Posted: Wed Nov 10, 2010 3:16 pm Post subject:
Rant about Windows 7
Since my old internet laptop broke, i had to buy a new laptop. But to my great displeasure are there no laptops available anymore which have driver support for winXP as they are too new for this old OS. Thus they all come with Windaft 7.
My first impression about W7 was, WTF is this crap. It looks even more colorful than Vista, is slower than WinXP and has twice as much stupid confirmation windows like "Are you sure you want to delete the file?" or "you cancelled the task, are you sure you want to cancel the task".
Ok, i thought, lets do some changes to the OS to make it faster and finally something to be able to work with. After 4 days of, registry hacks, stupid preinstalled program deinstallations (like all the stupid windows games, internet explorer, windows live crap, security center, desktop themes, deactivating UAC) which come with the stupid recovery disc Win7 version for laptops, i finally thought it would be ready to start working with it.
Of course i've installed some working programs like Avira AntiVir, Comodo Firewall, IrfanView, WinAmp, MPlayer, VLC, Opera etc to replace the stupid Windaft programs, which i've removed/disabled.
Though this damn OS still uses more than 12 ztyping GigaBytes. The original installation with the factory settings used even 20 GB. I just want to remember at this place that a BartPE WinXP boot CD needs only 150MB for a fully working OS. From the 4GB ram are only 3GB left, which i would have with a 32bit OS too. So all the newer hardware and higher performance is nothing to the slowdown of Win7. It seems the guys of Masosoft are more interested in keeping the PC speed on the same level than creating a useful OS.
Anyways...,
so i downloaded DriveImageXML, did a backup of my OS partition, in case the "OS" (it raises my hackles to call this crap OS ) would break.
And i didn't had to wait long for the first Win7 crash, which didn't come with one of the beloved BSODs, but this time with a message that Windows Explorer has encountered a problem and needs to restart again. This automatically caused the reboot of the laptop again and again. Luckyly i had the OS image and the work of 4 days was restored in less than 10 minutes. (thanks DriveImageXML )
After some more days of removing useless crap like windows loading and welcome screens, several useless and automatically running background Services (like file indexing, automatic updates, error reporting etc) i was finally some kind of satisfied with W7.
However my joy didn't last long until i actually noticed how many new, annoying and completely useless notification windows this damn OS produces. Every damn exe creates a stupid window that notifies about a non-certified program that is about to start. How stupid were these W7 developer? If i start an exe by clicking on it, i want to run it and don't answer stupid questions. I know what i'm doing and don't need an OS to scrutinize every action of mine.
Not only that, do many programs cause problems when running (even if i use the special W7 "compatible" version of them) and i had to kill more tasks in this short time of only 8 days, than in the half year before using XP.
I could go on here forever, but don't have the time and just wanted to vent my spleen.
Thanks for reading. I'm now trying to find the most necessary drivers for the laptop to install WinXP (which isn't a good OS too, but at least allows someone to actually work with it). _________________ SHP Artist of Twisted Insurrection: Nod buildings
After disabling UAC and changing a few settings I've liked Windows 7. Preinstalled PCs/Laptops always come with all kinds of useless programs, if you would've installed 7 yourself you wouldn't have had to use as much time configuring it. From my experience it uses more RAM than XP (depends on the amount of services though), but it isn't really slower than XP.
And I think 7 looks beautiful, although those special effects may cause some slowdowns in some applications. You can always use the Windows classic theme if you don't like Aero.
Joined: 05 Mar 2007 Location: Less than 10 minutes from the internet
Posted: Wed Nov 10, 2010 4:23 pm Post subject:
^Rampastein wrote:
You can always use the Windows classic theme if you don't like Aero.
Yes, but you can't bring back the classic start menu layout...
Also, because of the new search areas, both on the top right of the explorer layout, and at the bottom of the start menu, the ability to do any kind of complex, advanced, or useful search has been pretty much taken away. I can't do the kinds of searches I want to like XP could.
Ya know what really makes me feel secure about running this thing? Once I activated God Mode (I didn't believe it at first either), I was able to create the administrator account from my regular profile....
Who designed this crap? Seriously, that is an unholy flaw in this system.
More and more, Im thinking of switching to Linux for my day-to-day tasks, but then I remember that I like playing video games...
Btw, I know that there are compatibility layers out there, like Wine. _________________ QUICK_EDIT
Me too. Win7 looks very nice, but it is sooooo slow... at least on my school. Check the Command Prompt, what does it say about the version? 7.0 or 6.1? Microsoft just upgraded Vista a bit, fixing major bugs but leave the rest in it because they didnt care a f*ck. People, get a Mac, or stick to the trusted WinXP. _________________ QUICK_EDIT
Ah, the smell of bashing Windows in the morning. As a part time user of W7 Ultimate since it came out, I doubt I've come up with as many errors and problems as people state. What needs to be remembered is, W7 is not XP, it will never be XP, and no matter how hard you try, will never run like XP. Trying to make it XP is only going to end in pain/failure. The same is said about XP and Win98 (being the most stable version of Windows).
Win7 is all about flashy shortcuts and digital media. Its "new computer user" friendly, has parental controls for kids, tries to look nice, and likes to send microsoft info to keep tabs on your everyday life. It's a hungry beast that needs to use at least 4 g's of ram per second or it becomes fat and lazy. It's dependent on all its little gadgets, and if you remove the familiar little screw-ups, it will only become depressed and try to kill itself from time to time.
You can not expect it to be programmer friendly in any aspect. It hates to run anything that doesn't come with the OS, and if you try to do so, it will indeed ask 1000 questions until you give up. Long story short, if you're a programmer, stick with Linux, Solaris, or any other proven open source OS and run Windows 7 virtually if you really have to.
One good thing that XP doesn't have, is a CTRL+ALT+DEL that will override every other task, provided you have the processing power, so you can play "wack-a-process" in relatively quick time.
So yes, Windows 7 is only for the occasional user, not hardcore modders/coders/gamers like ourselves. _________________ "Don't beg for things; Do it yourself or you'll never get anything." QUICK_EDIT
@^Rampastein: Even with disabled UAC, it still gives the messages about non-certified exes.
I had to live with the preinstalled/recovery disc Win7, because i don't pay another 150€ for this crap OS. Especially not since you get only those stupid
home versions and not the professional in media stores.
And yes, one of the first things i did, was changing the theme back to classic.
@Atari2600: I've installed classic shell for win7. The stupid W7 start menu with all the additional and useless submenus were driving me crazy, so this neat little prog takes at least 1 or 2 clicks away. _________________ SHP Artist of Twisted Insurrection: Nod buildings
Joined: 19 May 2008 Location: Scotland, starting a Revolution Cameo: metricon. Posts:???
Posted: Wed Nov 10, 2010 4:56 pm Post subject:
Vista -> bloatted, potential change for the better
7 -> dumbed down vista, no change, more bloat, usless features, slightly faster under the right condition, GUI made for simple people just like many of the other changes.
TBH im glad i didnt pay for that service pack, allmost all of the "win 7 features" 4StarGeneral
mentioned are in Vista, Vista had problem but also potential, win 7 just made it look like the crappy mac GUI and introduced work-arounds.
For as long as vista or xp support the newest software im running them and after that has stopped ill be duel booting with openSUSE or resorting to just SUSE and WINE _________________ Creator of TS:BoB and some other things that might be good when finnished. QUICK_EDIT
You haven't mentioned, but what are your Laptop model, manufacturer and specs?
Also, as I reply to this topic, 3 gigs out of my 4 GB DDR1 Ram is being used, with 64 tasks, including firefox, which alone takes a quarter of a gig, plus 50mb for Firefox's Plugin Container, while New Vegas is running as well, taking about 1 gig of ram, and other Ram-eaters like Skype, MSN, Winamp, etc. And I'm still running this fine and smooth. And no, I have not even disabled many of 7's services, only some of them like Automatic Updates and UAC. _________________ Please, I DON'T read the signature rules of the forum. QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 18 Jun 2005 Location: Dordrecht, the Netherlands
Posted: Wed Nov 10, 2010 5:57 pm Post subject:
You sure we have the same Windows 7 LKO? Compared to Windows Vista, it's a hell lot better (especially if you disable UAC). That, or you had the honour of not having to use Vista QUICK_EDIT
Also Known As: evanb90 Joined: 20 Feb 2005 Location: o kawaii koto
Posted: Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:23 pm Post subject:
I hate dismissing arguments as this but seriously: "bawww more".
I've used 98, XP, Vista and 7. I can confidently say 7 is the best of the 4. (and here's a fun one: when XP came out, it was absolutely hated by the loyalists of previous versions, those were probably hated by the 95 loyalists)
I go between XP and 7 machines constantly during my uni work, and I'll be honest, XP is vastly inferior in every single respect. Everything. And big ztyping deal if it takes up 20 gigs. That's 20 of 500, if not more. Boo hoo. I disabled UAC on my first boot and have had no issues with the operating system that I would not have encountered on previous versions of Windows. Windows XP is a ztyping overrated myth.
Pic relevant: I don't see what is wrong with the start menu and whatnot. I see no major difference between it and XP, besides being a fuckton better.
WhatProblem.png
Description:
Filesize:
405.86 KB
Viewed:
5656 Time(s)
_________________ YR modder/artist, DOOM mapper, aka evanb90
Project Lead Developer, New-Star Strike (2014-)
Former Project Lead DeveloperStar Strike (2005-2012), Z-Mod (2006-2007), RA1.5 (2008-2013), The Cold War (2006-2007) QUICK_EDIT
Not everybody has the same typical American need to have OMG 4 TERRABYTES and, uh, I don't know, 16 GB OF RAM FTW! and so on.
My budget is and always will be limited. So XP is the thing I need. I can assure myself that for the next 10 years I will have in the best situation a laptop with 350 GB and 3GB of RAM, and nothing more. And no, no external HDD, no thanks, I can put my shit very easily on DVDs and put the DVD box somewhere safe.
That is all I can say. No anti-American thing, but its something Europeans watch as being weird and odd, and that is the need to have everything bigger, no matter what. QUICK_EDIT
Oh look. Another thread of non-techs complaining about operating systems. Hooray. You people, except for EVA, annoy me. Especially you Revolutionary... and to a good extent, you do too Deformat.
If you do a little research, Windows 7 with a little proper tweaking runs faster on older hardware than XP does.
Oh, and LKO, quit bitching and learn to optimize. _________________ KGR | AT
AZUR
Discord: theastronomer1836
Steam QUICK_EDIT
When did Americans have a thing for BIG computers? Deformat, please pull your Anti-American stick out of your ass and go back to the corner. If that were the case, I'm pretty damn sure PC gaming would be more popular than console gaming. Jesus Christ.
Overall, though.. This trend of 'NEW SUCKS' is the same thing in the Halo community. Do you seriously want the same thing re-packaged in a new box? I don't get it. _________________ Victory! QUICK_EDIT
Compared to Windows Vista, it's a hell lot better (especially if you disable UAC). That, or you had the honour of not having to use Vista
True.
I don't really understand all this stuff about 7 being "slow". On all machines I've used it on it has been just as fast as XP (if not faster). Even the RAM usage isn't that much higher.
Quote:
Not everybody has the same typical American need to have OMG 4 TERRABYTES and, uh, I don't know, 16 GB OF RAM FTW! and so on.
I've currently got 150 GB of hard drive space, of which 40 GB is free. I would well have space for Win7 even with this small HDD space. My current Windows XP installation takes about 7 GB of hard drive space (with all updates, .Net Frameworks etc.), so LKO's Windows 7 installation is only 5 GB larger.
2/4 GB is well enough RAM for Win 7 for most usage.
Also Known As: evanb90 Joined: 20 Feb 2005 Location: o kawaii koto
Posted: Wed Nov 10, 2010 8:35 pm Post subject:
Sorry Deformat but that's bollocks. 3 Gigs of RAM and 350 GB is more than enough to run Windows 7. I comfortably ran Windows Vista on a 250Gig harddrive, and 500 gigs is just plan excessive for me. But then again, I don't have 15000 music tracks on my laptop, 90% of which will never be opened once in the lifetime of the hard drive.
I mean, 4 gigs of ram and 500 gigs of HDD space is becoming pretty standard. Not very expensive, not an uncommon option. _________________ YR modder/artist, DOOM mapper, aka evanb90
Project Lead Developer, New-Star Strike (2014-)
Former Project Lead DeveloperStar Strike (2005-2012), Z-Mod (2006-2007), RA1.5 (2008-2013), The Cold War (2006-2007) QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 19 May 2008 Location: Scotland, starting a Revolution Cameo: metricon. Posts:???
Posted: Wed Nov 10, 2010 9:03 pm Post subject:
1TB HD as since need more space and due to limitation of my motherboard (SATA slots being blocked by my GPU) and it was cheaper when you worked it out compaired to other drives.
It is nice thinking ill never need to worry about space but the downside is if something goes wrong there is a lot of informtion on the thing and a lot more DvD's are needed as back up.
As for RAM the best bet is to judge how much you need, on this computer (which isnt the best) i quite happly run vista and my not overly demanding tasks including running TFD game on 1GB of ram.
There are occasional slow down but i dont do enought to justify more than 2GB of RAM. (tempted to say 1.5GB) too much ram is compariable (on a smaller scale) to an over powered PSU, if your system isnt using it all, your system is inefficiant ergo wasting you money. I cant understand why modern laptops come with 3GB of RAM (the same as my high end pc) to me it is ineffician as i would never do any thing so demanding of a laptop. _________________ Creator of TS:BoB and some other things that might be good when finnished. QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 05 Mar 2007 Location: Less than 10 minutes from the internet
Posted: Wed Nov 10, 2010 9:15 pm Post subject:
Lin Kuei Ominae wrote:
@Atari2600: I've installed classic shell for win7. The stupid W7 start menu with all the additional and useless submenus were driving me crazy, so this neat little prog takes at least 1 or 2 clicks away.
Say, thanks! I'm configuring it right now, and I'm happier for it.
Well, I guess the in-explorer searching will elude me for the time being, but whatever.
FurryQueen wrote:
Oh look. Another thread of non-techs complaining about operating systems. Hooray. You people annoy me.
If you do a little research, Windows 7 with a little proper tweaking runs faster on older hardware than XP does.
I'm actually not complaining about speed or performance, just a few usability aspects. Plus, I must ask, what defines a tech/non-tech in your book? Who is a capable tech to whom is rather subjective.
The thing about the whole admin setup/lack of security aspect I mentioned seems pretty valid. I mean, isn't setting up the admin account one of the first things to do on any install of an OS? My initial thought when installing Win 7 was that my starting profile would be the admin, but I was wrong, and had to add it. How many people are in the same boat though, and don't know they aren't the admin of their machine? Chalk that one up to design flaw, rather than user error.
Deformat wrote:
Not everybody has the same typical American need to have OMG 4 TERRABYTES and, uh, I don't know, 16 GB OF RAM FTW! and so on.
And not everybody has that, but if you want to play video games and make them look all nice and smooth, it doesn't hurt to have some good specs. Im going to have to live with my current desktop for a number of years, and I made it good enough to last.
However, it still baffles me how my old Toshiba XP laptop from 7 years ago is still alive and running. I love that thing, so what if its only good 2GB of RAM to its name? _________________ QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 26 Nov 2002 Location: Algae Colony On Mars
Posted: Wed Nov 10, 2010 9:33 pm Post subject:
I like Windows 7 although I have no intention of switching to it on my desktop until I upgrade, which will probably be until my 8800GT can't take a game I can't play. It's going to be a couple of years before this happens, though. My laptop came with 7 installed but I must admit I spend the majority of time sat in Ubuntu instead (not because 7 is bad, I just prefer Ubuntu for most situations).
With a bit of optimising, you can make XP pretty fast too. My XP installation is on a separate partition to games, reducing fragmentation issues and making it quicker. I've removed all non-essential services and I've stripped Windows of some things I don't need. Currently, the only feature I'd want from 7 is TRIM, but I don't actually have an SSD yet to warrant having it.
I should also say that I haven't reinstalled Windows since I built this computer three years ago, it might be a bit slower than when I started but it's still pretty damn fast. I never understood the obsession with reinstalling every year or so. _________________
Quote:
This is sexier than what this forum was supposed to tolerate. - Banshee
Plus, I must ask, what defines a tech/non-tech in your book? Who is a capable tech to whom is rather subjective.
Naturally, but you're not really a tech unless you work in the industry... or unless you've come to understand why Cisco's VPN client is an unholy abomination or you've fixed a trashed SQL Server installation. _________________ KGR | AT
AZUR
Discord: theastronomer1836
Steam QUICK_EDIT
You sure we have the same Windows 7 LKO? Compared to Windows Vista, it's a hell lot better (especially if you disable UAC). That, or you had the honour of not having to use Vista
I only used Vista for a week when a friend of mine gave me his PC, to install winXP for him (and find and download all the necessary drivers).
@EVA-251: I don't like winXP either. However, at least the menu clicking was/is 1-2 steps shorter and less annoying.
The start menu of Win7 is crap, because the All Programs only open in the small fixed size of the window which opens when you click on "start". On my laptop, there wasn't enough size to show more than 10 programs at the same time, thus there were additional annoying scrolling step necessary.
Since your screen shows it already, the completely useless "My Documents" feature from WinXP was even expanded to now include much more useless subfolders. Luckyly they can be all deleted except "My Documents".
I use total Commander instead of the slow windows explorer which needs tons of mouse clicks to get to the right folder.
I also order my folders myself instead of relying on stupid windaft, where all personal data is gone after a reinstallation (except you know how to use a separate partition and create your own folder order).
@FurryQueen: if you would have read my initial post, you'd have noticed that i optimized almost everything possible.
The problem is, that such a job taking 4-8 days work should
a) not be necessary in the first place
and
b) is never finish. Especially since with deactivated UAC, security center and other crap, the OS is still giving warnings about exes which i have started. Such useless and time consuming additional clicks are what i hate about win7.
I still haven't found out how i can run every exe (that i start by clicking on it) in administrator rights. Especially since i use already an administrator account. So again i'm forced to do an additional right click and search for "run as administrator" which is slow as you're forced to use the mouse again while i tend to make everything with the keyboard that is way faster and things like a moved folder due to and accidentally done drag and drop can't happen too. (and yes i'm capable of using a mouse, but when you want something done fast, such things can still happen when you by accident keep the mouse button pressed a millisecond too long)
Other things like the windows explorer not even having simple buttons for copy and paste by default in the menu bar don't make working faster either.
It's the same with the control panel with the useless submenus, categories and the stupid copy-replace dialog with all the useless text.
All these additional necessary clicks and unclear layouts make working extremely slow.
Of course there are workarounds/solutions, but again these shouldn't be necessary in the first place!
It's the MS policy that annoys me, that goes "Don't install/copy on the harddisk what's necessary, but heck, lets spam it full with everything we have and then let the OS decide what needs to be used". Why do i need a 1GB big DriverStore folder in my windows system folder? There are not more than 10-20 hardware components in every PC that need each it's own driver. So why do i have to keep millions of driver for other hardware components too? These all could have stayed on the installation disc.
Or why does an OS need more than 200 fonts, while 10 would be already enough (for me "courier new" would be already enough)? Instead of letting the user decide which one he needs, they are all preinstalled and declared as system critical files which can't be deleted. So heck, lets load them all during bootup.
I don't and never will need a "MingLiU HKSCS Standard" font.
It's this policy that goes from simple examples like these, through the whole OS and which makes working with it a pain in the ass. _________________ SHP Artist of Twisted Insurrection: Nod buildings
Or why does an OS need more than 200 fonts, while 10 would be already enough (for me "courier new" would be already enough)? Instead of letting the user decide which one he needs, they are all preinstalled and declared as system critical files which can't be deleted. So heck, lets load them all during bootup.
I don't and never will need a "MingLiU HKSCS Standard" font.
No, you need more than 1 font. Don't be ridiculous. At the very least what of the programs trying to use fonts which you don't have?
If they include them you complain of the size, if they didn't include them you'd complain about them missing. Probably the same for drivers. Even so I can't say that amount of space for 7 is an issue, only the size of a game or two nowadays.
And yes, I have an old XP I used, and I can't say it is much better than the newer OSs. QUICK_EDIT
The only thing which has slightly annoyed me about XP vs. Vista/7 is that games seem to require significantly more memory to run on Vista and Windows 7. QUICK_EDIT
Also Known As: evanb90 Joined: 20 Feb 2005 Location: o kawaii koto
Posted: Thu Nov 11, 2010 12:37 am Post subject:
All of your issues are silly nitpicks, sorry. I am trying my hardest to see this from your point of view, I really am. But as the saying goes, "you're making a mountain out of a molehill".
And if you don't like Windows XP, never used Vista, and hate Windows 7, what is your favorable OS then? If Linux/Mac, okay. If Win98, I'm going to fall out of my chair laughing and probably split my head open in the process. If not Win98, and you just like bitching about Windows OS, why make a thread about it now?
Lin Kuei Ominae wrote:
On my laptop, there wasn't enough size to show more than 10 programs at the same time, thus there were additional annoying scrolling step necessary.
10 programs? I call bullshit. I run a 1366x768 Windows 7 laptop, and it displays 32 programs in the space allocated. And that's plenty enough for me, especially considering I have yet to organize it. (which would probably cut the number of folders/programs in half, if not more)
Join us in the 21st century- 320x240 was modern when DOOM came out.
Lin Kuei Ominae wrote:
Since your screen shows it already, the completely useless "My Documents" feature from WinXP was even expanded to now include much more useless subfolders. Luckyly they can be all deleted except "My Documents".
That's entirely your opinion. Hugely so. I use My Documents to organize my documents, presentations and spreadsheets for my university work, archive my high-school work and manage projects.
Lin Kuei Ominae wrote:
I also order my folders myself instead of relying on stupid windaft, where all personal data is gone after a reinstallation (except you know how to use a separate partition and create your own folder order).
Here's your medal. " "
Lin Kuei Ominae wrote:
is never finish. Especially since with deactivated UAC, security center and other crap, the OS is still giving warnings about exes which i have started. Such useless and time consuming additional clicks are what i hate about win7.
Uh huh. Sounds like you have some settings wrong. The only prompts I get on my Win7 machine are from Comodo, and even they hugely toned them down from the version I had on my Vista laptop.
Lin Kuei Ominae wrote:
Other things like the windows explorer not even having simple buttons for copy and paste by default in the menu bar don't make working faster either.
may I direct you to:
Lin Kuei Ominae wrote:
So again i'm forced to do an additional right click and search for "run as administrator" which is slow as you're forced to use the mouse again while i tend to make everything with the keyboard that is way faster and things like a moved folder due to and accidentally done drag and drop can't happen too.
You basically tell us you prefer to use the keyboard because it is way faster, but whine about Windows Explorer lacking simple buttons for copy and paste. I guess you never heard of CTRL-C and CTRL-V?
Lin Kuei Ominae wrote:
It's the same with the control panel with the useless submenus, categories
View By: Category
-Left click
-Motion mouse downwards to "small icons"
-Left click
That was tough. Big hackish workaround, but it works.
Quote:
1GB ( big DriverStore folder in my windows system folder?
Less than 1% (for most decent computers today, less than 0.5%), OR for you:
[/end of world]
Quote:
Or why does an OS need more than 200 fonts, while 10 would be already enough (for me "courier new" would be already enough)? Instead of letting the user decide which one he needs, they are all preinstalled and declared as system critical files which can't be deleted. So heck, lets load them all during bootup.
Because you're not the only person who uses the Windows Operating System. Shocker, I know.
And considering all the petty things you're bitching about here, something tells me that if they did give you this feature, it'd be another bullet on your list of complaints. "It takes too long to scroll to 'Courier New'", "It takes too long to deselect every other font", "The font groups are too broad and install too many fonts still", etc.
My apologies if this comes off somewhat as a troll post, but seriously, 90% of the stuff you have against 7 are tiny little nitpicks, which gives me the impression you just want to bitch about 7. _________________ YR modder/artist, DOOM mapper, aka evanb90
Project Lead Developer, New-Star Strike (2014-)
Former Project Lead DeveloperStar Strike (2005-2012), Z-Mod (2006-2007), RA1.5 (2008-2013), The Cold War (2006-2007) QUICK_EDIT
And if you don't like Windows XP, never used Vista, and hate Windows 7, what is your favorable OS then? If Linux/Mac, okay. If Win98, I'm going to fall out of my chair laughing and probably split my head open in the process. If not Win98, and you just like bitching about Windows OS, why make a thread about it now?
Linux for fast and reliable working, though unfortunately doesn't every program work on it.
DOS, as it was a minimalistic, yet fast OS.
I hated 95,98, disliked XP but get used to it, and hate again Vista and 7.
I have a 1366x768 res too, but the size of the start menu was only 1 third of the screen height with big text/icons too. So that's why there wasn't enough space for more than 10 progs. Of course that is now solved too, but again it shouldn't have been necessary to solve in the first place.
EVA-251 wrote:
That's entirely your opinion. Hugely so. I use My Documents to organize my documents, presentations and spreadsheets for my university work, archive my high-school work and manage projects.
Yes that might be true, but also good luck when your OS crashed and forces you to reinstall it. If you then forgot in the beginning to change the "My Documents" path to a second partition all this stuff is gone too. It's this preinstalled stuff giving you a false feeling of security and wrong management/order which annoys me.
And if you're forced to change the path of the My Documents to a secondary partition (which you have to create too) in the first place, i see no need in using this stuff as i can spend the same time in creating my own, reliable/secure folder order.
EVA-251 wrote:
Lin Kuei Ominae wrote:
is never finish. Especially since with deactivated UAC, security center and other crap, the OS is still giving warnings about exes which i have started. Such useless and time consuming additional clicks are what i hate about win7.
Uh huh. Sounds like you have some settings wrong. The only prompts I get on my Win7 machine are from Comodo, and even they hugely toned them down from the version I had on my Vista laptop.
Of course it's possible i forgot something, but using totalcommander i still get sometimes (much less than in the beginning) warning messages.
Comodo was a bit annoying in the beginning too, but now after a while it has learned the rules for many applications, so this is working fine too. And i'm not complaining about Comodo as i was fully aware of it when i installed it. But on windows you never know what else is running hidden.
EVA-251 wrote:
You basically tell us you prefer to use the keyboard because it is way faster, but whine about Windows Explorer lacking simple buttons for copy and paste. I guess you never heard of CTRL-C and CTRL-V?
Of course. Since i use total commander i'm only using those shortcuts, beside the TC inbuild F5 and F6 commands.
However it's another example how the work for an ordinary user is slowed down and why win7 is a bad OS.
EVA-251 wrote:
Lin Kuei Ominae wrote:
It's the same with the control panel with the useless submenus, categories
View By: Category
-Left click
-Motion mouse downwards to "small icons"
-Left click
That was tough. Big hackish workaround, but it works.
Of course, i've set that.
But click on energy management (or power options; i don't know; i have to use a german win7) and you'll see what i mean.
The complete window filled with only 2 options to choose from for an energy saving modus.
Then you have walls of text on the left which basically lead all to the same menu.
WinXP had at least a small window with tabs for all the necessary settings.
EVA-251 wrote:
Quote:
1GB ( big DriverStore folder in my windows system folder?
Less than 1% (for most decent computers today, less than 0.5%), OR for you:
[/end of world]
You don't work by accident for MS?
They seem to behave the same. Why care about optimization. The user has enough HDD space, RAM and processor power.
Do you noticed that since win95, the PCs became faster and faster, yet win bootup became longer and longer?
At least this another completely unused 1GB.
EVA-251 wrote:
Quote:
Or why does an OS need more than 200 fonts, while 10 would be already enough (for me "courier new" would be already enough)? Instead of letting the user decide which one he needs, they are all preinstalled and declared as system critical files which can't be deleted. So heck, lets load them all during bootup.
Because you're not the only person who uses the Windows Operating System. Shocker, I know.
Oh come on. It can't be hard to have during the installation an option for
-complete install (with all crap installed automatically)
-professional install (with user selected stuff only)
Every other program has it, so why not windows?
It also can't be hard to use the "choose your keyboard layout and country settings" during the installation to restrict the installed fonts to this area. When i select german keyboard it's quite obvious that i don't need asian fonts. And in the case they would be necessary, there could be still a message "please insert your win7 CD", so it installs them later. _________________ SHP Artist of Twisted Insurrection: Nod buildings
Also Known As: evanb90 Joined: 20 Feb 2005 Location: o kawaii koto
Posted: Thu Nov 11, 2010 4:22 am Post subject:
Lin Kuei Ominae wrote:
:words:
EVA-251 wrote:
If not Win98, and you just like bitching about Windows OS, why make a thread about it now?
Lin Kuei Ominae wrote:
I have a 1366x768 res too, but the size of the start menu was only 1 third of the screen height with big text/icons too. So that's why there wasn't enough space for more than 10 progs. Of course that is now solved too, but again it shouldn't have been necessary to solve in the first place.
Than I call even HUGER bullshit. Never once had this problem.
Lin Kuei Ominae wrote:
Yes that might be true, but also good luck when your OS crashed and forces you to reinstall it. If you then forgot in the beginning to change the "My Documents" path to a second partition all this stuff is gone too. It's this preinstalled stuff giving you a false feeling of security and wrong management/order which annoys me.
And if you're forced to change the path of the My Documents to a secondary partition (which you have to create too) in the first place, i see no need in using this stuff as i can spend the same time in creating my own, reliable/secure folder order.
This is hardly an issue with the windows operating system exclusively. And frankly, I don't give a damn about OS crashes. Only had it happen to me once, on a Windows 98 machine and was totally deserved given our lack of anti-virus software at the time.
Lin Kuei Ominae wrote:
Of course it's possible i forgot something, but using totalcommander i still get sometimes (much less than in the beginning) warning messages.
I still think you're full of it. I have literally gotten zero warning popups since day one, second boot.
Lin Kuei Ominae wrote:
Of course. Since i use total commander i'm only using those shortcuts, beside the TC inbuild F5 and F6 commands.
However it's another example how the work for an ordinary user is slowed down and why win7 is a bad OS.
This isn't opinion- it is fact: Copy and paste buttons were useless. There is a reason they disappeared. It is because they took up space on the interface, and CTRL-C and CTRL-V were much faster. And this is either where we have a serious misunderstanding, or you're just being a pretty lousy troll.
Lin Kuei Ominae wrote:
But click on energy management (or power options; i don't know; i have to use a german win7) and you'll see what i mean.
The complete window filled with only 2 options to choose from for an energy saving modus.
Then you have walls of text on the left which basically lead all to the same menu.
Fun Fact #1: You can create your own power plans.
Fun Fact #2: Not all lappys start with two. My ASUS laptop (RIP) had 5 power settings, and I ended up creating my own for night-time use and note-taking.
Lin Kuei Ominae wrote:
You don't work by accident for MS? Very Happy
They seem to behave the same. Why care about optimization. The user has enough HDD space, RAM and processor power.
Do you noticed that since win95, the PCs became faster and faster, yet win bootup became longer and longer? ]
No. I was merely stating facts. 1GB as 1% means you have a 100 GB hard-drive, which means you have a stone-age computer that has no business running Win7 anyways. 1GB as 0.5% means you have a 200 GB hard-drive, which means you have a machine that probably dated- but then again, 0.5% should be much at all.
Really? I never noticed. My Windows XP and 98 machines had the longest boot-ups by far. My Windows Vista machine was a bit faster than the XP. And Windows 7? Fastest boot-up I've seen for a Windows OS.
And as for optimization. I care about major optimizations. I don't give a rat's ass about a 0.5%-2% boost in hard-drive space. I don't care that the OS spends 0.5-1 second less in booting up. No reasonable consumer should.
Quote:
At least this another completely unused 1GB.
ANOTHER 0.5% FOLKS. OOOHHHHH YEAH.
Lin Kuei Ominae wrote:
Oh come on. It can't be hard to have during the installation an option for
-complete install (with all crap installed automatically)
-professional install (with user selected stuff only)
Every other program has it, so why not windows?
Because the 3 people (you and two other whiners) who want would be the same three people bitching about how time-consuming and wasteful it is afterwards.
So in short, you're attributing
1: User preference (I wish Windows 7 would let me only install Courier New, despite everything else that is dependent and designed around other fonts)
2: Minor nitpicks (OMG, I WANT MY 0.5% OF DISK SPACE BACK!!!!)
3: User laziness (Lol I can't be arsed to press Control + C)
4: Nonexistent issues (lol mythical warning popups everywhere!)
to Windows 7. And that's simply bullshit. _________________ YR modder/artist, DOOM mapper, aka evanb90
Project Lead Developer, New-Star Strike (2014-)
Former Project Lead DeveloperStar Strike (2005-2012), Z-Mod (2006-2007), RA1.5 (2008-2013), The Cold War (2006-2007) QUICK_EDIT
@FurryQueen: if you would have read my initial post, you'd have noticed that i optimized almost everything possible.
Then you're not trying nearly hard enough. I don't usually do much optimization and my desktop, and laptop both, run exceptionally well. And this is XP we're talking about, which really isn't that stupendous of an OS when it comes to being streamlined.
Quote:
The problem is, that such a job taking 4-8 days work
Why not? If you really want the most out of your OS, take your time and tweak away. If it takes more effort, put that effort in. Otherwise, shut your goddamn noisehole.
Quote:
a) not be necessary in the first place
Who are you to decide what's necessary? And who's to say what is necessary in the first place? Windows 7 was made for morons; keep that in mind before ranting like an XP fanboy.
Quote:
b) is never finish. Especially since with deactivated UAC, security center and other crap, the OS is still giving warnings about exes which i have started. Such useless and time consuming additional clicks are what i hate about win7.
You're never finished tweaking your OS, even if you've had it installed for two years. I could tweak my XP from here to hell and back, and still find new things to change. If you want the most out of your operating system, fucking work for it.
Quote:
I still haven't found out how i can run every exe (that i start by clicking on it) in administrator rights. Especially since i use already an administrator account.
Worst. Argument. Ever. Have you ever heard of the principle of least privilege? Something says, no screams, that you have not.
Quote:
So again i'm forced to do an additional right click and search for "run as administrator"
You do not need this for every application and you are able to set, on a case-by-case basis, which applications run with it by default.
Quote:
Other things like the windows explorer not even having simple buttons for copy and paste by default in the menu bar don't make working faster either.
You complain about having to click extra and then say you keyboard shortcut, and then complain about not enough shit to click? Make up your goddamn mind already.
Quote:
Of course there are workarounds/solutions, but again these shouldn't be necessary in the first place!
Again. I ask what makes you the sole decider of what's required and what isn't?
Quote:
It's the MS policy that annoys me, that goes "Don't install/copy on the harddisk what's necessary, but heck, lets spam it full with everything we have and then let the OS decide what needs to be used".
What are you even arguing here?
Quote:
Why do i need a 1GB big DriverStore folder in my windows system folder?
You don't realize just how many drivers there are, do you? Take a look at your device manager sometime. You'll see quite a bit more than just fifteen drivers. Consider that every comminucable piece of hardware requires a driver, sometimes more than one. It's not just your video, sound and chipset here. SATA controllers, IDE controllers, USB, network, printer, chipset, display, etc etc. Anything on the motherboards requires a driver to interact with the Windows kernel and its systems.
Quote:
So why do i have to keep millions of driver for other hardware components too?
Compatibility reasons. The installation doesn't auto-detect what SATA controller it needs, or which IDE controller, or USB. Windows needs them to have a generalized base from which it can run. Without it, you would see horrific issues with simple tasks like reinstalling your OS. Besides, can you tell me what USB controller your motherboard needs? What? You can't? Didn't fuckin' think so.
Quote:
Or why does an OS need more than 200 fonts, while 10 would be already enough (for me "courier new" would be already enough)? Instead of letting the user decide which one he needs, they are all preinstalled and declared as system critical files which can't be deleted. So heck, lets load them all during bootup.
You know what. Just shut up. You don't even have a clue right now. I installed a pack of 30 thousand fonts and lost virtually no space. Fonts do not require much space, nor are they loaded at boot. Seems like you don't understand what runs there and what doesn't.
Quote:
It's this policy that goes from simple examples like these, through the whole OS and which makes working with it a pain in the ass.
Problem: you haven't given a single, coherent, credible complaint. So stop whining and learn something new or go back to XP and shut the fuck up.
Quote:
I hated 95,98, disliked XP but get used to it, and hate again Vista and 7.
If it's this bad, shut up and get Ubuntu already. Stop wasting everyone's time with your scatterbrained failrant.
Quote:
I have a 1366x768 res too, but the size of the start menu was only 1 third of the screen height with big text/icons too. So that's why there wasn't enough space for more than 10 progs. Of course that is now solved too, but again it shouldn't have been necessary to solve in the first place.
What are you even talking about? I ran on 1024x768 for the longest time and didn't have this problem. And that's with adding a new toolbar and extending my quick launch. What, precisely, is your problem?
Quote:
And if you're forced to change the path of the My Documents to a secondary partition (which you have to create too) in the first place, i see no need in using this stuff as i can spend the same time in creating my own, reliable/secure folder order.
Then just don't use "My Documents." How hard is that? If you're really that worried about it, don't use it. THAT WAS A TOUGH SOLUTION.
Quote:
But click on energy management and you'll see what i mean.
uh, okay. Not sure what you're bitching about. I just checked my brother's control panel and this particular section and I can modify the basic needs for power options. It's the same as XP without tabs, and text on the left. WHOOPDEEFUCKINGDO.
Quote:
The complete window filled with only 2 options to choose from for an energy saving modus.
You can do the same things in Windows 7. It's just laid out differently.
Quote:
They seem to behave the same. Why care about optimization. The user has enough HDD space, RAM and processor power.
NO OS comes optimized out of the box. If you're that worried about it, do your own optimization.
Quote:
Do you noticed that since win95, the PCs became faster and faster, yet win bootup became longer and longer?
I would normally laugh at such an asinine statement, but I can't. This is so incorrect I'm not sure I can fathom your lack of insight. _________________ KGR | AT
AZUR
Discord: theastronomer1836
Steam QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 05 Mar 2007 Location: Less than 10 minutes from the internet
Posted: Thu Nov 11, 2010 8:02 am Post subject:
By the by, how many of you still have floppy drives attached to your machines? I've had the worst luck trying to use my floppy drive in Windows 7... never mind the purpose, I just can't seem to get it to work right. Ive tried 3 different drives, and many configurations.
For example, I will give it a fresh floppy, perform a format, and then ask to see contents of the floppy, and it will ask me to format it which is rather frustrating to say the least.
On a positive note, I really like the snap feature. That has made managing multiple windows so much easier for me, just because everything looks even and nice. The only thing that could make it better is if they let you configure to have 4 windows, with each snapped to a different corner, if you so choose. That. Would. Rule. _________________ QUICK_EDIT
the true evil if apple with mac-os and the ei-phony!!!
since everyone is trying to copy them they prevent new ideas...
but...yeah...only good thing i can say about win7 is:
that you put the dvd into the dvd-drive, start installation, and after that the pc works without further installation of drivers...
but then again...after 2 days of use and the fact that i could not delete some folders and files, i removed it and installed XP again...
but even more i miss Win98SE...it crashed very often...lotta bluescreens...but press the reste button and 30seconds later you were able to work with it like nothing happened...
oh and btw: LKO, if you want some smaller win7, you could nlite it
read somewhere that you can have a win7 installed with less than 5 gig of space _________________ just a simple logo by bricks @ raminator, on Flickr QUICK_EDIT
I agree that Windows 7 is an improvement. Sure there are some problems with running the oldest programs, but that was inevitable and will happen to every program as OSs evolve.
Quote:
Do you noticed that since win95, the PCs became faster and faster, yet win bootup became longer and longer?
Sorry, but this is indeed complete bullcrap. Vista starts in mere seconds, while it takes good load of minutes for Win 95 to boot up. _________________ QUICK_EDIT
Do you noticed that since win95, the PCs became faster and faster, yet win bootup became longer and longer?
...I turn my PC on....I look around and before my god damn monitor even finishes loading up, I'm already at my logon screen...So I really have no idea what you mean here bub. _________________ Please, I DON'T read the signature rules of the forum. QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 26 Nov 2002 Location: Algae Colony On Mars
Posted: Thu Nov 11, 2010 10:45 am Post subject:
Furry wrote:
You don't realize just how many drivers there are, do you? Take a look at your device manager sometime. You'll see quite a bit more than just fifteen drivers. Consider that every comminucable piece of hardware requires a driver, sometimes more than one. It's not just your video, sound and chipset here. SATA controllers, IDE controllers, USB, network, printer, chipset, display, etc etc. Anything on the motherboards requires a driver to interact with the Windows kernel and its systems.
Linux supports a hell of a lot more than Windows does and its drivers take up nowhere near as much space. A stock Ubuntu install is about 2.5GB, a stock SUSE installation is about 5GB.
LKO wrote:
Since your screen shows it already, the completely useless "My Documents" feature from WinXP was even expanded to now include much more useless subfolders. Luckyly they can be all deleted except "My Documents".
Linux does this too, everything is kept in your home folder. I don't see what the issue is here.
Also, to continue with your complaint of UAC: again, Linux does this. To run a program as root you need to enter your password. Admittedly, some programs in Windows run with admin rights even when they shouldn't (e.g. a lot of games) but every time you install a package you have to type your password.
I don't really understand what you're looking for in an operating system. It just seems like you're used to a certain method of doing things on your computer and every change away from that is a bad thing. Computer interfaces are changing all the time, generally for the better. Years of research into the way humans interact with computers has lead to things like HIG and every major desktop environment adheres to the rules set out in their own guidelines where possible. _________________
Quote:
This is sexier than what this forum was supposed to tolerate. - Banshee
LOL! You can get a 1 terrabyte harddisk for 50$ or less. And RAM memory is like the same for a set of 4 Gigs. This stuff is really cheap nowadays.
So people talking about "I don't have the budget for this kinda stuff" should think and upgrade once in a while. It will make your life a lot less stressfull. _________________ Criticizing n00bs is like booing at the special olympics. QUICK_EDIT
Of course it's possible i forgot something, but using totalcommander i still get sometimes (much less than in the beginning) warning messages.
I still think you're full of it. I have literally gotten zero warning popups since day one, second boot.
[...]
4: Nonexistent issues (lol mythical warning popups everywhere!)
to Windows 7. And that's simply bullshit.
See attached picture.
UAC deactivated and running as administrator. Yet still a security popup window after i started the java runtime environment installation.
I would accept such a message for an automatically started application, but for an application that is obviously started via user input by mouse/keyboard this is completely redundant.
Also see the small start menu that shows only 10 programs and can't be made bigger (at least i haven't found any option to make it bigger).
FurryQueen wrote:
Quote:
The problem is, that such a job taking 4-8 days work
Why not? If you really want the most out of your OS, take your time and tweak away. If it takes more effort, put that effort in. Otherwise, shut your goddamn noisehole.
Oh how i love people becoming personal when they lack factual statements. I'm sorry, but i won't go down to your niveau and just have to say that not everyone has several days time to adjust an OS to be operational.
FurryQueen wrote:
Quote:
a) not be necessary in the first place
Who are you to decide what's necessary? And who's to say what is necessary in the first place? Windows 7 was made for morons; keep that in mind before ranting like an XP fanboy.
It's exactly that what i'm talking about. Windows is/was made for morons. If you like it this way and put yourself in this customer category, fine.
I want a professional OS and not one made for morons.
FurryQueen wrote:
Quote:
b) is never finish. Especially since with deactivated UAC, security center and other crap, the OS is still giving warnings about exes which i have started. Such useless and time consuming additional clicks are what i hate about win7.
You're never finished tweaking your OS, even if you've had it installed for two years. I could tweak my XP from here to hell and back, and still find new things to change. If you want the most out of your operating system, fucking work for it.
You know that there's something called real life and work? I don't have the time to spend several days for these kind of things.
FurryQueen wrote:
Quote:
I still haven't found out how i can run every exe (that i start by clicking on it) in administrator rights. Especially since i use already an administrator account.
Worst. Argument. Ever. Have you ever heard of the principle of least privilege? Something says, no screams, that you have not.
And again it seems you haven't read my post.
I have an administrator account, making the option "run as administrator" completely redundant, yet it is still present.
I can completely understand the "run as administrator" option for a limited user account, but not for an administrator account which should have already all privileges available.
FurryQueen wrote:
Quote:
So again i'm forced to do an additional right click and search for "run as administrator"
You do not need this for every application and you are able to set, on a case-by-case basis, which applications run with it by default.
Yet it is an additional step which have to do and sometimes you notice that this is necessary only after a while. (like DriveImageXML which otherwise can't see all partitions and you wonder why they aren't there and especially confusing when using already an administrator account)
FurryQueen wrote:
Quote:
Other things like the windows explorer not even having simple buttons for copy and paste by default in the menu bar don't make working faster either.
You complain about having to click extra and then say you keyboard shortcut, and then complain about not enough shit to click? Make up your goddamn mind already.
Ever heard of something like usability?
It was my intention to show that things where unnecessarily added in one place while other quite useful things where removed.
Simply to show bad decisions from the OS developers.
Only because i don't use or need a certain feature/program, doesn't mean i'm not allowed to express my opinion about it or give some criticism.
FurryQueen wrote:
Quote:
Of course there are workarounds/solutions, but again these shouldn't be necessary in the first place!
Again. I ask what makes you the sole decider of what's required and what isn't?
Of course i'm not. But then again, if it would be such a great OS, there wouldn't be all the third party programs to fix these issues.
FurryQueen wrote:
Quote:
It's the MS policy that annoys me, that goes "Don't install/copy on the harddisk what's necessary, but heck, lets spam it full with everything we have and then let the OS decide what needs to be used".
What are you even arguing here?
You get things you don't want and are forced to use them because they can't be removed (or at least not with a lot of work).
Check the definition of Operating System. It's purpose is to manage the hardware and give the user some basic services to run other applications. (beside other things like a basic user interface, job/task/data/device/security management)
An OS doesn't include: games, media player for videos/images, internet apps for receiving/sending mails, reading webages etc etc.
Yet they are all still a fixed part of Windows and can't be disabled during a windows installation.
I was always impressed when i learned about the core of windows XP and how it manages applications/threats, provides multitasking and parallel job handling etc. But all this additional stuff, which should be optional, ruins this OS in my opinion.
FurryQueen wrote:
Quote:
So why do i have to keep millions of driver for other hardware components too?
Compatibility reasons. The installation doesn't auto-detect what SATA controller it needs, or which IDE controller, or USB. Windows needs them to have a generalized base from which it can run. Without it, you would see horrific issues with simple tasks like reinstalling your OS. Besides, can you tell me what USB controller your motherboard needs? What? You can't? Didn't fuckin' think so.
I still don't see that as a reason to keep other useless drivers too.
Obviously the OS can find/use the right drivers, so why not removing all the unused ones? These could still be loaded when necessary via inserting the installation disc.
For components like CPU, RAM, HDD, Mainboard, GraCa which almost never change, could all the unused driver be removed.
For others like external media (e.g. USB devices), they can be of course kept.
FurryQueen wrote:
If it's this bad, shut up and get Ubuntu already. Stop wasting everyone's time with your scatterbrained failrant.
Are we becoming personal again yes.
You know, no-one forces you to read or answer to this topic and i'm always open for other opinions and change my mind according to a reasonable explanation.
So if you can't provide some factual statements and good manners, i would suggest you simply ztype off.
Joined: 26 Nov 2002 Location: Algae Colony On Mars
Posted: Thu Nov 11, 2010 1:58 pm Post subject:
Quote:
Also see the small start menu that shows only 10 programs and can't be made bigger (at least i haven't found any option to make it bigger).
That's because you've removed everything else in the menu. Add some more menu options (e.g. Music/Videos) and it'll increase in size. This happened with XP as well.
Quote:
It's exactly that what i'm talking about. Windows is/was made for morons. If you like it this way and put yourself in this customer category, fine.
I want a professional OS and not one made for morons.
Just because an operating system is made for idiots it doesn't mean it's professional. You're implying that professionals have more complicated operating systems at hand. I'm pretty sure Windows 7 hasn't LOST any functionality, it's still there somewhere. Microsoft want to appeal to sysadmins too by giving them the ability to customise things they need without wizards or something similar.
Quote:
I have an administrator account, making the option "run as administrator" completely redundant, yet it is still present.
This is a security measure. As is my understanding, having an admin account doesn't make you an admin, it just means that you can automatically elevate to admin privileges where required. A user account has to enter an admin password in order to run at elevated privileges like that. This means that a potentially malicious program won't run as root by default, preventing bad things from happening.
Quote:
Check the definition of Operating System. It's purpose is to manage the hardware and give the user some basic services to run other applications.
An OS doesn't include: games, media player for videos/images, internet apps for receiving/sending mails, reading webages etc etc.
Yet they are all still a fixed part of Windows and can't be disabled during a windows installation.
Virtually every operating system I've used (including Windows, various Linux distributions, Mac OS 8/9X, BSD, Haiku and Solaris) all came with media players, browsers and image browsers and generally came with one or two games, maybe an email client and a simple word processing client, along with things like a calculator, PDF viewer and note-taking programs. Everyone's definition of an operating system must be different from yours.
Quote:
I still don't see that as a reason to keep other useless drivers too.
Obviously the OS can find/use the right drivers, so why not removing all the unused ones? These could still be loaded when necessary via inserting the installation disc.
For components like CPU, RAM, HDD, Mainboard, GraCa which almost never change, could all the unused driver be removed.
For others like external media (e.g. USB devices), they can be of course kept.
Then remove them. Chances are you can delete the folder and you'll have to insert the Windows disc when you want to install a driver, or perhaps download it through Windows Update instead. _________________
Quote:
This is sexier than what this forum was supposed to tolerate. - Banshee
Also Known As: evanb90 Joined: 20 Feb 2005 Location: o kawaii koto
Posted: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:22 pm Post subject:
Just going to say that those particular popups are not new to Windows 7. They've been around since XP and are pretty reasonable for unrecognized applications on their first run. However, I've never paid them enough attention to actually give them consideration in my counterargument. I'll give you that one.
In regards to the start menu, what Clazzy said is correct. The actual menu itself has to have some content on it. (see my previous attachment in this thread)
It will adjust and use more vertical space, increasing the size of your "All Programs" list.
You sound like you'd be much better off with a Linux distribution, using emulation/dual-boot to handle compatibility issues.
This.png
Description:
Filesize:
365.93 KB
Viewed:
5429 Time(s)
_________________ YR modder/artist, DOOM mapper, aka evanb90
Project Lead Developer, New-Star Strike (2014-)
Former Project Lead DeveloperStar Strike (2005-2012), Z-Mod (2006-2007), RA1.5 (2008-2013), The Cold War (2006-2007) QUICK_EDIT
Also see the small start menu that shows only 10 programs and can't be made bigger (at least i haven't found any option to make it bigger).
That's because you've removed everything else in the menu. Add some more menu options (e.g. Music/Videos) and it'll increase in size. This happened with XP as well.
see attached picture. The XP start menu adds an external separate menu which can be a lot bigger than the initial start menu.
Clazzy wrote:
Quote:
Check the definition of Operating System. It's purpose is to manage the hardware and give the user some basic services to run other applications.
An OS doesn't include: games, media player for videos/images, internet apps for receiving/sending mails, reading webages etc etc.
Yet they are all still a fixed part of Windows and can't be disabled during a windows installation.
Virtually every operating system I've used (including Windows, various Linux distributions, Mac OS 8/9X, BSD, Haiku and Solaris) all came with media players, browsers and image browsers and generally came with one or two games, maybe an email client and a simple word processing client, along with things like a calculator, PDF viewer and note-taking programs. Everyone's definition of an operating system must be different from yours.
But many allow to disable the installation of certain programs during the OS installation and they are also not some kind of core or part of the OS.
You can switch them with other programs or completely remove them, which isn't possible in Windows for every additional program.
An OS doesn't include: games, media player for videos/images, internet apps for receiving/sending mails, reading webages etc etc. Yet they are all still a fixed part of Windows and can't be disabled during a windows installation.
So we should just get the kernel when we buy Windows and create/install the rest of the system ourselves? Most of the MS apps are actually good, I wouldn't want to start hunting for stuff like Media players when the bundled WMP does it's job.
Lin Kuei Ominae wrote:
Are we becoming personal again yes.
You know, no-one forces you to read or answer to this topic and i'm always open for other opinions and change my mind according to a reasonable explanation.
So if you can't provide some factual statements and good manners, i would suggest you simply ztype off.
Agreed.
Revolutionary wrote:
I cant understand why modern laptops come with 3GB of RAM (the same as my high end pc) to me it is ineffician as i would never do any thing so demanding of a laptop.
They need that 3 GB. I wouldn't want to run XP with 1 GB and couldn't even imagine using Vista with that. Currently I'm running Firefox with a few tabs, a few instant messengers, Kaspersky IS and some smaller programs like Logitech Setpoint and Daemon Tools and RAM usage is about 700mb. I have 2 GB and although it's enough in almost all cases, my system has frozen a few times when I've run a demanding game like Dragon Age and tried to open a web browser at the same time (with a RAM usage of about 2,5 GB, of which 2 GB is physical). _________________ CnCNet Client | CnCNet TS patches | More Quality-of-Life Improvements for RA Remastered
Joined: 26 Nov 2002 Location: Algae Colony On Mars
Posted: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:58 pm Post subject:
Quote:
see attached picture. The XP start menu adds an external separate menu which can be a lot bigger than the initial start menu.
Yes, but shortening the height in XP reduced the number of pinned entries in the standard start menu (not the one you've posted there). 7 doesn't use an external menu and, if you use the search bar, you don't need it.
[quote]But many allow to disable the installation of certain programs during the OS installation and they are also not some kind of core or part of the OS.
[quote]
I'm sorry but this is one area where you're very wrong. Aside from certain Linux distributions (typically Debian, SUSE, Fedora), you can't select what is or isn't installed on your computer. I've never installed MacOS in any way so I don't know about that but I'm assuming it doesn't let you choose what it installs (especially when something like Quicktime is so deeply embedded into the OS).
Also, last time I checked you can uninstall a hell of a lot more from Windows 7 then you can earlier Windows versions. You can remove the games, remove Internet Explorer, Windows Media Player, Windows DVD Maker, the Gadgets and more. What programs are you referring to? It doesn't come with an email client by default and aside from things like Paint or Wordpad I can't see what you're on about. _________________
Quote:
This is sexier than what this forum was supposed to tolerate. - Banshee
several useless and automatically running background Services (like file indexing, automatic updates
File indexing and automatic updates useless? Do you really want to manually tell Windows to download updates all the time, because they are certainly not useless..file indexing in Windows 7/Vista greatly increases the speed of search.
Quote:
The original installation with the factory settings used even 20 GB
20 GB? My installation is 16 GB with all updates installed! Is this a PC you bought in a shop? They are bound to have loads of useless shit installed by the manufacturer of the PC.
Quote:
They need that 3 GB. I wouldn't want to run XP with 1 GB and couldn't even imagine using Vista with that
I ran XP and even Vista on a Pentium 4 with 1 GB RAM with no problems...I even played Supreme Commander......
Quote:
Vista -> bloatted, potential change for the better
7 -> dumbed down vista, no change, more bloat, usless features, slightly faster under the right condition, GUI made for simple people just like many of the other changes.
TBH im glad i didnt pay for that service pack, allmost all of the "win 7 features" 4StarGeneral
mentioned are in Vista, Vista had problem but also potential, win 7 just made it look like the crappy mac GUI and introduced work-arounds.
Vista is by far more bloated than Win 7, infact Windows 7 took away features which almost no one used in Vista like photo gallery, movie maker and mail. And as for looking like Mac....it isn't even remotely close it looks more like KDE than anything. By the way the action center is actually useful
Calling Windows 7 a service pack is as calling XP a service pack for Windows 2000, as XP is "just 2000 with a new skin"..............
I'm quite happy with Win7 Enterprise as I was with Vista Home Premium and XP Professional. _________________ QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 05 Mar 2007 Location: Less than 10 minutes from the internet
Posted: Thu Nov 11, 2010 3:39 pm Post subject:
Tore wrote:
Vista is by far more bloated than Win 7, infact Windows 7 took away features which almost no one used in Vista like...
Exactly, and a lot of that bloatedness that made Vista take up resources was caused by inappropriate use of the page file. When swapping between which program was active, Vista "assumed" way to quickly that you were done using a program for a good time being, and was programmed to take up as little RAM as possible. It goes and throws everything it thinks you didn't need into the page file for store (like XP and 7 do), which made you, the user, have to wait while it tosses everything onto the HDD or retrieve it when going back to said program. What made it inefficient was its tendency to put things there way too quickly. The RAM was always empty, but you lost efficiency.
That was one of the big things that 7 fixed. Plus, it doesn't automatically start making a ztype-ton of shadow copies and restore points that take up alot of space. That is, you can at least change the setting to not do it if you so choose. That's the big thing that I didn't like about vista, because I used it on a laptop with only an 80GB HDD and it would mysteriously fill up all the time. Now it has openSuSE on it, and has turned into my programming rig. _________________ QUICK_EDIT
I ran XP and even Vista on a Pentium 4 with 1 GB RAM with no problems...I even played Supreme Commander......
Many times I've seen The Witcher and Dragon Age alone take much more than 1 GB of RAM. SC probably isn't that resource demanding. Also, currently with two instances of Visual Studio and the background applications which I previously mentioned the RAM usage is 950 mb. If I had only 1 GB of RAM and would launch another instance of VS the RAM would run out. Sure, not all used RAM has to be physical, but it's slow to use the pagefile. _________________ CnCNet Client | CnCNet TS patches | More Quality-of-Life Improvements for RA Remastered
Joined: 18 Jun 2005 Location: Dordrecht, the Netherlands
Posted: Thu Nov 11, 2010 5:58 pm Post subject:
Volgin wrote:
This is what everybody here should do. ALL of us.
Best post in the entire thread.
LKO, I hate to say this, but if you dislike Windows so much, use Linux (or Mac OS if you're really desperate), but stop your unnecessary whining about an OS that is superior to it's predecessors (especially Win Vista). QUICK_EDIT
I ran XP and even Vista on a Pentium 4 with 1 GB RAM with no problems...I even played Supreme Commander......
Many times I've seen The Witcher and Dragon Age alone take much more than 1 GB of RAM. SC probably isn't that resource demanding. Also, currently with two instances of Visual Studio and the background applications which I previously mentioned the RAM usage is 950 mb. If I had only 1 GB of RAM and would launch another instance of VS the RAM would run out. Sure, not all used RAM has to be physical, but it's slow to use the pagefile.
When SupCom was released (2006/2007) it was very resource intensive, with massive battles and huge maps, swarming with tanks, robots, planes and ships.. _________________ QUICK_EDIT
When did Americans have a thing for BIG computers? Deformat, please pull your Anti-American stick out of your ass and go back to the corner. If that were the case, I'm pretty damn sure PC gaming would be more popular than console gaming. Jesus Christ.
My bad, had a bad day and exaggerated. A lot.
Tho as far as I know PC gaming IS more popular than console gaming...at least here.
Anyway, as for 7, I was shocked when I heard that it uses 20 GB of HDD.Tho if people say it uses 15...
Its still a lot for me, since my old Vista used 14.5 GB. And squeezed nearly everything from my 1GB of RAM(Hell, I could barely use 3Ds Max.). But then, its my laptop that sucks. QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 18 Jun 2005 Location: Dordrecht, the Netherlands
Posted: Thu Nov 11, 2010 8:48 pm Post subject:
Some of you don't know that (in example) C&C4 uses 10GB HDD? So what's the deal that Win7 requires 20GB? For what you get it ain't a lot. And besides that, HDD don't cost shit anymore these days. I can get a good 1TB HDD for around 80 euros (if not less these days). You can always choose for the currently overpriced SSD, but those are only for making your pc start extremely fast imho. QUICK_EDIT
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
Rant about Windows 7
) would break.
)
