Members philthygeezer Posted February 4, 2009 Members Share Posted February 4, 2009 Is there a patch or a fix for this bull{censored} other than upgrading to XP or Linux or Mac? Apparently the problem's existed since 2007. However I can't find a fix. Mother{censored}ers better give me Windows 7 for free if I can't even move folders around. :mad::mad: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members HackedByChinese! Posted February 4, 2009 Members Share Posted February 4, 2009 What are you doing that causes this issue to exhibit itself? Moving directories with a lot of other directories in them? EDIT: Never mind, I was just able to replicate the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members philthygeezer Posted February 4, 2009 Author Members Share Posted February 4, 2009 What are you doing that causes this issue to exhibit itself? Moving directories with a lot of other directories in them? EDIT: Never mind, I was just able to replicate the issue. That was easy! Dragging and dropping with the shift key down. Also tried cut and paste. Same silly-buggers thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Hearafter Posted February 4, 2009 Members Share Posted February 4, 2009 Vista sucks. I just checked my task manager... 64 processes running. SIXTY-{censored}ING-FOUR!!! Shut 'em down, and they come back up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ToeJamFootball Posted February 4, 2009 Members Share Posted February 4, 2009 Vista sucks. I just checked my task manager... 64 processes running. SIXTY-{censored}ING-FOUR!!! Shut 'em down, and they come back up. I'm on XP Pro and it has 41. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members 82Daion Posted February 4, 2009 Members Share Posted February 4, 2009 Vista sucks. I just checked my task manager... 64 processes running. SIXTY-{censored}ING-FOUR!!! Shut 'em down, and they come back up. The ULTIMATE metric for objectively determining the excellence of an operating system! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members HackedByChinese! Posted February 4, 2009 Members Share Posted February 4, 2009 Vista sucks. I just checked my task manager... 64 processes running. SIXTY-{censored}ING-FOUR!!! Shut 'em down, and they come back up. BIG NUMBERS NEVER MIND WHAT ALL THOSE NUMBERS ARE DOING, I WANT SMALLER NUMBERS, DAMMIT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members HackedByChinese! Posted February 4, 2009 Members Share Posted February 4, 2009 It looks like a bug. It's not present in Windows 7 (at least not yet, I haven't been able to replicate it under that OS.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Hearafter Posted February 4, 2009 Members Share Posted February 4, 2009 BIG NUMBERSNEVER MIND WHAT ALL THOSE NUMBERS ARE DOING, I WANT SMALLER NUMBERS, DAMMIT Do you really expect me to believe that I NEED things like "iTunesHelper.exe" or "AppleMobileDeviceServer.exe" or "mDNSRresponder.exe" running in the backgound?I recall that when Vista first came out, people said that if you get less than 2 gigs of RAM, your performance is screwed. I have to belive it, because in my experience, XP runs noticeably better on 1 gig. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members philthygeezer Posted February 4, 2009 Author Members Share Posted February 4, 2009 Vista sucks. I just checked my task manager... 64 processes running. SIXTY-{censored}ING-FOUR!!! Shut 'em down, and they come back up. Stop installing so much {censored}, and don't let your software monitor the internet for upgrades. :poke: (I have 85 running - no matter.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members HackedByChinese! Posted February 4, 2009 Members Share Posted February 4, 2009 Do you really expect me to believe that I NEED things like "iTunesHelper.exe" or "AppleMobileDeviceServer.exe" or "mDNSRresponder.exe" running in the backgound? Two of those are related to Apple software, not the underlying OS. I recall that when Vista first came out, people said that if you get less than 2 gigs of RAM, your performance is screwed. I have to belive it, because in my experience, XP runs noticeably better on 1 gig. This, in and of itself, is not related to the number of running processes on the system, and I'm willing to bet that your system is perfectly responsive as I type this if you have 2GB of RAM in your machine. It has everything to do with the fact that Vista caches your most-used applications in RAM so that they load faster. You'll also note that Vista will automatically free up this RAM if the system needs it. XP will run better with 1GB of RAM because it doesn't have this aggressive caching behavior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Thunderbroom Posted February 4, 2009 Members Share Posted February 4, 2009 It looks like a bug. It's not present in Windows 7 (at least not yet, I haven't been able to replicate it under that OS.) So how'd you get Win7 and how do you like it compared to Vista and XP? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members wades_keys Posted February 4, 2009 Members Share Posted February 4, 2009 So how'd you get Win7 and how do you like it compared to Vista and XP? It's in beta - you can dl it free if you dare... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Thunderbroom Posted February 4, 2009 Members Share Posted February 4, 2009 It's in beta - you can dl it free if you dare... I see that it expires in August 2009. I'll wait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members W33nie Posted February 4, 2009 Members Share Posted February 4, 2009 Is there a patch or a fix for this bull{censored} other than upgrading to XP or Linux or Mac? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members HackedByChinese! Posted February 4, 2009 Members Share Posted February 4, 2009 So how'd you get Win7 and how do you like it compared to Vista and XP? It's in public beta for a little longer; you can get the disk image here. If you don't like Vista, you will be disappointed, because it doesn't turn back the clock on any of the underlying system changes made therein. I liked Vista, so I like Win7 even more. A lot of the changes they made have been in the interface elements that you and I touch on a daily basis. By far, the most major new feature is the overhaul of the taskbar, which now works somewhat more like an application launcher first and a window manager second in its default state (it can be modified to behave more like the old-style taskbar through a Properties change.) I really hated this at first, but I've been working with it for some time now and the new methods of working with windows it allows for have started to grow on me. People have compared it strongly to the OS X dock, but I don't think it's a copy of it per se. Here's a reasonable discussion of how it works. The other big thing is the addition of something Microsoft calls Libraries, which I think of as folder "aggregators" that basically serve as one-stop jumping-off points for accessing multimedia objects that may or may not be on your local machine. Microsoft is concurrently adding a feature called Homegroups that'll leverage these by tying all the networked machines in your house together. Within a homegroup, for example, you can add the Pictures or Music folder on several separate machines to your Pictures or Music Library on another so that you only have to click on the Library to find all of this scattered media. If I have a home theater PC connected to the TV in my living room, for example, I could set up Libraries on that machine to grab stuff from my desktop PC in the bedroom for presentation on the TV. It also makes User Account Control (the nagging window that demands an escalation of privileges whenever you need administrative rights) a lot less intrusive, which I think will be a major annoyance reducer when compared to Vista. It's an evolutionary release, but it feels very polished and won't demand any greater system resources than a given Vista PC to run well-in fact, it's a little lighter than Vista, if anything, as it can run on netbooks and other low-power systems. Overall, I think it'll be a winner once it hits store shelves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members philthygeezer Posted February 4, 2009 Author Members Share Posted February 4, 2009 I like Vista - I just want the bugs gone. Leaner, meaner and kill the CMS please. Don't forget that XP was a POS when it went to market umpteen years ago. Win2K was the last really solid OS. IMO a Win2K-like simple gui would be fantastic. Keep the OS out of my face and make it robust, powerful and scalable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members HackedByChinese! Posted February 4, 2009 Members Share Posted February 4, 2009 I like Vista - I just want the bugs gone. Leaner, meaner and kill the CMS please.Don't forget that XP was a POS when it went to market umpteen years ago. Win2K was the last really solid OS. IMO a Win2K-like simple gui would be fantastic. Keep the OS out of my face and make it robust, powerful and scalable. Win7 will accomplish this, IMO. Win2K was horrendous in terms of security at first and has more or less been superseded by WinXP in almost every regard for day-to-day use. I wasn't a big computer guy when 2K was current, but I think that time has glossed over a lot of the flaws with that OS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Guttermouth Posted February 4, 2009 Members Share Posted February 4, 2009 What are you doing that causes this issue to exhibit itself? Moving directories with a lot of other directories in them? EDIT: Never mind, I was just able to replicate the issue. bwahahaha. this post cracked me up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members philthygeezer Posted February 4, 2009 Author Members Share Posted February 4, 2009 Win7 will accomplish this, IMO. Win2K was horrendous in terms of security at first and has more or less been superseded by WinXP in almost every regard for day-to-day use. I wasn't a big computer guy when 2K was current, but I think that time has glossed over a lot of the flaws with that OS. Maybe true. Win2k likely needed a bit more in terms of spybot/adaware etc. But I never really had an issue with it. Only switched because OpenGL and Directdraw were going to be supported on XP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Apendecto Posted February 4, 2009 Members Share Posted February 4, 2009 Word on the street is Windows 7 is the last version they are doing. How can this be possible with new technology popping up all the time? In a related note, I reinstalled XP on my new computer due to the buggyness of Vista. After I stopped so many of the "you might wreck your com if you do this bubbles" from popping up, it wasn't bad. But it still had problems running some programs and my new wireless card. Yo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members wades_keys Posted February 4, 2009 Members Share Posted February 4, 2009 I wasn't a big computer guy when 2K was current, but I think that time has glossed over a lot of the flaws with that OS. I was and still am. Win2k was by far the most rock-solid O/S on release that MS has ever produced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members t3ch Posted February 4, 2009 Members Share Posted February 4, 2009 Do you really expect me to believe that I NEED things like "iTunesHelper.exe" or "AppleMobileDeviceServer.exe" or "mDNSRresponder.exe" running in the backgound? I recall that when Vista first came out, people said that if you get less than 2 gigs of RAM, your performance is screwed. I have to belive it, because in my experience, XP runs noticeably better on 1 gig. :poke: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members wades_keys Posted February 4, 2009 Members Share Posted February 4, 2009 Do you really expect me to believe that I NEED things like "iTunesHelper.exe" or "AppleMobileDeviceServer.exe" or "mDNSRresponder.exe" running in the backgound?I recall that when Vista first came out, people said that if you get less than 2 gigs of RAM, your performance is screwed. I have to belive it, because in my experience, XP runs noticeably better on 1 gig. Just follow the few simple steps below to remove Bonjour fro your computer. 1. Go to Start > Run > type the command below and hit OK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Johnny_Crab Posted February 5, 2009 Members Share Posted February 5, 2009 Is there a patch or a fix for this bull{censored} other than upgrading to XP or Linux or Mac? Mother{censored}ers better give me Windows 7 for free if I can't even move folders around. :mad: :mad: VISTA = WINDOWS ME's zombie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.