Vista is blocking my downloads

[bonjurkes]

actually i am using 2 os at the same time.

XP is for games and Vista for work. But actually when i want to use dreamweaver it screws up the computer because vista already use too much ram plus i am running some other programs at background so it makes me crazy.

actually i don't want to say use XP to people i am not a ms fan, i even hate ie7 because it also mess up everything. I also hate god damn firefox because its " the server responding too late" errors. I am using Opera now also but it also kills system if you are using it with Vista but its much better than ie7.

Maybe i should just downgrade to XP and use maxthon, because If you have less than 2 gb ram Vista is not a good idea if you don't want to read whole daily newspaper while Vista fully ready.

[Mihx]

Originally Posted by bonjurkes

...

actually i don't want to say use XP to people i am not a ms fan, i even hate ie7 because it also mess up everything. I also hate god damn firefox because its " the server responding too late" errors. I am using Opera now also but it also kills system if you are using it with Vista but its much better than ie7.

Maybe i should just downgrade to XP and use maxthon, because If you have less than 2 gb ram Vista is not a good idea if you don't want to read whole daily newspaper while Vista fully ready.

2 GB seems to be the sweet spot for Vista - anything less, or at least anything less than 1.5 and it will regularly feel sluggish during normal operation, and more is really only needed if you use your computer for things like 3D rendering or video or (very heavy) image editing (and to utilize more than around 3.2 GB it's worth noting that you need a 64-bit Vista version).

If you're having problems with Opera and other browsers "killing" your system, I'm assuming you don't have enough RAM (and you sort of indicate that of course).

Everything I've been doing on this Vista laptop (40+ tabs in two Opera windows, several tabs in IE7, torrent downloads, 720p HD video in WMP, CorelDraw X3 - each on their own or all at the same time, and obviously with the Vista Aero theme, sidebar gadgets and other visual stuff turned on) has been smooth sailing with 2 GB RAM, and I even have my CPU set at 60% speed in the power management options most of the time to keep the fan noise down on this laptop.

[lgabi]

I'm wondering, how many people of the ones who says that vista is bad, had actually worked on vista for at least 1 week ?

and again, what's that bullshit of turning UAC off ? That's the worst advice I ever heard. You can tweak UAC how ever you want to work just read more

In a nix based os do you go and work as root directly ? If you do than I have no words

[Mihx]

Originally Posted by lgabi

I'm wondering, how many people of the ones who says that vista is bad, had actually worked on vista for at least 1 week ?

and again, what's that bullshit of turning UAC off ? That's the worst advice I ever heard. You can tweak UAC how ever you want to work just read more

In a nix based os do you go and work as root directly ? If you do than I have no words

While just yesterday on hardware/software forum, I critizized some Vista tweaking for going unnecessarily overboard in their "turn this off, turn that off" suggestions (like the extremely useful indexed search, which is only a - very moderate - system killer during the initial indexing phase), I do feel that UAC - as well as the Windows security notifications - are among those things I had no reasons to keep around if I otherwise got the usual proper security measures in place (firewall, regular virus and spyware scans, everything critical - like passwords - locked down and encrypted).

I'm assuming you can tweak UAC to only rarely ask for those annoying user confirmations and passwords, but doesn't that sort of defeat the purpose of that feature?

[Hyballs]

Hi bonjurkes, back-up all your data to an external HD with something like AutobackupPro, then reformat the HD, then load XP. It's easy enough to do!

[lgabi]

Not quite, because UAC will still alert you when someone/something is trying to access vital folders, settings, etc. of windows. And this is good when malicious files are trying to access system folder or to auto-add them to startup or maybe when someone tries to change your anti-virus/firewall rules (you don't want something like that to happen, don't you ?).
And I will point the example with linux systems again. If you're trying to update or to change some vital files/settings, you will be required to login as root, or else you can't do anything... quite the same thing and here or not?

[Mihx]

Originally Posted by lgabi

Not quite, because UAC will still alert you when someone/something is trying to access vital folders, settings, etc. of windows. And this is good when malicious files are trying to access system folder or to auto-add them to startup or maybe when someone tries to change your anti-virus/firewall rules (you don't want something like that to happen, don't you ?).
And I will point the example with linux systems again. If you're trying to update or to change some vital files/settings, you will be required to login as root, or else you can't do anything... quite the same thing and here or not?

While I'm all for added security, I also feel it's worth weighing the typical risks against extra annoyances added by frequent password and confirmation requests and nagging warnings about system/application operations that will be entirely harmless 999,999 times out of a million.

In the last six or seven years I've had two virus infections - both of them because of my own stupidity (connecting a freshly installed Win 2000 to a large LAN and the Internet before I got a firewall up - you would think I ought to have learnt my lesson after the first time ), and the spyware/malware scans I typically run every couple of weeks rarely come up with anything more serious than a couple of tracking cookies from well known websites.

Yes, if your computer does indeed get infected with a trojan or some other nasty stuff, those extra layers of security (UAC or similar, assorted warnings from either Windows security center or an advanced firewall like Comodo) can quite possibly save your system - but when I, barring those two cases of user stupidity, haven't had anything nasty (assorted porn movies aside ) on any of my computers for over six years, running them on average 16 hours a day, I tend to lean towards the conclusion that I can safely live with just a non-nagging firewall (currently using two, the very basic one built into Vista and the one in my wireless router) and regular virus and malware scans.

I might swear rather loudly should that unfortunate one in a million chance event ever happen, but at least then I'll know I've got incremental and uninfected backups lying around here, there and everywhere - onsite and offsite - and that my most sensitive data is protected by encryption if someone should run off with those files.

[Greg B]

Originally Posted by Mihx

2 GB seems to be the sweet spot for Vista - anything less, or at least anything less than 1.5 and it will regularly feel sluggish during normal operation, and more is really only needed if you use your computer for things like 3D rendering or video or (very heavy) image editing (and to utilize more than around 3.2 GB it's worth noting that you need a 64-bit Vista version).

If you're having problems with Opera and other browsers "killing" your system, I'm assuming you don't have enough RAM (and you sort of indicate that of course).

Everything I've been doing on this Vista laptop (40+ tabs in two Opera windows, several tabs in IE7, torrent downloads, 720p HD video in WMP, CorelDraw X3 - each on their own or all at the same time, and obviously with the Vista Aero theme, sidebar gadgets and other visual stuff turned on) has been smooth sailing with 2 GB RAM, and I even have my CPU set at 60% speed in the power management options most of the time to keep the fan noise down on this laptop.

I never use a new Microsoft product. They live on selling us Beta versions. I usually wait at a minimum 1 year after issue to even try it.

Your power specs are spot on. I've got a new system and max ram. I need it for the graphics I do and now more video work. The freaking games alone like the Half Life 2 series demand mega RAM.

I often laugh because every year puters get more powerful and programs ramp it up to keep up and vice versa and it still takes just as much time now to open a folder as it used to.

[Greg B]

Originally Posted by Mihx

2 GB seems to be the sweet spot for Vista - anything less, or at least anything less than 1.5 and it will regularly feel sluggish during normal operation, and more is really only needed if you use your computer for things like 3D rendering or video or (very heavy) image editing (and to utilize more than around 3.2 GB it's worth noting that you need a 64-bit Vista version).

If you're having problems with Opera and other browsers "killing" your system, I'm assuming you don't have enough RAM (and you sort of indicate that of course).

Everything I've been doing on this Vista laptop (40+ tabs in two Opera windows, several tabs in IE7, torrent downloads, 720p HD video in WMP, CorelDraw X3 - each on their own or all at the same time, and obviously with the Vista Aero theme, sidebar gadgets and other visual stuff turned on) has been smooth sailing with 2 GB RAM, and I even have my CPU set at 60% speed in the power management options most of the time to keep the fan noise down on this laptop.

I never use a new Microsoft product. They live on selling us Beta versions. I usually wait at a minimum 1 year after issue to even try it.

Your power specs are spot on. I've got a new system and max ram. I need it for the graphics I do and now more video work. The freaking games alone like the Half Life 2 series demand mega RAM.

I often laugh because every year puters get more powerful and programs ramp it up to keep up and vice versa and it still takes just as much time now to open a folder as it used to.

[lgabi]

Mihx you're right! But you speak about this from your own point of view. But, you forgot the ones that don't know a thing about security and they enter on a page with, let's say, Zango spyware and that little activex bastard shows them a nice presentation picture and tells them that in order to play that game or to see that movie they need to click Yes or OK and in this way because the person doesn't know a damn about what will happen next he will click it.
But Vista will block it and will require the admin password in order to proceed with the install. And in that way, maybe the user will think more before he will proceed.

So, my point is: for the people who have a decent system protection configuration in mind, they can disable UAC or do whatever they like... but for the ones that only play games and download mp3's it's quite handy. This way, the fault will be 100% of the user if his system goes down

[raymor]

Originally Posted by EuroRev_Stacey

Vista has hi-specs required too and it sucks...like you I use to plan of downgrading it to XP but my lappy distributor said that it might cause some errors if they downgrade to XP... got no choice but to stick to this OS. Glad that I'm finally getting used to it each day

Linux is always an option. I'll send install disks to anyone who asks.

[Mihx]

Originally Posted by raymor

Linux is always an option. I'll send install disks to anyone who asks.

How well is Linux handling things like wireless network adapters and large widescreen monitor resolutions?
I hear "newbie friendly" distros like Ubuntu should pretty much identify and setup everything needed - including proper drivers - on its own during installation, but does that also apply to things like the ones mentioned above, or is anything beyond the most common hardware (wired network, 4:3 monitors etc.) going to require lots of research and manual work for a newbie to get up and running properly?

I'm considering installing Linux on one of my desktop computers once I get around to getting it repaired (fried mainboard), but I remember my last experience with Mandrake Linux around six years ago definately wouldn't have been particularly pleasant or smooth if it wasn't because I enjoyed spending hours upon hours reading up on and fiddling around with the OS back in those days.
I can't say I feel quite as adventurous when it comes to technology these days - though obviously I would expect to have to put in a bit of an effort to learn my way around a new OS, but preferably without having to live with a severely crippled system for days until I figured out how to get even basic features (like an Internet connection or a proper screen resolution) working correctly.