Regarding the drag/drop while navigating, I think what Bongi's referring to is being able to drag over a folder icon, and having the folder open, instead of using the Tree view (also, not needing to open Explorer to begin with.)
That'd be a neat feature, but admittedly I've always opened the location I'm moving something to in another window to begin with; unless folders opened immediately if you dragged the icon over (which would be annoying if you accidentally moved over the wrong one), it's a lot faster.
Regarding the drag/drop while navigating, I think what Bongi's referring to is being able to drag over a folder icon, and having the folder open, instead of using the Tree view (also, not needing to open Explorer to begin with.)
That'd be a neat feature, but admittedly I've always opened the location I'm moving something to in another window to begin with; unless folders opened immediately if you dragged the icon over (which would be annoying if you accidentally moved over the wrong one), it's a lot faster.
Right, I doubt I'd use the feature in OSX since folders don't open immediately. I would open a second window and ctrl+c, ctrl+v...more precise that way, I've had too many annoying mishaps with dragging and releasing too soon, dropping stuff where it shouldn't go.
I guess I need to start reading this thread. I have a new system on its way to me, a notebook, and it'll be a Vista system. While I'd like to scrub it clean and install XP, I don't think I have an XP disc, don't think I feel like going through the hassle, and if Vista is here to stay I might as well get used to it.
So I guess I've got to learn how to get it to talk friendly to my games and favorite apps.
I guess I need to start reading this thread. I have a new system on its way to me, a notebook, and it'll be a Vista system. While I'd like to scrub it clean and install XP, I don't think I have an XP disc, don't think I feel like going through the hassle, and if Vista is here to stay I might as well get used to it.
So I guess I've got to learn how to get it to talk friendly to my games and favorite apps.
The consensus here is to scrub it clean - scrub Vista clean of any crapware that comes with it. Then it should behave, at worst, about the same as XP. With some things better and some things worse, of course.
I guess I need to start reading this thread. I have a new system on its way to me, a notebook, and it'll be a Vista system. While I'd like to scrub it clean and install XP, I don't think I have an XP disc, don't think I feel like going through the hassle, and if Vista is here to stay I might as well get used to it.
So I guess I've got to learn how to get it to talk friendly to my games and favorite apps.
The consensus here is to scrub it clean
Seriously. I hated XP at first, but that's because the OEM install came with a ton of junk preinstalled. Once I got a clean install disc from Microsoft, XP became my new favorite OS. I imagine a lot of Vista's problems reported now have more to do with the OEM version than Vista itself.
Well, that and anemic driver support, but that will improve over time.
Yea, scrub your laptop clean. I got my Dell and it was horrible, really just laggy and slow. Then I decided to scrub it, and went to dell's website and downloaded the Dell laptop drivers, burnt them on a cd, and then formatted/installed Windows Vista on the laptop, completely fresh and new, with SP1. After that, I reinstalled the laptop drivers and by jove it was completely different.
I blame the laptop companies more than anytihng. All the pre-installed shit is just horrible.
is it zippy? I mean, ubuntu is pretty lean, but OSX thru a USB port...?
I've seen flash drives read as full hard drives before. He could be using one of those.
I boot XP off of flash drives. I just run QEMU, a VM software that doesn't require an install. I'm sure you can do the same with OSX, but it also might be possible to just do it in the same capacity as Ubuntu if you hack it right.
The timeclocks I run at work run off Windows XP Embedded... a version of XP that fits on 256mb of flash memory and has no RAM.
People trash Microsoft for large footprints, comparing feature stripped OSs to XP or Vista and they have no idea that there's an actual commercial product from MS designed to run with minimal hardware.
I tend to gut my prebuilds as soon as I get them, anyway, removing all the excess software and shit I don't want. So if I go ahead and do that as I nornally would, it shouldn't be that bad? Good to hear.
I'll check out the Dell site for the drivers. (I bought a Dell.)
We buy from Dell and the last round of laptops we got (we order them with NO extra software and XP Pro SP2) had some program on it that wouldn't let people with proper access to a network share edit any of the file names.
Dell support had no clue... we had to solve it ourselves
I've had Vista since I got a new PC earlier this year. The only problem I ever had with it was that my old linksys wireless router wasn't compatible, and I had to install some new drivers to bring it up to date.
I still don't understand all the Vista hate. I recall XP crashing quite often, having to use "Task Manager" all the damn time to close non-responsive programs, and still have them not fucking close. When something comes up un-responsive in Vista, usually all I have to do is click the damn screen and it straightens up. Like the computer goes "No, you're right, it's not that big of a problem. Sorry to have bothered you."
Of course, I don't do any kind of complex networking or anything that would put Vista's real worth to the test. So perhaps it's only fooling the casual crowd like myself.
We buy from Dell and the last round of laptops we got (we order them with NO extra software and XP Pro SP2) had some program on it that wouldn't let people with proper access to a network share edit any of the file names.
Dell support had no clue... we had to solve it ourselves
Which app is that? I have a machine doing the same shit, but I've already removed everything I could find on it.
I've had Vista since I got a new PC earlier this year. The only problem I ever had with it was that my old linksys wireless router wasn't compatible, and I had to install some new drivers to bring it up to date.
I still don't understand all the Vista hate. I recall XP crashing quite often, having to use "Task Manager" all the damn time to close non-responsive programs, and still have them not fucking close. When something comes up un-responsive in Vista, usually all I have to do is click the damn screen and it straightens up. Like the computer goes "No, you're right, it's not that big of a problem. Sorry to have bothered you."
Of course, I don't do any kind of complex networking or anything that would put Vista's real worth to the test. So perhaps it's only fooling the casual crowd like myself.
By the way, closing things in the task manager and they still don't close? That's when you close it under the applications tab. That's the same as clicking the X in the corner of the window which you probably already tried and it didn't work which was why you were in task manager in the first place.
If you want to force something to close now, use the processes tab. The catch is that you have to know the name of the .exe, but most good computer users are clever enough to figure this out. For example right now I can close Firefox through applications but under processes it's called firefox.exe. Internet Explorer is iexplore.exe, etc.
Satisfying to just tell XP, no, you don't understand, I want this program closed immediately. And it does it!
One thing I really like about Vista is how the online updating and whatnot is built in right from the start. I installed it on my laptop just to see how it went, and it managed to download all my drivers for me. Also, no longer having to restart for a graphics card driver update is pretty good.
This cannot be limed hard enough. I mean, it's fine if you've just got it set to download updates in the background so that you don't get interrupted and can start the update when you get a chance, but completely disabling them is just stupid.
As long as you check for updates manually it's fine.
Right, which is why it's a horrible idea, since nobody does that. Even if you do, nobody does that often enough to catch the newest security holes as they come out.
As long as you check for updates manually it's fine.
Right, which is why it's a horrible idea, since nobody does that. Even if you do, nobody does that often enough to catch the newest security holes as they come out.
As long as you check for updates manually it's fine.
Right, which is why it's a horrible idea, since nobody does that. Even if you do, nobody does that often enough to catch the newest security holes as they come out.
There's really no reason to ever disable automatic updates. Heck, just tell it to notify you instead of auto installing if you like.
"check for updates manually" has lead to so many "oh, I forgot it's thursday and I missed that remote root exploit on tuesday" moments in IT security.
I don't have it on because its annoying and stupid. Its even enabled itself without permission. Fuck auto-updates.
How does it enable itself without permission? Vista asks you what you want your automatic update policy to be when you boot your machine for the first time.
I will agree that the old XP "I'm going to restart your computer now, would you like me to wait 10 minutes?" popup was a crime against humanity, but the Vista popup isn't as bad - besides, there's really no reason for your machine to not automatically DOWNLOAD updates for you and notify you so you can install them whenever you want. I've never been interrupted in any way with those settings. Would you like to manually update your virus scanning software?
Yeah I suppose manually checking for updates every day would be just about as effective. It would probably save you a lot of trouble to enable automatic updates, but hey, it's your time.
RandomEngy on
Profile -> Signature Settings -> Hide signatures always. Then you don't have to read this worthless text anymore.
There's really no reason to ever disable automatic updates. Heck, just tell it to notify you instead of auto installing if you like.
"check for updates manually" has lead to so many "oh, I forgot it's thursday and I missed that remote root exploit on tuesday" moments in IT security.
I don't have it on because its annoying and stupid. Its even enabled itself without permission. Fuck auto-updates.
I have no idea if Vista asks or not, but turning auto-updates on is pretty much the default for every single application/OS out there now (except the ones that won't auto-update, or won't update at all). Its considered one of those features that shouldn't really be a decision for Joe-Schmo user. In fact, not having it on by default is one of the major reasons that XP had such security problems to begin with.
If you're the type that worries about updates breaking something, then you're probably also smart enough to find the button to turn them off. And if you wanna do that at home, that's your business.
Yeah I suppose manually checking for updates every day would be just about as effective. It would probably save you a lot of trouble to enable automatic updates, but hey, it's your time.
It could be an issue if it eats your ram or bandwidth, or if the update is hideously flawed.
Yeah I suppose manually checking for updates every day would be just about as effective. It would probably save you a lot of trouble to enable automatic updates, but hey, it's your time.
It could be an issue if it eats your ram or bandwidth, or if the update is hideously flawed.
Yeah I hate when a program eats my RAM and bandwidth at 4:00 AM.
RandomEngy on
Profile -> Signature Settings -> Hide signatures always. Then you don't have to read this worthless text anymore.
Download only and prompt takes no noticeable ram, and barely any bandwidth (BITS is pretty solid, you can happily game through it without noticing a ping difference)
There.. there really isn't any reason to not at the very least have automatic updates tell you an update is available when you first log in for the day.
Regarding the drag/drop while navigating, I think what Bongi's referring to is being able to drag over a folder icon, and having the folder open, instead of using the Tree view (also, not needing to open Explorer to begin with.)
That'd be a neat feature, but admittedly I've always opened the location I'm moving something to in another window to begin with; unless folders opened immediately if you dragged the icon over (which would be annoying if you accidentally moved over the wrong one), it's a lot faster.
Right, I doubt I'd use the feature in OSX since folders don't open immediately. I would open a second window and ctrl+c, ctrl+v...more precise that way, I've had too many annoying mishaps with dragging and releasing too soon, dropping stuff where it shouldn't go.
Actually you can press space to open them immediately.
Yeah I suppose manually checking for updates every day would be just about as effective. It would probably save you a lot of trouble to enable automatic updates, but hey, it's your time.
It could be an issue if it eats your ram or bandwidth, or if the update is hideously flawed.
Yeah I hate when a program eats my RAM and bandwidth at 4:00 AM.
Even then, you can set the time to what you want :-P
The only foreseeable reason as to why you wouldn't even set it to auto-alert is because you don't like yourself.
Desert_Eagle25 on
0
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
There's really no reason to ever disable automatic updates. Heck, just tell it to notify you instead of auto installing if you like.
"check for updates manually" has lead to so many "oh, I forgot it's thursday and I missed that remote root exploit on tuesday" moments in IT security.
I just have it alert me when stuff is ready, then I download it on my own time. I found auto-updating caused massive instability of my system until I turned it off. Now I download only when I want it too (IE: When it informs me there are updates and I am finished what I am doing, so I can then tell it to download and walk away doing other stuff instead) and my system is 100% more stable.
It seems that what is happening when I had my problem of files taking a long time to open is that the consent.exe application, the UAC prompt, loads, but then doesn't get displayed and sits in the background eating up a huge amount of RAM while Windows carries on blithely doing its thing.
2. I play a lot of games wherein I use ventrillo to communicate. By default, for a reason I cannot discern, Vista has changed the way my microphone sounds to others. A slight annoyance, but nothing to kill an OS over.
The real problem is that Vista forces me to turn microphone boost on every time I boot my machine, which I have to do if I leave for more than 20 minutes because of the phenomena described above. I have tried everything and there is no way to get the machine to remember to keep microphone boost on. At this point I assume I need new hardware.
Other issues: irritatingly difficult to perform a full format - if you know an easy way to do so, I'd love some guidance. Huge memory hog, far more blue screens of death than XP.
Vista uses it's own audio stack, sound cards don't do any of the audio processing if you've got vista installed. Probably why your mic sounds different, though I've no idea about it forgetting to keep boost on. Tried logging in as administrator, turning boost on, restarting and seeing if it's kept?
Is there a way to outright disable UAC? I don't just mean the "Turn Off" checkbox that hounds you with info-popups in the system tray about turning it back on, but like an "I am not an idiot" mode that will stop annoying me about it? Maybe a Registry key or something?
Anyone notice how some things (mattresses and the copy machines in Highrise) are totally impenetrable? A steel wall, yeah that makes sense, but bullets should obliterate copy machines.
I don't know about you, but I always buy a bullet proof printer. Its a lot more expensive, but I think the advantages are apparent.
Yeah in the security center there's an option on the left that's something like "change the way security center notifies me" and you can turn the notifications off.
RandomEngy on
Profile -> Signature Settings -> Hide signatures always. Then you don't have to read this worthless text anymore.
Posts
That'd be a neat feature, but admittedly I've always opened the location I'm moving something to in another window to begin with; unless folders opened immediately if you dragged the icon over (which would be annoying if you accidentally moved over the wrong one), it's a lot faster.
Right, I doubt I'd use the feature in OSX since folders don't open immediately. I would open a second window and ctrl+c, ctrl+v...more precise that way, I've had too many annoying mishaps with dragging and releasing too soon, dropping stuff where it shouldn't go.
So I guess I've got to learn how to get it to talk friendly to my games and favorite apps.
The consensus here is to scrub it clean - scrub Vista clean of any crapware that comes with it. Then it should behave, at worst, about the same as XP. With some things better and some things worse, of course.
Seriously. I hated XP at first, but that's because the OEM install came with a ton of junk preinstalled. Once I got a clean install disc from Microsoft, XP became my new favorite OS. I imagine a lot of Vista's problems reported now have more to do with the OEM version than Vista itself.
Well, that and anemic driver support, but that will improve over time.
I blame the laptop companies more than anytihng. All the pre-installed shit is just horrible.
The timeclocks I run at work run off Windows XP Embedded... a version of XP that fits on 256mb of flash memory and has no RAM.
People trash Microsoft for large footprints, comparing feature stripped OSs to XP or Vista and they have no idea that there's an actual commercial product from MS designed to run with minimal hardware.
I'll check out the Dell site for the drivers. (I bought a Dell.)
Dell support had no clue... we had to solve it ourselves
I'll give this a shot tonight. Thanks!
Massive Crystal Cavern!
I still don't understand all the Vista hate. I recall XP crashing quite often, having to use "Task Manager" all the damn time to close non-responsive programs, and still have them not fucking close. When something comes up un-responsive in Vista, usually all I have to do is click the damn screen and it straightens up. Like the computer goes "No, you're right, it's not that big of a problem. Sorry to have bothered you."
Of course, I don't do any kind of complex networking or anything that would put Vista's real worth to the test. So perhaps it's only fooling the casual crowd like myself.
Which app is that? I have a machine doing the same shit, but I've already removed everything I could find on it.
By the way, closing things in the task manager and they still don't close? That's when you close it under the applications tab. That's the same as clicking the X in the corner of the window which you probably already tried and it didn't work which was why you were in task manager in the first place.
If you want to force something to close now, use the processes tab. The catch is that you have to know the name of the .exe, but most good computer users are clever enough to figure this out. For example right now I can close Firefox through applications but under processes it's called firefox.exe. Internet Explorer is iexplore.exe, etc.
Satisfying to just tell XP, no, you don't understand, I want this program closed immediately. And it does it!
Critical Failures - Havenhold Campaign • August St. Cloud (Human Ranger)
Horrible idea.
This cannot be limed hard enough. I mean, it's fine if you've just got it set to download updates in the background so that you don't get interrupted and can start the update when you get a chance, but completely disabling them is just stupid.
Right, which is why it's a horrible idea, since nobody does that. Even if you do, nobody does that often enough to catch the newest security holes as they come out.
"check for updates manually" has lead to so many "oh, I forgot it's thursday and I missed that remote root exploit on tuesday" moments in IT security.
I don't have it on because its annoying and stupid. Its even enabled itself without permission. Fuck auto-updates.
How does it enable itself without permission? Vista asks you what you want your automatic update policy to be when you boot your machine for the first time.
I will agree that the old XP "I'm going to restart your computer now, would you like me to wait 10 minutes?" popup was a crime against humanity, but the Vista popup isn't as bad - besides, there's really no reason for your machine to not automatically DOWNLOAD updates for you and notify you so you can install them whenever you want. I've never been interrupted in any way with those settings. Would you like to manually update your virus scanning software?
If you're the type that worries about updates breaking something, then you're probably also smart enough to find the button to turn them off. And if you wanna do that at home, that's your business.
It could be an issue if it eats your ram or bandwidth, or if the update is hideously flawed.
Yeah I hate when a program eats my RAM and bandwidth at 4:00 AM.
Download only and prompt takes no noticeable ram, and barely any bandwidth (BITS is pretty solid, you can happily game through it without noticing a ping difference)
There.. there really isn't any reason to not at the very least have automatic updates tell you an update is available when you first log in for the day.
Even then, you can set the time to what you want :-P
The only foreseeable reason as to why you wouldn't even set it to auto-alert is because you don't like yourself.
I just have it alert me when stuff is ready, then I download it on my own time. I found auto-updating caused massive instability of my system until I turned it off. Now I download only when I want it too (IE: When it informs me there are updates and I am finished what I am doing, so I can then tell it to download and walk away doing other stuff instead) and my system is 100% more stable.
Vista uses it's own audio stack, sound cards don't do any of the audio processing if you've got vista installed. Probably why your mic sounds different, though I've no idea about it forgetting to keep boost on. Tried logging in as administrator, turning boost on, restarting and seeing if it's kept?
XBL: LiquidSnake2061