Make Vista stop updating, reading, preventing access to records?

[jaclaz]

Are we going on a spin-off of the usual "RAM is there to be used and Windows knows how to use it alright" vs. "RAM is there to be kept free and just absorb some (little) power" flamewar?

jaclaz

[vinifera]

no, I don't want to fight, I wanted merely point out that prefetcher being such agressive service (atleast in vista)
can't be "light" (as given example above)

[MagicAndre1981]

sure it is light. It doesn't effect other tools it is better to reload data in background than loading on demand several files.

vinifera is simply against everything from Vista WITHOUT understanding how it works:

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/2007.03.vistakernel.aspx

[vinifera]

no i'm not, thats even rude to say

Longhorn introduced few good things which IMO XP should have had

Edited September 18, 2013 by vinifera

[Kelsenellenelvian]

no Vista/7 don't differ the way they handle folder permissions. So what does 7 makes better for you in this term or do you only want to troll?

sure it is light. It doesn't effect other tools it is better to reload data in background than loading on demand several files.

vinifera is simply against everything from Vista WITHOUT understanding how it works:

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/2007.03.vistakernel.aspx

Wow it's posts like this that made me wonder where the quality control on this board went.

I stated a opinion and now i'm being a troll? (I said arguably and wasn't being rude)

Some of the things supporters get away with saying and I've been warned for some pretty lame reasons...

@ jaclaz = @ Vista post sp1 era. I never tried Vista after the first couple of months. When Vista was released it was the worst OS I had ever tried to work with. (This is coming from a WinME lover)

Edited September 19, 2013 by Kelsenellenelvian

[AnX]

@ jaclaz = @ Vista post sp1 era. I never tried Vista after the first couple of months. When Vista was released it was the worst OS I had ever tried to work with. (This is coming from a WinME lover)

You shouldn't adopt an OS at it's RTM stage if it's Windows - most people learned that with XP. You should've tried Vista when it got to SP1, or SP2, like XP.

[jaclaz]

You shouldn't adopt an OS at it's RTM stage if it's Windows - most people learned that with XP. You should've tried Vista when it got to SP1, or SP2, like XP.

JFYI, RTM means "Release To Manufacturers", it only applies to the edition given to (large) OEM's before the official launch of the product.

The fact that the good MS guys (as hinted before) released it before it was "ready" (and senselessly induced everyone to install it on underpowered hardware) only means that in this case (not the only one) they behaved as "perfect morons", making the Vista OS getting the "bad name" it bears till today, making it a huge Commercial fiasco and somehow "forcing" for an earlier release of 7.

Namely, in the case of Vista, RTM is November 8, 2006 and the end-customer version was released January 30, 2007, which would have allowed almost three months to fix (if they wanted) the most obvious issues.

Not that after one year, when the SP1 was released February 4, 2008, it didn't have it's big share of issues:

http://4sysops.com/archives/list-of-vista-sp1-problems-be-careful-with-service-pack-1/

Remember that it took more than 2 months to have the mess up with Windows Updates fixed for those that had the issue...

So, you couldn't even rely on SP1, one year later, but had to wait for the "fixed" SP1.

Of course the OS itself has no faults for the mis-management the good Microsoft guys did, but it is obvious that the "bad name" will always remain attached to the poor innocent OS.

And the SP2, while containing good things, was of little use, as it came out on April 28, 2009, when all the media was already trumpeting about Windows 7 and how good it would be (soon available).

Of course this has affected the most the less-technical savvy people, the "common" end customers which would just buy a HP, a Dell or any "big brand" OEM laptop or desktop with the pre-installed system, and later found out that the thing they bought was outperformed by the older XP machine their neighbour or friend had.

Initially no info (or proper, or enough info) was given about the all new (also mostly senseless IMHO) BOOTMGR+\boot\BCD "shift" from good ol' NTLDR+BOOT.INI+NTDETECT.COM, and in such cases when the average Joe would have a booting issue the "procedure" adopted at the time by "highly specialized technicians" was to wipe and reinstall or use the recovery partition to reset to factory status.

The initial common issues with drivers, UAC, Aero not running, and what not completed the scenario.

No, it has not been a "lucky" OS.

jaclaz

Edited September 19, 2013 by jaclaz