Self-referential


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    Windows Vista will be remembered as the worst OS release ever because of us and the gullible people who believed us!




  • I have to agree with the statement in the picture. Despite all the bad press I never had any issues with Vista. I knew people who despised Vista because it "didn't work" but when I looked at their Vista computers to "fix" them I could never find anything wrong.

    IMO the only bad point to Vista was its memory usage. Running it on a machine with only 2 GB RAM was not a good idea.

    On-Topic: I just saw the WTF. That's a good one.



  • You didn't include the URL, so two obvious questions:

    1) Does the columnist work for InfoWorld, or are they re-printing someone else's article?*


    2) Is this in the editorial section?

    Anyway, while I'm sure InfoWorld would love to inflate their own egos, there's no way that Vista is going to beat Mac OS 7.0.0 or Windows ME in that special place in the history books. The difference being, of course, that while people *thought* Vista was bad, Mac OS 7.0.0 and Windows ME *were* bad.

    That said, it's somewhat nice of them to mention in the article that the anti-Vista bullshit was actually bullshit, and that the public who had actually tried the product weren't buying the hype. That doesn't undo the bullshit, but you could read it as an admission of guilt at least.

    *) A few years back, Yahoo News started printing Weekly World News articles, and people were taking them seriously because of the Yahoo News logo on the page-- hilarious!



  • Yeah, Vista was okay. It just ate ungodly amounts of RAM. If you had that, it was eminently survivable.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    You didn't include the URL...

    [url=http://lmgtfy.com/?q=site%3Ainfoworld.com+%22What+to+expect+from+Windows+8%22]http://lmgtfy.com/?q=site%3Ainfoworld.com+"What+to+expect+from+Windows+8"[/url]



  • @dohpaz42 said:

    @blakeyrat said:
    You didn't include the URL...

    Its still a WTF for making a screenshot from a website and posting that instead of providing a link, what's with that recently?...

    While Vista certainly had its issues it also brought with it a lot of improvements. A lot of the major complaints were the same as with XP at the time (too much memory, too much eyecandy and incompatible apps/drivers just to name a few) while it is now considered the best OS MS ever released. Windows 7 is essentially Vista SP3 and is considered a good OS. Not saying Vista is a [i]good[/i] OS, just that it always.

    Except the implementation of UAC, the one who designed that should be drawn and quartered.



  • Is "let me google that for you" still funny?



  • @fennec said:

    Yeah, Vista was okay. It just ate ungodly amounts of RAM. If you had that, it was eminently survivable.

    I dunno.  My laptop has 4 GB of RAM.  It came with Vista, and it would BSOD pretty reliably about once a week.  Worse than anything I've used since at least Windows 98. I updated to Windows 7 and haven't had a single BSOD since then.



  • @Mason Wheeler said:

    @fennec said:

    Yeah, Vista was okay. It just ate ungodly amounts of RAM. If you had that, it was eminently survivable.

    I dunno.  My laptop has 4 GB of RAM.  It came with Vista, and it would BSOD pretty reliably about once a week.  Worse than anything I've used since at least Windows 98. I updated to Windows 7 and haven't had a single BSOD since then.

    And you know the BSODs were Vista's fault because...?



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @Mason Wheeler said:

    @fennec said:

    Yeah, Vista was okay. It just ate ungodly amounts of RAM. If you had that, it was eminently survivable.

    I dunno.  My laptop has 4 GB of RAM.  It came with Vista, and it would BSOD pretty reliably about once a week.  Worse than anything I've used since at least Windows 98. I updated to Windows 7 and haven't had a single BSOD since then.

    And you know the BSODs were Vista's fault because...?

     

    Well, the hardware hasn't changed, and I still use all the same software.  Process of elimination.

     



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @Mason Wheeler said:

    @fennec said:

    Yeah, Vista was okay. It just ate ungodly amounts of RAM. If you had that, it was eminently survivable.

    I dunno.  My laptop has 4 GB of RAM.  It came with Vista, and it would BSOD pretty reliably about once a week.  Worse than anything I've used since at least Windows 98. I updated to Windows 7 and haven't had a single BSOD since then.

    And you know the BSODs were Vista's fault because...?

    You have a point. Maybe his PC was angry about upgrading to Vista (it heard the same unfounded rumors), and was protesting until he upgraded to Windows 7. :)



  • You know that drivers count as software, right?



  • @Mason Wheeler said:

    Well, the hardware hasn't changed, and I still use all the same software.  Process of elimination.

    Do you use the same drivers?

    Edit: I guess I don't need to press the point, but. It bugs the hell out of me that people blame a lot of things on Windows that aren't Windows' fault. If it was a laptop loaded with shitty Sony or HP-modified drivers, it might BSOD-up a storm and Microsoft would have absolutely no say in the matter. Then when you install Windows 7, it grabs the Microsoft drivers, unmodified from the maker of the hardware, and suddenly everything works fine!

    From my experience using several hundred Vista/Windows 7 machines, BSODs are *always* either flaky drivers or flaky hardware. With XP, I'd give you the benefit of the doubt and say, well, ok, maybe Windows cause that one. But Vista? Nope.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    From my experience using several hundred Vista/Windows 7 machines, BSODs are always either flaky drivers or flaky hardware. With XP, I'd give you the benefit of the doubt and say, well, ok, maybe Windows cause that one. But Vista? Nope.

    Yes flaky, totally shitty Realtek drivers



  • @dtech said:

    Its still a WTF for making a screenshot from a website and posting that instead of providing a link, what's with that recently?...

    Maybe because (though not always):

    - Original site site paywalled / password protected / private

    - Original site is full of flashing crap you don't want/need to be subjected to

    - OP doesn't want to reward crap site with more traffic

    - WTF is single line buried amongst wall-of-text, screenshot allows highlighting

    - WTF is fixed by site owners, while screenshot is immutable

    - Site is down, dead, or otherwise unavailable

    -  Compression artifact jokes

     

    Of course, screenshots or link isn't a binary option. Anyone can provide both.



  • @dtech said:

    Except the implementation of UAC, the one who designed that should be drawn and quartered.

    Amen to that. Not just because of it asking 5 times if you REALLY want to delete some file. I encountered a virus when Vista was fairly new that completely disables UAC by -- get this -- writing to the "UAC enabled" registry key. Why on earth wasn't this key protected by UAC?



  • @Lorne Kates said:

    @dtech said:

    Its still a WTF for making a screenshot from a website and posting that instead of providing a link, what's with that recently?...

    Maybe because snip

    You forgot one: so we can make fun of the window style / browser design the OP uses.

    Seriously, what's with all the buttons in the address bar space? On first glance I thought this was IE.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @derula said:

    Seriously, what's with all the buttons in the address bar space?

    AdBlock Plus (nice to have), FireShot (absolutely essential to my job), Home (don't want it but it's there by default), Favorites (don't want it but it's there by default), Firebug (absolutely essential to my job).

    I've just removed Home and Favorites. Happy?



  • @joe.edwards said:

    I've just removed Home and Favorites. Happy?

    What's the use there for Adblock Plus and Firebug instead of in the addon bar? I have these extensions too, but need the icons so rarely I have removed them completely (well, Firebug's still in the addon bar, but addon bar is hidden). Adblock Plus just updates its subscriptions automatically, rarely need to make manual adjustments, and when I need Firebug, I just hit F12.

    Other than that, yeah, relatively happy. :)



  • @dtech said:

    While Vista certainly had its issues it also brought with it a lot of improvements.
    I used Vista every day for 18 months and the only "issues" I encountered that were actually the fault of Microsoft were some of the changes to the UI that seemed stupid and pointless.  Other than that, all of the problems I encountered were the fault of various third parties.  Things like shitty drivers and vendors taking forever to release a new version of their program that works with Vista.  Shitty drivers are absolutely the biggest cause of BSODs with all versions of Windows.@dtech said:
    Not saying Vista is a good OS, just that it always.
    Yes, I have noticed that Vista always.



  • @El_Heffe said:

    Yes, I have noticed that Vista always.
     

    Except when it.



  • The worst sin vista committed was the lack of a 'default programs' control panel like win7 has.  There was actually no way out-of-the-box for users to control what programs were allowed to open what documents and using the 'browse' button on the 'open with' dialog silently failed (didn't tell the user anything and didn't run the program just selected).



  • @Lorne Kates said:

    @El_Heffe said:

    Yes, I have noticed that Vista always.
     

    Except when it.

     

    I don't even.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @Mason Wheeler said:
    Well, the hardware hasn't changed, and I still use all the same software.  Process of elimination.

    Do you use the same drivers?

    Edit: I guess I don't need to press the point, but. It bugs the hell out of me that people blame a lot of things on Windows that aren't Windows' fault. If it was a laptop loaded with shitty Sony or HP-modified drivers, it might BSOD-up a storm and Microsoft would have absolutely no say in the matter. Then when you install Windows 7, it grabs the Microsoft drivers, unmodified from the maker of the hardware, and suddenly everything works fine!

    From my experience using several hundred Vista/Windows 7 machines, BSODs are *always* either flaky drivers or flaky hardware. With XP, I'd give you the benefit of the doubt and say, well, ok, maybe Windows cause that one. But Vista? Nope.


    I'm still using Vista on my workplace station, and few computers at home (some of them old, one of them with 1,5 Gb RAM), never had any problems ...
    Other than the lack of up-yoursdirectory button (which I was very fond of) I havent noticed any significant changes which would annoy me.
    The response time of vista is way better then xp and i LOVE the fact that you only have to click twice on the close button to kill any app regardless of its state. I do have to admit though that i have no shiny stuff, no uac, classic start menu and classic design.


  • @dhromed said:

    @Lorne Kates said:

    @El_Heffe said:

    Yes, I have noticed that Vista always.
     

    Except when it.

     

    I don't even.

     

    That would explain why you're so odd.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @Someone You Know said:

    @dhromed said:

    @Lorne Kates said:

    @El_Heffe said:

    Yes, I have noticed that Vista always.
     

    Except when it.

     

    I don't even.

     

    That would explain why you're so odd.

    Don't go off on a tangent.



  • @Lorne Kates said:

    @El_Heffe said:

    Yes, I have noticed that Vista always.
     

    Except when it.

    I accidentally the sentence



  • @El_Heffe said:

    @dtech said:
    While Vista certainly had its issues it also brought with it a lot of improvements.
    I used Vista every day for 18 months and the only "issues" I encountered that were actually the fault of Microsoft were some of the changes to the UI that seemed stupid and pointless.  Other than that, all of the problems I encountered were the fault of various third parties.

    As most were saying a lot of issues with Vista weren't Microsofts fault. It still has its issues/WTFs though:

    • As I already mentioned, UAC
    • Using a file transfer methode which was really slow on Windows < Vista or server 2008 (or something). This was fixed in SP1
    • The image that was written to the HD while installing was fragmented. Defragging the HD right after installation could speed up booting quite a bit.
    • Vista's window manager used memory lineairly with the number of open windows, which was one of the reasons it required a lot of memory. (7's manager used almost constant memory)
    • Desktop widgets and especially their memory usage
    • Probably a lot more I don't know/can't think of


  • @dhromed said:

    @Lorne Kates said:

    @El_Heffe said:

    Yes, I have noticed that Vista always.
     

    Except when it.

     

    I don't even.

    Don't get me started on.

     



  • @El_Heffe said:

    @dhromed said:

    @Lorne Kates said:

    @El_Heffe said:

    Yes, I have noticed that Vista always.
     

    Except when it.

     

    I don't even.

    Don't get me started on.
     

    What's going on here? Is Candle Jack active in this--

     



  • @dtech said:

    The image that was written to the HD while installing was fragmented.
    Windows 7 does the same thing (I've recently done two clean installs).  In fact, every version of Windows going back as far as I can remember has had fucked up file copying.   I remember back in Windows 98 copying a bunch of files from CDs onto a brand new empty hard drive and I was surprised by the amount of fragmentation.



  • @El_Heffe said:

    @dtech said:

    The image that was written to the HD while installing was fragmented.
    Windows 7 does the same thing (I've recently done two clean installs).  In fact, every version of Windows going back as far as I can remember has had fucked up file copying.   I remember back in Windows 98 copying a bunch of files from CDs onto a brand new empty hard drive and I was surprised by the amount of fragmentation.

    Doesn't matter. Just give it a week, it'll fix itself.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @El_Heffe said:

    @dtech said:

    The image that was written to the HD while installing was fragmented.
    Windows 7 does the same thing (I've recently done two clean installs).  In fact, every version of Windows going back as far as I can remember has had fucked up file copying.   I remember back in Windows 98 copying a bunch of files from CDs onto a brand new empty hard drive and I was surprised by the amount of fragmentation.

    Doesn't matter. Just give it a week, it'll fix itself.

    Well file copying in 7 has vastly improved, copying files to my data drive result in 0 fragmentation at least according to 7 defrag program.

    Also in some cases you don't want the system to automatically defrag your files (my case).  SSD has made this operation obsolete.



  • @serguey123 said:

    SSD has made this operation obsolete.
    For half a second there I thought you were a Swampie...



  • You gotta wonder why they nerfed Games Explorer in Win7, though - is it a ploy to get people to actually buy Vista licenses?



  • @Lorne Kates said:

    Maybe because (though not always):

    - Original site site paywalled / password protected / private

    - Original site is full of flashing crap you don't want/need to be subjected to

    - OP doesn't want to reward crap site with more traffic

    - WTF is single line buried amongst wall-of-text, screenshot allows highlighting

    - WTF is fixed by site owners, while screenshot is immutable

    - Site is down, dead, or otherwise unavailable

    -  Compression artifact jokes

    Or because the original site returns a 403 Forbidden to any request whose User-Agent doesn't start with "Mozilla".



  • @arty said:

    The worst sin vista committed was the lack of a 'default programs' control panel like win7 has.

    What, like this one?

    [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/U8Fef.png[/IMG]


  • @ekolis said:

    You gotta wonder why they nerfed Games Explorer in Win7, though - is it a ploy to get people to actually buy Vista licenses?

    In what way was it nerfed? It seems identical to me...

    @Spectre said:

    @arty said:
    The worst sin vista committed was the lack of a 'default programs' control panel like win7 has.

    What, like this one?

    Come now! You can't expect people bitching about Vista to have actually have used it! Silly goose!



  • @Spectre said:

    What, like this one?
     

    I can't read that. It could be anything!

    Prove it's the default applications window.



  • @Someone You Know said:

    @dhromed said:

    @Lorne Kates said:

    @El_Heffe said:

    Yes, I have noticed that Vista always.
     

    Except when it.

     

    I don't even.

     

    That would explain why you're so.


    FTF.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @El_Heffe said:

    @dtech said:

    The image that was written to the HD while installing was fragmented.
    Windows 7 does the same thing (I've recently done two clean installs).  In fact, every version of Windows going back as far as I can remember has had fucked up file copying.   I remember back in Windows 98 copying a bunch of files from CDs onto a brand new empty hard drive and I was surprised by the amount of fragmentation.

    Doesn't matter. Just give it a week, it'll fix itself.

    Technically you're right.  However, the inability to copy files from point A to point B without scattering them all over the place, even when the destination drive is empty, is a pretty good WTF.

     



  • @frits said:

    Is "let me google that for you" still funny?

    Maybe where you come from it's all rainbows and unicorns, but to me, LMGTFY is a vital tool. Not only does it answer the question that was asked, but also the question that should have been asked (I.E. "how can I avoid having to ask assholes like you in the future?").



  • @Faxmachinen said:

    @frits said:

    Is "let me google that for you" still funny?

    Maybe where you come from it's all rainbows and unicorns, but to me, LMGTFY is a vital tool. Not only does it answer the question that was asked, but also the question that should have been asked (I.E. "how can I avoid having to ask assholes like you in the future?").

    I've always preferred http://fuckinggoogleit.com/.


  • @El_Heffe said:

    Technically you're right.  However, the inability to copy files from point A to point B without scattering them all over the place, even when the destination drive is empty, is a pretty good WTF.

    But it doesn't matter, so...



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @El_Heffe said:
    Technically you're right.  However, the inability to copy files from point A to point B without scattering them all over the place, even when the destination drive is empty, is a pretty good WTF.

    But it doesn't matter, so...

    "Fixes itself in a week or so" is not the same as "doesn't matter."



  • @boomzilla said:

    @blakeyrat said:
    @El_Heffe said:
    Technically you're right.  However, the inability to copy files from point A to point B without scattering them all over the place, even when the destination drive is empty, is a pretty good WTF.

    But it doesn't matter, so...

    "Fixes itself in a week or so" is not the same as "doesn't matter."

    I would argue it both doesn't matter and fixes itself in a week or so. I highly, highly, doubt the fragmentation affects performance.


Log in to reply
 

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