Windows Vista sucks monkey nuts!

[rjohnstone]

I hear ya... that whole "Vista compatible" statement is complete BS.
It basically means it should work, but we haven't really tested it.
I'm glad Microsoft dropped that program. It left MS looking like shit because they depended largely on the vendors to do all the "compatibility" testing.

I'm still not sure what you mean by "Uninstalling Vista". You can't uninstall any OS.
Only delete it or overwrite it.
In Vista's case, the only guaranteed removal method is to simply wipe the partition and start over with a clean drive.

[Razor]

I'm still not sure what you mean by "Uninstalling Vista". You can't uninstall any OS.
Only delete it or overwrite it.
In Vista's case, the only guaranteed removal method is to simply wipe the partition and start over with a clean drive.

Ok, I should have said delete or overwrite.

[hippietim]

Razor, since those Singer sewing machines require a USB port they will require a driver as well. The Singer stuff only works on 32-bit Windows - was the laptop running 64-bit Vista? If so, that won't work.

I've probably installed Windows more than everyone on the JCF combined and it's been years since I couldn't boot with a CD, repartition and/or reformat and install the OS. It sounds like it's too late but I would have been curious to know the exact steps you took.

As for uninstalling Vista in general, I could see where someone would expect to uninstall Vista after doing an upgrade - IOW, reverting to the previous version of Windows on the machine (very few people realize how unbelievably difficult that is). But if the machine came with Vista, uninstalling the OS would put you in a no-boot state which is not particularly useful.

[hippietim]

Ah yes the follies of Microsuck. With every version of Windows, they needlessly rework fundamental ways in which the OS works. At the same time, they put a high priority on backwards compatibility. Those two things put together are a bad combination. 16 bit apps were still supported under XP, as Microsoft kept dragging along all that legacy bullshit. Well, I think they are starting to lose control of it. Their massive convoluted Windows codebase has been a sleeping dragon up until now, but it has finally woken up and scorched the earth over there.

As the person that was the development manager that owned 16-bit support in Windows for a while I can assure you that there is an incredible amount of 16-bit software out there. For instance, there is so much legacy business software out there that companies no longer have the code for (or they never had it).

The biggest headache is actually setup programs if you can believe that. There are many thousands of setup programs for 32-bit programs that actually have 16-bit installers. Typically these are just stubs that would run first and check if you were running on a 32-bit version of Windows before you install and then they would launch the "real" setup (this way if you tried to install a 32-bit program on a 16-bit version of Windows you'd get a decent experience). But very often the whole setup for a 32-bit app will be written in an old 16-bit version Installshield or something like it. Windows on 64-bit platforms doesn't support 16-bit programs but there is support to get past 16-bit installer stubs so you can install most 32-bit software.

Also, there are thousands and thousands of 16-bit games out there. A lot of those $9.99 disks full of 50-100+ games are old 16-bit Windows and DOS games. Most of those actually work pretty good in Virtual PC but try explaining the concept or multiple OS's running independently and concurrently on a single computer to most people and watch their eyes glaze over.

Regarding the "massive convoluted codebase" statement - are you speaking from any first hand knowledge or are you just making stuff up?

[Newc]

The first thing I tried was to select boot sequence by hitting F10 at startup, but it would not let let XP format the hard drive so I could do a clean install with XP.

The hard drive may have had a security setting to prevent that. That's one of the pitfalls of ready-made stuff - those who know what's best for us make important decisions like that to save us from ourselves.

It'll be a glorious day when someone finally gets their head out of their ass and makes it as easy and affordable to build your own laptop - with absolutely no "brand-specific" limitations - as it is to build a desktop.

The only problem I have had is that the manufacturer of some laptops do not offer XP drivers for that particular configuration leaving you no choice BUT to use Vista. -Lou

That's what ruined my XP conversion on my laptop: couldn't find the XP drivers for half the stuff on it. So, I had to put "Windows Retard" back on it and spend an hour in the Control Panel setting it up to look and behave like XP.


Here's a few things I want to know:

-What was wrong with XP that warranted Vista? Seriously.
-Why does Vista bug the shit out of me about my User Account Control being turned off? I turned it off because I was being Inquisitioned whenever I wanted to open a folder or Control Panel, so I shut it off. Suddenly, my computer is at risk of being....what, exactly? Invaded by Martians?

-Office Outlook 2003 cannot export to Outlook Express or Windows Mail format, and those 3 cannot otherwise communicate or share the actual mail data (Inbox, Sent Items, etc). Aren't these made by the same company? Since I removed Office XP Pro and replaced it with Office 2007 H&S, my Outlook mail data is un-importable to Windows Mail. WTF?

-Why does Vista tell me I don't have permission to view the contents of my Documents, Music, Pictures, and other folders? I am the Administrator, and the rightful owner. I have the receipt with my name on it. If I don't have permission, no one on the planet would.

-What dipshit made the following decisions regarding XP and Vista:
--Hide extensions for known file types as Default setting. This is damn stupid.
--We've been told for years that emailed trojans/virii trigger when you open the infected email, but both Outlook (Office XP Pro) and Windows Mail (formerly Outlook Express) have the Preview Pane set to On as default, so that as soon as you select an email - even to delete it - it shows up in the Preview Pane, thus launching the very same virus/trojan you were hoping to avoid.

[Axewielder]

Regarding the "massive convoluted codebase" statement - are you speaking from any first hand knowledge or are you just making stuff up?

My first-hand experience is more on the Windows Mobile stuff, as I did Windows CE and Windows Mobile kernel development for several years for a company that was a partner. Much of that code was a bad port from the Win XP code base, as were much of the build processes. We're talking rough rough stuff here...the whole mess is basically one large race condition.

[hippietim]

My first-hand experience is more on the Windows Mobile stuff, as I did Windows CE and Windows Mobile kernel development for several years for a company that was a partner. Much of that code was a bad port from the Win XP code base, as were much of the build processes. We're talking rough rough stuff here...the whole mess is basically one large race condition.

You are incorrect. Windows Mobile is not a port of the Win XP codebase at all. Not even close.

[hippietim]

-Why does Vista tell me I don't have permission to view the contents of my Documents, Music, Pictures, and other folders? I am the Administrator, and the rightful owner. I have the receipt with my name on it. If I don't have permission, no one on the planet would.

That sounds bizarre. I've never seen that before. If you need help fixing it shoot me a PM.

--We've been told for years that emailed trojans/virii trigger when you open the infected email, but both Outlook (Office XP Pro) and Windows Mail (formerly Outlook Express) have the Preview Pane set to On as default, so that as soon as you select an email - even to delete it - it shows up in the Preview Pane, thus launching the very same virus/trojan you were hoping to avoid.

Actually viewing mail in the preview pane will not launch anything by default - at least not with any of the current versions. None of them allow any script to execute by default (in fact, I think it's a pain to enable). And by default none of them download images for unknown/untrusted senders unless you say so.

[Axewielder]

You are incorrect. Windows Mobile is not a port of the Win XP codebase at all. Not even close.

When I say XP, I am really just referring to the desktop OS's. I'm not certain which branch it came from, but yes...based on the comments in the code, large swaths of it were copied and pasted from one to the other (NDIS for example, as well as much of the file system code). Much of that bulk was just dead code and didn't even make sense in the context of WCE. Obviously large parts of the kernel were rewritten from the ground up. So, in fairness you can argue that it is not a "port" per se. But, my point is that there was enough there to give me a glimpse into what their coding practices are. Needless to say, I wasn't impressed.

[Spivonious]

Just to chime in, I've had zero problems with Vista aside from the 16-bit installer problem Tim described. I've also never had problems going in a reformatting for a reinstall (most recently putting Vista back on after trying out Windows 7 beta).

Also, my mother-in-law has a similar sewing machine (it's a Pfaff though, not a Singer) and it works fine on her Vista laptop. It's pretty crazy what it can do by itself too. She used it to embroider an incredibly complex Celtic knot pattern into a pillow and it took 25 minutes.

I just don't understand the anger towards Vista when it's Singer who made the incompatible application, especially since Vista has been out for 3 years now.

[hippietim]

When I say XP, I am really just referring to the desktop OS's. I'm not certain which branch it came from, but yes...based on the comments in the code, large swaths of it were copied and pasted from one to the other (NDIS for example, as well as much of the file system code). Much of that bulk was just dead code and didn't even make sense in the context of WCE. Obviously large parts of the kernel were rewritten from the ground up. So, in fairness you can argue that it is not a "port" per se. But, my point is that there was enough there to give me a glimpse into what their coding practices are. Needless to say, I wasn't impressed.

Ok, I'll ignore your continued incorrectness because it really doesn't matter. But I would like to understand what the coding practices you saw that you thought were poor. That is something that might matter if you are right. And it is something I can have an impact on. So please elaborate on the problems you identified.

[Axewielder]

Ok, I'll ignore your continued incorrectness because it really doesn't matter. But I would like to understand what the coding practices you saw that you thought were poor. That is something that might matter if you are right. And it is something I can have an impact on. So please elaborate on the problems you identified.

Well this thread could really get involved let me tell you! I'll try to keep my comments to what I know (although there is always a veil of uncertainty when dealing with M$). The early 2.X and 3.X versions of WCE were unique in that they gave the outside world a glimpse into Microsoft core OS source code. We can agree that this is technically not core desktop code. That being said, the comments in the code were hilarious. You'd see things like "Frank told me to turn off interrupts here, I have no idea why" and "not sure what any of this does". At the MEDC conferences (formerly Devcon), this crap became the butt of jokes with us partners. Microsoft apparantly got embarrassed, and low and behold...the next drop of the core WCE OS source had ALL of the comments stripped out. Thanks guys! Appreciate it.

[hippietim]

So some comments in the code seemed inappropriate to you. I've seen comments like that in the code for defense systems. What, if anything, was actually wrong with the code you saw? And I mean at scale - a few comments isn't exactly "massive" and "convoluted" or "one big race condition". Surely there was something more egregious than what you've described thus far.

[Axewielder]

And I mean at scale - a few comments isn't exactly "massive" and "convoluted" or "one big race condition".

Fair enough. So, I am of the opinion that the WCE codebase is waaaay out of control. In the WCE world, you have what is called an "AK", or "Adaptation Kit". This is basically operating system code, platform reference code, binaries, compilers, tools, etc. Now keep in mind a WCE kernel might only be 128 MB or so in size. Q: How big of an AK is required to build a 128 MB kernel? A: North of 2 GB!! That thing was a total monster. The build process is largely undocumented, and the complexity of it was absurd. The funny thing is, that 2 GB AK only included a small percentage of the core OS code...it wasn't even complete!

[Axewielder]

The AK's also didn't play well with Microsoft's own version control systems like SourceSafe. If you tried to check it in, the read only file attributes would tear that thing to shreds. It didn't handle it gracefully, either...you would just get subtle errors in your kernels that took a few days to debug