So I reinstalled Vista and...



  • So I reinstalled Vista the other day after about a year to get rid of some bloatware and the remains of a few uninstalls. (I know, VISTA R SLOW LOLOL but it did start up in about 20 seconds when I first bought this box in March 2007)

    Despite all the doom and gloom spewed about Vista on the internets, the reinstall actually went very well: everything worked out of the box, I had internet without doing anything, and even the only driver that didn't come with the DVD (video card) was automatically installed by Windows Update along with about 48 other updates. I even succeeded in installing Firefox while Windows was patching, then installing Photoshop while Office was installing, all without a reboot of course. The only things Vista didn't do for me was increase my screen resolution, turn on Aero and change the function of the damnable shutdown button in the start menu from 'enter sleep mode and hang due to Nvidia's bugged drivers' to 'shut down'. Woot... until my first reboot:

    ...the computer now boots up slower than before. The progress bar disappears much earlier, but then there is a very long silence on a black screen before the little glowing Windows logo, which used to appear almost instantly after the progress bar before I reinstalled. Total startup time, not counting BIOS: 40 seconds, up from 30 seconds.

    Huh? A polluted Vista install is faster than a newly installed one? Well, now I get why people complain that Vista boots too slowly, but what the hell...?



  • It's called SuperFetch. Because you did a reinstall, Vista is going to have to re-"learn" what to preload and what to ignore.
    Also you might look at: http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=246



  • @clively said:

    It's called SuperFetch. Because you did a reinstall, Vista is going to have to re-"learn" what to preload and what to ignore.
    Also you might look at: http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=246
     

    Agreed, I also question how many times the OP has rebooted since the reinstall, since the first few times will be slow anyway due to various components finishing their installs, as well as all those updates.



  • @Brother Laz said:

    So I reinstalled Vista the other day after about a year ...

    Woah. TRWTF is that Vista has been out for a year, and I've used it exactly twice.

    1. In Staples, I hit Windows-Tab just to see the WTF that is Flip 3D
    2. At work I spent about 15 minutes on it just for a quick and dirty test for a piece of software


  •  @djork said:

    @Brother Laz said:

    So I reinstalled Vista the other day after about a year ...

    Woah. TRWTF is that Vista has been out for a year, and I've used it exactly twice.

    1. In Staples, I hit Windows-Tab just to see the WTF that is Flip 3D
    2. At work I spent about 15 minutes on it just for a quick and dirty test for a piece of software

    Daim, D, you beat me by 1 time! Im waiting till Vista is 2-3 yrs old and has a ram requirement of 512 ram to work great. Once that happens its vista all de way!



  • @dlikhten said:

    Daim, D, you beat me by 1 time! Im waiting till Vista is 2-3 yrs old and has a ram requirement of 512 ram to work great. Once that happens its vista all de way!

     

    Do you just randomly hit the keyboard? Or was that supposed to be english?



  • @dlikhten said:

    Daim, D, you beat me by 1 time! Im waiting till Vista is 2-3 yrs old and has a ram requirement of 512 ram to work great. Once that happens its vista all de way!
    We had a 35 hour course on Vista at school, I found it to be a really pretty version of XP, until I turned off the theming service, at which point I noticed they updated the start menu to something slightly more interesting and more keyboard friendly, and added UAC (which I like because it is a good idea and behaves alot like gksudo). I might try it on my laptop (which has 512MB of RAM) just to see how it deals with it (our school comps had 2GB).



  • @Lingerance said:

    I might try it on my laptop (which has 512MB of RAM) just to see how it deals with it (our school comps had 2GB).
     

    If you turn off Aero (should be off by default on 512mb) it should be reasonable.



  • @Brother Laz said:

    So I reinstalled Vista the other day after about a year to get rid of some bloatware and the remains of a few uninstalls.
     

    It's been said before, but it bears repeating: The Real WTF is that some bloatware and uninstalls would necessitate the reinstallation of the operating system after a year.



  • it most likely didn't "necessitate" a reinstallation of the OS, it's just that the OP either couldn't be bothered cleaning the system themselves or just thought it was quicker and cleaner to fresh install.



  • @Tann San said:

    it most likely didn't "necessitate" a reinstallation of the OS, it's just that the OP either couldn't be bothered cleaning the system themselves or just thought it was quicker and cleaner to fresh install.
     

    I understand that.  The point still remains: it shouldn't be simpler to reinstall an OS than to clean it. 



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    If you turn off Aero (should be off by default on 512mb) it should be reasonable.
    My brother ran without Aero but with 512MB of RAM and themes turned on and found it slow, so I was wondering if turning off themes would make it seem not slow. I didn't use his computer other than when I needed to maintain it (twice).



  • @Lingerance said:

    @MasterPlanSoftware said:
    If you turn off Aero (should be off by default on 512mb) it should be reasonable.
    My brother ran without Aero but with 512MB of RAM and themes turned on and found it slow, so I was wondering if turning off themes would make it seem not slow. I didn't use his computer other than when I needed to maintain it (twice).
     

    It will definitely be slower than XP on the same hardware, but that should be expected.



  • @dlikhten said:

    and has a ram requirement of 512 ram to work great. Once that happens its vista all de way!

    is that MB or GB?



  • @DaEagle said:

    @dlikhten said:

    and has a ram requirement of 512 ram to work great. Once that happens its vista all de way!

    is that MB or GB?

     

    Like I said, it looks like a monkey walked across the keys...



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    Like I said, it looks like a monkey walked across the keys...

    Is that a helper monkey? Where can I get one from? Can it write VB.net cos most people around here can't!



  • Well that really depends on how messed up the system is. For all we know the OP has been viewing some rather nasty web sites and downloading any old crap off the net. I think the blame for crapping the OS up is down to whatever was put on it to crap it up in the firstplace.



  • @Brother Laz said:

    The progress bar disappears much earlier, but then there is a very long silence on a black screen before the little glowing Windows logo,

    Sounds like driver issue.

    Which driver?

    Who knows. 



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    It will definitely be slower than XP on the same hardware, but that should be expected.

    Hm.

    Is it folly to expect that the next generation of your software will be faster and lighter in some respects? That software development is not just about tacking more new features onto an existing program?

    Should it not be somewhat expected that turning off all the Aeuioreo eyecandy in Vista will turn it into something with the weight of XP?



  • @DaEagle said:

    @dlikhten said:

    and has a ram requirement of 512 ram to work great. Once that happens its vista all de way!

    is that MB or GB?

    I think it's 512 RAM modules.



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    @Lingerance said:
    I might try it on my laptop (which has 512MB of RAM) just to see how it deals with it (our school comps had 2GB).
     

    If you turn off Aero (should be off by default on 512mb) it should be reasonable.

    Paying 300 bucks for a 'reasonable' running OS sounds like a ripoff to me.



  • Maybe he's in Kazakhstan, and needs 512 sheep to power his computer?



  • @ropata said:

    Maybe he's in Kazakhstan, and needs 512 sheep to power his computer?

    I don't think he is able to run Vista then, 512 sheep don't have that much of memory. Also they forget unreasonably fast (well, you might consider that a feature, as the RAM will never be full and you don't need a swap file).



  • @bstorer said:

    It's been said before, but it bears repeating: The Real WTF is that some bloatware and uninstalls would necessitate the reinstallation of the operating system after a year.


    it's not a WTF, it's a tradition.



  • @dhromed said:

    @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    It will definitely be slower than XP on the same hardware, but that should be expected.

    Hm.

    Is it folly to expect that the next generation of your software will be faster and lighter in some respects? That software development is not just about tacking more new features onto an existing program?

    Should it not be somewhat expected that turning off all the Aeuioreo eyecandy in Vista will turn it into something with the weight of XP?

     

    I have never seen an example of a newer OS that provides more features being faster than an old one with less features. So no, this is not my expectation.



  • @Daid said:

    @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    @Lingerance said:
    I might try it on my laptop (which has 512MB of RAM) just to see how it deals with it (our school comps had 2GB).
     

    If you turn off Aero (should be off by default on 512mb) it should be reasonable.

    Paying 300 bucks for a 'reasonable' running OS sounds like a ripoff to me.

     

    Then don't use it. 



  • @Daid said:

    Paying 300 bucks for a 'reasonable' running OS sounds like a ripoff to me.
    I got a copy of business edition for "free" (meaning my tuition payed for it) when I arrived at school.



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    @Daid said:

    @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    @Lingerance said:
    I might try it on my laptop (which has 512MB of RAM) just to see how it deals with it (our school comps had 2GB).
     

    If you turn off Aero (should be off by default on 512mb) it should be reasonable.

    Paying 300 bucks for a 'reasonable' running OS sounds like a ripoff to me.

     

    Then don't use it. 

    Heh, yeah, just go by WeatherGod's avatar.




  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    @dhromed said:

    @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    It will definitely be slower than XP on the same hardware, but that should be expected.

    Hm.

    Is it folly to expect that the next generation of your software will be faster and lighter in some respects? That software development is not just about tacking more new features onto an existing program?

    Should it not be somewhat expected that turning off all the Aeuioreo eyecandy in Vista will turn it into something with the weight of XP?

     

    I have never seen an example of a newer OS that provides more features being faster than an old one with less features. So no, this is not my expectation.

     

    Then you've never used much outside of Windows.  New versions of many operating systems have architectural improvements that make a lot of operations (I/O, memory management, threading) run faster.  Just ask OS X or Ubuntu users.



  • @djork said:

    Just ask OS X or Ubuntu users.

    OS X can talk?

    Okay, so you probably meant OS X users, but then you should parenthesize correctly: "Just ask (OS X or Ubuntu) users."


    Oky, that would still require distributivity of string concatenation over logical or, but that's quite trivial.



  • @djork said:

    Then you've never used much outside of Windows.  New versions of many operating systems have architectural improvements that make a lot of operations (I/O, memory management, threading) run faster.  Just ask OS X or Ubuntu users.
     

    You are really comparing apples and oranges here. We are talking about Vista's GUI features being 'heavier'. Now you are referring to kernel changes.

    Vista featured significant kernel enhancements as well.

    http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/vista/kernel-en.mspx

    When you add on a lot of fancy GUI stuff on top of it, you are going to negate that effect. Price you pay for making things 'pretty'. Linux and OSX will always have the same problems, it is the nature of the beast.



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    @djork said:

    Then you've never used much outside of Windows.  New versions of many operating systems have architectural improvements that make a lot of operations (I/O, memory management, threading) run faster.  Just ask OS X or Ubuntu users.
     

    You are really comparing apples and oranges here. We are talking about Vista's GUI features being 'heavier'. Now you are referring to kernel changes.

     

    You missed the fact that Vista is actually useful for people other than web site administrators, and actually has a user base. Therefore, it needs functionality that Ubuntu doesn't provide (actually useful software) and that OS X limits to proprietary hardware. 



  • @bstorer said:

    The point still remains: it shouldn't be simpler to reinstall an OS than to clean it.

    Agreed.  MS needs to do two things:

    1. Add a "Reset specific program back to defaults" button.  This would put a particular piece of installed software into the same state it was when first installed; and,
    2. Make the uninstaller actually clean up everything that a POS program adds.  Given that they bought sys internals and now have all of the tools necessary to monitor a program at installation and while running, it should be dead simple to provide a way to get rid of that program.

    Combine that with the existing shadow copy feature and you'd have a feature that would kill Mac's Time Machine.



  • @KenW said:

    Therefore, it needs functionality that Ubuntu doesn't provide (actually useful software) and that OS X limits to proprietary hardware.

    What the f2k? You're kidding right? RIGHT? I'm often having the problem that I don't find good software for Windows (for free and legally) because the best ones are limited to *nix.


    If money isn't a bother, however, then maybe you might have a point here.



  • @KenW said:

    You missed the fact that Vista is actually useful for people other than web site administrators, and actually has a user base. Therefore, it needs functionality that Ubuntu doesn't provide (actually useful software) and that OS X limits to proprietary hardware. 
     

    Good point. Thanks.



  • @derula said:

    (for free and legally) because the best ones are limited to *nix.


    If money isn't a bother, however, then maybe you might have a point here.
     

    I typically have no problem paying for software. 

    Programmers need to eat too.



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    @derula said:

    (for free and legally) because the best ones are limited to *nix.


    If money isn't a bother, however, then maybe you might have a point here.
     

    I typically have no problem paying for software. 

    Programmers need to eat too.

     

    Bullshit! We survive using photosynthesis!



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    I typically have no problem paying for software. 

    Programmers need to eat too.


    Yeah, but my point was more like: it is not bearable for a private PC user to buy a (image editing | 3D modelling | office | IDE | whatthehellever) software for more than $500 each... Of course that's because most aim to companies, but there is other good software that's free and not limited to some proprietary OS.


    Okay, I'll stop here, this can't go anywhere good.



  • @derula said:

    Okay, I'll stop here, this can't go anywhere good.

    We passed the point of no return ages ago...



  • @derula said:

    it is not bearable for a private PC user to buy a (image editing | 3D modelling | office | IDE | whatthehellever) software for more than $500 each

    Perhaps the private PC user should lower their standards, they don't need photoshop, they can use MSPaint, Paint.NET or any of the others out there under 500 bucks.

    Office is not  500 bucks, their website says: Office Home and Student 2007
    $149.95

    Sorry, but stealing software is never acceptable, and if you are only using Linux for all the free stuff, I think you are missing the idea of the Open Source community.



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    You are really comparing apples and oranges here. We are talking about Vista's GUI features being 'heavier'. Now you are referring to kernel changes.

    Actually OS X's GUI keeps getting faster on the same hardware, too. They've been in the GPU-accelerated GUI business a lot longer than Microsoft have.



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    Sorry, but stealing software is never acceptable

    I know. I don't.
    @MasterPlanSoftware said:
    and if you are only using Linux for all the free stuff,

    I don't. Actually I'm on Windows. I'll be using Linux again, because I like it (unlike Windows), but you may be right about the missing-the-idea thing.



  • @djork said:

    @MasterPlanSoftware said:
    You are really comparing apples and oranges here. We are talking about Vista's GUI features being 'heavier'. Now you are referring to kernel changes.

    Actually OS X's GUI keeps getting faster on the same hardware, too. They've been in the GPU-accelerated GUI business a lot longer than Microsoft have.

     

    Alright, so that settles it. We can just stop all hardware development. Obviously, if the software is getting more featureful, and faster then you will one day be able to run OSX on a 66mhz computer with 1mb of RAM.

    Makes sense to me...

    Also, I don't think the duration of being in the 'GPU-accelerated GUI business' has a whole lot to do with this. I would say KenW made the correct argument that it is much easier to optimize for performance when you have a very narrow path of hardware to support.



  •  A couple of notes.

    - Installs in progress? Nope, that was about five reboots ago.

    - Superfetch? I had already rebooted a bunch of times, exactly to get Superfetch to kick in (it remembers up to five boots iirc). The desktop now appears faster, but it then takes another few seconds before clicking on the start menu or an icon in the speedlaunch bar does anything.

    - Too lazy to clean up? I did clean up. But it was still much slower than last year. Yes, I disabled unnecessary programs and services using Autoruns. Yes, I even cleaned up the registry, even though it shouldn't matter much nowadays. The only thing that made any difference was uninstalling the useless Asus software (I AM SERVICE!!!), and I didn't even install it this time round. So I suspected there was something big I was missing and the easiest way to get rid of it was to reinstall.

    - No, I didn't consult 'nasty websites'. Nice try. 

    - Vista only costs '300 bucks' if you go for Ultimate, which you should not. I got mine for cheaper than ME back in the days. Obviously, between the 'insanely high price' for a non-OEM copy and the system requirements, you should only get Vista with a whole new computer.

    - Vista is inefficient, but modern computers (not the junk with 512 MB and/or with integrated graphics when an 8400 GS is €35) can run it with no problems at all. It uses less resources and runs faster than ME on my old P933, or 95 on my P120.

     

    @clively said:

    Given that they bought sys internals and now have all of the tools
    necessary to monitor a program at installation and while running, it
    should be dead simple to provide a way to get rid of that program.



    Not going to happen, because it would infringe upon the right of the software vendor (and their contract with the spyware vendor) to leave their crap on your system as long as the TOS warns about it.

    @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    Perhaps the private PC user should lower their standards, they don't
    need photoshop, they can use MSPaint, Paint.NET or any of the others
    out there under 500 bucks.

    I suggest Adobe sell the Photoshop program with view/open/save functionality for €20 and then every editing function for €1 each so you can pick and choose. This, I believe, would solve much of the piracy problem. The alternatives to Photoshop tend to lack that one single function you really need, leaving you with the dilemma of having to cough up the full €500 for one or two functions or just forget about it. Or get a pirate copy. 

    @djork said:

    Actually OS X's GUI keeps getting faster on the same hardware, too.
    They've been in the GPU-accelerated GUI business a lot longer than
    Microsoft have.

    That's because it never changes. Explorer went faster in 98 than in 95, too. 



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    I typically have no problem paying for software.
    Programmers need to eat too.

    I never understood why people use that as an argument, last time I checked Red Hat was quite profitable; both Gnome and KDE (naming off the top of my head) devs get paid a salary for working on their respective FOSS projects, generally the devs can also get paid when a user wants a specific feature implemented ASAP, I also like being able to quickly check what's wrong when a bug comes up. Another point for Linux is modern distros tend to optimize for i586 and i686, when was the last time you saw a i386 machine? I'll admit there are some features lacking from both the Desktop user (Games mostly) end and the corporate (exchange is the only thing I can actually think of) end, but a number of people can actually not have to worry about bad programs shitting themselves everywhere (why does a program need to alter the PATH?)



    Despite investing massive amounts of money into usability studies, MS has brought out a number of really horrible design decisions that were defaults which had to be changed every time you installed them. Clippy (Word 97 and Word 2003), MS Bob, search puppy, et al. What is with the accessibility options activating when I hold shift for 5 seconds, it also stays on if you select configure from the pop up that appears and disable everything, but now you need to reboot to disable it (unless you play with the registry or config some more). Finally why does making a answer-file based CD require me to buy software from some other company, unless I use the ever so common on modern machines floppy-based answer file (or network [which is fun if Windows doesn't have drivers for it]) method.



    I'll gladly donate code or money to FOSS, but I won't to MS if I can avoid it.



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    Also, I don't think the duration of being in the 'GPU-accelerated GUI business' has a whole lot to do with this. I would say KenW made the correct argument that it is much easier to optimize for performance when you have a very narrow path of hardware to support.

    You're right... they have that narrow band of supporting ATI and NVidia GPUs, on Motorola-made and IBM-made PowerPCs and Intel X86 CPUs, with peripherals running on the gamut of USB and Firewire protocols, all flavors of cards on PCI and AGP, and drives on IDE and SATA. Really, how much narrower could they possibly be?



  • @djork said:

    @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    Also, I don't think the duration of being in the 'GPU-accelerated GUI business' has a whole lot to do with this. I would say KenW made the correct argument that it is much easier to optimize for performance when you have a very narrow path of hardware to support.

    You're right... they have that narrow band of supporting ATI and NVidia GPUs, on Motorola-made and IBM-made PowerPCs and Intel X86 CPUs, with peripherals running on the gamut of USB and Firewire protocols, all flavors of cards on PCI and AGP, and drives on IDE and SATA. Really, how much narrower could they possibly be?

     

    I am sorry, did OSX suddenly start supporting every 'IBM compatible PC' out there?



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    @djork said:

    @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    Also, I don't think the duration of being in the 'GPU-accelerated GUI business' has a whole lot to do with this. I would say KenW made the correct argument that it is much easier to optimize for performance when you have a very narrow path of hardware to support.

    You're right... they have that narrow band of supporting ATI and NVidia GPUs, on Motorola-made and IBM-made PowerPCs and Intel X86 CPUs, with peripherals running on the gamut of USB and Firewire protocols, all flavors of cards on PCI and AGP, and drives on IDE and SATA. Really, how much narrower could they possibly be?

     

    I am sorry, did OSX suddenly start supporting every 'IBM compatible PC' out there?

    You're just saying that OS X supports a "very narrow path of hardware." That is only true in the sense that they only support what's in modern Macs. However, what's inside all of the modern Macs is actually a tremendously wide range of technology.

    I'd say it's about as wide a range as the hardware that XP supports by default, with the exception of AMD processors (but really, running on two completely different instruction sets is more impressive than running on two slightly different versions of X86) and the variety of odd motherboard chipsets.

    Do you really think that Microsoft themselves put a lot of effort into supporting a lot of hardware? Instead, the hardware vendors build their stuff to comply with the standards, and as such they are supported to a certain degree by Windows. Vendor-supplied drivers make up the difference.



  • @Lingerance said:

    @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    I typically have no problem paying for software.
    Programmers need to eat too.

    I never understood why people use that as an argument, last time I checked Red Hat was quite profitable; both Gnome and KDE (naming off the top of my head) devs get paid a salary for working on their respective FOSS projects, generally the devs can also get paid when a user wants a specific feature implemented ASAP,

    So if you write a program that has all the features anyone could possibly want and is so easy to use that no one needs support, you deserve to be poor?



  • @Cap'n Steve said:

    So if you write a program that has all the features anyone could possibly want and is so easy to use that no one needs support, you deserve to be poor?

    In a capitalist society, everyone "deserves" to be poor until they take stuff from other people. The underlying principle is "you get what you grab".


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.