Which Windows is the worst ever?

[VorLonUK]

Vista looks good and that's it. There is nothing else good about it.

Biggest annoyances for me is Vista will decide on a windows explorer template on what seems the predominant file type added initially to a folder. So you could have a couple of photos and then say ten executables (in a folder) and if you use the "Details" view as I do, you'll have uneccessary and un associated column titles. Trying to alter the template seems to result in Vista not remembering, or deciding "what's best" for you.

SuperFetch - what a load of sh*te. Should be called  " Hard drive Ager" as this program will reduce hard drive life.

Vista is so interested in itself, that MS have seem to forgotten the customer may wish to use it for something.


Responsiveness.....  My league table with my systems, showing winxp the quickest.

1) WinXP home 32bit          Intel P4 @3.4ghz 1GB ram (ddr400)
2) Vista home premium 64  Intel E8200 @2.66ghz dual core 4GB ram (ddr800)
3) Vista home premium 32  Intel T2080 @1.73ghz mobile dual core 2GB ram (ddr667) + 1GB fast Ready Boost Corsair USB stick.


I know people have heard me say this a dozen times, but i do believe it's true - have 90-95% of the desktop OS market and the "ear" of the OEM's and you could sell the equivalent of a chocolate teapot. Vista doesn't have to compete, because there is nothing natively to compete with. 90-95% of the the desktop OS market completely tied up with your product, means you can do what you like.
Ironically that when Dell customers en masse requested XP to be put back onto the option list as an alternative to Vista, MS were still in a win win position.

I don't dislike MS, but I hate it when there isn't a drive for product innovation, because there isn't any competition.

[Intuit]

........... Vista will decide on a windows explorer template on what seems the predominant file type added initially to a folder. So you could have a couple of photos and then say ten executables (in a folder) and if you use the "Details" view as I do, you'll have uneccessary and un associated column titles. Trying to alter the template seems to result in Vista not remembering, or deciding "what's best" for you. ............

Code:

Reg ADD "HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\Winlogon" /v "AutoRestartShell" /t "REG_DWORD" /d "0x00000000"

Hi VorlonUK.  Windows XP had this problem as well.
The solution was to force explorer closed, clear out Explorer's folder cache,

Code:

Reg DELETE "HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer\StuckRects2"
Reg DELETE "HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer\StreamMRU"
Reg DELETE "HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer\Streams"
Reg DELETE "HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer\UserAssist"
Reg DELETE "HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\Shell"
Reg DELETE "HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\ShellNoRoam"

then add the following parameters to the registry.

Code:

Reg ADD "HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Classes\Local Settings\Software\Microsoft\Windows\Shell" /v "BagMRU Size" /t "REG_DWORD" /d "0x00002000"
Reg ADD "HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\ShellNoRoam" /v "Bag MRU Size" /t "REG_DWORD" /d "0x00000200"
Reg ADD "HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\ShellNoRoam" /v "BagMRU Size" /t "REG_DWORD" /d "0x00001400"
Reg ADD "HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\Shell" /v "Bag MRU Size" /t "REG_DWORD" /d "0x00000200"
Reg ADD "HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\Shell" /v "BagMRU Size" /t "REG_DWORD" /d "0x00001400"

(note:  TweakUI set these via Explorer->Customizations->FoldersToRemember)

After a reboot, navigate to the root of drive C, select Details view, set all the columns up, then use Tools menu -->; Folder Options -->; View tab -->; Apply to All Folders.  Also make sure "Remember each folder's view settings" option is checked.

Also, remember this ? http://www.sudhian.com/index.php?/forums/viewpost/896192/

[VorLonUK]

I've not had this problem with XP Intuit, bar sometimes the column width parameters not being saved correctly. Didn't think XP had several windows explorer templates as Vista has - if it has I've not seen them and i do use windows explorer a lot.

Thanks anyway, I'll give those settings a try on my laptop as Vista is really pi**ing me off. Especially when I'm tring to see when an executable was modified and yet the template is showing headings such as "picture taken".
I would have thought that if you asked windows to save a particular view to all ie "Apply this view to all folders", it would do so - but oh no, Vista has other ideas.

Got to say there has been one good outcome for me from what I see as the Vista disaster and that is my continuing interest in Linux.

[synexpl0it]

WinME was by far the worse. How could you even compare anything else to it? XP, even with its issues, was a huge improvement over 2k with a slew of new features. Vista improved upon XP's features as well. WinME was just all around useless really.

I don't really think any of the others were that bad. They each had some nice features for their time. Every OS has its issues, but ME just added a bunch of bloated junk.

@inedibleshoe - There are plenty of games that are vastly improved by DX10. Company of Heroes is much more efficient, and I have witnessed this firsthand. I don't really even think that many people bought Vista because of that (that was always speculation in the first place).

@Intuit - People actually use Windows Firewall? That's the first thing to go on my installs, lol. (I'm asking that seriously... not meaning to poke fun or anything).

@Timster - Seriously? XP had a slew of improvements over 2k. I guess people just loved 2k Sp5 after having it for a long time.

[Intuit]

I think WinME was the sole reason for implementing buffer underrun protection as a standard feature on early cd-burners.   /joking  Sony's rootkit for Windows XP.  (semi not joking)

Yeah for the first (few?) years the windows firewall was the only thing I used.  The nanosecond I got the first popup from the infamous messenger service was the nanosecond a light-bulb went off... or rather burst in annoyance.  Because of that simple little firewall, I ran Windows XP through all those turbulent pre-SP2 times without ever getting owned.  Go figure ?  -- not hard to do.    Meanwhile sites like GRC.Com were raving about disabling the service, basically ignoring the larger, easier and more obvious issue.  Umm, the firewall ?  HELLO!

[VorLonUK]

I always used ZoneAlarm, then ZoneAlarm with AV as it was such a good price for a years definitions. It got adopted too over here (UK) by many of the major banks who wanted to point their customers at a discounted (heavily) product they were confident with for online banking etc.

After a while ZA became too bloated for me and a pain when a ZA popup (asking for some other permission) attempted to "break through" the screen on a 3dgame that i had loaded up - say CSS etc...
So I opted for the what seems a small footprint SP2/3 XP firewall to use inconjunction with my router and never had any problems that way. As per another thread, I have had one definite virus/malware since 1994 (happy99exe) and a handful of false alarms of malware (ie one AV would suggest malware whilst others wouldn't)

[crosscourt]

Windows firewall in both XP and Vista are pretty good and Ive used both of them and have been comparing to ZA and a few other firewalls the last year or so.

Also its interesting noone voted for Win2k as the worst os ever....its still my favorite to this day.

[spc_75]

Windows 3.1 was great at the time. 95 was incredibly bad. It was the first foray into a real gui which is great, but it was so buggy, Things improved with 98SE. XP SP2 was the most significant change which Vista has not really introduced anything new upon. yay we can use 4gb of ram. Pity that out of the box Vista eats about 75%. Thus beacuse of the lack of changes in terms of the technology available, Vista wins this contest IMO.

[crosscourt]

Turn off some services, and unneeded programs at launch and the memory usage improves quite a bit.

[VorLonUK]

Turn off some services, and unneeded programs at launch and the memory usage improves quite a bit.

I've had to do that on my laptop (vista 32) and add another gig of ram (now 2GB) and it's still sluggish (compared to my XP PC with has a lower hardware spec)

We did have a post on here before indicating that Intel insisted that MS made the minimum ram requirement 512MB for Vista, whilst MS suggested more ram ie, 1GB was the requirement.
Either which way, it's good that hardware has improved, as if it hadn't Vista wouldn't be viable for general release at all. Dell customers insisted on an XP revival and that was then brought back as an OS option along side Vista.

I want to like Vista, in fact I think it looks good, but I'm still struggling (from my own experiences - not Net borne) to understand what it actually gives me, whilst in addition it demands better hardware.

[crosscourt]

Ive got Vista running on a system with 2gb of ram and it runs great but again Im not using Aero,nor any unneeded services or programs at launch.
On average Vista is using 462mb of ram which isnt bad at all.

[VorLonUK]

Ive got Vista running on a system with 2gb of ram and it runs great but again Im not using Aero,nor any unneeded services or programs at launch.
On average Vista is using 462mb of ram which isnt bad at all.

I know what you are saying CC, but it's also like saying 'I've just bought a Ferrari and it goes much better when I unhook the U-haul trailer from it"  An added trailer would be obvious to most people, but "background" services in windows and the like are not something the general windows user would actually know how to configure, let alone them being aware of them in the first place.

[crosscourt]

Very easy to understand services and there are many well done easy to follow guides about it online.  Many services are on that arent needed and shouldnt be on by default,some updates have actually turned off some unneeded services. Once you understand what the service does you can turn it off or at least set it to manual not auto.
Many people let alot of programs load at launch that they frankly dont use that often so why bother and waste more memory?
For me I find Aero a waste,pretty but unnecessary and without it performance is far better particuloarly for older systems.

All versions of Windows have required a certain level of tweaking Vista isnt any different as services are an  issue for XP as well.

[Intuit]

Vista PC was absolutely LOADED down with [useless] 3rd-party apps loading on boot... ironically a few claiming to be 'quick loaders' as if they'll increase performance when in reality they'll do the exact opposite for the system in general.

I think VorlonUK's point was, we shouldn't have to do all that.

In my observances there really does seem to be an almost inexplicable divide between how Vista installs perform on various systems and possibly even on the same.  For some systems it will install and run great... for others it'll run like complete trash. (not unstable, just sluggish and slow)  With limited experiences thus far I'll have to say I'm at a loss to explain it for the time-being....

I will say that many of the systems I've come-accrossed with Vista on it, are themselves flawed though.  The TLB race bug for the AMD Phenom processors for example.  Poor case designs that overheat harddrives... systems with too little RAM or ATA-era speed drives.

[crosscourt]

Most of what I see on peoples systems is they install alot of programs they rarely use but they all load at launch and suck the life out of their pcs.
Setting those programs to launch only if needed or removing them or choosing different programs can really improve the speed of the system.

Services overall have improved alot and in fact some article they even reccomend not turning off services in Vista.

[VorLonUK]

I can only repeat this CC

I know what you are saying CC, but it’s also like saying ‘I’ve just bought a Ferrari and it goes much better when I unhook the U-haul trailer from it” An added trailer would be obvious to most people, but “background” services in windows and the like are not something the general windows user would actually know how to configure, let alone them being aware of them in the first place.

A U-Haul trailer on the back of a Ferrari would be noticeable to most people (especially the driver). I'm sure most people on the planet would understand the affect it would have on the performance of the Ferrari. Vista though (and other OS's) is a different beast as most Windows users aren't aware of the built in bloat, let alone how to disable it and what effect that may or may not have in their particular scenario's. Vista imo IS to the general public a Ferrari with a "cloaked" U-hall trailer hooked onto the back - the "load" isn't easily obvious.

[crosscourt]

LOL!!  WinXP was accused of the same things when it came out compared to win2k at the time and the reaction for years was why bother with XP Ill stick to win2k. WinXP oem installs arent any better as I can attest to after dealing with my wifes Acer laptop.

I understand where your coming......

[Intuit]

Whats' really a problem is the fact that all these apps load from the registry where there is no GUI link to point people to it.

Employing SysInternals' RegJump console utility, I'll actually place links in the start menu for those systems that I service... so that as they install (cr)apps, they're encouraged to go and disable (sh)it.  But I don't know how much people actually use them.  These days they're just as likely to load from places other than HKLM...Run and HKCU...Run. (for some strange reason one exception being Startup location in StartMenu -- virtually NEVER load there )

[crosscourt]

I either use services in admin section or msconfig to turn off programs I dont want to startup at launch.

Third party apps add/remove but yes some require a bit more digging but for most users the problem programs are out in the open.

I had one guy who had 35 programs installed all over his desktop and he used two of them regularly and he wonders why his system was slow even with 2gb of ram....

My wifes laptop had some Acer programs installed for power saving and other features and they had to go as they slowed the system terribly.

[thegrayson]

I have never understood why ME was so maligned. I had it on my then only pc, a Dell Dimension 4100. It ran ME without a hitch for three years. It only ever crashed due to heat problems with a gfx card. One that was diagnosed it was rock solid. I used it for college reports, programming, browsing(dial-up), gaming and occasional online gaming. The only reason I installed XP on that machine at the time was to play some newer games. In fact it behaved itself much better than many pc owned by friends that at the time were running XP or XP SP1.

I have played a little with Vista and am entirely unimpressed. As yet I see no advantage as a progression over XP. Many pc that have been brought to me with problems have been new laptops with Vista installed. All the users have suffered from difficulty using their laptops with different networks as they move about and many users lacking in pc skills are frequently baffled by all the prompts they get. Until I'm pushed I see no reason as yet to move forward.

[crosscourt]

Hey Grayson, I had pretty good luck with WinMe versus other users but overall it caused far more issues than win98se or win2k that came before and after it.

I saw a far greater number of issues with ME with customers than win98se and alot of it was driver and compatibility issues particularly early on.

Sorry youi didnt care for Vista as Ive enjoyed using it and it was one of the easiest installs Ive had in years. I havent experienced any of the issues you mention with different networks but Ive got XP users who have network issues so thats not exclusive to Vista by any means.

For most users theres no need to upgrade to Vista at this time. I think if more people used it a bit longer they might find they actually like it and most of the complaints I get from people are usually from the ones who havent tried it or just played with it a bit.

I use win2k,winxp and Vista all the time so I adapt to the particular os and just move on.....so many said similar things when XP came out and most said they saw no compelling reason to switch to XP from win2k.
Many said they didnt like the look of XP even though you could make it look just like win2k,then there was all the comments about XP is bloated and win2k is faster and cleaner.
All the talk about Vista reminds me of that with a few added comments about the UAC and Aero but Vista can be tweaked and made to run to your liking in looks and function.

[crosscourt]

I still find it interesting that noone has voted for Win2k yet, even with the fact it had some teething problems early on before it had a service pack release.

[Intuit]

............... My wifes laptop had some Acer programs installed for power saving and other features and they had to go as they slowed the system terribly.

The funny thing is, Windows turns the monitor off, harddrive(s) off, Standby/Sleeps, Hibernates, etcetera... just fine without those (cr)apps.

The services in Windows XP are really efficient actually and Vista being pretty similar, would expect similar.  While the console indicates that they are running, I wonder whether they're actually generating any context-switches.  (running code)

The way to tell is to look at the number of context-switches being generated by the individual instances.  Dragging your mouse over the instance of SvcHost will reveal what services are running under that instance.

http://www.sudhian.com/index.php?/forums/viewpost/905613/