StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I went and downloaded the beta and put it on my 2nd desktop.

P4 2.8 Ghz, 1.5 gigs of ram, Geforce 4 FX 5500.

Just surfing the Interweb and IM means I use 50-60% of my systems resources

Have a Look

Aieee.

Can you set it to a classic Win9x look like with XP? Start menu, icons, everything?

If not I shall go mad.

Dude, that IS standard. It's got a start button, a taskbar and shit, it's just all Mac'd up.

I can't for the life of me figure out how to share resources on the network, they have taking sharing away, XP was created for computer illiterate people, Vista feels like it was created for computer illiterates retarded friend.

Really? Is it possible to do it through the commandline, or have they removed the functions entirely? Is that just for beta perhaps?

Stark wrote:Really? Is it possible to do it through the commandline, or have they removed the functions entirely? Is that just for beta perhaps?

Not that I can find atleast,
same computer using XP Corp (Dual boot) my computer is doing more in XP then Vista and it isn't even using 1% systems resources.

Only thing I can think of to getting my folders to share over the network is going into the advanced properties of networking and manually assigning a name to each drive/folder.

I see you fail to understand how modern OSs use avaliable resources. Available memory usage in task manager and that stupid gadget is utterly worthless.

And the CPU usage of an app constantly updating in a beta is one of the more stupid things I've heard as "bad". Especially when you cant see what process is actually taking CPU time.

Actually, you can disable the new window manager and use the old GDI rendering, it looks just like the winXP classic mode. Vista uses about 75% of your available memory because superfetch is in the background loading programs into the cache. If you right click, say.. a games exe, and go to compatibility, you can tick a option that unloads the interface and most of the cache while that app is running.

This does cause problems with programs like itunes and quicktime however as they try to lock the framebuffer just like a fullscreen game. So vista unloads the interface like it would a game.

Oh, the option in compatibility is "Disable Desktop Composition"

here is a screenshot of my System usage while running several IE pages and Live messenger.

8% CPU usage doing the same thing as you.

And I was running media player as well. (AthlonXP 2200 here)

Classic Mode

Stark wrote:Dude, that IS standard. It's got a start button, a taskbar and shit, it's just all Mac'd up.

Truer words have never been spoken. The first thing I thought upon looking at the screenshot was "oh my stars and garters, they made OSX and WinXP breed..." And such an abomination was surely never meant to be.

I don't get why some people have such a hard-on for the "shiny plastic" look.

Resinence wrote:Actually, you can disable the new window manager and use the old GDI rendering, it looks just like the winXP classic mode. Vista uses about 75% of your available memory because superfetch is in the background loading programs into the cache. If you right click, say.. a games exe, and go to compatibility, you can tick a option that unloads the interface and most of the cache while that app is running.

This does cause problems with programs like itunes and quicktime however as they try to lock the framebuffer just like a fullscreen game. So vista unloads the interface like it would a game.

Oh, the option in compatibility is "Disable Desktop Composition"

here is a screenshot of my System usage while running several IE pages and Live messenger.


8% CPU usage doing the same thing as you.

And I was running media player as well. (AthlonXP 2200 here)

Classic Mode

Thanks for the response, I'll try that.

Is there a way to change that god-awful CPU/Mem usage tacky-ometer and use some less conspicuous and therefore more useful display?

Apparently Vista has a content indexer which automaticalyl runs after install. So that'll peg the CPU and cause high level of disk activity.

Meh, very underwhelmed. It was pretty but I don't see anything very revolutionary about it. It would probably be good for the average users who don't get into the guts of an OS.
One irritating thing was it asking everytime you ran something, it would have that pop-up about what was running.
Ran it for a while and then just restored my hard disk image.
Although I would use it if I was building a new system after the mandatory SP1 comes out.

You know, Windows users crack me up. They clamor for more security from Microsoft, and when Microsoft gives it to them in the form of dialogs that ask them to confirm privileged actions, they piss and moan about how the OS is "holding your hand". Operating systems are never going to be psychic, so there will always be security/usability trade-offs. The idea of least-required privileges is one that Microsoft was right to adopt.

I haven't used the Vista beta, but are the authentication dialogs really that annoying? Do they really pop up "every other click", or is that just an exaggeration because everyone's so used to being able to run amok on their systems without the slightest interference from the operating system?

Durandal wrote:You know, Windows users crack me up. They clamor for more security from Microsoft, and when Microsoft gives it to them in the form of dialogs that ask them to confirm privileged actions, they piss and moan about how the OS is "holding your hand". Operating systems are never going to be psychic, so there will always be security/usability trade-offs. The idea of least-required privileges is one that Microsoft was right to adopt.

I haven't used the Vista beta, but are the authentication dialogs really that annoying? Do they really pop up "every other click", or is that just an exaggeration because everyone's so used to being able to run amok on their systems without the slightest interference from the operating system?

Yes, they are that annoying. Click on display properties, click on pop-up, click on control panel, click on pop-up, click on network properties, click on pop-up.

And don't whitewash me with the "Windows userzz LOL!!!" I'm a windows user but I've been using computers since DOS days and know a little about security. I've used the limited user/admin user philosophy for years where you only use the administrator only for install/configuring.

Stile wrote:One irritating thing was it asking everytime you ran something, it would have that pop-up about what was running.

Linux does the same thing (unless you use root day-to-day, which is bad) - for the reason that it adds security. If you don't like it, turn it off.

What you also have to remember is that after you first install an operating system, you are far more likely to be tinkering with parts of the system that you wouldn't touch that often under normal operation, so the popups under 'normal' use will be reduced.

Stile wrote:Yes, they are that annoying. Click on display properties, click on pop-up, click on control panel, click on pop-up, click on network properties, click on pop-up.

These are, gasp! , privileged operations.

This happens if you run as admin, from my knowledge, if you are admin the assumption is that you know wtf you are doing.

Can't you do a Linux and temporarily inherit root power for a bit, so you only get one popup, then you're 'root' until x time passes or you click on the keychain? Seems less irritating than asking you every single time - although from my experience that's what OSX does, but only when committing changes not every time you change a tab etc.

Stark, that is a really bad idea.

Then you would get malware which injects itself into every application which it can, waiting for the chance it will one day get more privilages.

One thing Vista does, is prevent lower ranked applications touching higher ones. This means IE simply cant effect the rest of the system, this also has its down sides. That is IE cant effect the rest of the system.

Oh yeah, because display properties are a heinous security risk.

Xon wrote:Stark, that is a really bad idea.

Then you would get malware which injects itself into every application which it can, waiting for the chance it will one day get more privilages

It's a really bad idea shared by every Linux distro I've ever used, then.

Ace Pace wrote:This happens if you run as admin, from my knowledge, if you are admin the assumption is that you know wtf you are doing.

Yeah and how many admins who "knew what they were doing" wound up with spyware or virus infections anyway? I'm an admin on my box, and I've pulled some stupid shit even despite password protection because I'm human.

Xon wrote:Stark, that is a really bad idea.

Then you would get malware which injects itself into every application which it can, waiting for the chance it will one day get more privilages.

One thing Vista does, is prevent lower ranked applications touching higher ones. This means IE simply cant effect the rest of the system, this also has its down sides. That is IE cant effect the rest of the system.

Stark was describing Mac OS X's security system. In that system, you request a right from the security server. You'll be authenticated through a password dialog, SMART card reader or whatever. If this is successful, the security server stores a set of credentials for that session which expire after 5 minutes, typically. Then the server checks to see if you have access to the requested right in its policy database using the stored credentials. If the credentials have expired, you'll have to re-authenticate.

It's not a "authenticate one place, get authenticated everywhere" kind of deal. It's far more complex than that.