Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
@RemixedCat wrote:
@ JF-> I did not just indicate UI features. These are convenience features that are major and they were removed. These features were real time savers in vista and were removed in 7.
????
Seriously? Like the network activity animation?
As I said, you can enable an awful lot of the settings such as tools tips and such, or they can be added back.
You need to get used to the new UI though. Things have changed, and for the better. It is important to have the skills to adapt in todays computing environment.
Can you give one hard example of a feature that was not just cosmectic and was a time saver, and can not be enabled, or does not have an equivalent in 7?
I asked you to clarify points in your original reply, and you have responded by saying you disagree and can’t be bothered to explain why. Well, I would appreciate if you could be bothered, and I’m sure others may as well.
JC,
It’s all good, it was an interesting discussion :>
Will get those links to you when I remember.
Cheers :>
@JonusC wrote:
Well… you didn’t really refute anything I said there, I agree with you completely. The RAM Usage was a myth true, older non-Vista-aware programs would falsely report RAM usage as it also counted the Superfetch cache true. Driver situation was expected – Vista driver development was actually adopted quicker than the XP phase-in from memory, and I remember reading that 50% of Vista crashes were caused by WDDM instabilities on ATi and nVidia based graphics machines. And yeah, UAC is a very valid point – Vista’s UAC is horrible and I never had it on, but since using 7 I have never turned it off.
I meant to refute when you said all of the different features that were changed in 7 from Vista, to streamline the OS. I think you were agreeing with RC, so I may have read some of her comments into your reply. I’m sorry if this gave me the wrong interpretation. From what I read of RC’s post, a lot was subjective, and not based in fact at all. Most of the changes of 7 are under the hood, and the ones the user is exposed to…are not that different.
You disagreeing with that is, I’m afraid, nothing but your subjective opinion with little to no evidence to back that up.
Hmm.
Actually, it is based only on fact, and is purely objective.
Saying 7 is based on Vista is due to being misinformed. That’s it.
I’ve actually had this discussion a few times before, so I am happy to get into the nitty gritty if you like, although I would prefer to do that in a separate thread.
Despite lack of an official statement from Redmond, it was always assumed that 7 was directly based on the Vista codebase; nay, it’s nearly a certainty –
It was always assumed by thos who don’t know any better.
Just like it was always assumed that Vista was complete trash. (what is the policy of swearing on this board?)
just by exploring the system file structure (DLL’s, COM+ layout, SideBySide architecture, etc), examination of registry hives, and even looking around the various MMC plugins/snapins, the similarities are obvious.
Really? That’s your argument?
That is all bug meaningless.
So, 7 incorporates some of the same features as Vista. It doesn’t mean it is based on Vista in the way you stated. That approach also discounts all of the changes that would not be exposed in that way.
Not to mention the whole Vista = NT 6.0 and 7 = NT 6.1 situation; it’s more than just a “to keep backwards compatiblity with installers that check major OS version” myth (which is a method of host-version checking LONG phased out of InstallShield, Wise Installer ad MSI/Windows Installers, as well as some minor packers like NSIS and Themida Cryptor),
Actually, the backwards compatability argument is not a myth.
I don’t think you should understand the amount of legacy or crappy software out there.
it’s a literal example of the major.minor.revision.bugfix versioning criteria that Microsoft (and most Win32 software vendors) stuck with since Windows 3.0 days. For an example of “7 was always assumed to be directly based on Vista”, see http://www.pcworld.com/article/153624/under_the_hood_windows_7_is_vistas_twin.html
1. It’s a pcworld article.
2. Its written by a desktop blogger
3. It is not technical at all
4. It is based on using a prerelease version of the OS. That’s it.That would seem to confirm what I said earlier, that 7 is assumed to be vista by those who don’t know any better.
Vista (Windows NT 6.0) and XP (Windows NT 5.1) are worlds apart, especially under the hood. That’s like comparing Windows 95 (Windows 4.0) to Windows 3.1. And, no offence or bigotry at all intended, but as someone who has been reverse engineering Microsoft OS’s for many years (ever heard of “Windows NCLI” or Win5 TinyKRNL Project? Or Windows XP Black Edition? How about Mini95 from older BartPE rescue discs? Not to mention the light work I’ve done here on these forums; but while trying to work a legitimate career recently since growing up from those days mind you), I think I sort of know what I’m talking about.
I never debated Vista was a world apart from XP…not sure why you reinforced that point.
And, no bigotry or offense taken. But as someone who works as a security researcher full time, and has a lot of experience with debugging the OS, and was also involved with a KPP(Kernel Patching Project) with McAfee, then I also know what I’m talking about.
But I guess all that can be summed up with why my father still prefers Windows 2000 over XP, and why so many gamers and purists still stay with XP x64 – despite having 8GB of DDR2-1066 RAM, a Q8X00 CPU and an nVidia GTX285. Oh… and an SSD RAID-5 array. (Silly, I know… lol…)
In my experience, people tend to stick with a platform because of, most of the time, subjective reasons. Not due to an understanding of how thigns work or why(even a rudimentary one), but simply because they note that “things work best” under a certain platform. Instead of troubleshooting driver problems or whatever….they just see that it does not work, and then sticks with what they perceive to be better.
Really? On these forums? I’ll have a look around, it’s been a while… or another site? Care to share? 😀
Ahh, no, not on these forums. Other forums I am a part of…, there was a big list on one of them, I shall source the links for you.
You thinking that a lot of what I said was inaccurate is indeed also subjective, fact of the matter is we aren’t blessed with an open code-base like our Post-IBM-Compatible-Age-80×86 brethren in the BSD and Unix hemisphere of PC’s.
Well, My last reply was actually to RC, in the same post. I tend to reply to the person I have quoted….
I did mention some light technicals there. I could of gone deeper, but I don’t see the need because most of what I said is indeed – just a personal opinion. I won’t deny that.
The problem is, despite the code not being open, we do have access to a lot of information such as the changes and new features in 7 vs Vista. For this reason, it is sufficient to consider 7 a new version, and not just a revision of Vista.
Well, in final reply to the thread title, I can think of two specific reasons why people use R1 over 7. (1) Need over greed, they legitimately own a copy of R1 and have no need to upgrade to 7/R2 and/or can’t afford it
Well, that is interesting indeed.
Although, for most of the people on the board, cost does not seem to have been so much an issue, although it is certainly a good reason.
, and (2) They actually use the server functions of Windows Server 2008 R1 (as a Web Developer myself, I have missed out a bit moving up to Windows 7) and don’t see the point or don’t have the time to hack around with R2 just yet, because their home network is rock steady or because it’s simply not feasible to down their inhouse-hosted web server just to whack on the newest, bleeding edge, probably-still-unstable-somewhere Server OS.
We’re not all just OS tinkerers here, some of us do actually use the Server stuff that might be useless to your generic power head/hardcore gamer
.
Indeed, another good reason.
I should have been clearer though, I was interested in reasons where cost, or “everything working fine” would not come into it.
I.E. you have a new computer, own copies of R1, 7 and R2, why install R1 over 7 or R2?
Anywho, you do still raise very valid points – please realize I’m not disagreeing with you in anyway, just maybe giving some possible insight in response to your original question is all. I’m not here to shoot anyone down, I’m happy to continue this very involved topical thread if you still are 🙂
Indeed 🙂
My only concern is that the discussion of to what extent 7 is based on Vista will take over.
or I’ll just be quiet and not say another word if you think I’m being rude or have taken anything I said personally (RemixedCat or anyone else, smack me in line if you feel it necessary 😳 )
Likewise 🙂 Nothing wrong with strong debate, and I certainly don’t mean to be offensive or rude or such by disagreeing with you.
@JonusC wrote:
Although I am a fan of Windows 7 over Vista, I do agree with RemixedCat in many aspects. Vista has an absolute truck-load of new features, most complain about how slow and bloaty it is (out of the box at least) but there are so many little things in Vista/R1 that were removed from 7/R2 to please the casual computer user and “streamline” the OS.
I don’t think thats quite right.
Two of the biggest problems with Vista, were people thinking it was bloaty because SuperFetch was using up RAM, as intended, and because of the poor driver situation. Not to mention the UAC absurdity.
All of these were fixed in 7, as well as a whole host of stuff.
The development of Vista/Me was not lead/guided by the same team as XP/98, it’s the tick-tock development phase than so many giants use – “tick” being a small(ish) incremental rollout of a new OS, such like 98 was (based on 95), XP was (based on 2000) and 7 is (based on Vista); and “tock” being the major-step-forward rollouts – 95 (major update from Windows 3), Windows 2000 (the first NT-arch OS for the consumer) and Vista (a major 6.0 from WinXP/2000 which was 5.1 and 5.0 respectively).
That is an interesting way of looking at it. I don’t know how broad a point you were making, but I strongly disagree that 7 is based on Vista however. 7 is to Vista as Vista is to XP.
With that said though, I do use 7 as a primary OS – not Vista. And I am thinking of going back to 2008 R2 this weekend 🙂
Well, this thread was about people using R1/Vista over 7. Rejecting 7 because of a few minor UI changes seems insane, when you factor in the performance and other improvements. It’s like sticking with Windows 2003 because you don’t like the new startbar.
I think it is important to note that while a case can be made for using Win2k3 over XP, and R1 over Vista, it is a lot harder to make a case for using R1/R2 over 7.
7 is not babied down at all, and the desktop experience is really no different than using R2, animations and all. It is very configurable, and very usable. The reason I’m using R2 is to learn about hyperv and the new AD stuff, and I do appreciate the minimal approach(although I don’t think that is enough to justify a server os by itself).
Using R1/Vista at this point seems odd, considering you won’t be getting the most out of your hardware by a long shot. Sacrificing performance because you can’t get used to a slightly new paradigm, or miss some animations? Really?
P.S. RemixedCat I liked your first post – if I do get back into the 2008 Workstation game, maybe we talk more about bringing some of the Vista/2008 [R1] shell features into 2008 R2?
A lot of people have already done this for 7. Their work would probably work directly on R2.
@RemixedCat wrote:
Yesh JC I am VERY interested in hacking in those removed features! That would be an awesome idea. 🙂 I may even add some of my own later. But I am extremely busy right now I am in the midst of designing the world’s biggest arcology for a project. I am also doing other architecture projects.
RC, is there any chance you can please respond to my previous reply to you?
I think a lot of what you said was perception and or subjective, and I think a lot may have been inaccurate.
I would like for you to respond to get to a technical basis if there is one.
disclaimer: I’m slightly hungover.
@RemixedCat wrote:
Well, for starters windows 7 was babied down for the consumer masses.
That seems awfully subjective. Can you back it up?
Having used both 7 and R2, there really is not that much difference for using it for a desktop system, as far as actually using it..ie prompts and such.
They even removed the amount of windows explorer windows that are open in the taskbar (you know the little yellow number that told you).
Err…, that is nothing specific to 7, and you can configure options like this.
They got rid of the folder sharing overlay icon.
Yes…change is not always bad though. Things like that you can add back….is that enough to justify running essentially Vista?
They also got rid of a TON of windows media player features in version 12-tag editor,miniplayer,tight but bad codecs,UI inconstancies and bad design.
Windows media player is separate from the OS. If you like, you can uninstall it and install your preffered version. Or use a better media player to begin with.
They got rid of some network drive features.
Like what? Enough to justify running Vista?
Superfetch is missing from R2 (using the program featured on this site as a replacement decreases my gaming performance and does not load PSCS4 quicker)
Well, it’s in 7.
I asked why run R1 instead of 7, not instead of R2.
Rich tooltips for the notification area system icons such as Volume, Network, Power and the taskbar date and time have been removed
Can you clarify this?
When no items are selected in a folder, neither the details pane nor the status bar show the total size of files in the folder
They surely do.
Network activity animation on Network Connections icon in the notification area
There was never an animation which represented activity, only that you were connected.
The choose/change font common dialog does not show the type of font (OpenType, TrueType, Symbol font etc.)
Can you clarify this?
Windows Registry Reflection for x64 editions replaced with merged 32/64-bit keys
And this?
There are so many things missing from windows 7 that irk me.
It’s a bit different, but you get used to it, and it is so very muc better than Vista(which is what R1 essentially is).
Would you stick with Server 2003 over R1 because Aero irked you?
@RemixedCat wrote:
This is a thing that is irking me about the software industry. They keep babying down software so more and more n00bs can use it. However, those n00bs can become better people by learning to use computers the way they are and becoming smarter. Now more then ever we need more smart people and not more dumb people who want everyone to baby everything down becuase they are too lazy to learn.
are these n00bs that intimidated knowing the free space of their drives in the status bar?
are they intimidated by having more detailed information?
if they are they should not be using computers.
You talk a lot about n00bs…yet you are sticking by outdated software because you dont like what amounts to UI changes? Usin a server OS is not an indication of increased skill of knowledge….
Ahh, that does not work for me servernewbie.
Checking nro.log, and it complains about system restore not being present.
Hmmm.
Remixedcat,
I don’t think you understand the ramifications of what your are saying. The next windows release will not be 100% managed code, because if it were, it would be far too slow.
I have to say, your sticking with R1 is not the smartest move.
Running win2k3 over XP made sense because it was newer, faster, leaner and more secure.
The same for win2k8 over vista, to a lesser extent.
With R2 and 7…..R2 is matched to 7. You are basically running Vista, which makes no sense for you line of work, which from what you have said is graphic and multimedia assign.
Why not just use 7? Why do you use a server OS? Is it just to be different? I really cant understand it from a technical point of view.
@JonusC wrote:
Not entirely true. If you launch a process as administrator, any additional processes that it creates will also be run as administrator. If he starts his Database client as administrator, but it still can’t write to the database file, then the only thing left to check out is permissions.
Permissions, or some sub program is being called not as Administrator user for some reason would be my guess.
He’s already stated that he’s running as an administrator of a domain so there is additional layers of security at hand in regards to Local and Group Policy. I have a hunch that the reason why it’s happening is because the Administrators Group needed to be have Grant:Full on the program folder and it’s children, rather than just the local administrator user.
Sure, but it is my understanding that he wants to run as a higher user. This is what is wrong and unnecessary.
Seriously, did you even read that? Just run as administrator, then you wont need to run as administrator?
Ahh, I see the ambiguity. I meant use the run as administrator option from a normal user account, and you would not have to run as the administrator user.
We already established a few posts back that he doesn’t need to run higher than Administrator, so you saying all that was pretty much a meaningless flame to my eye. Please actually read all the posts before you reply next time.
I just reread through the thread, and can’t see where that was sorted. He actually mentions trying to get his user account to run with system privileges, when he should know better. If I have misinterpreted or missed something, then I do apologise. I am not trying to flame for no reason, but rather to point out what I consider to be something daft when I see it.
@DMikeM wrote:
Please don’t try to start a flame war in a good thread. Saying that I don’t know what I am doing is a pretty petty statement. I would suggest you add a spellchecker to your browser or not make posts in a heated hurry.
Sure, and if I have drawn a false conclusion, I apologize. But, earlier on in the thread, where you stated you tried to get your user account to run with System privileges, demonstrates a poor understand of the Windows architecture, which led me to my conclusion. Of course, assumptions can be false, and if so, I do apologize, and would like to hear your justification.
I have tried as “YOU” have suggested and as I have stated things do not always work as expected. Some of our drives come from older windows installs and are attached to new Win 2008 server installs. These old volumes need to be re-managed so that they will function properly. My original question was all encompassing to address these problems as well as getting better access to my own files and system processes.
You stated you had problems, for example, installing UT3 server and not being granted permissions. Having installed this several times(assuming you mean the game), I can honestly say I have never had a problem, which is another reason I don’t see your level of privilege as being the issue.
Again, sorry for any misunderstanding, not trying to flame, etc…
@DMikeM wrote:
My background is actually windows first with a few years of Xenix/Unix support.
I do know that what I am asking is in fact dangerous but I do have good full time firewalls on our network and a good resident antimalware on my machines. I also run FireFox with NoScript and Adblock Plus, and cookies disabled for new and unknown sites.
What you are asking for is not just dangerous, but entireley unneccessary. You don’t need to run as higher than Administrator, ever, for anything. If you are actually running as the Administrator account with UAC turned off, you won’t get prompted for any authentication, and you will have full access.
If programs do not work, it is not due to a lack of access, but some other problem.
Insisting that you wish to run as higher than the Administrator account shows that you don’t have that great of an idea how Windows works, or what you are doing.
Some issues are as minor as the system will not allow me to save a database file in the program directory or make changes to the existing ones, even with “Run as Admin” used.
Then just run as the Administrator, and you will have full access, and won’t need to use run as admin.
Remember, run as admin only means the program you ran as admin wil lhave access, not anything outside of it…..
@Remiel wrote:
try this:
Download Direct X Redist. march-2k9
I figured out that much dlls from directX are missing in server2k8R2 which will be included by this redist ( you see the copy new file process in the installer )
hope it works for you =)
Ahh, it didn’t work 🙁
Thanks though.
@DMikeM wrote:
Ok I am tired of being restricted from some folders or drives and some apps needing to be run as Admin.
I have gone through the policy top to bottom and can’t figure out what to do to be in full control (AS IN ROOT) of my system. I am an IT specialist, Network Admin, Systems Admin. ETC… and want total access to my stuff with no restrictions. Why is this so hard with this OS?Anyone here figure this out yet?
If you are as qualified as you say, then you should know that your request is a bad idea.
Instead, just run as an Administrator account, and you should have sufficient access for actually using your system.
@kmccann1 wrote:
@JingoFresh wrote:
If anyone wants to test, they can test with timeit.exe as described above, which will remove and subjective interpretations and give an honest answer.
I’m ok if SuperFetch doesn’t work, just thought I’d help out. Anyway, downloaded the 2003 res kit tools and have the timeit utility but don’t know how to use it, do you have an example?
EDIT:
Ran the tool and this is the output I get:C:Program Files (x86)Microsoft OfficeOffice12>timeit outlook.exe
Unable to query system performance data (c0000004)I know man, I’m not trying to discredit or demean your work in any way, so please don’t take it like that. I just would not think it would work for technical reasons.
Strange that you get an error with the tool…maybe there is an update for 2008? A 2008 resource kit?
@RemixedCat wrote:
This is yet one of the many reasons why I am still using R1. I open photoshop alot throughout the day and I definatly notice SF working becuase the first time I load it upon rebooot takes 7 mins. after SF grabs it it takes 2.5 mins. I have 120MB brushes and 22 patterns and 100 gradients loaded into PS.
my architecture software takes 10-15 without SF and with SF it is 2-5 mins.
also R2 felt odd, not as workstationey as R1 was able to. Still felt a little hacky.
Going by your other posts, do you mind if I ask why you use R1 instead of 7 business? 7 would seem to suit you better, being optimised for multimedia work, without having any of the cruft that vista has.
@Krkan wrote:
Havent really benchmarked anything but I know Superfetch is working and filling my memory. Last two days I have noticed my memory usage has become higher. It used to be 600-680 idle and now its 890-980 idle.
Do I feel any difference? Not really..
@Lehto wrote:
I played some GTA IV, then I returned back to desktop. 3 hours now on desktop and still 1.5gb of mem free? Im starting to having doubts wether the superfetch actually does anything, because before I was playing GTA IV I had 28mb of mem free.
Exactly.
Unfortunatley, I am almost certain that installing the superfetch service will simply create prefetch files and allocate memory, without being able to do anything useful. Due to the way it would work, support would have to be in the kernel. For Windows Server 2008 R2, it won’t be.
If anyone wants to test, they can test with timeit.exe as described above, which will remove and subjective interpretations and give an honest answer.
I have to say, superfecth on R2 does not make much sense. There are generally better ways to achieve a similar solution, and if you really desire it, perhaps you should reexamine your motives for using R2 and not 7….
@xxcom9a wrote:
There are plenty of files that are over 10MB that you may want to check for viruses (example: e-mail attachments). Also, you don’t want too tight of security because then you will have something like Vista. 😆
Hmm. I would think that for stuff sent via email, it would be available elsewhere, and it it were a document, it would be stuff like macro security you would have to worry about. Even so, in the rare event you did get a virus, with a good security policy it won’t be able to do anything anyway.
You can check and monitor suspicious files with the sysinternals utilities as well. Besides, your mail servers should also be doing virus checking, and not sending large attachments via email. Sorry…I work in that industry, so tend to have stronger opinions than most.
I can’t test myself, but if anyone is interested, I would suggest using the timeit utility from the 2003 resource kit, and measuring execution time of a big program like photoshop, a middle program like firefox and something smaller like adboe reader, after booting, after opening a heap of other stuff, and after having each program open for a while and then closing, to compare with superfetch on and off to see if it is working and not just using up memory.
