Well, this is one of reason why I installed Cygwin; this gives me all UNIX tools that are known to work and just not put up with Windows' weirdness. I don't know if Cygwin runs well on 2007, but if you're comfortable going to a bash for a search or getting some information about system, then Cygwin will be quite serviceable, I think.
Vista rant (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter georgedwilkinson
- Start date
This is from another thread, but I felt this more relevant here so:
This isn't first time I heard someone mourning W2000. I'm confused on this because I was led to believe that the millenium was a POS that should have never been? Care to educate me on how this is better than XP?
This isn't first time I heard someone mourning W2000. I'm confused on this because I was led to believe that the millenium was a POS that should have never been? Care to educate me on how this is better than XP?
georgedwilkinson
AWF VIP
- Local time
- Today, 06:32
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2008
- Messages
- 3,856
Yes, I posted it there and realized it belonged here.
ME was a POS. Windows 2000 is not ME and was the first version of Windows NT that worked correctly on a non-server/laptop (i.e. support PCMCIA correctly and USB). It kinda bridged the gap between the server room and the game room.
It also didn't have the stupid look & feel of XP, which was a major reversal.
It never crashed, things you expected to work did, IMHO it is one of the major reasons Red Hat and other Linux's didn't take over 7 years ago. That and Linux doesn't really work right for average people.
I've already been the Linux route. I'm just too impatient for things to work right to use Linux, though I always preferred vi to Word.
ME was a POS. Windows 2000 is not ME and was the first version of Windows NT that worked correctly on a non-server/laptop (i.e. support PCMCIA correctly and USB). It kinda bridged the gap between the server room and the game room.
It also didn't have the stupid look & feel of XP, which was a major reversal.
It never crashed, things you expected to work did, IMHO it is one of the major reasons Red Hat and other Linux's didn't take over 7 years ago. That and Linux doesn't really work right for average people.
I've already been the Linux route. I'm just too impatient for things to work right to use Linux, though I always preferred vi to Word.
Hmm, didn't realize that ME != 2000.
As for Linux, you're spot on about Linux just not being there. While it's great as a server OS, that's pretty much about it, actually. I doubt that even if there weren't W2k, linux would have made it as well. So I'm just content to be on XP with Cygwin as the command line for the SSH, grep, and the likes, but am definitely happy with OS X.
Anyway, good luck.
wiklendt
i recommend chocolate
- Local time
- Today, 21:32
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2008
- Messages
- 1,746
i have had a vista (home premium) machine since april 2008. yes, i found the user access control very annoying, but since i hadn't been able to install an anti-virus (i only had dial-up at home, and VHP doesn't seem to allow access to the net via a firewall that is my work) i kept it on and put up with it.
now, several months later, i barely notice it b/c i have my comp configured the way i like it. i quite like the new look. and i haven't had any problems at all with it.
the only gripe i DO have, is that i can't see progress on the Disk Defragmenter like in previous versions of windows.... it's just one little dialog box, no progress bar, now defrag details... does anyone know how to access the details again in vista?
now, several months later, i barely notice it b/c i have my comp configured the way i like it. i quite like the new look. and i haven't had any problems at all with it.
the only gripe i DO have, is that i can't see progress on the Disk Defragmenter like in previous versions of windows.... it's just one little dialog box, no progress bar, now defrag details... does anyone know how to access the details again in vista?
Access_guy49
Registered User.
- Local time
- Today, 07:32
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2007
- Messages
- 462
Has anyone here with vista checked out the schedualed tasks? if you havn't i recomend you do! there are a ton! for those that have seen what i'm talking about...Does anyone know if there are some that can be shut off for better performance? does anyone know which tasks help and which do more harm than good?
On a side note, other than the odd number of schedualed tasks, i really can't complain, i'v had a good experience running vista.
On a side note, other than the odd number of schedualed tasks, i really can't complain, i'v had a good experience running vista.
Hey,
I am new here but read through this Vista rant and had to post. I think I am possibly one of the very few that really likes Vista! (no i don't work for Microsoft! lol). For me it has been stable, Wireless is always brilliant, it is fast, I don't have any programs that have a real problem with Vista and I have come across very few pieces of 'current' hardware that don't work on Vista! For me it is brilliant and I have it not only running on my machines but a growing number of clients machines as well!!
Maybe I am just lucky, I don't know but just wanted to say that it does work very nicely for some of us!
I do agree about the UAC thing popping up but then that is mainly only during program installing really so once the machine is setup it doesn't get in the way too much and as for it asking you are you sure when you are doing something that will affect the system...well for me that has helped because I have a number of users that are willing to 'play' but if they get that message then tend to back down from making changes where they have no idea what they are doing!!
All I would say is that anyone wanting Vista on a machine make sure you go for at least 2GB of memory!
Just my £0.02's worth
Graham.
I am new here but read through this Vista rant and had to post. I think I am possibly one of the very few that really likes Vista! (no i don't work for Microsoft! lol). For me it has been stable, Wireless is always brilliant, it is fast, I don't have any programs that have a real problem with Vista and I have come across very few pieces of 'current' hardware that don't work on Vista! For me it is brilliant and I have it not only running on my machines but a growing number of clients machines as well!!
Maybe I am just lucky, I don't know but just wanted to say that it does work very nicely for some of us!
I do agree about the UAC thing popping up but then that is mainly only during program installing really so once the machine is setup it doesn't get in the way too much and as for it asking you are you sure when you are doing something that will affect the system...well for me that has helped because I have a number of users that are willing to 'play' but if they get that message then tend to back down from making changes where they have no idea what they are doing!!
All I would say is that anyone wanting Vista on a machine make sure you go for at least 2GB of memory!
Just my £0.02's worth
Graham.
Access_guy49
Registered User.
- Local time
- Today, 07:32
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2007
- Messages
- 462
For those that are interested, I have reduced the number of schedualed tasks down to about 4. There are quite a few that can be disabled. You don't actually need to delete them. I found that the task manager had my computer on a weekly routine of disk defrags and data collection and reporting to microsoft.... (i don't think i need to say anything more about that!) Definatly worth looking at for those that wish to get a little better performance out of vista! not to mention my laptop doesn't chug as much when at idol!
I hate to say this after the previous comments, but I rather like vista. The User Interface is superior and applcations like Visual Web Developer is a lot faster. IIS 7 is a vast improvement and .Net web applications run a lot faster.
Access 2007 whilst irritating at times again has a improved interface and nicer feel. So when it comes to aesthetics Vista is a good offering. But if your applications don't work looks don't matter a jot.
Simon
Access 2007 whilst irritating at times again has a improved interface and nicer feel. So when it comes to aesthetics Vista is a good offering. But if your applications don't work looks don't matter a jot.
Simon
Last edited:
Atomic Shrimp
Humanoid lifeform
- Local time
- Today, 12:32
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2000
- Messages
- 1,954
ME is just Win98 with some extra bits - rushed out of the door in a massive hurry so that MS would have a 'Home' OS to sell alongside Windows 2000.
