OS poll at Tip.it

[King Harold]

linky: http://www.tip.it/runescape/?poll_id=51

this is actually quite surprising. I'm not talking about the fact that obviously most ppl use XP, but about the fact that there are still ppl who actually use Vista after trying it, especially ppl who play RuneScape. Vista doesn't like RuneScape. No actually it hates RuneScape. It just doesn't want to run it, and when you finally convinced Vista that you really want to do it, then it will be so slow that half of your clicks will never be processed.
Ok, on windows XP RuneScape tends to use around 90% CPU time, but it does work on most computers.

oh btw, this post is not meant to give my opinion about either RuneScape or Vista, but about all those silly ppl who use Vista.

[hop]

Runescape and it's players aren't normal on any OS.

[threefingeredguy]

I agree wholeheartedly.

[King Harold]

Sure enough, but that is no real reason to use Vista (some people even pay money for it! )

[hop]

Are you saying there's an all-round better alternative?

[King Harold]

what about XP?

[benryves]

Vista has some significant improvements over XP. Vista is a better operating system overall; however, there are some things that need ironing out. Like, in this case, writing the new drivers for its revised display driver model. There are many real reasons to use Vista, especially if you are a developer. Frankly, if all it acheives is stopping developers from making their apps write to the application directory to store settings, that's a major step in the right direction.

As far as I'm aware, NVidia's drivers are still not quite there under Vista but they are working on it. ATi's drivers are pretty horrible under any OS so I haven't heard any particular compaints about them on Vista. Give them time.

After all, remember XP SP1?

[hop]

No it's not better, it's different. Currently every single "improvement" over XP isn't functional except the .net stuff and that probably introduced new exploits as always.

The way transparent window borders work is absolutely horrible to work with. You can't instantly tell where your windows are or how they're focused, especially with other equally large windows beneath eachother. You can't even configure it.

The new amazing driver model barely supports anything, new video drivers failing are just the top of the iceberg. You can add printers, monitors, and mobile devices to the list.

It it isn't actually fully backwards compatible. Especially many hardware monitoring or virtualisation related applications simply do not work. There are games that don't work. There are browser and media player plugins that don't work or don't work as well anymore. Anything that doesn't use lol.net risks getting messed up.

It's less productive, even if you know how everything is categorized into menu's and dialogs, as they increased the interaction time to get to any setting you want. I guess this is actually a good thing though, since you only need vista for it's closed software support so you'll only need it for work and spend more hours working which means you can get paid more.

And the out-of-the-box audio/video hardware support is still as lacking as in XP. In fact, it's the exact same with even (!) crappyer playback algorithms that now include all the DRM bullshit. Reboot into linux, turn on ALSA (which actually supports 2.1 rather than simulate it through some kind of surround/3d audio hack with 4 speakers configuration that edits the sound configuration in the registry every second) and hear the difference.

After all, remember XP SP1?

Vista XP1 hasn't actually been released yet so you'll have to agree that vista is currently useless for anybody but lol.net developers.

I doubt they're going to fix the interaction design in any Service Pack though.

[King Harold]

And don't forget that Vista takes about twice the resources that XP does, without actually doing something useful with them.

And what is bad about keeping things together? In this case, applications and their settings. Why split them up and make 2 folders for every program? What exactly is the use of that?

The only good thing I ever noticed in Vista was DirectX 10, but imo that is not worth the rest of the crap that comes with it.

And as far as SP1 goes, it was still better than Vista in it's current state. (better meaning: overall more usable and stable)

and then we're not even talking about "Do you want to run the program 'file operation' ?" or "Do you want to give the program 'file operation' permission to perform a file operation?" or the fact that things like TASM won't work because they "don't have the right to perform a file operation", I'm sure you could give it the right somehow, but why didn't it have that right to begin with? (and no, "to protect the user from himself" is no reason, it is bullshit. If the user needs protecting then it is an idiot and doesn't deserve protection.)

[hop]

Every time some application places it's configuration in the registry (UNBELIEVABLE fail) or the windows user folder (slightly less fail) it becomes a pain in the ass to configure it and mobilize your settings along with the application. Now you have to mobilize part of the OS and all it's proprietary bullshit along with it.

I wish browsers and media players didn't already do this in XP, because it's just a pain to backup, mobilize, and integrate the settings with other environments.

At least in linux the user directory is as simple as going to ~ and all settings are together and hidden from view by default.

Every time I browse to c:\documents and settings I can actually feel my productivity dropping by tenfolds.

[benryves]

Where would you store settings, then?

As for transferring settings between machines... it's really very easy (Accessories, System Tools, Files and Settings Transfer Wizard). I'm not sure what you mean by "mobilize, and integrate the settings with other environments" though. That all the settings end up in a single user-specified directory makes the settings significantly more mobile over a network (ie roaming profiles).

I agree that the default verbosity of the directories (C:\Documents and Settings\) isn't all that great on the command-line, but now that it's been trimmed (C:\Users\) I can live with it.

And what is bad about keeping things together? In this case, applications and their settings. Why split them up and make 2 folders for every program? What exactly is the use of that?

If you store settings in the application's directory, that limits you to a single user per application. As Windows supports multiple users, it needs to support multiple settings per user, which means that the application sits in one location and you get a new location for each end-user.

Also, if you install the application to, say, Program Files, it can't write to its own directory anyway (you don't want any old process writing to Program Files, so only processes with Administrative rights attached can do so) so it needs a "safe" location to write to.

[King Harold]

to me, storing settings in an other folder (other than that of the application) feel a bit like storing all my pencil somewhere where I won't use it, say, in the bathroom, instead of on my desk.
That's basically what separating the settings from the application is, you'd store things that application needs away from it instead of close to it.

I "very much dislike" programs that like to spread their data all across my computer, FireFox, Azureus and LiveMessenger are really good at that. LiveMessenger doesn't store anything in the same place, it spreads everything out, pictures go in a different place than conversation history, and both go in an other place than the saved usernames and passwords. (there is more, but no one cares.)

Even TES 4 Oblivion spreads its data..

and about those users with different settings.. since when is this a problem? one could save several settings in the same place, which is logical as long as they belong to the same program

[hop]

How about "~/app/profile" or "userdrive\app\settings.ini"rather than "c:\users\username\bullshitpropertiaryfolder\application\profile" and "c:\users\username\anotherbullshitpropertiaryfolderbecauseapparentlyoneapplication'spropertieshavetobespreadoutoverthepoorestusersubtypingever\application\profile"
and
"c:\users\username\yetanotherbullshitpropertiaryfolderbecauseapparentlyoneapplication'spropertieshavetobespreadoutoverthepoorestusersubtypingever\application\profile"

Now I want my other OS to use the same settings from Vista's drive. First this confronts me with a failpartition, then failfilesystem, with failpriviliges, and then there's the proprietary directory and file structure.

This doesn't just introduce a poor directory structure, it's got overhead code wasting resources on emulating all this bullshit.

In linux I don't have to run a stupid wizard because I can backup/transfer/modify everything in a managable structure with half a dozen keypresses, so I can actually have it done before you're even past the first screen in the wizard. And I don't have to use proprietary failformats that waste even more of my time because the wizard can't actually do what it's for.

If you store settings in the application's directory, that limits you to a single user per application

No it does not. The location of profile or application directories have nothing at all to do with how many users it can support, only how it's support is organised in the file structure. Look at the all popular firefox, it has configuration profiles and you can locate them anywhere you want on the filesystem. There is no need for windows to force it's proprietary bullshit in an attempt to market multi-user support. Also, interestingly, Windows' own applications can't be configured worth a dime and they use the failgistry almost exclusively. Have fun managing multi-user per-pc registry settings on a network without a real network-based user management application.

Windows supports multiple users

Hahaha.

and about those users with different settings.. since when is this a problem?

Ever since Microsoft wanted to market it's desktop OS as networkable and multi-user.

Seperating settings from the application has a benefit for roaming network profiles, but the way Windows does it is utter failure.

Luckily we have real OSes to manage networks with.

[benryves]

That's basically what separating the settings from the application is, you'd store things that application needs away from it instead of close to it.

Real-world analogies do not apply with computers (see, for example, media players that try and look like physical devices and how their GUI therefore sucks).

The operating system provides an easy mechanism for the application to gain access to a user-specific directory to store settings in; it's (to use your pencil analogy) the difference between keeping your pencil on your desk or keeping multiple pencils, each in their own pencil case, on your desk. The application needs to unzip the right case for the right user, but it's not really that much effort and it keeps everything cleanly isolated.

and about those users with different settings.. since when is this a problem? one could save several settings in the same place, which is logical as long as they belong to the same program

How, exactly, do you store the settings for each individual user in the same place? Think about security; I don't want my saved passwords to be in the Opera directory next to yours; I want them in my user directory so you can't see them.

You now take something that is the responsibility of the OS and are now making life harder for the individual application developers. If you keep all the settings for a particular user in a single location it makes transferring those settings much, much simpler than having to go into each application's directory and trying to find the settings files. Again, you can transfer these directories over a network so you can have the same settings on whichever machine you use.

I fully appreciate that these advantages don't apply to a single user, single machine system. However, I can't see a better way that works for both one user on a single machine or a single user on multiple machines, multiple users on a single machine or multiple users on multiple machines.

[hop]

The operating system provides an easy mechanism for the application to gain access to a user-specific directory to store settings in;

And Windows does that at the cost of it being an easy mechanism for the user rather than the application. Last I checked, the application doesn't have bills to pay or wife and kids to feed, so that's pretty poor prioritising.

You now take something that is the responsibility of the OS and are now making life harder for the individual application developers.

Or the OS could have real security management embedded in it and cater for both the user and the developer. People (especially microsoft) that place the developer above the user make me ashamed.

How, exactly, do you store the settings for each individual user in the same place? Think about security; I don't want my saved passwords to be in the Opera directory next to yours; I want them in my user directory so you can't see them.

This is why real OSes have had real file- and permissions systems for decades. Any file should have security management, not just your user dir. Also, lol @ saving website passwords.

it's (to use your pencil analogy) the difference between keeping your pencil on your desk or keeping multiple pencils, each in their own pencil case, on your desk. The application needs to unzip the right case for the right user, but it's not really that much effort and it keeps everything cleanly isolated.

It's actually more like having an assistant organise your desk to your own likings before you step into the office. No unused pencil cases lying around.