Columns Chicks dig RAM

That's because folders ARE a horrible choice. The filesystem should be transparent to users. Folders should die - everything should be thrown in a stuff folder and be tagged and indexed to death. The only "folders" users would see are smart folders that grab anything of a certain type, tag, size, or content. It's how I do email (well, did, until my IMAP flipped out) - tag stuff, and dump everything into an archive folder. All of my other folders are just, in effect, saved queries.

The technology is all there to make it happen. Machines are fast enough that we can make this work without spending hours crunching through nonsense and doing full-drive sweeps instead of just having a massive but relatively simple database of keywords and content with a simple search interface that writes all of the complex queries. Tags are becoming prevalent enough - at least with the younger and more tech-savvy, that dumping the whole C:\ notation wouldn't scare the hell out of everybody. If you're searching by pics on facebook or something, you go to the users who've been tagged in them or who took them. You don't try to remember IMG_4820.jpg or /Users/Firehed/Pictures/Aperture Library/(more inane crap)/AwesomeSunset.CR2.

There's a lot of good stuff that's going on under the hood of the latest operating systems - Windows, Mac OS, and the Linuxes alike. I didn't buy two gigs of RAM to keep 1.5GB idle and make me feel good. If a program runs faster by using it, then by all means - that's why it's there. If the OS wants it and some other app can't make better use of it, I don't give a damn.

The only resource I should ever have to think about is my free hard drive space. The OS should be able to manage everything else effectively enough that I don't see massive slowdowns from poor memory management. If I've hit the hardware's limits, fine. My experience with both OS X and Vista is that they'll take what they need for the general UI but are pretty good about giving it up to Photoshop if need be. Same with Firefox - I don't care if it takes 300MB of RAM (no, I don't think it should, but that's irrelevant) so long as it'll give it up to Final Cut or whatever else that can make use of the resources. If it takes 300MB for the best web browsing experience, that's fine by me if all I'm doing is browsing at the time.

 

i been using XP from when it has been out and have always been happy with it as long as SP2 is installed its as secure Vista

when i went from Win98 to XP it was very stable fast as well and most of my programs worked right (my older ms-dos games did not work but did not really an problem any way) the requirements to run XP are not to bad PC with 256 will run XP but 512mb should be the min 1gb recommended 2gb gaming

XP to Vista the requirements it needs to run smoothly is allot wider,
1gb ram is min requirements 512mb ram is unusable = slow PC Before you even bother to install any Active running programs (MSN/anti virus so on) even then with 1gb ram system can be an little slow in some cases
2gb is whats needed to keep vista happy all programs should work OK apart from the ones that do not work at all (not recommended for gamers with high Quietly settings you Run out of ram / game will stutter allot)
3gb/4gb is what i recommend for min requirements with Vista for gaming, Most games will be Preloaded with 4gb ram (Super-fetch) so thay start an little faster
Dual core should also be an min as well when running vista or any PC really now but single core will be OK but can be an little slow but system speed is allot better on dual core

there are lots of things thay have put in vista but thay should of built on top of XP and improved the security instead of Braking allot of stuff

Vista overall
i got Vista 64 for an bit seems quite stable, Sleep and hibernate is an little unstable (BSOD but think its been related to Nvidia in the past), Sound is unstable some times when 2 programs want to use the microphone (prob due to Creative + M$ poor driver support), Super-fetch works well but you have to consider heavy hard disk use until it has filled the ram {i recommend Setting super-fetch to Delayed start in services so hard disk is not bogged down at start up unless you got 2-4 hdds in RAID 0}, overall Video performance is Less on vista then XP in game video settings need to be less then XP for my self that problem should be resolved with an faster CPU, GPU power is not the problem at this time (8800GTX), UAC is OFF to annoying at this time, control panel will completely confuse new users who have switch from Any of the last 4 windows OS

another performance Problem later on in vista life is i am seeing as well with Vista Security limiting, is Programs that Need admin rights what thay are doing is running them as an Service that does not exit or starts with the PC so you have like an driver,service,Norm running program to monitor it (ad-aware, Punkbuster, others)

networking is the next problem, why make an windows that is not completely compatible with other windows, win95 to XP/2003 all of them have no problems seeing each other, Vista network layer is an mess if it does not work its an format and reload as i had 2 PCs that was the same but the first one would not see Any computers on the network apart from the other vista computer but the other vista computer could see all the others, also there is NO network wizard to quickly get the network shares setup right like there is on XP you have to go tho 3-5 UAC box's to get it going
now i wonder why company's are Not considering to upgrade to vista any more i even told them that the two PCs should of came with XP but dell says XP will not work with any software soon, ****s the software thay use is more likely Not work with vista.... next time i going to bring copy's of XP with me or tell them to return them and get PCs with XP on as i wasted all day getting 2 computers running{turning into an rant there} the cost to company's is to much as thay have to pay to workers to tell them where the new start button is, + thay probably have to upgrade software that cost Allot

the Only reason i can see any one wanting to run vista is DX10 (that sucks at the mo),
its more secure but clicking continue = security Gone and thats what norm users do M$ did not Force users to tell them what the UAC does so thay click continue all the time and soon as you get somthing like mallware on the pc it norm Brakes vista and an Format and reload is requred

i know its an long post this is but its how i used the last bunch of pcs and my own
-----------------
windows and Linux
simple things that are simple on windows are not on linux
i want to play an Mp3 file seems easy on linux it is once you put the right files on (ubuntu its restricted codex somthing)
now i want to play Streams thats not so easy and not automatic when trying to play them
linux cant get virus as easy windows does due to the protection with root but most do not bother as linux is not the Mass user base
i like linux but in 7 years its not moved on (ok it has an little the installer is now GUI and has an mouse, and its alot easyer to install programs due to automated install programs {DEP and RPM files i think})

but thay need to sort out basic Norm use that an Home user would do on the pc before we can even use it normaly the second the user needs to use Command lines its out of the space of an norm users i can get my head around my self but i know my way around search and linux cmd but i should not have to wast 3-5 hrs to get simple things working (adding and HDD is fun an 2-3 min job on windows on linux never realy did get the disk to work as i could not get the securty of the disk set right as there was No help on the chmod command and the GUI in KDE was locked out and would not let me chage it that way as well)

 

Honestly..for all of you complaining about how the visual effects in Vista slows down performance. Or talk about how you don't like the visual effects...have any of you realized YOU CAN TURN THEM OFF and make it look EXACTLY like XP or win2K

I do not like the people who comment on the OS when they haven't lived with it or really know how to use it. I've been using it since December, my biggest complaint is the lack of software/hardware support thus far. But like all new OS's it will come with time. I think it'll be best for the average Joe to stay away from it for another year.

P.S. IF there is a feature in Vista you don't like...you can almost always find a way to turn it off. If you are unable to turn it off, I say you don't know enough about the OS to have it turned off!

 

I don't doubt that vista offers a decent set of updates and new features over xp and I don't doubt that the higher system overhead will be trivial two even one year down the road, however at the current moment if it isn't broken why fix it? I'm running xp and it does what I need it to do, runs the programs I need, security etc hasn't been an issue. I relate it like this. cars come out in new models every year but if your 2001 Ford pick-up truck still works just fine, is there a reason to go out and buy a new 2007 model just to get a slightly beefier engine and more driver perks?
I'm on the wait and see path, no point in upgrading vista until my current PC has outlived it's usefulness in running the programs I need to run. when I hit a slump on my current hardware, no longer being able to play current games and software then I'll make the switch to new hardware/software in general I don't see the need to make the switch if everything is working just fine

 

When I had used the RC versions of Vista, everything people were complaining about were true. Drivers sucked and it was incomplete, causing it to run slow and half the stuff in my machine didn't work. About 2 weeks ago, I installed Vista Ultimate x64 and the newest drivers for all my equipment. It runs almost as good as XP did and I find it to be a really good OS, that shows even more promise for the future. Sure, there are a couple things that annoy me, like the fact I'm forced to run my game audio in software mode because I'm using an Audigy card, but overall, I'm very happy and haven't seen a reason to go back to XP. Unfortunately, all of these "techies" that are still saying "wait for SP1" or that "it's a prettier version of XP" and keep touting it as useless are still going off of their impressions from a release candidate they tried almost a year ago. Most of them haven't installed the full version recently and really don't have any right to give recommendations on what is worth using or not.

Of course, there are people that shouldn't move up to Vista just yet. Mostly people with older computers and less than 2gb's of ram, or people who have specialized software that isn't 100% compatible with Vista yet. For the majority of us with decent machines, there's no reason I've found not to move up. Granted, if I didn't receive Vista for free with a bundle, I would be reluctant to drop the dough for the software since I'm sorta broke, but if you are waiting for SP1 or some other similar reason, then you can do it now and be just as happy.

 

ROTFLMAO. That quote was too funny to pass up. Most people can't figure out how to turn off UAC, and you think those same people should read HOWTOs written by techies, for techies, and examine log files filled with cryptic notations to determine why critical system services died?

I used Linux for a long time (switched to Windows-only not because I believe Windows to be superior as an OS but because I had to cater to my non–computer savvy mother and sister), and as with every OS, it has its good points and its bad points; I wouldn't use it for gaming, for example. However, the one major reason why it can't be the standard OS on the average user's computer is the attitude of Linux users, as demonstrated in the quote.

 

I highly recommend that UAC is not turned off entirely, it can actually cause you a few problems as Vista will stop you from being able to run executables from within the Temp folder. Instead I suggest you download TweakUAC and set it to Quiet Mode.

 

True there is an element of that but like i say write to the developer if enough do and a revenue stream appears they might just take the chance.

As for the moving target, dude have you used things like debian or RHEL. Debian stable is updated every few years and Red Hat also has very definable upgrade path with appropriate versions for the libraries.

 

Not really thought this through have you? If you're not organised enough to name files and put them in a useful directory do you really think you'll be organised enough to tag each and every one of them? If you want the computer to tag everything for you then it's gonna get it wrong, even the best tagging algorithm wouldn't be to your liking - even people can't do this task to the liking of each other so what chance does the humble pc have?

I agree tagging would be very useful, but the onus is still on the user. What you really need is a good search and vista's has improved, yes there's further to go but decent search is a difficult task to do quickly.

and just for the record, I'm usually fairly organised so i'm happy with my xp and linux machines. I've uninstalled vista until i get a new pc.

 

I have to say you're in the minority of home users.
However, MS do have a professionally orientated OS - Windows Server. they've had workstation versions for years now, if you want a barebones up to date OS you should be running that.
The UI on Vista is faster since it's acceleration by your graphics card. If you don't like the effects then you can turn them off.

 

if you want people to upgrade any product, you need to prove that A) it's as good as the last product and B) slightly better. Currently, with its enhanced security and dx10 it's ticked criteria B for me but as its a nightmare to get and kind of webcam, microphone or even a bloody soundcard to work on it, not to mention the massive fall in dx9 performance, it does not meet criteria A. They shouldn't have released it until they ironed out most of the driver issues.

 

When was the last time you tried? Mine all plugged in and played.

The driver issue is NOT MICROSOFT it's the manufacturers, so moan at them

 

BRETT!!! biggup mate, nicely put, i agree wholeheartedly, and i'm glad soemone finally has the guts to tell all the little CS:S players to STFU.

Vista is a lot better. I use my PC for SO many different things, not least audio produciton and live web streaming for my radio show, the way it handles multiple audio cards is far superior (integrating it into windows rather than using crappy C-Media interfaces) as just one example.

Windows Explorer is now far mroe stable, it may look similar in style, but behind the scenes, windows now compose themselves in the back ground, if i open 'Computer' (instead of the fisher price 'My Computer') i can see my hard drives and click on thjem without having to wait for the CD drive to report whats in it, like in XP - little things like that that CS players don't notice are the big changes

Sorry to generalise the whole 'CS players' thing, but you know what i mean, non-power users who have bang up to date hardware but know NOTHIGN of how to get the most out of it save for pwning other 10 year olds in deathmatches.

 

Er what? The workstation version of Windows Server 2003 is Windows XP Professional. Just as Vista Business is the workstation version of the upcoming Windows Server 2008.

 

not really, but i see what you're saying.

If you have ever installed Server 2003, you'll know that it is what you're after, a barebones OS with none of the cr*p pre-installed (the search dog and windows messenger for start).

I had it on my laptop for two years with no problems, the only reason i switched back to XP was my Audigy notebook soundcard drivers that 'required' XP for some reason.

other than little intricacies like that, the Web Edition (sans Active Directory) is good alternative to XP for power users, and you can turn back on most of the stuff if you want it.

 

if you really want a server OS then Vista is your ticket. SP1 will be upgrading the current kernel to the one used in server '08 (6.0 -> 6.1).
You can disable the crapola yourself.

 

So basicly..

You wrote all the text to explain you have upgraded from 512mb to 4gb of memory...

 

Greetings!

Give me XP with DX10 support and SuperFetch.

 

And increased security, better memory management,... You know what, let's call it Vista and sell it

 

That would be great, wouldn't it? Better yet, let's have DOS and DX10 and SuperFetch! We can set it up to run in the extended memory. It'll be great.

The reason you won't see XP + DX10 or XP + SuperFetch (at least not properly) is because the entire premise behind those two benefits relies on a totally different HAL methodology. The hardware does not "talk" in the same way as it did in XP, hence all of the problems with drivers as the hardware companies completely snoozed through the spring and summer months while Microsoft begged them to look at the new driver model. If someone DOES succeed to port DX10 to XP, it will run with an emulated HAL in order to interface with XP's methods, which will cause some great inefficiency. You may not notice it as much with a high-spec machine, but then again, you'd not notice a problem with Vista then, either.

A few of you have said "There's just no reason to switch yet for me," and that is totally fine - stick with XP for now. My article is meant to talk to some of the flamers (some of whom have posted in this very thread) to say "it's crap because I use linux or win2k." To them, I say "If you don't feel a need for it, then use what you have a need for, but please QUIT CALLING IT CRAP just because YOU view yourself as more power-oriented/cooler/sophisticated because you like things minimalist than the 95% of computer users it's meant for."

It's these same people who say "Ooh, I use linux cause I do this, that and the other and therefore Vista sucks." No, Vista doesn't suck, it's not a resource hog for what it does, and if you use and prefer Linux for your day to day, then by all means get on with your l33t h4x0r self. But just because you use linux doesn't mean Vista sucks. And if you are such a minimalist, I hope you use just fluxbox or the CLI, because anything else is "bloat."

Compared to a bare bones 2k install or a CLI Gentoo build, Vista takes more resources. But that doesn't make it a hog, and it doesn't make it suck. It makes it targeted at computer USERS, not computer control freaks.