🚀 go-pugleaf

"Zealot The Crazy Lui" <yahooNOk...@jeemaledotcom.com> wrote in message 
news:li3qv2tih771guiugggf00h2itmmor5o9a@4ax.com...
> Music is the new My Music. Did you happen to notoice how My Documents
> is just Documents, My Pictures is just Pictures, etc. There are hidden
> redirects for each of the 'old style' naming schemes so that programs
> that store stuff in any of these folders end up storing them in the
> new-style naming scheme and you don't end up with a My Documents
> duplicate of your Documents folder with half in each. You complained
> about some favorite links thing, which are completely customizable,
> though they come with a default set which would be better labelled
> "commonly used links" or something more clumsy. Yeah, you can't get
> rid of it, but it doesn't take up that much space, big whoop. Simply
> executing an exe file isn't much of a threat, since unless it has
> admin access it can't modify any protected files, add itself to the
> startup programs list, or anything silly like that.
>
> Navigating in folders... double clicking to open a new window has
> always seemed retarded to me. As for the lack of an 'up' button, just
> click on one folder up from your current position in the address bar,
> same function, except you can go multiple steps at a time and you know
> exactly where you're going before you do it. (I thought that was a bit
> of a no-brainer...) And what's this about the address bar not being
> part of a window or something? It always shows up for me, and it
> switches between something that looks like ...folder>folder>folder to
> c:\folder\folder\folder if you click in the bar to enter text.
>
> The one complaint I agree with is the analanalanal file permissions
> bullshit. By default, you can't change anything in any of your own
> 'system' directories without first taking ownership and giving
> yourself write/modify access to it, then when you do try to modify,
> you once again (I think this is probably about the third time) have to
> approve administator access to be able to modify the damn thing. It's
> a real bitch, and the main reason I disabled user account control. And
> if you're trying to copy stuff from an old xp install, then you have
> to go through the entire process FOR EVERY SINGLE FILE AND FOLDER AND
> SUBFOLDER AND EVERY FILE IN EACH SUB FOLDER. It's far easier to copy
> the stuff while in xp to some permissions neutral location (like a
> fat32 drive or something) then copy it from within vista.
>
> Other than that, I like how it looks, how it runs, the lots of little
> improvements I find here and there in the UI. It'll run directx 10,
> which is the main reason I installed it (even though I won't have a
> directx 10 video card for at least a year). It seems to be just as
> stable as XP, which is remarkable given how awful it was in the betas
> and RCs. As for major improvements of XP.... there aren't really any
> important ones. UAC is so goddamned annoying that I couldn't put up
> with it just using my computer (granted, I do a lot more modifying of
> "important files" than most users...), and aero glass is pretty, but
> mostly meaningless fluff. I definitely wouldn't have upgraded if I
> hadn't gotten a free business key through the MSDN academic alliance &
> my school... but whatteva.
>
> If you really have that much of a problem with vista, then why not use
> linux? It's just as easy to install as windows, unless you happen to
> be one of the many many people who happen to have some random hardware
> device not supported natively by default, in which case you have to
> jump through some kernel compiling hoops and say some prayers and
> chants and whathaveyou and when you're done it may work or you might
> have to continue looking for other people who happen to have gotten
> this bizzaro hardware from the land of oompalooompa to work in linux,
> but their instructions don't seem to work so perhaps they have some
> tiny revision in their firmware or version number that makes the whole
> damn thing fall apart... Oh, but if you can get it to work, linux runs
> circles around windows. :)

So . . .    There is a little niceness with the UI, it is stable (albeit 
slower) and it is more annoying than XP.    Oh yeah and it has this one 
important feature that I won't be able to use for a year and tons of legacy 
software won't run.   And because you and Bill Gates don't like more than 
one explorer window open it shouldn't be an option for me?  Gee . .  sign me 
up.

And the choices are Vista or Linux?   Huh?  What happened to Windows XP? 
I'm perfectly happy running that.  (I do have a linux machine in the house 
though.)

Babysitting options are fine.   Even having them on by default.  But it is 
insulting to have an OS entirely based around the principle that the user 
will need protection from his/her self.   Microsoft began pissing me off 
with "protections that couldn't be disabled" I believe in Outlook 2000 when 
there was absolutely no way to disable the "protection" of not being able to 
receive an EXE file via e-mail.  (And I don't count "hacking the registry" 
as an option . . . that is generally inconvenient but I make exceptions for 
MenuShowDelay, NoLowDiskSpaceChecks and disabling all auto run.)

And yes . . I was rambling a little bit, and I wrote it while I was upset . 
. so perhaps logically everything I complained about isn't necessarily a 
problem.   But I never have these problems in windows XP . . . and I never 
had similar problems "upgrading" MS OSes before.

Ah yes, though . .the curse of the "get the free OS" bug.  Historically that 
has been a good propeganda tool for Microsoft.  But when the OS sucks . . 
it doesn't help much.

--
LTP

:)