Windows Vista Why Windows sucks

  • Thread starter Thread starter White Spirit
  • Start date Start date
Re: Why Windows sucks

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 11:19:41 +0100, White Spirit wrote:

> There are profound technical reasons why Windows is crap. This is just
> one of them:
>
> Let's look at the WinMain function called by every Windows program. It
> has the following prototype:
> int WINAPI WinMain(HINSTANCE hInstance, HINSTANCE hPrevInstance, LPSTR
> lpCmdLine, int nCmdShow);
>
> hPrevInstance is a legacy from 16-bit days. If there was an existing
> instance of the program running, the new instance needed to know about
> it because programs running under 16-bit Windows shared the same address
> space. Consequently, the programmer had to take measures to ensure that
> the two instances didn't conflict. Most programmers simply limited the
> application to one instance.

So are you seriously suggesting that Unix doesn't have it's own legacy
cruft?

ACL's have been "it" for a long time, and because of the vast majority of
Linux users and apps that don't know how to deal with them, people still
use UGO.

Or how about tar, a system designed for legacy tape drives that has been
hacked to make it filesystem friendly over the years?

Why not search your kernel config file for the word "legacy" while you're
at it, there's plenty of hits.

> Microsoft fixed this with Windows 95

Actually, it fixed it with Windows NT.

> - at which time it was over twenty-five years behind Unix in this
> regard(*)! Windows NT was also over twenty-five years behind Unix by
> being multiuser for the first time and finally allowing multiple
> permissions for the file system. Of course, the filesystem still became
> severely fragmented after a short amount of normal use - something that
> still happens with Windows XP, over thirty years behind Unix
> filesystems.

Oh, I get it, you're one of those people that really has no clue as to the
history of Unix. You think Unix sprung fully featured from the head of
Zeus in 1973, ignoring the fact that it too evolved over time.

Here's a hint:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_File_System

It really wasn't until the mid-80's when the filesystems we think of as
"unix" filesystems were created. And, given that Windows NT was released
in 1993, that makes your exagerated timeframe more like "less than 10
years".

None of that excuses NTFS for fragmenting, although there is some research
which suggests that multi-user server filesystems benefit from filesystem
fragmentation because disk access is typically fragemented by multiple
users accessing file simultaneously anyways, but that's a different
argument.

> * Perhaps claiming twenty-five years is unfair given that x86
> architecture was originally unable to offer multitasking, which was only
> truly available with 32-bit x86. The i368 was first released in 1985,
> so it's certainly fair to say that Windows 95 was ten years behind the
> techonology.

Again, NT was released in 1993, and was in development since 87. Further,
remember that Microsoft developed most of OS/2 up until the 1.3 version.
The fact of the matter is, Windows 3.x (and 95) were more successful than
than OS/2 primarily because of legacy support that you pan.

> At least it didn't take MS that long to release 64-bit
> versions of Windows. It's a shame that they're buggy, slow, have poor
> driver support and come at an exorbitant price.

64 bit versions have no price different from their 32 bit versions. What
are you talking about? And I use 64 bit vista every day, it's not buggy,
and it's faster (marginally, anyways) than the 32 bit version.
 
Re: Why Windows sucks

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 12:39:42 -0400, Erik Funkenbusch
<erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 14:48:06 +0300, groovy wrote:
>
>> We all know that vista sucks.
>
>You mean you all think you know.
>
>> You may look at vista from many views, and from all of them it sucks.
>> Sure there are a few idiots here and there that deny it.
>> I dont know how they are so blind though.. its scary.
>
>Maybe because we actually *USE* it. The vast majority of people i've run
>across that dislike Vista are people who have either never used it, or have
>used it only briefly, or on a woefully inadequate machine.

I use MusicMatch. Vista won't allow that program. That alone is a
reason to avoid it. If ONE old favorite program won't run under Vista
then it's a valid reason NOT to use it.
>
>I've met very few people that have used Vista for any length of time on a
>decent machine that dislike it.
>
>> But the overwhelming evidence and disgust from the community and the
>> professionals clearly show that vista is a very bad lemon.
>
>I used to know a lot of people that hated Macs too. Using excuses like "It
>treats me like an idiot", but suddenly those same people are now praising
>Macs. The difference? They actually used on for a while.
>
>People are a fraid of change, and more afraid of great change.
 
Re: Why Windows sucks

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 19:46:58 +0300, Be Yond wrote:

> we are not afraid of change. we have powerful machines and have been using
> vista longer than you. we are darn good at computers and vista experts.
>
> that's why we say vista sucks..

Vista experts... right. Ok.

How about you answer a simple question then. Is turning off UAC a good
solution to UAC annoyances?

> the more you use it, the more you know about it, the more you dislike it.

Not in my experience. That's not to say it doesn't have its flaws, it has
quite a few, but overall is not as bad as people make it out to be.

> that applies of course only if you know what you are doing and have the
> knowledge to discriminate between something that is good and something that
> is crap like vista is

Saying it doesn't make you an expert.
 
Re: Why Windows sucks

On 2008-04-11, Erik Funkenbusch <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 14:48:06 +0300, groovy wrote:
>
>> We all know that vista sucks.
>
> You mean you all think you know.
>
>> You may look at vista from many views, and from all of them it sucks.
>> Sure there are a few idiots here and there that deny it.
>> I dont know how they are so blind though.. its scary.
>
> Maybe because we actually *USE* it. The vast majority of people i've run
> across that dislike Vista are people who have either never used it, or have
> used it only briefly, or on a woefully inadequate machine.
>
> I've met very few people that have used Vista for any length of time on a
> decent machine that dislike it.
>

I tend to agree with that. I was put off myself at first. I was having
a significant instability problem, and some of my software just wouldn't
work... But, as it turned out the instability was bad RAM. Once that
was replaced and I updated the software with a couple of vendor patches
for Vista, everything has been pretty much smooth sailing.

>> But the overwhelming evidence and disgust from the community and the
>> professionals clearly show that vista is a very bad lemon.
>
> I used to know a lot of people that hated Macs too. Using excuses like "It
> treats me like an idiot", but suddenly those same people are now praising
> Macs. The difference? They actually used on for a while.
>
> People are a fraid of change, and more afraid of great change.

Yep. Just go back to 2001 and look at all the complaints about XP's
gratuitous ui changes, and the need for retraining. The complaints
about instability (what was the number that was being quoted then?
Somethign like 1 in 5 xp machines crash more then twice a day). Look at
the people like Sinister who had the "XP: The ME of NT" sigs. Look at
the reports of slow uptake. Hell, 4 years after XP's release, it still
had less the 50% of the corporate desktop market. In fact, I doubt I
have heard a single complaint about Vista that I didn't hear about XP -
well except for DRM maybe, but with XP it was activation. I mean
really, the extended the Windows98 support lifetime twice because of
protests against moving to XP.

History will just repeat itself with Windows7. Only this time people
will be crying over the death of Vista - not XP.

--
Tom Shelton
 
Re: Why Windows sucks

Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

>I've met very few people that have used Vista for any length of time on a
>decent machine that dislike it.

Well, Erik, you also claimed that you have "several friends that are
open cross dressers".

Are they all Vista users? 8)

--

"I'm truly sadened that anyone but a closet (or outright) homophobe
would fnd anything distressing in ***'s post. I saw nothing wrong
with it then and I see nothing wrong with it now."

- Erik Funkenbusch, defending his posting of someone else's personal
information.


"those that share intimate details about themselves inappropriately
are called sociopaths."

- Erik Funkenbusch, attacking that same person, after he chose to
post his own personal information on a Web site.
 
Re: Why Windows sucks

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 12:22:15 -0500, Lookout wrote:

>>Maybe because we actually *USE* it. The vast majority of people i've run
>>across that dislike Vista are people who have either never used it, or have
>>used it only briefly, or on a woefully inadequate machine.
>
> I use MusicMatch. Vista won't allow that program. That alone is a
> reason to avoid it. If ONE old favorite program won't run under Vista
> then it's a valid reason NOT to use it.

A lot of people like Weatherbug too, that doesn't mean Weatherbug is a good
app.

MusicMatch is a poorly written piece of crap, it barely ran on my XP
machines, much less Vista. That's why Yahoo effectively scrapped the app
when they bought MusicMatch.

The fact of the matter is, software breaks when you upgrade the OS. It's
happened to all platforms. MacOS, Linux, etc.. Linux, however, usually
updates their apps when breaks would otherwise occur. Breakage is higher
in Vista because too many apps were violating Microsofts design guidelines.

Having said that, many people have gotten MusicMatch to work in Vista by
adjusting the compatibility mode settings for all the apps. See post 25 of
this thread:

http://forums.cnet.com/5208-7813_102-0.html?forumID=98&threadID=233835&start=15

I know it's hard for end users to understand how software can run fine on
one OS and then break on another, and it's somehow the applications fault.
It doesn't make sense, logic would say it must be the fault of the OS,
right?

In a way, it is the fault of the OS, but not the new one. The old OS
allowed an app to do something that it wasn't supposed to do, and when the
new app changes the behavior to enforce this, the app breaks. Or the app
relies on some undocumented side-effect of the old OS that isn't present in
the new one and it breaks.

Despite all that, Microsoft goes to great lengths to insure compatibility.
In fact, so much so that the author of this thread complained about that
fact as the reason Vista sucks. So your assertion that Vista sucks because
it's *NOT* compatible enough, sort of cancels out the entire post.
 
Re: Why Windows sucks

Experts of course!

I know more than most MVP's in here that are supposedly experts.. LOL
And because I have watching and using and installing and supporting vista so
closley thats why
I can say without any doubt that vista is CRAP!

To answer your question:
You can use tweakUAC that has 3 modes,

1)off
2)on
3) On but its not in your face all the time.

Google tweakuac

I never had a problem with security with windows xp that didnt have UAC.
Its not the added security layer that bothers me, its the implimentation of
UAC thats always in your face thats the problem. Even MS knows this, and
they are redesigning it for windows7. This is due to the outrage of the
users and hatred that just makes people either turn it off, or click without
reading the warnings.
Thus its not effective.
Even the linux implementation is better, you add a password, but you dont do
it 100 times a day.


"Erik Funkenbusch" <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote in message
news:1lw6xc43db028.dlg@funkenbusch.com...
> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 19:46:58 +0300, Be Yond wrote:
>
>> we are not afraid of change. we have powerful machines and have been
>> using
>> vista longer than you. we are darn good at computers and vista experts.
>>
>> that's why we say vista sucks..
>
> Vista experts... right. Ok.
>
> How about you answer a simple question then. Is turning off UAC a good
> solution to UAC annoyances?
>
>> the more you use it, the more you know about it, the more you dislike it.
>
> Not in my experience. That's not to say it doesn't have its flaws, it has
> quite a few, but overall is not as bad as people make it out to be.
>
>> that applies of course only if you know what you are doing and have the
>> knowledge to discriminate between something that is good and something
>> that
>> is crap like vista is
>
> Saying it doesn't make you an expert.
 
Re: Why Windows sucks

Tom Shelton wrote:

>Just go back to 2001 and look at all the complaints about XP's
>gratuitous ui changes, and the need for retraining.

What "need for retraining"? The UI can set back to "classic" in
seconds. There is no such "easy fix" for Vistah's massive changes and
4X hardware requirement.

>The complaints
>about instability (what was the number that was being quoted then?
>Somethign like 1 in 5 xp machines crash more then twice a day). Look at
>the people like Sinister who had the "XP: The ME of NT" sigs. Look at
>the reports of slow uptake. Hell, 4 years after XP's release, it still
>had less the 50% of the corporate desktop market.

Slow uptake in business is to be expected. Extreme resistance and
rampant "downgrading" among home users is not to be expected.

>In fact, I doubt I
>have heard a single complaint about Vista that I didn't hear about XP -
>well except for DRM maybe, but with XP it was activation.

Did XP 4X the hardware requirements? No. Did XP break as much
compatibility, both hardware and software? I don't think so.

>I mean
>really, the extended the Windows98 support lifetime twice because of
>protests against moving to XP.

You're mixing-up the Win98 -> XP and the Win2k -> XP transitions, and
that makes it slippy to counter what you are saying.

>History will just repeat itself with Windows7. Only this time people
>will be crying over the death of Vista - not XP.

Gawd, I hope not. If a POS like Visduh is better than the
alternative, I'd hate to think how bad the alternative is...
 
Re: Why Windows sucks

In article <m9jvzhyb4u3d.dlg@funkenbusch.com>,
Erik Funkenbusch <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
>
>Or how about tar, a system designed for legacy tape drives that has been
>hacked to make it filesystem friendly over the years?
>

Tar, like any other unix program, simply reads stdin and writes
stdout. You can connect those descriptors to files but it's not "designed"
to write to any particular device.

>Why not search your kernel config file for the word "legacy" while you're
>at it, there's plenty of hits.

When I do this all I get is some text about Subarus.
 
Re: Why Windows sucks

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 20:42:33 +0300, ricky valentine wrote:

> Experts of course!
>
> I know more than most MVP's in here that are supposedly experts.. LOL
> And because I have watching and using and installing and supporting vista so
> closley thats why I can say without any doubt that vista is CRAP!

So you support Vista but don't use it yourself. You make my point.

You only see systems when they're screwed up. That skews your view of
things.

> To answer your question:
> You can use tweakUAC that has 3 modes,
>
> 1)off
> 2)on
> 3) On but its not in your face all the time.

That didn't answer my question. I didn't ask what modes there were. I
asked you if turning off UAC was a good solution.

> I never had a problem with security with windows xp that didnt have UAC.
> Its not the added security layer that bothers me, its the implimentation of
> UAC thats always in your face thats the problem. Even MS knows this, and
> they are redesigning it for windows7. This is due to the outrage of the
> users and hatred that just makes people either turn it off, or click without
> reading the warnings.
> Thus its not effective.
> Even the linux implementation is better, you add a password, but you dont do
> it 100 times a day.

As an admin, you hit a UAC prompt a lot because that's what you do, tweak
settings. But as a user, UAC prompts are seldom seen if the machine if
setup correctly (that includes proper permissions on things like USB keys
and secondary disks). At least once you've got the machine configured the
way you like it.

That's not to say UAC is perfect, and there is certainly a lot of room for
improvement, but for a normal user it's not that big of a problem.
 
Re: Why Windows sucks

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 17:47:39 +0000 (UTC), the wharf rat wrote:

> In article <m9jvzhyb4u3d.dlg@funkenbusch.com>,
> Erik Funkenbusch <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
>>
>>Or how about tar, a system designed for legacy tape drives that has been
>>hacked to make it filesystem friendly over the years?
>
> Tar, like any other unix program, simply reads stdin and writes
> stdout. You can connect those descriptors to files but it's not "designed"
> to write to any particular device.

Then why is it called "tape archiver"? That's what tar stands for. It's
filled with options to format data for tape drives, for instance.

>>Why not search your kernel config file for the word "legacy" while you're
>>at it, there's plenty of hits.
>
> When I do this all I get is some text about Subarus.

The API has changed over time, and deprecated certain functions as well.
It's not as big of an issue with Linux though because you can usually
recompile the app.
 
Re: Why Windows sucks

WTF? I have Vista even before it was called vista! The betas, the RC, the
RTM the SP1.. I have installed vista so many times I can do it blindfold!
Do I use it for work? HELL NO! its crap!!!
I cant do work on it, but I use it to provide support and create support
content.
And what did you expect? If I think vista is such crap, would you then
expect me to use it as my main OS? ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND!???
I have it as a tripple boot with XP, and Ubuntu.

You dont seem to know what a user is like now a-days.

With updates that happen daily, and without a centralized update manager
like the one linux has, you actually keep updating stuff even if you are a
simple user.
Programs prompt you all the time for updates, and then you have UAC in your
face all the time again.
Yesterday alone Divx, Adobe flash player, and several other programs got
updated.
It seems you are not a real user.. perhaps you are a granny and dont even
have an internet connection? Because if you are really using a computer you
would know what im talking about! GESH!

UAC is CRAP! Yes I turn the damn thing off! Would I tell a newbie to turn it
off? No.... but I would tell him to leave it on, with pain in my heart
because I know how frustrating it is. As I told you I am not against having
another layer of protection, its the implementaion!

The tweakuac was mentioned because it gives one extra mode not available
with vista alone... the mode is UAC on but silent..

gesh!



"Erik Funkenbusch" <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote in message
news:jbdes4zvrdt8$.dlg@funkenbusch.com...
> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 20:42:33 +0300, ricky valentine wrote:
>
>> Experts of course!
>>
>> I know more than most MVP's in here that are supposedly experts.. LOL
>> And because I have watching and using and installing and supporting vista
>> so
>> closley thats why I can say without any doubt that vista is CRAP!
>
> So you support Vista but don't use it yourself. You make my point.
>
> You only see systems when they're screwed up. That skews your view of
> things.
>
>> To answer your question:
>> You can use tweakUAC that has 3 modes,
>>
>> 1)off
>> 2)on
>> 3) On but its not in your face all the time.
>
> That didn't answer my question. I didn't ask what modes there were. I
> asked you if turning off UAC was a good solution.
>
>> I never had a problem with security with windows xp that didnt have UAC.
>> Its not the added security layer that bothers me, its the implimentation
>> of
>> UAC thats always in your face thats the problem. Even MS knows this, and
>> they are redesigning it for windows7. This is due to the outrage of the
>> users and hatred that just makes people either turn it off, or click
>> without
>> reading the warnings.
>> Thus its not effective.
>> Even the linux implementation is better, you add a password, but you dont
>> do
>> it 100 times a day.
>
> As an admin, you hit a UAC prompt a lot because that's what you do, tweak
> settings. But as a user, UAC prompts are seldom seen if the machine if
> setup correctly (that includes proper permissions on things like USB keys
> and secondary disks). At least once you've got the machine configured the
> way you like it.
>
> That's not to say UAC is perfect, and there is certainly a lot of room for
> improvement, but for a normal user it's not that big of a problem.
 
Re: Why Windows sucks

In article <hwd5ycqk8zde.dlg@funkenbusch.com>,
Erik Funkenbusch <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
>
>Then why is it called "tape archiver"? That's what tar stands for. It's

They had to call it something. But in fact, tar is designed to
read and write tar archives. Not tape drives.

>filled with options to format data for tape drives

Tar has options to control input and output block size and to
inform it of media capacities. Those are applicable to tape devices but
not unique to tape devices. Or even required by all tape devices.

Hey, don't listen to me. Go read the man page:

" The tar command creates, adds files to, or extracts files from an archive
file in ``tar'' format. A tar archive is often stored on a magnetic
tape, but can be stored equally well on a floppy, CD-ROM, or in a regular
disk file."
 
Re: Why Windows sucks

D.S. = Dom Sheldon is a cold man

From Michael Jackson's HIStory album
Written by Michael Jackson

They wanna get my ass
Dead or alive
You know he really tried to take me
Down by surprise
I bet he missioned with the CIA
He don't do half what he say

Dom Sheldon is a cold man (x4)
He out shock in every single way
He'll stop at nothing just to get his political say
He think he bad cause he's BSTA
I bet he never had a social life anyway
You think he brother with the KKK?
I know his mother never taught him
right anyway
He want your vote just to remain TA
He don't do half what he say

Dom Sheldon is a cold man (x4)
Dom S. Sheldon is a cold man
Dom Sheldon is a cold man (x3)
Slash!
Does he send letters to the FBI?
Did he say to either do it or die?

Dom Sheldon is a cold man (x4)
Dom S. Sheldon is a cold man
Dom Sheldon is a cold man (x3)

Dom S. Sheldon is a cold man
[Ad lib fade]


"Tom Shelton" <tom_shelton@YOUKNOWTHEDRILLcomcast.net> wrote in message
news:yKadnfaFPYGbAmLanZ2dnUVZ_hKdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> On 2008-04-11, Erik Funkenbusch <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 14:48:06 +0300, groovy wrote:
>>
>>> We all know that vista sucks.
>>
>> You mean you all think you know.
>>
>>> You may look at vista from many views, and from all of them it sucks.
>>> Sure there are a few idiots here and there that deny it.
>>> I dont know how they are so blind though.. its scary.
>>
>> Maybe because we actually *USE* it. The vast majority of people i've run
>> across that dislike Vista are people who have either never used it, or
>> have
>> used it only briefly, or on a woefully inadequate machine.
>>
>> I've met very few people that have used Vista for any length of time on a
>> decent machine that dislike it.
>>
>
> I tend to agree with that. I was put off myself at first. I was having
> a significant instability problem, and some of my software just wouldn't
> work... But, as it turned out the instability was bad RAM. Once that
> was replaced and I updated the software with a couple of vendor patches
> for Vista, everything has been pretty much smooth sailing.
>
>>> But the overwhelming evidence and disgust from the community and the
>>> professionals clearly show that vista is a very bad lemon.
>>
>> I used to know a lot of people that hated Macs too. Using excuses like
>> "It
>> treats me like an idiot", but suddenly those same people are now praising
>> Macs. The difference? They actually used on for a while.
>>
>> People are a fraid of change, and more afraid of great change.
>
> Yep. Just go back to 2001 and look at all the complaints about XP's
> gratuitous ui changes, and the need for retraining. The complaints
> about instability (what was the number that was being quoted then?
> Somethign like 1 in 5 xp machines crash more then twice a day). Look at
> the people like Sinister who had the "XP: The ME of NT" sigs. Look at
> the reports of slow uptake. Hell, 4 years after XP's release, it still
> had less the 50% of the corporate desktop market. In fact, I doubt I
> have heard a single complaint about Vista that I didn't hear about XP -
> well except for DRM maybe, but with XP it was activation. I mean
> really, the extended the Windows98 support lifetime twice because of
> protests against moving to XP.
>
> History will just repeat itself with Windows7. Only this time people
> will be crying over the death of Vista - not XP.
>
> --
> Tom Shelton
 
Re: Why Windows sucks

"AqD" <aquila.deus@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bcaa8442-26d4-49dd-a83e-7382f39fda11@q27g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> So what?
>
> A lot of linux apps are a hundred years behind their windows
> counterparts.


Hey Aquila. LTNS.

So you have left Linux now?

You stopped GUI twiddling, and now are using Windows Server 2003??

What's going on?

ss.
 
Re: Why Windows sucks

Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

>On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 17:47:39 +0000 (UTC), the wharf rat wrote:
>>
>> Tar, like any other unix program, simply reads stdin and writes
>> stdout. You can connect those descriptors to files but it's not "designed"
>> to write to any particular device.
>
>Then why is it called "tape archiver"?

Idiot.
 
Re: Why Windows sucks

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 21:00:42 +0300, ricky valentine wrote:

> WTF? I have Vista even before it was called vista! The betas, the RC, the
> RTM the SP1.. I have installed vista so many times I can do it blindfold!
> Do I use it for work? HELL NO! its crap!!!

All supporting my claim.

> I cant do work on it, but I use it to provide support and create support
> content.

Whatever that means.

> You dont seem to know what a user is like now a-days.

I am well aware of what users are like now-a-days.

> With updates that happen daily, and without a centralized update manager
> like the one linux has, you actually keep updating stuff even if you are a
> simple user.

I wasn't aware that clicking a button was such a hardship.

> Programs prompt you all the time for updates, and then you have UAC in your
> face all the time again.
> Yesterday alone Divx, Adobe flash player, and several other programs got
> updated.

Odd, updates don't seem to come very often for me, and I have the same
apps. Maybe it's because you only boot into Vista once a month, therefore
you assume it updates every day because every time you use it, it updates.

> UAC is CRAP! Yes I turn the damn thing off!

An expert indeed. If you were actually an expert, you would understand
that turning UAC off cripples compatibility in Vista. It's not just
security that gets turned off, it's all the account virtualization and
compatibility as well.

It's no surprise you have a lot of trouble, turning off UAC creates 10x
more problems. A "real" expert would advocate turning on silent UAC if it
bothers you that much.

As and example, without UAC you don't get Registry or Profile
virtualization, which means apps that write to areas that now have higher
ACL's will fail instead of being virtualized.

> The tweakuac was mentioned because it gives one extra mode not available
> with vista alone... the mode is UAC on but silent..

You can turn on silent UAC without the use of third party utilities.
Again, an "expert" would know that. it's called gpedit.msc, look it up
some day.
 
Re: Why Windows sucks

The fact is dork boy, is that users dont care about all the tech details.

Computers should be made for PEOPLE!

they want to use the comptuer for producing work or enjoyment.

UAC slows the user experience down.

Im done with you, you you have been blinded by vista so much, its
conflicting with your brain function! Simple things you cannot understand!

Now run along...




"Erik Funkenbusch" <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote in message
news:1e83e9l122uhe$.dlg@funkenbusch.com...
> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 21:00:42 +0300, ricky valentine wrote:
>
>> WTF? I have Vista even before it was called vista! The betas, the RC, the
>> RTM the SP1.. I have installed vista so many times I can do it blindfold!
>> Do I use it for work? HELL NO! its crap!!!
>
> All supporting my claim.
>
>> I cant do work on it, but I use it to provide support and create support
>> content.
>
> Whatever that means.
>
>> You dont seem to know what a user is like now a-days.
>
> I am well aware of what users are like now-a-days.
>
>> With updates that happen daily, and without a centralized update manager
>> like the one linux has, you actually keep updating stuff even if you are
>> a
>> simple user.
>
> I wasn't aware that clicking a button was such a hardship.
>
>> Programs prompt you all the time for updates, and then you have UAC in
>> your
>> face all the time again.
>> Yesterday alone Divx, Adobe flash player, and several other programs got
>> updated.
>
> Odd, updates don't seem to come very often for me, and I have the same
> apps. Maybe it's because you only boot into Vista once a month, therefore
> you assume it updates every day because every time you use it, it updates.
>
>> UAC is CRAP! Yes I turn the damn thing off!
>
> An expert indeed. If you were actually an expert, you would understand
> that turning UAC off cripples compatibility in Vista. It's not just
> security that gets turned off, it's all the account virtualization and
> compatibility as well.
>
> It's no surprise you have a lot of trouble, turning off UAC creates 10x
> more problems. A "real" expert would advocate turning on silent UAC if it
> bothers you that much.
>
> As and example, without UAC you don't get Registry or Profile
> virtualization, which means apps that write to areas that now have higher
> ACL's will fail instead of being virtualized.
>
>> The tweakuac was mentioned because it gives one extra mode not available
>> with vista alone... the mode is UAC on but silent..
>
> You can turn on silent UAC without the use of third party utilities.
> Again, an "expert" would know that. it's called gpedit.msc, look it up
> some day.
 
Re: Why Windows sucks

ricky valentine wrote:

> Experts of course!
>
> I know more than most MVP's in here that are supposedly experts.. LOL

You know nothing!

> And because I have watching and using and installing and supporting vista so
> closley thats why
> I can say without any doubt that vista is CRAP!

You're crap!
Get lost as*hole!
Frank
 
Re: Why Windows sucks

ricky valentine wrote:

> WTF? I have Vista even before it was called vista! The betas, the RC, the
> RTM the SP1.. I have installed vista so many times I can do it blindfold!
> Do I use it for work? HELL NO! its crap!!!

You lying sack of sh*t! You were not in any of the Official
Longhorn/Vista beta...you fukkin liar!

You're a delusional attention starved mental idiot!
Frank
 
Back
Top