Windows Vista

[Warrior4Christ]

This is just a general topic for Vista comments/annoyances/questions/etc. Please refrain from unnecessary negative comments.

Here's my list of annoyances. Do these happen to anyone else?
1. Windows Explorer dies maybe once or twice or three times a day (depends). When this happens, it pops up saying it needs to restart, and the taskbar disappears, and within about 30 seconds it's reloaded and added the open programs to the taskbar again. (And of course, it closes all your Windows Explorer windows.) It happens randomly. Even when you don't have Explorer windows open.
2. Sometimes when any program displays an Open/Save dialog box, it may randomly close the program entirely, as you are browsing for a file. Sometimes it happens, sometimes not; happens randomly. As mentioned before, it can happen to any program that displays the Open/Save dialog boxes. This one is annoying.
3. Copy files is SLOW!! Very slow. 100KB files should be instantaneous, not 5 seconds. Zipping/unzipping files is also equally slow.
4. Shutting down is SLOW. Hibernation in XP used to be nice and quick. It used to display the Windows logo and the hibernation progress. What happened to it? Why get rid of it? Hibernation in Vista is maybe 3, 4, 5 times slower. One time I reckon it took 5 mins to hibernate.
5. General performance seems to be slower when you have several programs running. It seems to like chugging the hard disk for a LONG time for no apparent reason. Virtual memory swapping seems slow. (This seems less of a problem since removing Norton Internet Security, I think.) I daresay Vista is not well optimised...
6. There are two patches that describe symptoms like I'm having. Except I can't install them. It says they don't apply to my system. I checked the update history, and says I've already installed them (even though I don't recall installing it, and I thought it wasn't an automatic update..).
7. Thunderbird. I like Thunderbird, but sometimes it just hogs lots of resources and displays a message saying a script is running which may take a long time - do you want to stop the script? This also happened on XP, so I think it's more Thunderbird's problem.

There's probably more that I can't think of now...

[Jingo Jaden]

The hardware is essential in terms of how well Vista works. I have 3 questions.

Firstly, what kind of hardware does your computer have?

Secondly, is the computer custom built or did you purchased a built one?

Thirdly, does the computer have symmetry? A good example of computers with symmetry would be alienware even though it is crazy expensive. Does it have Raid? Is the CPU over clocked? Dual/quad/single core CPU?

Oh, and an additional question. What version of windows Vista is this? Basic? Home Premium? Business? Enterprise or Ultimate? *64 or 32 bit*?

I am useing Windows Vista ultimate 32 bit and have not really encountered anything that makes me frustrated. For me it works crazy fast. *My computer scored 5,3 out of the Vista hardware capabilities, think the max was 10.* Oh, and Service pack 1 seems to remove most of the negatives.

[Warrior4Christ]

The hardware is essential in terms of how well Vista works. I have 3 questions.

Firstly, what kind of hardware does your computer have?

Secondly, is the computer custom built or did you purchased a built one?

Thirdly, does the computer have symmetry? A good example of computers with symmetry would be alienware even though it is crazy expensive. Does it have Raid? Is the CPU over clocked? Dual/quad/single core CPU?

Oh, and an additional question. What version of windows Vista is this? Basic? Home Premium? Business? Enterprise or Ultimate? *64 or 32 bit*?

I am useing Windows Vista ultimate 32 bit and have not really encountered anything that makes me frustrated. For me it works crazy fast. *My computer scored 5,3 out of the Vista hardware capabilities, think the max was 10.* Oh, and Service pack 1 seems to remove most of the negatives.

These are likely to be all software issues, but anyway..
It is an unmodified laptop. 1.66GHz Core 2 Duo, 1GB RAM. Single hard disk.
It is Vista Home Premium 32-bit.
Laptop hard disks are slow. That could be an issue, but not the cause of it, I think.
The maximum hardware rating was originally 6.0. I think they intend to increase it by 1.0 every so often, to keep up with hardware advances. I don't know if they have increased it yet. I doubt it.

[Jingo Jaden]

1Gb of ram is quite little for Home Premium. I think 2GB was minimum or recommended. Basic runs 1GB, but don't even touch basic. The CPU is not really that strong, but I think it would manage ok at best.

Basicly, I think your laptop would best be suited for XP if you are going to use a microsoft OS. SP1 might improve things, but I am not really sure it will help this laptop. Don't use Norton tho, use F-Secure, it does not demand too much from your computer. My hardware scored 5,3. And that is a 2,66 dual core, 2 x 500 GB storage, 8800 gts graphic card and 4 gb ram. Pretty strong symmetry too. Vista works really well on it. *Gears of war on the highest quality was pretty much no problem aside from some cut scenes.* Oh, and its a desktop mind you.

[Warrior4Christ]

1Gb of ram is quite little for Home Premium. I think 2GB was minimum or recommended. Basic runs 1GB, but don't even touch basic. The CPU is not really that strong, but I think it would manage ok at best.

Basicly, I think your laptop would best be suited for XP if you are going to use a microsoft OS. SP1 might improve things, but I am not really sure it will help this laptop. Don't use Norton tho, use F-Secure, it does not demand too much from your computer. My hardware scored 5,3. And that is a 2,66 dual core, 2 x 500 GB storage, 8800 gts graphic card and 4 gb ram. Pretty strong symmetry too. Vista works really well on it. *Gears of war on the highest quality was pretty much no problem aside from some cut scenes.* Oh, and its a desktop mind you.

Yeah, 2GB would be nice (money!). It would help the virtual memory swapping problem. But it's still not the root of the problem.
I've seen a new laptop that came with Vista Business that had 512MB RAM.
Mine has a "Vista Compatible" sticker, and XP came installed, but I got the "Express Upgrade" Vista offer thing, so it's not like the manufacturer didn't think it could handle it.
I've used Trend Micro Internet Security since the Norton subscription expired. Seems to be better.

[Jingo Jaden]

Oh yeah, I know a lot of systems have the *Vista compatible* marker slammed on it. However they do not really work well with Vista at all. Since XP machines don't seem to sell anymore the low end of the market will really be suffering under a demanding system like Vista, which hopefully will release the free downgrade to XP Pro soon. The stronger systems however are likely to become much more enjoyable. The thing is that in order to make Vista work well you need a strong system, if you got a strong system then it is likely to work much faster and better than XP, but if not strong enough it is likely to belly flop and fail miserably.

In terms the higher end of Vista *Meaning all above basic* I think this hardware is likely to be sufficient to have a system run well. *Laptop*

Minimum 2 GB ram. *667 mhz* *4gb recommended*
2,2 Ghz dual core.
8600 GT graphic card. *256 mb*
160 gig hard drive.

And yes I know it is a bit pricey. Still that is what I would recommend in terms of Vista. Your system would do ok for XP I think. A laptop with 512 mb ram and Vista business sounds a bit like selling a laptop without the screen to me. Still, you will probably find laptops that work with Vista with less hardware capabilities than I posted, but so far I have yet to have seen it run well under 2gb of ram.

[Kenshin17]

[Quote=Jaden Mental]Since XP machines don't seem to sell anymore[/quote]

Must be diffrent over there, cause here most people who know Windows from Unix refuse to buy Vista, and if they have to, to get the PC they want they speak of hard drive formats. I have met ONE person over here who praised Vista, every one else views it as invoking a demon onto ones Hard Drive.

I think the fact that you have to have a gaming class machine for the OPERATING SYSTEM to run well is rediculous.

XP works, so stick with XP, until and IF MS works out the bugs...and even then....

[EricTheFred]

The way people talk about Vista now is identical to the way they spoke of XP before SP2, or 98 before SE.

Horror of horrors, I also remember an ugly thing called Windows 2.0. Never saw Win 1.0, but I hear it was even worse. Frankly, until Win 3.1, MS didn't have a product worthy of store shelf-space. I personally stuck with Win3.1 all the way until 98SE, the 'SP2' of the Win 9x kernel.

Vista will have an SP2 of some sort eventually, and then it will be worth getting. Until then, or until MS lines up the heads of the R&D departments against a wall and... um... fires them... Vista won't be worth having.

In fact, my employer (Texas Instruments) has specifically announced it will not be upgrading anyone to Vista until certain security concerns are addressed. The announcement was nearly a year ago, and they have yet to lift the ban on Vista machines logging into the TI network.

You read correctly. Ban. If you bring your own machine to work, you can use three different distributions of Linux, you can use Mac Os, Mac OSX, or XP (or, I think you can still use 98SE, unless they finally pulled it sometime this year) but you can't log into the company wireless using Vista. (You can plug into the ethernet, of course, but it's against company regulations.) Food for thought.

[Kenshin17]

Wow, they will let 98 on before they let Vista.

Dude that is awesome

[Jingo Jaden]

Apparently SP1 is going to remove most of the errors in the OS. So its like rather removeing the breaks than pressing down the accelerator. I know that the new windows OS *Codenamed Vienna* Is going to base its system upon a new form of codeing. Even rumors going about it beeing released late 08/early 09. I hope they do not rush it. Either way, Vista runs crazy fast on my computer and seeing that the SP will even accelerate the performance further sounds a bit crazy for me, but hey, better performance = awesome.

Back to the thread. I have used XP on this computer and now I am useing Vista ultimate. Now this computer I had help with building from pro's so it has nice overall symmetry even though I have yet to overclock the cpu or add raid which it is fully capable of doing. I see a overall nice upgrade on most areas. However, the ultimate edition which was the only one I would have bothered getting is flat out too pricey at this moment. XP works just fine as long as you have a solid anti virus and hardware capablities. Personaly I found Norton Antivirus to be too demanding for the system, however F-Secure worked well. The main reason to upgrade to Vista these days seem to be the next generation of games that requires DX 10, which currently XP does not support. Again, apparently someone has cracked it and made it available for XP, but I am not sure if useing it is legal. I fully agree that you wait til SP2 because that's when new features are likely to be added.

[Mr. SmartyPants]

The way people talk about Vista now is identical to the way they spoke of XP before SP2, or 98 before SE.

The problem with Microsoft is that they continually release half-done Operating Systems and then *hope* to be able to upgrade it slowly via automatic updates and Service Pack downloads.

Windows XP2 didn't bring much change besides a few security tweaks here and there. Vista is nothing more than "XP Service Pack 3".

Vista sucks. It will forever suck. Not as bad as ME, but still sucky nonetheless.

At least we know that Apple's new operating system: OS 10.5 Leopard isn't retarded like Vista is.

[Jingo Jaden]

You use Vista MSP?

[Mr. SmartyPants]

You use Vista MSP?

No I use XP SP2 and OS 10.3. It (XP SP2) likes to crap out on me all the time, but whatever; I am managing.

No way I'd waste my money on Vista.

[Jingo Jaden]

Ok, because if you got no or next to no experiense with it then I'd say you are very quick to give the final result to it. Cool if you like the Mac OS system, but seriusly, saying that an OS sucks just like that is sort of uber lame. I have used Mac OSX Tiger *Not tried Leopard yet, but seen quite a few vids + one in my class uses it.* and well, while I personaly I did not enjoy the mac experiense, it ceartainly had its features that makes it easy to see why some people like it. Might be because I am a windows user and has been so ever since 95, but Vista, on a fine tuned pc like mine, is far from a bad OS considering its not running the first SP. Overall nice performance, Aero looks cool, smooth gameing, fully secure against any viruses so far even though the computer has been attacked multiple times, nice bit of extra features and next to no bugs. *Only thing I find familiar listed up there is I.E going rebel every once in a while.* I mean, I cannot say Ubuntu is a bad OS because I have not tried it yet. *And it does not look bad from what I have seen, the design was awesome*.

To round it all up, from reviews to what I have experiensed in Vista so far. It is a decent upgrade, but rather save your money and wait for the price to drop/Service pack to be released. If you are a gamer looking for the next gen of gameing, then you might want to aquire home premium at least. *The DX 10 reason as I mentioned above* If you are one who has a strong computer and wants more out of the OS, then Vista is highly likely to improve the overall experiense. The wow factor that was promised might have been a mouthful, but I feel like I am experienseing a relatively more improved system.* . I know SP 3 is out for XP, but I have not really done much research there. SP1 is looking to remove the performance errors in Vista, and with the performance I am currently running an upgrade would make strong even stronger. And as I have said earlier, buying not so high performance laptops/desktops is likely to backfire when useing windows Vista. I am not saying you need an Alienware ALX, but try avioding a cheap dell, or any wares that has under 2gb of ram. Don't care if its meant for an apple, windows or Linux computer, but I ceartainly know that Vista demands hardware to move smoothly because its a huge OS. Nowadays VMware can make you run pretty much every OS you want on every new platform at near native speeds. *Heard rumors about it even surpassing native speeds, but I am guessing that is hardware related if at all true*. For windows the best solution for low performance currently is XP, high performance is Vista. *Do aviod the basic version.* This probably just sums up the overall message.

[Mr. SmartyPants]

but I ceartainly know that Vista demands hardware to move smoothly because its a huge OS

An operating system should not require that much ram to simply function. I can understand that you may need a gig or two of ram to run a program, but you're running an operating system. It's nothing but Windows XP with an updated GUI. Why would it POSSIBLE say that it's recommended that you had at least 2 gigabytes? Yes it's a huge OS, but why? It's filled with all these extra features that do nothing but hog resources.

Just another one of my peeves with Vista.

[Jingo Jaden]

Oh defidently, even though Vista has a large selection of versions already, I think they underestimated the demands of the system. Perhaps another 'low performance' vista lite should have been there? Sadly this is what I think they wanted to do with Vista basic, but if that is the solution then its a poor one.

2gb of ram is not really expensive *Unless you count the top of the line DDR3 Ram* if you search at the right place, but then the question of building a computer arise again. Not everyone can manualy build their computers, but most people know someone who can.

It seems like every OS has alot of features they don't really need, but its nice haveing on either way. The vista performance optimizer button is a very nice feature for people who has problems with it. However sometimes the hardware is too weak even then. And you must remember to turn off the things you don't use or else it will consume much of the CPU power. Aero does take its demands over the graphic card which is a nice solution in my opinion.

The windows codeing has been built upon since the 95 version. So yes, it is the continuation of the classic windows even though it is at its last stage seeing that Vienna might be on its way early, Vienna which would include a totaly new codeing is an inntresting project. And I mean most systems base their current sequals on built on codeing, OSX leopard is alot like Tiger, but with some design changes and new, cool features. As for the performance demanding Vista, it seems to run alot faster than XP on stronger systems, however it runs slower on slower systems than XP as well. I was lucky enough to save up for one rather strong custom built pc, if I did otherwise I might have been pulling my hair out now. Heck, you can even find tutorials on how to speed up Vista nowadays, but the basics remain, Vista demands sufficent hardware capabilities, which is higher than what you would expect. Then again, was it not the same with the XP and the previous version? I'd say XP has marked itself as a strong system worth looking at. I think Vista too will in time. Computer's will get better and cheaper as time goes on.

[Warrior4Christ]

I think the fact that you have to have a gaming class machine for the OPERATING SYSTEM to run well is rediculous.

Agreed.

The thing is that in order to make Vista work well you need a strong system, if you got a strong system then it is likely to work much faster and better than XP, but if not strong enough it is likely to belly flop and fail miserably.

I disagree. If XP runs faster on a lesser machine, it will run faster on all machines (and hence Vista will run slower on all machines).
That's why I said "I daresay Vista is not well optimised...".
EDIT - Ah, I see... the graphics card has taken some of the load off the CPU for Vista, but even so, I stand by what I said.

Vista is nothing more than "XP Service Pack 3".

I disagree. That's why it took so long - significant parts were re-written.

Nowadays VMware can make you run pretty much every OS you want on every new platform at near native speeds. *Heard rumors about it even surpassing native speeds, but I am guessing that is hardware related if at all true*.

That would be impossible to run at higher than native speeds, since it's running two OSes instead of one.

What is this 'symmetry', Jaden? I'm not familiar with this.


Anyway, the point of this thread is to discuss annoyances. Performance is just one annoyance. Has no one experienced the other ones?

[mechana2015]

I don't use vista regularly, as my home computers run mac OS's, but we have several Vista computers at places where I worked, and several of my friends have them, and some of the issues I saw.

1. The widgets bar taking up a decent sized section of the desktop. I know its a mac thing, but its nice having them hidden when I'm doing other stuff.

2. Vista Pro crashing due to that video background thing. This was on a Dell XPS gaming computer.

3. Wacom Drivers getting disabled/corrupted constantly (may have been fixed). My friend was having to re-install his tablet drivers every 20 minutes at one point.

4. I think Aero is ugly. This is just personal preference, but I like my windows to look solid.

5. Counter intuitive placement of many buttons in IE. Every other browser is like... exactly the opposite on a lot of things. What gives.

[Jingo Jaden]

Again, I said the vmware would be hardware related if so. Meaning that a 48GB DDR-3 ram, quad Geforce ultra, 6TB on level 0 raid and 8 core Intel QX 9750 would likely run OSX better on a vmware than a mac mini running it standard. This is an extreme example mind you. Not saying that the vmware would make the OS faster than the original version, but that the hardware available might give it the egde at times.

Symmetry is a very important part of makeing a computer. Researching what hardware would work well with the OS/Software. You can for example find computers with a sole purpose such as 3d rendering, which have excellent symmetry for such an application. The same applies to an OS and hardware symmetry. For example Intel CPU's is rated to have higher performance levels than the AMD CPU's. Even though some new features that AMD brings is not to underestimate. Makeing a computer with symmetry would involve haveing safe, but functional improvements such as decent overclocking, raid and varius other things. I focused mainly on Intel/Kingston/Geforce in terms of performance. If I would to have for example used an AMD motherboard with an intel CPU and another type of ram, then things could have gotten bad. Alienware is a pc producer who produce great high performance computers with symmetry at retardedly high prices.

Oh, and as for the Vista vs XP performance thing. I still think it works faster on the faster computers than XP. I mean in terms of installing there is not really much to say, but it managed to delete like 90 gigs on 30 seconds which XP came nowhere close to. Responsiveness is the only thing I think XP wins on and that is that its menu's are slightly faster while in Vista you have to wait about one second. I have not done any huge performance test, but overall it seems better. Not to mention that I am not running SP1 at this moment which will improve the overall performance.

[Warrior4Christ]

1. The widgets bar taking up a decent sized section of the desktop. I know its a mac thing, but its nice having them hidden when I'm doing other stuff.

2. Vista Pro crashing due to that video background thing. This was on a Dell XPS gaming computer.

3. Wacom Drivers getting disabled/corrupted constantly (may have been fixed). My friend was having to re-install his tablet drivers every 20 minutes at one point.

4. I think Aero is ugly. This is just personal preference, but I like my windows to look solid.

5. Counter intuitive placement of many buttons in IE. Every other browser is like... exactly the opposite on a lot of things. What gives.

1. I'm confused... are you talking about MacOS or Windows? The Windows Sidebar does get hidden when you do stuff on 'more front' windows...

2. What are you referring to as Vista Pro, and what video background?

Again, I said the vmware would be hardware related if so. Meaning that a 48GB DDR-3 ram, quad Geforce ultra, 6TB on level 0 raid and 8 core Intel QX 9750 would likely run OSX better on a vmware than a mac mini running it standard. This is an extreme example mind you. Not saying that the vmware would make the OS faster than the original version, but that the hardware available might give it the egde at times.

Symmetry is a very important part of makeing a computer. Researching what hardware would work well with the OS/Software. You can for example find computers with a sole purpose such as 3d rendering, which have excellent symmetry for such an application. The same applies to an OS and hardware symmetry. For example Intel CPU's is rated to have higher performance levels than the AMD CPU's. Even though some new features that AMD brings is not to underestimate. Makeing a computer with symmetry would involve haveing safe, but functional improvements such as decent overclocking, raid and varius other things. I focused mainly on Intel/Kingston/Geforce in terms of performance. If I would to have for example used an AMD motherboard with an intel CPU and another type of ram, then things could have gotten bad. Alienware is a pc producer who produce great high performance computers with symmetry at retardedly high prices.

Oh, and as for the Vista vs XP performance thing. I still think it works faster on the faster computers than XP. I mean in terms of installing there is not really much to say, but it managed to delete like 90 gigs on 30 seconds which XP came nowhere close to. Responsiveness is the only thing I think XP wins on and that is that its menu's are slightly faster while in Vista you have to wait about one second. I have not done any huge performance test, but overall it seems better. Not to mention that I am not running SP1 at this moment which will improve the overall performance.

Having VMware on entirely different hardware is cheating! I was assuming it was being run on the same hardware.

Having built several computers before, I've never heard of this symmetry. Is it just choosing specific components that work well for a specialised application when building a purpose-built computer? If so, "symmetry" is an odd word...

If Vista is faster deleting files on a fast computer than XP, then I daresay Vista is faster at deleting files than XP on a slower computer also.

[Jingo Jaden]

If the lightness of the OS would determine the performance then 95 would have been a nice choice. However updates, and yes performance updates have been made on every windows update making it better and better. It makes the computer faster and better and Vista is no exception. Problem is that if you buy a computer that is not ready hardware wise for Vista, then it is likely to disappointed. In my mind 1 gig of ram is not much even for XP though it is likely to perform much better on XP than Vista.

As for the vmware, it makes you able to access different OS'es on different platforms meaning I could access OSX if I wanted to on a windows computer using vmware. And as I said, it is probably hardware related if the computer surpasses the native speed. Though I would not be surprised to see a similar hardware surpass the an OS in terms of speed while using vmware.

I actually think symmetry pretty much sums it up. A computer which is well built and safe. Hard to make without help from people who know what they are doing when building a pc. And of course, it is not only hardware related. Gotta make sure the OS is fined tuned to match the wanted performance level along with the correct software. *You don't want an Anti Virus that hogs much of the resources, but rather a light, but still strong anti virus*.

[Kenshin17]

As for the vmware, it makes you able to access different OS'es on different platforms meaning I could access OSX if I wanted to on a windows computer using vmware. And as I said, it is probably hardware related if the computer surpasses the native speed. Though I would not be surprised to see a similar hardware surpass the an OS in terms of speed while using vmware.

Running OS X on none Mac hardware is questionable in its legality. In order to do so you must hack the OS and that is esxpressly addressed in the EULA.

Dude, OS X Leopard has all the trimmings Vista does, and in fact looks way better because instead of being an OS X copy it IS OS X. Want to know something? Leopard takes 9 to 10 gigs of HDD, yeah a little high but not to bad considering what it does.

But here is the kicker, When I am running OS X AND other pograms, like Safari, Mail, etc I have OVER 2.6 gigs of 3 gigs free. Ain't no way thats gonna happen on Windows.

Even when I am running WoW and Safari, AND iTunes, I'll have over 1.5 to 1.7 gigs free RAM.

So Microsoft COULD have made Vista not use as much RAM, but I guess the basis of Windows just can't handle the efficiancy that Unix can.

That is my biggest beef with Vista asside from the DRM and hardware locking, it should not take that much, Apple makes a good looking OS, and it doesn't need a gaming class computer to run well.

And do I even need to mention Beryl?

[Jingo Jaden]

Ok, here we go.

Firstly, running vmware on the pc is not too different from running bootcamp on OSX. You don't download a cracked version of OSX, you buy one at the nearest apple store or where they sell it. Secondly the vmware comes in Vista ultimate and buisness, and while it is not paticulary practical to do, it can be done.

Secondly, the only thing that would make OSX have all the trimmings Vista has is its ability to run Vista. Then again OSX can work on a pc, so I guess it is a matter of taste. I like Vista's design more than I like OSX's design, but then again, there is no full answer to that question, it would remain a matter of taste. Not to mention all the things you can download from the net that can even take the experiense further, some say resourse hog, I say an option for a cooler look.

As for performance, when I am runnning autodesk 3d studio max *newest version*, a solid anti-virus, the media player, IE and Opera, documents and another small game + IM/mail/youtube and watch as my performance is not even near touching the 50% line, then moveing on to play gears of war on the highest quality without any problems I'd say it performs pretty well. When I am not running gears the CPU bounces beetwen 0 - 6% useage, and this is with all the other applications running mentioned besides gears. The physical memory is useing about 38% of its power and not causeing any problems when takeing this to a higher level. It say it manages better than your decription which would point towards the useless resourse hogging OS. Though this is a gameing class computer, it is still about a half year old and customly built. Not a beaming performance computer, but an all around solid hardware selection to it. Used XP and no, it did not seem faster than this.

Mention Beryl if you like, it is an OS that I personaly think looks cool.

[Kenshin17]

Had a good rant, but I won't post it....never mind....

[mechana2015]

1. I'm confused... are you talking about MacOS or Windows? The Windows Sidebar does get hidden when you do stuff on 'more front' windows...

2. What are you referring to as Vista Pro, and what video background?

1. Windows. The fact that the darn thing even takes up desktop space to use annoys me (ours didn't hide).

2. Vista Ultimate (had the wrong name). There's a "feature" called Dreamscene that plays videos as background. Its a bit of mostly useless fluff that lags the computer even worse and tends to cause more instability.

[Kenshin17]

Another thing I love about OS X, they give you fluff, but the fluff is actually usefull.

Look at Expose, and spaces.

[mechana2015]

Another thing I love about OS X, they give you fluff, but the fluff is actually usefull.

Look at Expose, and spaces.

I wouldnt call spaces fluff really... its rapidly becoming my favorite feature on any OS, since I run a lot of programs at once, and having them all stacked up is really inconvenient, even with expose running. Its rapidly becoming an essential tool for me to work coherantly and quickly on multiple projects, or multiple instances of the same program, such as illustrator, especially in concert with expose.

[Kenshin17]

I agree, 99% of the reason I wanted Leopard so bad was because of Spaces.

My point was that Sapces and Expose look cool, like fluff, but they are usefull.

Windows Aero "bring the windows up and rifle through them" thing looks annoying, not even useful.

Expose is the same dang thing, but it is a useful feature, Aero seems like MS was just going:

"Look what we can do, aren't we cool?"

Not, as with Expose or Spaces, "Look how useful this is, oh and by the way, it looks cool too."

[Mr. SmartyPants]

Not to mention that all the "fluff" that's in 10.5 is rather resource-efficient. Unlike Vista, which is the total opposite.

[Kenshin17]

Indeed, I agree. I love 10.5, in fact I think 10.5 uses LESS resources then 10.4...