posted
My approach to operating systems approaches what some would call Luddite. I move to the next thing only with great reluctance.
Having mastered the voodoo of DOS's command line, and seeing some of the horrors perpetuated by early versions of Windows, I moved on to Windows 95 with hesitation. Windows 98 was easier to accept, but my decision not to upgrade to ME was vindicated in time.
XP also took a significant system upgrade before I could accept it. Leave DOS behind altogether? Accept the beginnings of a Macintosh-like fire curtain between myself and the inner workings of my system? I had reservations, but I've grown to accept them in the name of USB devices that actually recognize the system without extra installations, up to date device drivers, and (for a time, at least) an increase in stability.
I've made my feelings about Vista known here and there. My irritation with the marketing decision to exclude the poor saps who shelled out for XP from DirectX 10, the various layers of kruft that "feature" protections for IP at the cost of usability, and so on; I'm truly hoping that I can forestall another major upgrade until I change my system, and hopefully by then we'll have the OS after Vista, or at least Vista SE (with some of the kinks worked out.)
And, yes, MS haters, I've done the Macintosh thing and the Linux thing. Unfortunately, I like playing games, and professionally produced software, and the vast majority of both are still being produced for big evil M.
That said, Microsoft's software is clearly not being produced with me in mind. I can install and configure my own firewall, for a start. I don't do Instant Messaging, and if I did, I wouldn't use MS's client to do so. Windows Media Player, while having its points, frequently combines the worst of both being too much for what I want to do and not doing what I actually want to do (as a pile of third-party codecs can attest.) And never, in my wildest dreams, can I imagine wanting my computer to eat half of my RAM in the name of making my GUI prettier.
If Microsoft was writing for me, it would be nice if my computer were ready to use twenty seconds after I hit the power button. Just twenty; I'm not greedy. Heck, I'd settle for thirty.
I believe in all hardware the right of the user to shut down or eject media should be sacrosanct. The only reason these functions should be inhibited is if the writing of critical internal functions is in process, and that shouldn't happen frequently enough to be an ongoing concern.
I want what background processes are running to be transparent, clearly labelled, and easy to halt and remove if deemed necessary or advisable by the user.
And never- NEVER- try to access the Internet or my network without my explicit permission.
For a start.
Would I be correct in guessing that there's more than a few things people would add (or retract, or modify) from such a list?
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If Microsoft was writing for me, it would be nice if my computer were ready to use twenty seconds after I hit the power button. Just twenty; I'm not greedy. Heck, I'd settle for thirty.
It sort of baffles me when computer-savvy folk complain about this. I haven't had a computer take longer than 40 seconds to boot in the last decade. Scratch that, I had a laptop that took about 50, but I blame that largely on the insanely slow read speed of laptop hard drives, not an OS.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
When properly defraged and my startup programs configured and have more then 19% fee space my Vista Machine boots up in 20-30 seconds minus time to type in my password.
IP: Logged |
posted
My comment was an exaggeration, but only a slight one. From the time I press the power button until I’m able to get an immediate response when attempting to run an application generally takes about 40 seconds on both my laptop and desktop. I don’t think that’s an unheard of amount of time to wait, but of course I’d want it to be faster if possible.
Aren’t these solid state flash drives supposed to make boot time insanely fast?
Blayne, I doubt defragging has that much of an effect on performance.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My new Mac is awesome. I can put it into standby and not waste significant power, and so I can open it and start working in literally 2 seconds. Or less.
My main desktop doesn't let me stand by. Oh, it has the option, but the monitor malfunctions when I try to pull it out of standby, and I can't do anything but force the computer to shut down. Hibernation isn't any better; it somehow goes into an infinite loop in the initial startup. So I always waste 60-80 seconds booting up the old-fashioned way.
My laptop that runs XP is getting weird. Though I lovingly call it "Jane," for fanatical reasons associated with Ender's Game sequels, it doesn't let me take control of what I see on the icons, the wallpaper, and the Start menu until after 40-70 seconds, and I have NO CLUE what the computer is doing to take up so much CPU time, because Task Manager can't be called up until the computer starts responding to my commands, which is presumably after all that chattering finishes.
My recommendation is BootCamp. Macs are just getting better, and in all the experience I had test-driving Vista at a local BestBuy, PCs are getting significantly worse.
Posts: 1029 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
If Vista adequately meets your needs, splendid.
If Vista is all you want or expect from an operating system, terms like "pity" come to mind.
I understand OS X has made monumental strides, but the time (five or so years ago) I was using a Macintosh as a computer at work and was told I didn't have enough memory left to check how much memory I had left (let alone shut down, natch) has left an indelible mark on my mind.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It sort of baffles me when computer-savvy folk complain about this. I haven't had a computer take longer than 40 seconds to boot in the last decade. Scratch that, I had a laptop that took about 50, but I blame that largely on the insanely slow read speed of laptop hard drives, not an OS.
Certain (all?) virus checkers greatly reduce the start up and shut down time of computers. I had to redo my computer several times last semester and I noticed that after the virus checker(s) were installed, the speed of start up/shut down almost doubles.
It also depends on the health of your system. If your computer is prone to starting all sorts of checks and little programs, it's going to be slower.
All of my computers have taken about 30-40 seconds to get to login screen and a further 30-40 seconds to get to instant application reaction. I'm running Windows 2000.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
My computer takes about 20 or 30 seconds to boot up and load Windows and any startup programs, and it's a mid-range machine from two or so years ago. I disable most of the startup junk that accumulates—the automatic updaters, the fast-launch apps, all that crap. And I use Avast antivirus, which is considerably faster than Norton, which I used to use.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"If Microsoft was actually making OSs with *me* in mind..." ...it'd be a leaner&cleaner version of 2000Professional. I can't even imagine why anyone would want the "extra features" (bugs&garbage and obsolete dead areas) in XP and Vista.
Same thing with InternetExplorer and Firefox: cleaned-to-lean except I'd like a STOP that would actually stop the browser immediately, break off contact with a website immediately, insteada giving outsiders/websites control over how&when the browser breaks contact and downloaded instructions are halted. Off-site advertisement farms/wholesellers on MSNBC and similar Microsoft affiliates are particularly obnoxious about tying up the machine.
And what is it with Microsoft anyways? They've got some of the ugliest&nastiest web-programming ever accomplished on their company website pages. That or slow&ugly work-arounds cuz they're constantly being barraged by denial-of-service attacks.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, and I'd like my computer to tune-up my bicycle on a regular schedule and bake me a pizza upon demand. Doesn't mean that every single Microsoft-based system should be able tune-up bikes and bake pizzas.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: Yeah, and I'd like my computer to tune-up my bicycle on a regular schedule and bake me a pizza upon demand. Doesn't mean that every single Microsoft-based system should be able tune-up bikes and bake pizzas.
But that would be SO COOL.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, to cite an example, early versions of Word included a subprogram called Find Fast that attempted to index files in a way that would make them easier for Word to find. Sounds fine in principle... But it would periodically attempt to do this while you were in the middle of other things, causing sudden hard drive accesses and system slowdowns. (I don't know if recent versions of Word still do this or not; I have my old version, and I disable Find Fast first thing every time I install it.)
This kind of feature *can* be fine if it works in a way that's clear, transparent, and easy to disable and/or schedule. If it only tried to index when I was working with Word, I wouldn't have had a problem with it.
And then there's DEP, or Data Execution Prevention. Theoretically, this is supposed to prevent certain types of malicious code from being able to run on your system. This sounds great in theory; on my AMD system, it caused several programs I used with some frequency to crash. Figuring out how to disable DEP was an uphill struggle, with the enlightened minds of Microsoft all the way saying, in essence, "No no! Don't do this! You'll harm your computer! Trust us! We know what we're doing [better than you do]!"
I boot without DEP now, taking the usual sensible precautions against trojans, viruses, spyware, and the like; thus far, no problems.
Innovation is great, but I want a clear way to turn things off if what you think is an innovation I think is a royal pain the heinie. With each new iteration, Windows becomes more inscrutable, more certain that it knows what you want better than you do, and less transparent about what it's doing at any given point.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sterling: you seem to think that DEP causes problems. It doesn't. It simply reveal very nasty flaws that are already (and still) present. No program written in a high-level language should trigger DEP.
Implementing DEP is one of the few times that Microsoft has raised the bar for third-party application quality. You should direct all your blame at the lazy/incompetent coders who built the defective applications.
Posts: 145 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem was a documented conflict when using a 64-bit AMD processor with DEP enabled and certain software. For a time, Microsoft's best suggestion was uninstalling SP2.
posted
See, I'm really easily amused. I am so in love with the fact that my new laptop has a great viewing angle and a remote control. I have decided to watch all movies on my laptop from now on. I have a 17" widescreen...I mean, my tv is only a 20". And I lost the remote for that. ALSO IT TURNS MY COMPUTER ON AND OFF HOW COOL.
....yeah, I'm really easily impressed with gadgets. But I don't need my computer to be Vista-pretty. I gots me a new laptop with XP. And so far, I likes it. I likes it a lot.
I do wish I had some cool calendar type functions, though.
posted
I have a question for Mac users. I've seen that it's possible to run windows on a Mac. What I'm wondering is, is it then possible to install software for PCs on Macs? Also what would various computer parts (IE. video cards etc.) cost in comparison from PCs to Macs?
Posts: 2489 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Once you start talking "parts," you're no longer talking Macs. Apple's not in the parts business.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you install Windows, either as a separate operating system to boot or to virtualize it while running OS X, you can install any Windows software you like. If virtualizing, you can even run it in a way that feels like using it 'alongside' OS X applications.
Mac hardware is pretty much commoditized. The video cards cost the same, because they're the same video cards (though video cards are one of the rare pieces of hardware you need to be a little careful in making sure there's a driver for, at least for OS X -- if you're just running windows then you'd use the windows driver, of course).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pH: I am so in love with the fact that my new laptop has a great viewing angle and a remote control. I have decided to watch all movies on my laptop from now on. I have a 17" widescreen...
Waaaiiiit a minute. Did Michael give you this laptop? 'Cause the other thing that was stolen from me was my 17" widescreen laptop.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Mac hardware is pretty much commoditized. The video cards cost the same, because they're the same video cards (though video cards are one of the rare pieces of hardware you need to be a little careful in making sure there's a driver for, at least for OS X -- if you're just running windows then you'd use the windows driver, of course).
I think this depends on what kind of Mac you get. If you get an iMac, it seems that the GPU and video RAM are placed right on the motherboard—it's not a separate expansion card.
So out of curiosity, if Apple's not in the parts business, who makes their motherboards? Or is that the only hardware they make?
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, I assumed the question was about what would be possible for internal expansion, and my answer only applies with any mac for which internal expansion is possible.
The motherboards are the one big thing for apple. I believe they contract out the production and do a lot of the design in-house, presumably partnered with the CPU manufacturer in particular.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
And so far, I likes it. I likes it a lot.
