# Vista Tips, Tricks, Secrets, ...



## alexyu

Vista has come out along time ago...
I hope some of you know its secrets and tricks
Because you will have 2 post them here...even the easiest, as the snipping tool
GO...


----------



## Motoxrdude

If you work on anything important, it will crash.


----------



## tlarkin

Motoxrdude said:


> If you work on anything important, it will crash.



Is that a secret or a tip?


----------



## alexyu

I think that's a secret


----------



## SIMP

Motoxrdude said:


> If you work on anything important, it will crash.



LOL, nice!

BTW, sorry to see that about your mom, Motoxrdude.  I lost mine about 10 yrs ago and it's still hard to deal with.


----------



## Gareth

My tip is to not get frustrated the first few times using it, it WILL speed up, and install as much memory as you possibly can.


Vista has never crashed on me, not once.


----------



## quagmondo23

Is this a joke. I know a secret.

There is a secret admin account that you can activate through command prompt.

Type "net-user administrator /active:yes" or something like that and it will activate and you can log in through log-in window


----------



## KevinKevin

Motoxrdude said:


> If you work on anything important, it will crash.



Well... Vista runs really fast for me.


----------



## tlarkin

OK

Here's a tip, format your HD and load XP or Linux on your computer instead!


----------



## alexyu

we're talking about vista tips


----------



## KevinKevin

I don't think there's any tips to go by as it's simple to use. I know no tricks. I know no secrets


----------



## alexyu

start - msconfig - click boot - select NO GUI BOOT - restart
^this will unlock a secret boot screen^

See? It's easy


----------



## alexyu

^WOW this is spectacular looks like aurora  ^
^no more microsoft corp. and the loading bar^


----------



## G25r8cer

KevinKevin said:


> Well... Vista runs really fast for me.



Same here!! No BSOD yet


----------



## G25r8cer

alexyu said:


> start - msconfig - click boot - select NO GUI BOOT - restart
> ^this will unlock a secret boot screen^
> 
> See? It's easy



Thats a secret? I thought everyone knew that!  Anyways here's few links for reg tweaks and so on that will speed up vista alot!

http://www.pcextreme.net/news/vista-registry-tweaks/

http://developersvoice.com/how-make-vista-start-run-and-shutdown-faster

http://www.winvistaclub.com/t1.html


----------



## xsreality

as with all microsoft systems, vista is also not fail-proof... the BSOD screen is still there to welcome you if you do anything silly like install a software which is not compatible.
The important thing is that vista is a good experience with superb graphics.. so if u have the machine to run it then u should try it out.. those who talk about not using it are fools who haven't even tried it out yet.. just repeating talks of other idiots.. unless you are a company where you can't take risk with ur systems should u wait else upgrade.

regarding tips.. i like this interesting feature of resizing icons on desktop or any other window just by holding down the Ctrl key and scrolling the mouse wheel... u can resize to various sizes... try it out.


----------



## sameer795

clear the prefetch!!


----------



## alexyu

xsreality said:


> as with all microsoft systems, vista is also not fail-proof... the BSOD screen is still there to welcome you if you do anything silly like install a software which is not compatible.
> The important thing is that vista is a good experience with superb graphics.. so if u have the machine to run it then u should try it out.. those who talk about not using it are fools who haven't even tried it out yet.. just repeating talks of other idiots.. unless you are a company where you can't take risk with ur systems should u wait else upgrade.
> 
> regarding tips.. i like this interesting feature of resizing icons on desktop or any other window just by holding down the Ctrl key and scrolling the mouse wheel... u can resize to various sizes... try it out.


 
Finally, someone who thinks what i think about vista...


----------



## quagmondo23

vista's crap. I have had about 5 episodes of BSOD lasting for weeks on end. Now it won't register all my memory so I have to buy more and can't play WIC. It stalls, is slow and promotes the use of norton.


----------



## Gareth

quagmondo23 said:


> vista's crap. I have had about 5 episodes of BSOD lasting for weeks on end. Now it won't register all my memory so I have to buy more and can't play WIC. It stalls, is slow and promotes the use of norton.




LOL!!!!!!!!!!! That woke me up this morning. Sorry, but that's just funny as its so wrong . If you have an OEM PC, that is probably why. Lots, and lots, and lots of crapware. Nothing to do with Vista


----------



## xsreality

quagmondo23 said:


> vista's crap. I have had about 5 episodes of BSOD lasting for weeks on end. Now it won't register all my memory so I have to buy more and can't play WIC. It stalls, is slow and promotes the use of norton.



ur computer is not powerful enough to handle it anyway.. let me tell you there are more people happy and enjoying vista than hating them... u r in the minority so consider again.


----------



## quagmondo23

xsreality said:


> ur computer is not powerful enough to handle it anyway.. let me tell you there are more people happy and enjoying vista than hating them... u r in the minority so consider again.



screw you


----------



## quagmondo23

Vista's IS a good os, i'm just saying whats wrong with it. 95% of the time it works perfectly. I'm saying its crap compared to XP, suse (and ubuntu) on the same computer -no problem, and macs -no problems


----------



## tlarkin

xsreality said:


> ur computer is not powerful enough to handle it anyway.. let me tell you there are more people happy and enjoying vista than hating them... u r in the minority so consider again.



That is probably the dumbest reason to support an OS, or to tell someone they are wrong.  Microsoft is the only company which requires such high specs to run.  Every other OS out there can run on several year old hardware specs just fine, except for windows.


----------



## Cleric7x9

xsreality said:


> ur computer is not powerful enough to handle it anyway.. let me tell you there are more people happy and enjoying vista than hating them... u r in the minority so consider again.



that was one of the dumbest things i have ever heard. what exactly is the basis for your argument anyway? never in the history of computers has a consumer needed to buy brand new top of the line components to be able to properly run an OS anyway.


----------



## xsreality

quagmondo23 said:


> Vista's IS a good os, i'm just saying whats wrong with it. 95% of the time it works perfectly. I'm saying its crap compared to XP, suse (and ubuntu) on the same computer -no problem, and macs -no problems



I am talking about OS'es from microsoft only... not linux/ubuntu... i rate ubuntu higher than any of the microsoft systems..



			
				tlarkin said:
			
		

> That is probably the dumbest reason to support an OS, or to tell someone they are wrong. Microsoft is the only company which requires such high specs to run. Every other OS out there can run on several year old hardware specs just fine, except for windows.



If you are supporting non-windows system, i am absolutely with u on dis... but when i hear ppl saying vista is crap w/o ever using it once then i can't agree with them.



			
				Cleric7x9 said:
			
		

> that was one of the dumbest things i have ever heard. what exactly is the basis for your argument anyway? never in the history of computers has a consumer needed to buy brand new top of the line components to be able to properly run an OS anyway.



yup i agree it is one of the drawbacks of vista that it requires top of the line hardware to run it.. its sad that microsoft's monopoly has led to it making systems not in sync with the existing hardware of most consumers. there is always an alternative of mac and linux... bt again, if someone tries it on an incompatible system and faces BSOD screens (which one will always face with MS systems) and complains that vista is crap then will u agree? my only point is this... that vista works fine on a supported system, thats all.


----------



## KevinKevin

I'm sorry, no other OS can compare to Windows. Windows is the best. Apple, Linux or Ubuntu are just incomparable to Windows. Period. Whether you need the best computer to run Windows or not, Windows is still the best.


----------



## tlarkin

KevinKevin said:


> I'm sorry, no other OS can compare to Windows. Windows is the best. Apple, Linux or Ubuntu are just incomparable to Windows. Period. Whether you need the best computer to run Windows or not, Windows is still the best.



While I agree you can not technically compare all of them side by side because of the fundamental differences they have, I will disagree with most of what you said after that.

No OS is the best.


----------



## massahwahl

KevinKevin said:


> Well... Vista runs really fast for me.



Same here... never had it crash before :/


----------



## speedyink

Theres no best OS, there is only a best OS for a certain individual.  It's personal preference, thats all.  It's like arguing that oranges are better than apples.

Vista tips:
if it crashes, it's your fault
(If you bought a prebuilt computer) uninstall ALL the software that the manufacturer put on (in a perfect world reinstall windows completely with an OEM disc).  Manufacturers tend to put on software that doesn't sit well with windows.
Use built in programs as much as possible.  No need for dvd burning software anymore.


----------



## tlarkin

> if it crashes, it's your fault



How so?


----------



## lovely?

user error accounts for %99 of all airplane crashes, it is no different with computers. vista has never crashed once on me because of an error on its part, however it has crashed MANY times because of me  and to say linux or XP wouldnt have crashed in the exact same circumstances is stupid.


----------



## tlarkin

I agree user error accounts for a lot of things.  However, when Joe Blow consumer installs Vista on his machine and then downloads new drivers from the official website say for his, printer or scanner.  Installs them and when he tries to print, the whole system crashes.

How is that his fault, he was doing what everyone told him to do?


----------



## speedyink

tlarkin said:


> How so?



Because Vista as it comes will not crash.  It's when people start adding sketchy 3rd party programs, crappy antivirus programs, sketchy drivers for chinese devices, etc. that Vista will crash.  Same thing goes for XP so the argument that Vista crashes more is moot.  In fact Vista has crashed far less than XP did for me.


----------



## tlarkin

speedyink said:


> Because Vista as it comes will not crash.  It's when people start adding sketchy 3rd party programs, crappy antivirus programs, sketchy drivers for chinese devices, etc. that Vista will crash.  Same thing goes for XP so the argument that Vista crashes more is moot.  In fact Vista has crashed far less than XP did for me.



OK, but that is the developers fault for making a crap program not the end user.  Plus since Windows is so broad you could have a driver that works flawless with your hardware config but with mine it fails every now and then and crashes.

I read that something like 45% of Vista crashes are due to bad drivers.


----------



## Irishwhistle

speedyink said:


> Theres no best OS, there is only a best OS for a certain individual.  It's personal preference, thats all.  It's like arguing that oranges are better than apples.



Finally! Someone with a little common sense! If everyone had that simple idea in their head these "Windows is better than mac so screw you" threads would never happen. It's all about preference... if you've got a good computer and like MS, get Vista. If you like Mac get Mac, but just because you like it doesn't make it better. Same goes for Linux.


----------



## speedyink

tlarkin said:


> I agree user error accounts for a lot of things.  However, when Joe Blow consumer installs Vista on his machine and then downloads new drivers from the official website say for his, printer or scanner.  Installs them and when he tries to print, the whole system crashes.
> 
> How is that his fault, he was doing what everyone told him to do?



I don't think I've ever seen a case where a printer driver causes it to crash.  A more valid point would be if someone bought an mp3 player made in deep china, installs the driver disc and then it crashes whenever it's plugged in.  

It's still not the fault of the OS.
A. it's a cheap product, you get what you pay for
B. the consumer should know this which ultimately does make it the consumers fault.

I never have Vista crash due to anything related to that.  I make sure to buy quality hardware from manufacturers I trust.  It's not exactly a hard thing to do, people are just too dumb to do any sort of research at all with what they're buying.


----------



## tlarkin

speedyink said:


> I don't think I've ever seen a case where a printer driver causes it to crash.  A more valid point would be if someone bought an mp3 player made in deep china, installs the driver disc and then it crashes whenever it's plugged in.
> 
> It's still not the fault of the OS.
> A. it's a cheap product, you get what you pay for
> B. the consumer should know this which ultimately does make it the consumers fault.



I haven't used Vista all that much in the last year, but when it first came out in what January 2006?  I had it on a HP business class desktop with 2 gigs of RAM and a mid range ATI DX9 video card.  It was for testing.

I had like easily 15 device drivers crash the OS.  Wacom tablets were one, a few network printer drivers were some others.  I had office 2k3 crash every time it tried to load a few certain fonts, multiple scanners from the art department didn't work, smart board technology (used in class rooms) totally crashed.

When we evaluated such a huge network wide upgrade we had to look at it from all users perspectives.  Will all this technology the users currently use, work well in Vista?  The answer was no.

Granted some things worked right of the box.  We had these USB doc cams that worked pretty well.  Most digital cameras worked no issue.  

However, I saw so many crashes and conflicts.  The scope of technology really is huge.  I mean there are 1000s of hardware devices I will never ever use.  Like will you buy a USB electron microscope?  I am going to guess, probably not, but those didn't work in Vista either.

So, yeah I saw tons and tons of problems that Vista created that XP never had, and it was the stability and the third party compatibility.  Now, that was a few years ago, and I am sure both Vista and the developers of such items has vastly improved.  However, all of those faults are not the end users they are Microsoft's and the developers of third party products.


----------



## speedyink

I see your point.  In microsofts defense, adding more support for more older hardware devices would add to the bloat of the OS.  Would you rather have more bloat or more plug and play compatibility for older devices?  Really it's the hardware manufacturers that should have these drivers available for download from the website.  While I agree in cases like that it's not the consumers fault, I still think it's up to the consumer to check whether or not their existing hardware is compatible with Vista BEFORE they install it, and whether or not they'd be willing to upgrade to a newer model that is Vista compatible.

I can't wait till microsoft does what apple did with OSX and completely rebuilds the OS from ground up.  Sure it will destroy any backwords compatibility, but it's about time they started from scratch.  I really hope thats what windows 7 is about.


----------



## tlarkin

speedyink said:


> I see your point.  In microsofts defense, adding more support for more older hardware devices would add to the bloat of the OS.  Would you rather have more bloat or more plug and play compatibility for older devices?  Really it's the hardware manufacturers that should have these drivers available for download from the website.  While I agree in cases like that it's not the consumers fault, I still think it's up to the consumer to check whether or not their existing hardware is compatible with Vista BEFORE they install it, and whether or not they'd be willing to upgrade to a newer model that is Vista compatible.
> 
> I can't wait till microsoft does what apple did with OSX and completely rebuilds the OS from ground up.  Sure it will destroy any backwords compatibility, but it's about time they started from scratch.  I really hope thats what windows 7 is about.



Well with windows you already get a bloat via compatibility mode and the registry.  

I agree, I hope Vienna is actually what Vista was suppose to be.  If you look at Vista though, they are definitely migrating towards a more Unix-like file structure.  They now have gotten rid of power users and all the other ridiculous user accounts they had set up, they now require authentication to install software (which is like a HUGE security plus), and you are no longer required to be an admin level user to run programs.

Oh and having MS office 2k3 crash when loading certain fonts, that were freaking developed by MS, in an MS program running on an MS operating system, and it doesn't work?   Seriously, what does that say about their quality control?


----------



## speedyink

tlarkin said:


> Well with windows you already get a bloat via compatibility mode and the registry.
> 
> I agree, I hope Vienna is actually what Vista was suppose to be.  If you look at Vista though, they are definitely migrating towards a more Unix-like file structure.  They now have gotten rid of power users and all the other ridiculous user accounts they had set up, they now require authentication to install software (which is like a HUGE security plus), and you are no longer required to be an admin level user to run programs.
> 
> Oh and having MS office 2k3 crash when loading certain fonts, that were freaking developed by MS, in an MS program running on an MS operating system, and it doesn't work?   Seriously, what does that say about their quality control?



Auugh, I hate power users, and super admins, and all that crap.  As far as I'm concerned, it's MY computer, I own it, and if I want to install something that should be fine.  Thats what pisses me off about Linux.  As far as I'm concerned, as the owner of the computer I should be responsible for setting up the security to the level I want it at.

As far as the Office 2k3, I agree that is pretty bad.


----------



## tlarkin

Well you know why Linux and Unix have zero self propagating viruses in the wild don't you?  It is because they require authentication to install software.  That simple admin password is blocking those nasty viruses.  If windows finally did what every other OS in the world does it would be more secure, people would wine, but eventually they would get over it.


----------



## xsreality

speedyink said:


> Auugh, I hate power users, and super admins, and all that crap.  As far as I'm concerned, it's MY computer, I own it, and if I want to install something that should be fine.  Thats what pisses me off about Linux.  As far as I'm concerned, as the owner of the computer I should be responsible for setting up the security to the level I want it at.
> 
> As far as the Office 2k3, I agree that is pretty bad.



Actually Security through Obscurity often ends up being more disturbing to the user... but it is still required.. Windows has made us used to ignoring such securities by not including it..


----------



## xsreality

i think the only way MS systems can be made secure is by designing it from scratch as speedylink earlier said... secure systems are designed with security in mind and unfortunately microsoft never had security in mind since the time of windows 95! Remember you could press ESC to ignore the user account password dialog box?? lol!


----------



## speedyink

I beg to differ.  I'm not saying it's less secure, because it definately is more secure, but seriously, how secure do we need to be?  Obviously in business related purposes it's important, but I'm not a business user, I'm a personal user.  I have my own ways of blocking viruses, I don't need a super admin whatever password to protect me.  To be totally honest the only time I got a virus was on my now 8 year old laptop with XP and no antivirus software on it, visiting a sketchy website I had a feeling would give me a virus.  That was about 3 years ago.  I really don't know how people get viruses, you practically have to hunt for them to get them.

This all boils down to the whole personal preference thing.

@ xsreality:
I totally remember that.  I also remember starting an XP machine in safe mode, and then going into the admin account which very rarely had a password because no one knew about it.


----------



## tlarkin

xsreality said:


> i think the only way MS systems can be made secure is by designing it from scratch as speedylink earlier said... secure systems are designed with security in mind and unfortunately microsoft never had security in mind since the time of windows 95! Remember you could press ESC to ignore the user account password dialog box?? lol!



I've already covered this before, so I will just give you the cliff notes version on how windows can be more secure

1)  require passwords and authentication

2)  Get rid of kernel hooks

3)  Get rid of Active X, or at least get rid of it having access to kernel hooks

4)  get rid of drive letters, go to sym links and use hardware UUIDs

5)  get rid of the registry

that would Make windows pretty solid.


----------



## Cleric7x9

xsreality said:


> yup i agree it is one of the drawbacks of vista that it requires top of the line hardware to run it.. its sad that microsoft's monopoly has led to it making systems not in sync with the existing hardware of most consumers. *there is always an alternative of mac and linux... bt again, if someone tries it on an incompatible system and faces BSOD screens *(which one will always face with MS systems) and complains that vista is crap then will u agree? my only point is this... that vista works fine on a supported system, thats all.



BSOD is a windows thing...


----------



## xsreality

well i m not technically knowledgeable in operating systems but i think ur above points does suggest a complete system overhaul... i agree registry is one of the most open thing any user can have regarding an OS...


----------



## xsreality

Cleric7x9 said:


> BSOD is a windows thing...



Buddy, that pronoun "It" was for Vista... I think I used it in an ambiguous way...


----------



## G25r8cer

tlarkin said:


> That is probably the dumbest reason to support an OS, or to tell someone they are wrong.  Microsoft is the only company which requires such high specs to run.  Every other OS out there can run on several year old hardware specs just fine, except for windows.



LOL Here we go again with the Mac guy!! Oh no  I knew you were a Windows hater!!


----------



## G25r8cer

speedyink said:


> Because Vista as it comes will not crash.  It's when people start adding sketchy 3rd party programs, crappy antivirus programs, sketchy drivers for chinese devices, etc. that Vista will crash.  Same thing goes for XP so the argument that Vista crashes more is moot.  In fact Vista has crashed far less than XP did for me.



I agree!!!!!!!!!!!!!  No more to say 

The mac boy cant mess with me! lol


----------



## tlarkin

g25racer said:


> LOL Here we go again with the Mac guy!! Oh no  I knew you were a Windows hater!!



I never said anything about the Mac, I was referring to all other OSes that were not Vista, including windows XP.


----------



## tlarkin

xsreality said:


> well i m not technically knowledgeable in operating systems but i think ur above points does suggest a complete system overhaul... i agree registry is one of the most open thing any user can have regarding an OS...



A registry is clunky, bloat, ridiculous, a security risk, and it creates more problems than it helps.  The best thing to do is have self contained applications.


----------



## G25r8cer

tlarkin said:


> I never said anything about the Mac, I was referring to all other OSes that were not Vista, including windows XP.



I believe you were referring to Macs as thats all you talk about! lol

But w/e


----------



## G25r8cer

tlarkin said:


> A registry is clunky, bloat, ridiculous, a security risk, and it creates more problems than it helps.  The best thing to do is have self contained applications.



If you know how to edit, change, and maintain a clean registry then it helps more than hurts!! It all about the know how


----------



## speedyink

What exactly is the benefit of the registry?  I personally hate the idea of it.  Sure it's easy to keep clean, but I definately like the idea of self contained programs more.


----------



## G25r8cer

^^ I think we all prefer that but, windows is not perfect neither is any other OS matter of the fact. But, if you know registry well like me then its no big deal. Also, registry's are better b/c simple reg tweaks can boost system performance by alot!!


----------



## tlarkin

g25racer said:


> If you know how to edit, change, and maintain a clean registry then it helps more than hurts!! It all about the know how



well plists, launch daemons, and user level preferences you get all the benefits of a registry but with none of the crap.


----------



## G25r8cer

^^ Still trying to defend Mac!! Would you open your eyes to other things please?


----------



## tlarkin

g25racer said:


> ^^ Still trying to defend Mac!! Would you open your eyes to other things please?



Are you that obtuse?  I am talking about Linux and Unix, and every single version of Linux and Unix, and yes OS X is a version of it, but not the only one.

All of the *nix's have that.  In fact a system registry is unique to Windows only and it is retarded.


----------



## G25r8cer

^^ Im sorry you feel that way but, we have opinions too you know!! Respect our opinions and we will respect yours. We are not trying to start a war you know. Did we ever say anything on this thread against other systems? Didnt think so


----------



## xsreality

speedyink said:


> What exactly is the benefit of the registry?  I personally hate the idea of it.  Sure it's easy to keep clean, but I definately like the idea of self contained programs more.



Registry is like the about:config of firefox... there are hell lot of tweaks which can be used to boost system performance... of course such a thing is two-edged sword and it can turn into a security threat as well... but again its the way u c it.. for me its a nice windows tweaking platform!


----------



## G25r8cer

^^ Agree


----------



## tlarkin

xsreality said:


> Registry is like the about:config of firefox... there are hell lot of tweaks which can be used to boost system performance... of course such a thing is two-edged sword and it can turn into a security threat as well... but again its the way u c it.. for me its a nice windows tweaking platform!



Here is the flaw with your logic, because you are comparing something like firefox which is a self contained applicaiton so its preferences are held with in its own confines, and it has its own configuration files to the system registry.  Then you go to a registry file which is a shared library file that, for argument's sake say that 4 applications share.  That one file goes awry and now you have 4 applications that don't fully work.  Furthermore if it is a system resource then every user now has that issue in every user account.

With user level preferences and configurations and with self contained apps you get rid of the bloat of the OS, because everything is stored and run at the Application or user level.  Of course there are exceptions, where something may need more resources outside, but those are generally in other directories which share data to those sources.

A registry is nothing more than bloat and  security risk.


----------



## G25r8cer

^^ Why are you still bashing windows? Stop it please. 


P.S. Do you work for mac?


----------



## tlarkin

No,

I used to admin 70 windows servers and 10,000 windows clients, and it was a head ache, now I manage unix users and mac users and it is a lot better in some ways.

Don't expect the registry to stay forever, MS is going to get rid of it sooner or later.

I am not a fan boy of any OS I am just objective with my views.  As of right now, Vista is a pile of crap compared to every other OS out there in the same generation.  It doesn't do anything really that any OS (and that includes EVERY OS OUT THERE) can't do, and it is extremely expensive and feature limiting with little to no price breaks for the consumer.

Hopefully, Vienna will do what Vista was suppose to.  Microsoft has failed with Vista, which is why some companies are still offering XP with their systems.

For the record that wasn't really bashing Windows, it was bashing the registry as being something that is useful.  The other poster was trying to compare it to a self contained application.


----------



## porterjw

> ^^ Why are you still bashing windows? Stop it please.



He wasn't bashing anything; he was explaining what could happen if a Registry entry goes awry. Explanation = bashing? I don't understand.

Could you please explain/bash to me how you draw the comparison.


----------



## G25r8cer

imsati said:


> He wasn't bashing anything; he was explaining what could happen if a Registry entry goes awry. Explanation = bashing? I don't understand.
> 
> Could you please explain/bash to me how you draw the comparison.



Sure! He doesnt specifically say windows but, everything he is refering to is windows and he just says the good things about mac's.


----------



## tlarkin

g25racer said:


> Sure! He doesnt specifically say windows but, everything he is refering to is windows and he just says the good things about mac's.



HAHAH

What I was referring to was Unix/Linux not a Mac.  Wake up and read.  The only OS out there that has a system registry is Windows.  If Windows got rid of it, it would be a lot better of an OS, period.


----------



## G25r8cer

^^ Maybe but, some of us prefer a registry. As I do


----------



## tlarkin

g25racer said:


> ^^ Maybe but, some of us prefer a registry. As I do



That is fine, but preference doesn't mean better though, and I was simply outlining why self contained applications and user level prefs are better.  Microsoft is going to ditch the registry so I wouldn't cling on to it too much.


----------



## G25r8cer

^^ Your preference doesnt matter either!! Therefor dont speak on behalf of Mac or everyone else. Get my point?


----------



## tlarkin

g25racer said:


> ^^ Your preference doesnt matter either!! Therefor dont speak on behalf of Mac or everyone else. Get my point?



I am not talking preference, I am explaining the down sides to a system registry which are actually facts.  If one thing goes wrong and it is a shared resource then every user account is screwed or every application that uses that shared resource no longer works right.  That is a fact!

I don't really see where I said my preference.  You must be a fan boy though because it seems like I am hurting your precious feelings when I constructively criticize the registry.


----------



## G25r8cer

Me a FANBOY? LOL  Your a funny guy! How am I a fanboy when all you do is say the bad things about windows and state the good things about mac?


----------



## tlarkin

g25racer said:


> Me a FANBOY? LOL  Your a funny guy! How am I a fanboy when all you do is say the bad things about windows and state the good things about mac?



I am done after this....

What I am referring to in this thread is not exclusive to OS X, it is used by all Unix and Linux based OSes, so stop saying that.  It was you that cried when I criticized the registry and said I was advertising for Mac and if you go back and reread what I said, you will clearly see I was comparing a registry to Linux/Unix and just explaining to the person who equated a system registry to a config file, which is comparing apples to oranges.


----------



## G25r8cer

tlarkin said:


> I am done after this....
> 
> What I am referring to in this thread is not exclusive to OS X, it is used by all Unix and Linux based OSes, so stop saying that.  It was you that cried when I criticized the registry and said I was advertising for Mac and if you go back and reread what I said, you will clearly see I was comparing a registry to Linux/Unix and just explaining to the person who equated a system registry to a config file, which is comparing apples to oranges.




Alright im done too. I guess we are both fanboys. lol  In a way everyone is a fanboy. You like what you like and most people advertise that. Nothing wrong with that I guess. 

I hope we can leave on good terms, no?


----------



## tlarkin

Dude I don't care what OS you like, and I am not mad.  Just don't take it the wrong way when I point out the flaw in something.  If you read my macintosh thread I point out the flaws of OS X as well.

No OS is bullet proof.


----------



## G25r8cer

tlarkin said:


> Dude I don't care what OS you like, and I am not mad.  Just don't take it the wrong way when I point out the flaw in something.  If you read my macintosh thread I point out the flaws of OS X as well.
> 
> No OS is bullet proof.



Very True!! I get where you are coming from now. 

Are we leaving on good terms then?  Hopefully I can come to you later when I get money to buy a mac. I am getting more and more attracted to them.


----------



## tlarkin

I don't care and it takes a lot for me to get mad over something someone says on the internets.  If I got that mad that easily I'd probably die of high blood pressure with how much I am online.


----------



## G25r8cer

^^ LOL  Yeah im online way too much


----------



## tlarkin

Except now I am heading out to happy hour to meet one of my girl friends, and to drink cheap beers while I can.  With the economy they will probably get rid of cheap beers, and the world food shortage actually affects hops and barely crops so the price of beer is going to go up.


----------



## G25r8cer

^^ For sure. I hate the economy right now. Anyways Have fun


----------



## alexyu

c'mon someone post some secrets...
and do not clean the prefetch directory...it's n use...eventually it slows down your comp


----------



## xsreality

tlarkin said:


> Here is the flaw with your logic, because you are comparing something like firefox which is a self contained applicaiton so its preferences are held with in its own confines, and it has its own configuration files to the system registry.  Then you go to a registry file which is a shared library file that, for argument's sake say that 4 applications share.  That one file goes awry and now you have 4 applications that don't fully work.  Furthermore if it is a system resource then every user now has that issue in every user account.
> 
> With user level preferences and configurations and with self contained apps you get rid of the bloat of the OS, because everything is stored and run at the Application or user level.  Of course there are exceptions, where something may need more resources outside, but those are generally in other directories which share data to those sources.



I don't think comparing registry with config file of firefox is wrong... yes it is a self contained application but in a way even OS is a self contained application.. it is just meant to do bigger and riskier things.. it's like the difference in the gravity of a mistake committed by a clerk and the CEO of a company... since firefox is meant to work at the application level, it just cannot put the system at risk.. on the other hand an OS is supposed to have configuration settings of a hell lot of riskier things.. so obviously it will become a security risk..



tlarkin said:


> A registry is nothing more than bloat and  security risk.



The same could be said about the firefox config as well.. the firefox developers don't warn for nothing when they say that changes to the config of firefox can bring down firefox itself.

But I agree with you that registry is not a good way to implement an OS coz basically it IS a security threat. I don't understand how UNIX/MAC go about doing it w/o using something like registry. And why can't windows implement that way..?


----------



## tlarkin

xsreality said:


> I don't think comparing registry with config file of firefox is wrong... yes it is a self contained application but in a way even OS is a self contained application.. it is just meant to do bigger and riskier things.. it's like the difference in the gravity of a mistake committed by a clerk and the CEO of a company... since firefox is meant to work at the application level, it just cannot put the system at risk.. on the other hand an OS is supposed to have configuration settings of a hell lot of riskier things.. so obviously it will become a security risk..



It is wrong in the sense that I said all OSes should move towards self contained Applications.  Firefox is a shining example of what I am talking about.  

You see but since windows has ridiculous permissions and doesn't require authentication for a process to access the kernel, you can get something from browsing with firefox, then it once it is on your system it has carte blanche to do whatever it damn pleases.  Go back and see my comments on kernel hooks (LOL if that was this thread even, I can't remember).




> The same could be said about the firefox config as well.. the firefox developers don't warn for nothing when they say that changes to the config of firefox can bring down firefox itself.



No developer does, they release notes after you update to notify you of changes, and sometimes on occasion you can read that file on their website before you download, but not always the case.  Both Microsoft and Apple put all major update release notes on their web sites.



> But I agree with you that registry is not a good way to implement an OS coz basically it IS a security threat. I don't understand how UNIX/MAC go about doing it w/o using something like registry. And why can't windows implement that way..?



It is simple really.  In the 90s Microsoft pushed the envelope on technology.  Their OS was doing a lot of things no other OSes could, and they were stealing ideas from every one and implementing those in their OS.  Then marketing it the right way (doing smart business) made their product the most widely used.  Other companies made poor decisions and did not compete like MS did, and it basically made Microsoft the king of software.  Even though it was never the best or better product, but that is a whole other debate.

They developed the registry to allow quick access to developers to write applications in a fast, but sloppy manner.  Allowing them access to resources normally something bad should not have access to.  This allows a crap ton of third party support for Microsoft, and it is part of the greater scheme that made them so rich and powerful in the software world.  However, now that technology is catching up with them, they are starting for the first time to lose market share a bit.  Novell, lost a ton to MS, but is now starting to gain a bit of ground with SuSe Enterprise Linux desktops and servers, and of course RedHat is catching on as well.  Then you have the Mac, which has doubled their market share in the last 2 years and has out sold PC laptops for many months in the last two years.  

There is a market shift that is starting to happen and technology is changing, and once everything becomes web based the OS will really only need to be very simple.

Long story short, MS created the registry as a quick and dirty way to give developers tools to make robust applications.  The downside is, it creates bloat, and of course is a huge security risk, and actually cuts down on stability.


----------



## speedyink

xsreality said:


> I don't understand how UNIX/MAC go about doing it w/o using something like registry. And why can't windows implement that way..?



Cause then people would bitch that microsoft is copying Apple again, and Apple would be forced to create another exciting commercial where PC gets his chest hair, or "registry" shaved off, in order to compete with Macs lack of chest hair/"registry".  And then, as with every other mac vs pc commercial, I'll hate Apple a little more.

I really wish they'd let that ad campaign die already...everytime good ol' mac and pc show up on the tv I want to put a brick through it...


----------



## linkin

^^ I agree with that.
heres something funny to lighten everybodies spirits:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ks-N4rI_1RU

Quite funny for mac and windows users.

EDIT: crap..i keep forgetting to look at the last post date.
at least now i know where to look. my bad.


----------



## Bodaggit23

Nice revive.


----------

