The Energon Pub

News Credits: 38 · by **TheMuffin** » Mon Aug 27, 2007 8:57 pm

I have now got my new computer up and running and after spending a couple days with Vista I've realized that it's a piece of ****. Why the Hell did they change how the file structure is set up?! It's been the same since NT or 95 with the address bar at the top and your files below that. Why is it that now I just have folder names at the top so I can't actually see the file path?! Where the Hell is the Add/Remove programs and Display icons when I put the Control Panel in classic view?! AND WHY THE **** CAN'T I VIEW ANIMATED GIFS IN MICROSOFTS POS IMAGE VIEWER!??!?! I COULD IN XP! WHY IS THIS NEW VERSION OF WINDOWS A STEP BACK TOWARDS ME INSTEAD OF A STEP FORWARD TOWARDS ACTUAL QUALITY AND LOGIC?!

I mean has anyone really found some actual good improvements over XP that aren't just useless filler like the sidebar on the desktop? And lord don't get me started on the whacked out security features.

News Credits: 1 · by **Jeep?** » Mon Aug 27, 2007 9:00 pm

Kill it with a knife.

News Credits: 38 · by **TheMuffin** » Mon Aug 27, 2007 9:05 pm

It might actually work better.

by **Evil Phil** » Mon Aug 27, 2007 9:05 pm

News Credits: 1 · by **Jeep?** » Mon Aug 27, 2007 9:06 pm

TheMuffin wrote:It might actually work better.

'Might' nothing.

News Credits: 38 · by **TheMuffin** » Mon Aug 27, 2007 9:07 pm

Sigma Prime wrote:

Pretty much. It's like working on a windows system for 20 years and all of a sudden being forced to use a Mac. Nothing makes sense about how it's set up.

News Credits: 226 · by **Burn** » Mon Aug 27, 2007 10:53 pm

TheMuffin wrote:And lord don't get me started on the whacked out security features.

Turn User Account Control (UAC) off NOW! Do not do anything else, do not even reply to this post without turning it off.

Be prepared though there may be some loss of data. When I turned it off it rolled programs back to their point of install. Fortunately I only lost 1 e-mail, my internet cache and newsgroup data.

News Credits: 2 · by **Shadowman** » Mon Aug 27, 2007 11:27 pm

I got Vista, and I'm pretty pleased with it. I can't figure out how to turn User Account Control off, though, but it's still pretty good.

News Credits: 38 · by **TheMuffin** » Tue Aug 28, 2007 12:05 am

User Control is off. It's been off since 5 minutes after I installed this OS. I just can't understand why they took so many steps backwards with this one though. I mean come on, not even animated gif support in their image viewer?! Half of my funny pictures are gif images!

News Credits: 226 · by **Burn** » Tue Aug 28, 2007 12:18 am

You might wanna check when Windows Defender is scheduled to kick in to scan.

That can right royally drain resources.

Odd thing about image viewer, they remove support for animated gifs, yet add in support for videos. I'd take the gif support over the video support though.

News Credits: 38 · by **TheMuffin** » Tue Aug 28, 2007 12:22 am

Burn wrote:You might wanna check when Windows Defender is scheduled to kick in to scan.

That can right royally drain resources.

Odd thing about image viewer, they remove support for animated gifs, yet add in support for videos. I'd take the gif support over the video support though.

Exactly. I have Windows Media for videos. What reason would I need it for in the damn picture viewer!?

Oh and you mistook my meaning. My resources are quite fine....I'm running an Intel Quad Core with 4 gigs of ram. :grin:

News Credits: 972 · by **i_amtrunks** » Tue Aug 28, 2007 12:23 am

I had to go back to an older Vista free pc at work, All our content managing programs are incompatible with Vista, so thankfully I only had to deal with the crapiness of Vista for 45 minutes.

Not looking forward to when the software updates...

News Credits: 668 · by **Autobot032** » Tue Aug 28, 2007 12:23 am

Muffin, turn the entire theme back to classic Windows (I've come to find that working in that environment is easier to deal with.)

Then turn off all of the effects (like shadows, fades, etc...this is usually found in the My Computer Properties)

From there, set the folders to your custom settings and see if you can finagle it a bit.

If you can't do any of that...then I'll be so so so glad I didn't go Vista. It's already sounding like a pain in the ass.

It's pretty sad when you have a PC for years, and it's physically capable of running Windows 95 (and 95 w/USB support), Windows 98 (and SE), Windows ME, and Windows XP and run each of them quite well.

Yet Vista comes out and it's minimum requirements makes a worn in computer feel like it's ready for the retirement home. Which is ridiculous. Granted, technology has to move forward, and we're the ones who paid so much money for these beasts...but we should get something in return for spending that kinda dough. =\

News Credits: 38 · by **TheMuffin** » Tue Aug 28, 2007 12:32 am

Therein lies the problem. When you switch back to classic windows you find that many of your favorite icons like Add/Remove Programs and Display are no longer there like they were in other Windows OS's. I literally looked for 30 minutes trying to find the display button until I decided to switch back to the Vista setup. Of course it's right in the open there.

At the very least though, the actual theme and interface is gorgeous.

News Credits: 668 · by **Autobot032** » Tue Aug 28, 2007 12:36 am

TheMuffin wrote:Therein lies the problem. When you switch back to classic windows you find that many of your favorite icons like Add/Remove Programs and Display are no longer there like they were in other Windows OS's. I literally looked for 30 minutes trying to find the display button until I decided to switch back to the Vista setup. Of course it's right in the open there.

At the very least though, the actual theme and interface is gorgeous.

Oh that settles it. Screw Vista, screw it hard. Until something better comes along (perhaps the OS after Vista...) I'll be sticking with XP. It's been the most dependable OS I've used...probably ever.

95 was good, but couldn't handle much.
98 was good, but a terrible RAM hog, though dependable.
ME was okay, but a terrible RAM hog, absolutely undependable, but you get used to it. (Complacency: It's A Crime.)
XP is the Microsoft OS that you've been waiting for. You love it like a pair of old shoes that never give up on you.

...then they bring out Vista and everyone's like "WTF MAN?!"

News Credits: 38 · by **TheMuffin** » Tue Aug 28, 2007 12:40 am

Yeah I'm really starting to think it's the ME of this generation. But more stable at least. Not one crash like people were reporting when it was first released. Maybe I'll just bitch and moan to the Indian guys on their help line until they correct these glaring **** ups. I can't even fathom how pissed I'd be if I paid the full $240 for Home Premium. Lucky me I only paid $111.

News Credits: 668 · by **Autobot032** » Tue Aug 28, 2007 12:47 am

TheMuffin wrote:Yeah I'm really starting to think it's the ME of this generation. But more stable at least. Not one crash like people were reporting when it was first released. Maybe I'll just bitch and moan to the Indian guys on their help line until they correct these glaring **** ups. I can't even fathom how pissed I'd be if I paid the full $240 for Home Premium. Lucky me I only paid $111.

That's another thing that completely pisses me off.
All those friggin' versions.
I like the simplicity of XP Home, and Professional.
SP1 and 2 are no problem, because you can always download them, etc.

This version crap is absolutely unnecessary.

News Credits: 2 · by **Shadowman** » Tue Aug 28, 2007 12:51 am

Add/Remove Programs is right where it always was: in the Control Panel. The name was changed, however, to "Programs and Features."

But now I have a question: Any particular reason both System Properties and AIDA say I only have 500MBs of RAM? I need 512 to run Home Basic, so what the crap?

And yes, the entire OS is very extremely pretty. Not a memory hog at all, though. Running FireFox and Azureus, I'm only take up about 6% of the CPU.

News Credits: 38 · by **TheMuffin** » Tue Aug 28, 2007 12:56 am

And with that I just remembered one last thing. I have 4GB of RAM in my system. But when I check the amount in Vista it says I only have 3.5GB...Well that is odd. Turns out that the 256MB of memory that my graphics card has isn't good enough for Vista (not in the literal sense. I mean Vista is acting smug). So instead of using the 256mb on the card, Vista instead steals 256mb of my precious and expensive RAM to do the calculations for my graphics card. That's right folks, the memory on my graphics card now does nothing. All the storage is solely being controlled by my onboard RAM instead of what is on the card. Instead of doubling the amount, Vista instead completely disregards what the card has available. Cool huh!? This also goes for any other device you have wired to the mobo including onboard sound. So now that second set of dual channel is useless because Vista reads one stick as being smaller than it's brother. All because they can't get an operating system to work right even though it's been in development for almost 7 years.

News Credits: 2 · by **Shadowman** » Tue Aug 28, 2007 1:08 am

I don't think mine goes that far. I only have a 64MB graphics card, and I only lost 12MBs of RAM. :-?

News Credits: 226 · by **Burn** » Tue Aug 28, 2007 1:26 am

TheMuffin wrote:And with that I just remembered one last thing. I have 4GB of RAM in my system. But when I check the amount in Vista it says I only have 3.5GB...Well that is odd. Turns out that the 256MB of memory that my graphics card has isn't good enough for Vista (not in the literal sense. I mean Vista is acting smug). So instead of using the 256mb on the card, Vista instead steals 256mb of my precious and expensive RAM to do the calculations for my graphics card. That's right folks, the memory on my graphics card now does nothing. All the storage is solely being controlled by my onboard RAM instead of what is on the card. Instead of doubling the amount, Vista instead completely disregards what the card has available. Cool huh!? This also goes for any other device you have wired to the mobo including onboard sound. So now that second set of dual channel is useless because Vista reads one stick as being smaller than it's brother. All because they can't get an operating system to work right even though it's been in development for almost 7 years.

Interesting, i'm going to have to check that on mine.

My biggest problem at the moment is things are getting boggy. Still in the process of narrowing it down but it seems to be certain websites filled to the brim with graphics, regardless of what browser i'm using.

And if Vista is ignoring my 256mb video card then that might start to explain things.

News Credits: 2 · by **Powersurge** » Tue Aug 28, 2007 4:50 am

Oh boy I'm glad I'm inheriting my dads XP desktop as my next computer, mainly so I can play Resident Evil 4 (my laptop can't handle it), but so I can keep well away from Vista, I don't care if it looks pretty, if it can't play the computer games I have, then its as useful as a chocolate tea pot!!

by **Halo** » Tue Aug 28, 2007 9:06 am

I like Vista.

News Credits: 1 · by **Jeep?** » Tue Aug 28, 2007 9:18 am

Burn wrote:Turn User Account Control (UAC) off NOW!

I really wouldn't trust anything called UAC.

News Credits: 2 · by **Nico** » Tue Aug 28, 2007 9:31 am

At least whit Vista you will be able to play new game. My computer trashed after installing the Supreme Commander demo!
But thats another story...

I think XP is like the Atari 2600 and Vista is the 5200. It will die and the old one will return.

http://www.gametrailers.com/player.php?id=17031&type=mov&pl=game