Triming Vista 64 bloat?

Lacol said:

blackhawk13 said:

So please post the files and
there sizes.

Click to expand...

Why do you want him to perform this useless exercice ? To prove that
vista uses more disk space than xp ? Of course it does. Did you hear
anyone in this thread try to prove the contrary ?
As usual you're just trying to steer the debate into an irrelevant
direction, while conveniently brushing off actual arguments that show
how flawed your logic is, hence your "CS4 doesn't concern me, nor
does PS7" comment.
Following your own logic, xp is the most bloated windows version to
date. I have a win98se installation running perfectly on an old HP
Omnibook. 32 megs (yes: megs ) or ram, 800 megs (again: megs, not
gigs) hard disk, of wich 500 megs are used by windows. In comparison,
xp needs at least 256 megs of ram to boot properly, and uses 2.5 gigs
of hard disk space.
That's eight times the ram and five times the disk space , and all
for minimal, if any, improvement in performance. Boy, xp really is
the most bloated resource hog I've ever seen !
But I have no doubt you'll simply discard everything I've said, if
you bother to reply at all. Because, as you've shown many times
before, whenever vista is concerned you're not interested in a
rational discussion. You hate vista, you like to hate vista, and
facts and reality are irrelevant to you.

Click to expand...

--I want to see what Vx64 profile looks like; what are it's HUGE files in the OS and how other apps files compare as well. 2X or BIGGER? IS TOO BIG!!!

All I hear is excuses. After I see the requested data, and look some of the files up, perhaps I'll be more sympathetic. Or perhaps in 4 years Vista will be viewed as a flawed and totally unwanted OS.

-I shoot my images as I live, in the open-

http://www.pbase.com/blackhawkservices/world_of_trouble

'This verdict came down exactly 13 years after the verdict in his murder trial,' Kaelin said. 'If anybody believes in the number 13 and in karma, Simpson got his 13 years later.'

jeff9329 said:

Did you have a Pentium II system before?

Maybe a 486 66Mhz?

Click to expand...

--never had one, and don't care to.

Benchmarks. Some freeware that's down loadable for 64 bit systems, run and post the results + system specs, FSB, RAM latencies, CPU specs, Aero enabled/not, etc.
XPx64 vrs Vx64
That be more interesting.

-I shoot my images as I live, in the open-

http://www.pbase.com/blackhawkservices/world_of_trouble

'This verdict came down exactly 13 years after the verdict in his murder trial,' Kaelin said. 'If anybody believes in the number 13 and in karma, Simpson got his 13 years later.'

--SEATTLE — One thing you don't see very often on corporate PCs and laptops: Windows Vista.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/2008-12-22-microsoft-vista-windows-pressure_N.htm

Well maybe I was wrong, Vista maybe dead in one year.

-I shoot my images as I live, in the open-

http://www.pbase.com/blackhawkservices/world_of_trouble

'This verdict came down exactly 13 years after the verdict in his murder trial,' Kaelin said. 'If anybody believes in the number 13 and in karma, Simpson got his 13 years later.'

Arguments about software being bad because it has higher hardware requirements with someone who has only been using computers for 5 years is a waste of time. Doestn' even remember the pain of XP when that dog was introduced.

Vista is here it isn't going anywhere and it totally works for most people who use it. And the computers that run it very well are less than half what a computer cost that ran XP well 2 years after it was released and that is all that matters.

James Arnold 1971 said:

Arguments about software being bad because it has higher hardware
requirements with someone who has only been using computers for 5
years is a waste of time. Doestn' even remember the pain of XP when
that dog was introduced.

Click to expand...

May as well stop right there... In addition to having limited historic perspective, he seems to be grappling with the difference between disk and memory usage, when tossing around the term 'bloat'. I've been enjoying watching this one from the sidelines as he tosses up one bogus set of reason after another, with little understanding of what he is talking about. Entertaining, but senseless spread of FUD.

--
Joe

Old Acct: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/postersprofile.asp?poster=hjigihivhdif

James Arnold 1971 said:

Arguments about software being bad because it has higher hardware
requirements with someone who has only been using computers for 5
years is a waste of time. Doestn' even remember the pain of XP when
that dog was introduced.

Vista is here it isn't going anywhere and it totally works for most
people who use it. And the computers that run it very well are less
than half what a computer cost that ran XP well 2 years after it was
released and that is all that matters.

Click to expand...

--You assume so much because you know so little. I know XP history. Only reason you know anything about me is I allowed you too. Vista is already dead. MS has all but admitted it's flawed and failed, you wanna see some stats how well Vista is doing? It's not just me; it's the vast majority of PC users, venders, and coders. You can't whitewash those stats away with your trash talk.

All you got is cheap shots to defend a trash OS. Vista is so bad people are buying Macs instead of PCs. Apple is thrilled. I gave you a fair shot, and just like with the HDCD's you don't understand what's right in front of you. Even tried a goggle search on Tony H, your just too funny. What did you think you find?
Vista is a dead OS in less than 2 years, MS will see to that.

-I shoot my images as I live, in the open-

http://www.pbase.com/blackhawkservices/world_of_trouble

'This verdict came down exactly 13 years after the verdict in his murder trial,' Kaelin said. 'If anybody believes in the number 13 and in karma, Simpson got his 13 years later.'

Yawn!!!

Sorry I had a nap, and I apologize for the yawn, I recognize that such a remark would really irritate me no end and it was wrong to do to you.

blackhawk13 said:

--You assume so much because you know so little. I know XP history.
Only reason you know anything about me is I allowed you too. Vista
is already dead. MS has all but admitted it's flawed and failed,
you wanna see some stats how well Vista is doing? It's not just me;
it's the vast majority of PC users, venders, and coders. You can't
whitewash those stats away with your trash talk.

Click to expand...

I assumed nothing, you stated a year ago that you had only been using computers for 4 years, add 1 year, you get 5. You apparantly don't know XP history, and certainly not from the point of view of someone who was faced with the change when it was released with all its bloat and lack luster performance etc etc. (as well as the change to NT4, and 95 before it)

As for stats.

http://www.itbusiness.ca/IT/client/en/home/News.asp?id=49662&PageMem=1

Such a failed flawed dog is actually deployed in more corporations at 18months than XP was at 23 months......

The last stat I saw was that for home use 7 people choose vista for every 1 that chooses XP.

blackhawk13 said:

All you got is cheap shots to defend a trash OS. Vista is so bad
people are buying Macs instead of PCs. Apple is thrilled.

Click to expand...

Odd that they don't stick with XP either.

Most of the people I know that have chosen MAC have moved there from XP without ever giving vista a chance. Has way more to do with advertising, good looks and iPod integration.

blackhawk13 said:

I gave
you a fair shot, and just like with the HDCD's you don't understand
what's right in front of you. Even tried a goggle search on Tony H,
your just too funny. What did you think you find?

Click to expand...

Too funny lol! I was giving you the benfit of the doubt!

You didn't 'give me a shot', you gave me a choice. Accept your claim without explanation, or not.

You made one claim for which you couldn't provide an explanation. So instead you resorted to prose and throwing names around.

But I gave you a fair shot and instead of of assuming that you didn't really know what you were talking about I googled your Tony H. I was hoping that he may have imparted a better explanation in the form of a technical paper or better yet had an active presence, or people actively discussing him. Something that could offer explanation for what you suggested

Failing that and failing to find anything else to back up what you were claiming I am led to conlude that you have some of your 'facts' mixed up, it is a massive subject and I still think you know a lot about it but I think your are wrong on that one point (until its proven otherwise). (Please I am in no way suggesting that your friend Tony didn't know what he was talking about).

blackhawk13 said:

Vista is a dead OS in less than 2 years, MS will see to that.

Click to expand...

Funny i bet I could find a post of you saying that a year ago, I guess you have something in common with MS

James

James Arnold 1971 said:

I assumed nothing, you stated a year ago that you had only been using
computers for 4 years, add 1 year, you get 5. You apparantly don't
know XP history, and certainly not from the point of view of someone
who was faced with the change when it was released with all its bloat
and lack luster performance etc etc. (as well as the change to NT4,
and 95 before it)

Click to expand...

Apparently your concepts are as wrong as your spelling of the word apparently. FF spell check is all that saves me... but as XP and Vista, they are not the same by a long shot, and your comparision is invalid, flawed, and wrong.

Vista is the walking dead, XP still lives strong! Not say I, but the people who count!

DROP DEAD details:

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9124181&intsrc=news_ts_head

too funny.

http://blogs.computerworld.com/yet_another_windows_xp_reprieve

It gets even worse for the buggy little V-kernel...

-I shoot my images as I live, in the open-

http://www.pbase.com/blackhawkservices/world_of_trouble

'This verdict came down exactly 13 years after the verdict in his murder trial,' Kaelin said. 'If anybody believes in the number 13 and in karma, Simpson got his 13 years later.'

LOL

I must have made your day, you caught a spelling mistake. But I can't believe you of all people are making fun of me for it (HHD, Toshlink, Roy Orbitson to name a few of yours lol!), as well as trying to use a spelling mistake to strengthen your postion, which is so weak.

You made me smile. Almost as much as when you ridiculed me for giving you the benefit of a doubt in the other.

As for the logic, the success of one OS doesn't mean the death of another. You yourself today gave Vista an extra year over your previous estimates!

Have a nice day.

James Arnold 1971 said:

LOL

As for the logic, the success of one OS doesn't mean the death of
another. You yourself today gave Vista an extra year over your
previous estimates!

Have a nice day.

Click to expand...

--Not really, it's MS's "rule" that the old OS must die, which is why their announcement of W-7 is so telling. Funny to see the XP ghost haunting their futures and fortunes so completely. MS is all shook out.

I was being generous with the time table, and MS will most likely underestimate the work that needs to be done. MS is in full panic mode; this is costing them a lot. It's that horrible stuck in the mud, trying to run, slow motion dream.

-I shoot my images as I live, in the open-

http://www.pbase.com/blackhawkservices/world_of_trouble

'This verdict came down exactly 13 years after the verdict in his murder trial,' Kaelin said. 'If anybody believes in the number 13 and in karma, Simpson got his 13 years later.'

blackhawk13 said:

--Not really, it's MS's "rule" that the old OS must die, which is
why their announcement of W-7 is so telling. Funny to see the XP
ghost haunting their futures and fortunes so completely. MS is all
shook out.

Click to expand...

If you had a few more years of working with the various generations of Windows you would realize that its not "telling" of anything at all.

For example MS began work on Vista (longhorn) 5 months before the release of XP. what does that say about their confidence in that OS! That developoment was delayed while resources were consumed fixing XP and server 2003. Whats really telling is that the original work that was based on XP code was scraped in favour of working with server 2003 code.

blackhawk13 said:

I was being generous with the time table, and MS will most likely
underestimate the work that needs to be done. MS is in full panic
mode; this is costing them a lot. It's that horrible stuck in the
mud, trying to run, slow motion dream.

Click to expand...

I think that MS are no doubt surprised at the amplification the internet gives to voice with a beef, or voices like yours. But I don't think they are in half the panic you think they are.

I mean after all they went through the same exact thing with XP only by the latest numbers it was even worse for that OS.

Its funny that you think advnacing their timeline on W7 is so telling. Its more likely an indication of is that they had less to fix on Vista than they thought and therefore could reallocate to W7 development. And since W7 is basically Vista (or not far off VSP2) there is less work to do there also. Win Win.

If only Vista could have been so lucky, but XP needed serious work when it came out so much so that other work suffered.

James

James Arnold 1971 said:

James Arnold 1971 said:

--Not really, it's MS's "rule" that the old OS must die, which is
why their announcement of W-7 is so telling. Funny to see the XP
ghost haunting their futures and fortunes so completely. MS is all
shook out.

Click to expand...

If you had a few more years of working with the various generations
of Windows you would realize that its not "telling" of anything at
all.

For example MS began work on Vista (longhorn) 5 months before the
release of XP. what does that say about their confidence in that OS!
That developoment was delayed while resources were consumed fixing
XP and server 2003. Whats really telling is that the original work
that was based on XP code was scraped in favour of working with
server 2003 code.

James Arnold 1971 said:

I was being generous with the time table, and MS will most likely
underestimate the work that needs to be done. MS is in full panic
mode; this is costing them a lot. It's that horrible stuck in the
mud, trying to run, slow motion dream.

Click to expand...

I think that MS are no doubt surprised at the amplification the
internet gives to voice with a beef, or voices like yours. But I
don't think they are in half the panic you think they are.

I mean after all they went through the same exact thing with XP only
by the latest numbers it was even worse for that OS.

Its funny that you think advnacing their timeline on W7 is so
telling. Its more likely an indication of is that they had less to
fix on Vista than they thought and therefore could reallocate to W7
development. And since W7 is basically Vista (or not far off VSP2)
there is less work to do there also. Win Win.

If only Vista could have been so lucky, but XP needed serious work
when it came out so much so that other work suffered.

James

Click to expand...

--No this isn't the same thing as XP. Vista was flawed early on, and perhaps even it's kernel should not be tried to be salvaged. People like me?

Most of all the corporate world, chipmakers like Intel, and mobo manufacturers like Asus have shown a distinct dislike for Vista and it's bloat.

It trips over it's self, is it my fault my first impressions were dead on? Maybe W-7 might be ok, but Vista never will be. Kill the cow.

but bloggers love Vista...
http://blogs.zdnet.com/perlow/?p=9352

-I shoot my images as I live, in the open-

http://www.pbase.com/blackhawkservices/world_of_trouble

'This verdict came down exactly 13 years after the verdict in his murder trial,' Kaelin said. 'If anybody believes in the number 13 and in karma, Simpson got his 13 years later.'

blackhawk13 said:

--No this isn't the same thing as XP. Vista was flawed early on,
and perhaps even it's kernel should not be tried to be salvaged.
People like me?

Click to expand...

How is its kernel flawed. You know I do read or scan most of the articles you link to but none have talked about a "flawed" kernel. When they started they were also busy fixing the problems with XP, during that period they decided to scrap that work and start over again using server2003 as the base. But you know your XP history.

blackhawk13 said:

Most of all the corporate world, chipmakers like Intel, and mobo
manufacturers like Asus have shown a distinct dislike for Vista and
it's bloat.

Click to expand...

Where did you get that one about Asus (sorry if I missed a link.

As for most of the corporate world. Statistics show that they are adopting Vista quicker than they did XP.

blackhawk13 said:

It trips over it's self, is it my fault my first impressions were
dead on? Maybe W-7 might be ok, but Vista never will be. Kill the
cow.

Click to expand...

Dude we have beaten the heck out of your first observations. When asked obvious questions about that experience you respond by trying to divert attention someowhere else or using your "jive" talk. Again what problem were you trying to solve by reloading the os 3 times?

And really the bigest technical reason I have heard for you dislike is that you couldn't load your XP themes.

blackhawk13 said:

but bloggers love Vista...
http://blogs.zdnet.com/perlow/?p=9352

Click to expand...

A) Its a blog! B) Did you read it?

The computer was a mess when he got there, it wouldn't have been any diffrerent with XP. Might have been worse.

Honestly I don't know why I do read your links. You clearly don't read the information others provide you. You had your mind made up about Vista long before it arrived. And you can rant all you want, but no amount of ranting will magically make Vista the technically flawed product you say it is.

James Arnold 1971 said:

blackhawk13 said:

--No this isn't the same thing as XP. Vista was flawed early on,
and perhaps even it's kernel should not be tried to be salvaged.
People like me?

Click to expand...

How is its kernel flawed. You know I do read or scan most of the
articles you link to but none have talked about a "flawed" kernel.
When they started they were also busy fixing the problems with XP,
during that period they decided to scrap that work and start over
again using server2003 as the base. But you know your XP history.

Click to expand...

Old news that goes way back, maybe true, maybe not, perhaps a better wording is there were other kernels that showed more promise that were ignored.

James Arnold 1971 said:

James Arnold 1971 said:

Most of all the corporate world, chipmakers like Intel, and mobo
manufacturers like Asus have shown a distinct dislike for Vista and
it's bloat.

Click to expand...

Where did you get that one about Asus (sorry if I missed a link.

Click to expand...

The e machines, and small laptop. Small wonder as I saw how poorly the battery life was on this laptop with Vista. Greater resource usage equal less battery life aside from the performance hit.

James Arnold 1971 said:

As for most of the corporate world. Statistics show that they are
adopting Vista quicker than they did XP.

Click to expand...

MS jinxed the results by trying to shove Vista down people's throats, making XP loaded machines harder to find. Feel the backlash.
After two years the verdict is in for Vista:

http://www.informationweek.com/news/windows/operatingsystems/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=212501862

It's bad and that's why MS is in full panic mode. The pressure is intensifying to provide a better replacement for XP, and Vista isn't it.
http://news.cnet.com/windows-7-a-better-vista/

Why would a corporation switch to Vista now when XP Pro works well, and knowing Vista will soon be replaced. Vista isn't cost effective for most, and won't run well on many machines still in use that XP has no trouble running on.

James Arnold 1971 said:

James Arnold 1971 said:

It trips over it's self, is it my fault my first impressions were
dead on? Maybe W-7 might be ok, but Vista never will be. Kill the
cow.

Click to expand...

Dude we have beaten the heck out of your first observations. When
asked obvious questions about that experience you respond by trying
to divert attention someowhere else or using your "jive" talk. Again
what problem were you trying to solve by reloading the os 3 times?

And really the bigest technical reason I have heard for you dislike
is that you couldn't load your XP themes.

Click to expand...

Vista puked all over me; crashes, apps not running right, slow boots... and just a god awful pain to set up. Don't forget Search 4.0 that still can't find system files the old XP search engine can, and is a pain as well. Won't allow easy set up and do a quick dedicated 100% hhd index, but persists in taking days to index hhds, or fails too. Search 4.0 was loaded twice on my very fast XPx64 machine, and uninstalled twice! Last time it was on for over a week, and I needed to do searches it couldn't do easily if at all.

James Arnold 1971 said:

James Arnold 1971 said:

but bloggers love Vista...
http://blogs.zdnet.com/perlow/?p=9352

Click to expand...

A) Its a blog! B) Did you read it?

The computer was a mess when he got there, it wouldn't have been any
diffrerent with XP. Might have been worse.

Honestly I don't know why I do read your links. You clearly don't
read the information others provide you. You had your mind made up
about Vista long before it arrived. And you can rant all you want,
but no amount of ranting will magically make Vista the technically
flawed product you say it is.

Click to expand...

--Why do they have to be 100% against Vista? Nothing is absolute. Will most miss Vista? I doubt it, but clearly it has some followers. Not near as many as XP though.

-I shoot my images as I live, in the open-

http://www.pbase.com/blackhawkservices/world_of_trouble

'This verdict came down exactly 13 years after the verdict in his murder trial,' Kaelin said. 'If anybody believes in the number 13 and in karma, Simpson got his 13 years later.'

-- http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=3187

-I shoot my images as I live, in the open-

http://www.pbase.com/blackhawkservices/world_of_trouble

'This verdict came down exactly 13 years after the verdict in his murder trial,' Kaelin said. 'If anybody believes in the number 13 and in karma, Simpson got his 13 years later.'

blackhawk13 said:

2X or
BIGGER? IS TOO BIG!!!

Click to expand...

If being two times bigger than the os it's ment to replace makes vista a bloated resource hog, then why don't you say the same of xp, which is FIVE TIMES BIGGER than the os it was made to replace ?

I'm anxious to see the levels of intellectual dishonesty you will sink to to avoid giving a clear answer to such a simple and straitforward question.

A bit like Chicken Little, isn't it? It's nice that you have a cause, and indeed, you are entitled to your opinions (a consideration you seem unable to extend...), but what's with the mania? And how is it that you seem to believe that your experience with Vista is all there is? And that you should incessantly inflict that opinion on others? That's a bit arrogant, isn't it? And irrational as well.

My experience with Vista has been exceptional. And although I still have a few XP systems, I'm running Vista on 4 machines here, and not a bit of trouble. Quite the opposite, in fact.

I get that somehow, Vista has hurt your feelings, but really, how many adamant posts is it worth? Did you choose this forum because they don't accommodate kill-files?

Drake

Drake Ranier said:

A bit like Chicken Little, isn't it? It's nice that you have a cause,
and indeed, you are entitled to your opinions (a consideration you
seem unable to extend...), but what's with the mania? And how is it
that you seem to believe that your experience with Vista is all there
is? And that you should incessantly inflict that opinion on others?
That's a bit arrogant, isn't it? And irrational as well.

My experience with Vista has been exceptional. And although I still
have a few XP systems, I'm running Vista on 4 machines here, and not
a bit of trouble. Quite the opposite, in fact.

I get that somehow, Vista has hurt your feelings, but really, how
many adamant posts is it worth? Did you choose this forum because
they don't accommodate kill-files?

Drake

Click to expand...

Vista wasted my time and tried my good will, beyond that small sin, it deserve to fail, and it has. Vista is beta W-7.

Not a bit of trouble? Please, no such thing as trouble free anything; now who's exhibiting signs of mania? Your not really being honest are you? Enjoy you pay version of beta W-7, I'm good with that as long as I'm not paying for it.

blackhawk13 said:

Old news that goes way back, maybe true, maybe not, perhaps a better
wording is there were other kernels that showed more promise that
were ignored.

Click to expand...

Bout what i'd expect for an answer.

blackhawk13 said:

blackhawk13 said:

Where did you get that one about Asus (sorry if I missed a link.

Click to expand...

The e machines, and small laptop. Small wonder as I saw how poorly
the battery life was on this laptop with Vista. Greater resource
usage equal less battery life aside from the performance hit.

Click to expand...

You mean super small laptops that for the most part are running Linux? Right tools for the right job, no one here has ever claimed that Vista should be run on equipment that isn't suitable.

You have been asked for your numbers on that baterry life before

blackhawk13 said:

blackhawk13 said:

As for most of the corporate world. Statistics show that they are
adopting Vista quicker than they did XP.

Click to expand...

MS jinxed the results by trying to shove Vista down people's throats,
making XP loaded machines harder to find. Feel the backlash.
After two years the verdict is in for Vista:

Click to expand...

You don't know what jinxed means do you? Sorry you can't accept the numbers as they are. Or history as it was. Coporations who need XP don't have trouble finding it from any vendor on any mahcine they want with half a brain and that includes MS.

blackhawk13 said:

Why would a corporation switch to Vista now when XP Pro works well,
and knowing Vista will soon be replaced. Vista isn't cost effective
for most, and won't run well on many machines still in use that XP
has no trouble running on.

Click to expand...

To ensure continued support. The desktop guys I know seem to think it will make deployment easier. No less cost effective that XP.

If you understood anything at all about this process you would stop using the corporations haven't upgraded arguement. It took my organization 2 years to adopt SP2, and we are currently blocking SP3 for XP.

blackhawk13 said:

Vista puked all over me; crashes, apps not running right, slow
boots... and just a god awful pain to set up. Don't forget Search
4.0 that still can't find system files the old XP search engine can,
and is a pain as well. Won't allow easy set up and do a quick
dedicated 100% hhd index, but persists in taking days to index hhds,
or fails too. Search 4.0 was loaded twice on my very fast XPx64
machine, and uninstalled twice! Last time it was on for over a
week, and I needed to do searches it couldn't do easily if at all.

Click to expand...

Wow it puked! Search 4.0 wasn't even Beta when you tried Vista so leave it for another discussion. Haven't even tried it yet.

I will give you that your respnse is a little better. So before ranting about earch 4.0 we get:

The rest of your resopnse is a little better but how about some detail. Anyone who had tried with an and objective approach would be able to detail their troubles, and what they tried to do to resolve before giving up? So how about how slow was your boot time, what apps didn't work? what were you attempting when it crashed (was it BSOD or a lockup). What chunks were in the puke?

blackhawk13 said:

--Why do they have to be 100% against Vista? Nothing is absolute.
Will most miss Vista? I doubt it, but clearly it has some followers.
Not near as many as XP though.

Click to expand...

Ah and again the sense of history fails, there are still those who are using 2000.