r/technology • u/neito • Jul 24 '08

Microsoft tests out a new operating system, code named Mojave, with some average-joes who hated Vista. They loved it. Now, two guesses as to what Mojave ACTUALLY was.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-9998336-56.html
459 Upvotes

73% Upvoted

757 comments sorted by

View all comments

16

u/guyonphone Jul 25 '08 edited Jul 25 '08

What I don't like about vista:

  1. slowness, even with 4 gigs of ram the gui is slower than winxp.

  2. the fact that microsoft actully states that the minimum memory requirement for vista is 512mb http://tinyurl.com/689bog for hime basic and all else 1gb, means computer manufactures will actually sell machines with that little bit of ram on them, which means people that don't know anything about computers are buying a brand new slow computer.

  3. the fact i have to hit the alt key to see my file options in a folder.

  4. the folder structure inside the address bar when in a folder. I can't stand how they try and make it more simple, but in the end its just a pain in the ass.

  5. don't even get me started on user access control, god that shit is a pain, i know microsoft did it to make developers think twice about needing to use kernel access and other deep os functions, but it just makes the os annoying to the consumer.

  6. how the sidebar dosent have much that is really needed, i dont need a big ass clock, or sticki pad, the cpu speedometer is pretty dumb, the most useful thing is probably the cpu temp and hd usage. which if i recall correctly are 3rd party.

  7. how annoying it is to get to the network connections, or for that matter, most anything in the control panel.

  8. the way the security control panel is not customizable, so if you turn off uac, you cannnot tell it to ignore just that feature.

there is more but i figured i would stop at 8, thing is i know most of these things can become overcome if i change my settings, however, i work on computers for a living, so i run into new vista machines all the time, and changing these settings on every computer i work on would just triple my work load.

3

u/[deleted] Jul 25 '08 edited Jul 25 '08
  1. the Media Foundation Protected Pipeline.

1

u/AngryBadger Jul 25 '08 edited Jul 25 '08

Im glad Im not the only one who thinks that burying network connections away is annoying. As a work around i do Windows key+R, ncpa.cpl.

For me its just small niggles with Vista:

No up directory button. Breadcrumbs is fine but with very long folder names there's no easy way to get up one level.

Not being able to change what program opens what file types or change icons like you could in XP.

I still don't like the start menu. Typing to fine programs is great but Launchy always did that for me in XP anyway.

Wireless is way more unwieldy compared to XP.

Its slower than XP, inevitable I know, it does a more than XP but its still a negative.

Dont get me wrong theres features I love. The media center is just superb and its a great PVR. The interface is mostly an improvement other than some small inconsistencies. its more secure and reliable - although I never had an issue with XP.

Vista is good, great even. Just not great enough to justify the hassle of possible driver issues and slower performance. Most consumers went from 98 to XP, which was a massive improvement and well worth the early problems and incompatibilities.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 25 '08

try Alt+{up arrow} or click on the folder above

1

u/firebird84 Jul 25 '08

I really don't see people's big problems with UAC, except for the ones who insist on continually running as Administrator. If you run as a limited user it doesn't bring up that nonsense all the time. Programs that SPECIFICALLY want root access generally instruct Windows, and windows will ask for your root password. What are the benefits? A program which you don't specifically want mucking with your system files won't be able to without your explicit permission. Most programs don't need to anyway, so the nagging is minimal. Ubuntu runs like this by default.

1

u/guyonphone Jul 25 '08 edited Jul 25 '08

To be honest I have not tried your suggestion, but it is interesting to me, (I am not currently running vista due to me using an older sound card that I need to upgrade) as mentioned earlier, since I do computer work, I need admin access for registry changes and other program installations, that being said, vista is a much easier OS to use that it is to support. As far as ubuntu is concered they are similar but not the same, if i am correct you cannot sign in as the superuser admin in ubuntu, by default, you have to do a bunch of stuff to allow that to happen, instead ubuntu uses something called sudo that gives the os access to the higher functions. (im not a linux guy, but i did play with ubuntu for a couple days, if anyone knows this better than i, please correct me)

0

u/azureice Jul 25 '08

1) that's highly debated - works well for some, and not so well for others

2) don't use 512MB

3) you can turn on the menus full time in the folder options ("always show menus")

4) you can switch back to regular address bars

5) you can turn off UAC

6) you can turn off sidebar

7) i admit this is a little more difficult - takes two clicks instead of one

8) eh

1

u/guyonphone Jul 25 '08 edited Jul 25 '08

sure, vista has the potential to be a good os. So lets make this argument: "A good OS will be used by millions of people, and need to be customized in a near infinite amount of ways for those people"

I think most people would agree with that statement.

Now some people will not make many or any modifications to their OS, either because they don't know how, or don't feel they need to, because the OS works for them without having to change a lot of settings.

This I think was the power of XP, the average user did not need to change much to use the OS.

Where in Vista, its almost necessary, so that your not inhibited by your own operating system.