Live OneCare instead. Wise move too, can anyone say antitrust lawsuit?

Additionally, Vista was blocking access to the kernel that was needed for the antivirus companies to integrate properly. See Vista changes lock out antivirus makers. Or maybe he was just jacking up Defender, which he should. They call it DCS for a reason.

I don't know what was in the mind of Dean Opperman when he made the video, but it was probably one of those two.

Edit: A little more info on Vista, it's a year old Technology News: Security: Vista: A False Sense of Security?

This discussion keeps running all over the place. You keep coming back to the GD video and trying to pick it apart. I was just answering your question about why they might have said MS removed all virus protection. They did lock down the kernel so tight that the antivirus companies couldn't get in, and it didn't fly, not for lack of trying on MSs part. It appears that MS has relented and is giving them the information to be able to integrate properly. If MS had it their way no one would be able to integrate, only to make it safer of course. Yeah right.

My whole point is that I don't like the implementation of the DRM and the good old trusted computing. I mean I really don't like it, enough to take a stand and not give them any money. If more people did the same, then MS would have no other choice but to remove it. I know that idea is a fairytale. I'm seriously pissed by the DRM thing, coupled with the fact that there is absolutely no benefit to having Vista, so there is no reason to use it. They can pound sand, and all this minutia that we have been discussing has no bearing on it at all.

MS is not a benevolent company, they could care less about the consumer or anyone else for that matter. They are in pursuit of the almighty dollar at all cost. I'm not saying that other companies are any different. I just don't want you to think that they care at all about anything, unless it negatively affects their bottom line. And they will do anything, and crush anyone, that they can get away with to improve the bottom line.

This is not the big evil company speech you were talking about earlier either, it's just the way it is.

I'm glad you like Vista, use it. Vista works, I just don't like MSs tactics specifically relating to DRM. MS has been and will continue to be number one on the block and Apple has been attacking them in their elitist fashion since day one, that hasn't changed with Vista. If it's any consolation I would rather have Vista than a MAC. I don't like using a mouse while wearing a mitten, and their commercials aren't very funny.

Enjoy your Vista.

No way are their lame commercials funnier than the one I posted. DRM has a lot if things in it that really pig up the PC and make it potentially unstable. Read/listen to these. They are old and not 100% accurate, but 95% is close enough.
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut [...] _cost.html
http://www.grc.com/sn/SN-074.htm Audio Interview With Peter Gutmann

Now who has opened a can of worms.

I'm not at all arguing in favor of DRM. If it made my PC unstable I would probably know it (like when rootkits were the hot thing) and would be making a much bigger fuss out of it.

I don't believe the DRM has been fully activated yet. Sneaky aren't they, who woulda thought?

By the way, we knew about the effects rootkits because we had a base line (before and after). With Vista all we have as the base line is XP.

Also, I don't remember Rootkits necessarily making the PC unstable or even slower for that matter. Maybe they did, I really didn't pay attention. I know I dislike and don't trust Sony though.

Did you use the links to see what is waiting to rear it's ugly head?

I know Rootkits are bad news for security, I did read about the whole back door etc. mess. I just don't remember anyone talking about stability/performance issues.

You obviously haven't read the Gutmann article or listened to the audio. If you do that then you will know what problems I have.

I will not get into a discussion of DRM piece by piece. This discussion has already been winding it's way all over the place. Just look at the links.

I know the DRM thing is here to stay but it still pisses me off. All I want is for MS to add another version of Vista that doesn't playback DRM protected media and doesn't have the DRM pigsh!t in it. Don't worry, I have no illusions of that ever happening. XP anyone?

Actually I think third is some sort of 3rd world edition of Vista that might fit your needs Zorg.