Vista Use Causes Suicide

[Hellbent]

at least it will if I continue to use it.
I'm wondering if anyone knows how to search for .zip and .rar files on my computer. Yep--search doesn't seem to find any and I know I have tons of them. It's so geared to searching for the average person who wants to find their photos or music.... I want to find my zip files so I can delete them.... *gags on supershotgun*

I checked the option that says yes, look for compressed files in the search. My search criteria was '*.zip;*.rar' (without quotes)--should I type in something else?

[Bucket]

By default, Vista only searches indexed locations. Have you done an advanced search?

Also, this has been bothering me forever. What the hell is your avatar??

[Hellbent]

Bucket said:

What the hell is your avatar??

A freakish old man screaming at the wind. I dunno. I need to find a better one, tho.

[Maes]

The only reason I'd consider Vista suicide, would be if XP turns out to be uninstallable on newer computers (certain laptops have come dangerously close to that, unless you know how to work around it). Then I'd really consider sticking to old hardware :-/

[fraggle]

dir /s *.zip

[r_rr]

Maes said:

The only reason I'd consider Vista suicide, would be if XP turns out to be uninstallable on newer computers

I don't think windows xp will be uninstallable on new machines for a long time. Espcially if you are handy with computers. But, if they start to implement 128 bit operating systems and hardware, then maybe windows xp will start having problems. :o But 64 bit is in the minority, even for computer enthusiests, so it will be a while.

Read this.

[Maes]

The few cases of incompatibility I've seen in practice were not due to some super-duper underlying 128 or 256-bit architecture we're not aware of, but because of something much more subtle: some laptops have internal SATA disks with an AHCI interface, for which Windows XP does not have built in drivers.

No HDD disk detected, nowhere to install.

And don't be too hasty to propose using a vendor disk...under Windows XP, you can't use anything but a floppy, for 3rd party vendor drivers. Laptop + floppies = you are stuck.

OK....so there was a hidden option in the BIOS to make the disk appear as "legacy IDE compatible" and that made things work, but how far is the day where there will be no "compatible mode" on new laptops? Or even desktops, for that matter...

The only solution, assuming that an XP driver even exists, would be to to use nLite to make a custom installation CD with slipstreamed drivers...far too much for a home user that just wanted to install XP.

[Csonicgo]

I love XP, but sadly it's about to hit a brick wall head-on in terms of limits. The 4 GB RAM limit, hardware limits, etc etc., makes me dread the day I have to switch to another version.

Which is why MS pisses me off so much. If Microsoft created another version of XP-64, that didn't suck, ran 32-bit programs perfectly, and allowed new technologies, People would flock to that like an after-thanksgiving sale.

This is kind of one of the perks with Linux. While it's up-to-date(such that it is) a person can use a GUI from 1995 if he wanted to. He doesn't have to relearn shit he doesn't want to just to stay protected or use the latest hardware.

Maybe that's why MS has kept the classic windows look for so long. But it's not really "the classic feel". the control panel feels so fragmented, someone decided that display properties should be broken up into pieces, shit like that. Audio settings are even worse, with sound cards now carrying the moniker "speakers" (they aren't) and many other stupid things that MS changed, that really didn't need to BE changed.

I know XP sucked, but we got used to it, and when MS thought it would be cool to change everything we had just gotten used to for good- deciding to listen to the pre-SP1 us instead of the 2007 us, they gave us the shitfest that is vista. It's akin to the cable company switching the channels around just as you memorized where everything was.

Regarding Vista, I can't even find out where the sound recorder is. I can't even record sound I hear from my speakers internally as I used to. I can't log conversations anymore due to this, and I can't transfer my old vinyl records to a lossless format due to Vista's horrible audio system.

Shit.

[Mindless Rambler]

Csonicgo said:

If Microsoft created another version of XP-64, that didn't suck, ran 32-bit programs perfectly, and allowed new technologies, People would flock to that like an after-thanksgiving sale.

Yeah, it's called Windows XP Professional x64 Edition, but that's technically just a rebranded Windows Server 2003 x64.

[Bucket]

XP64 is pretty sweet. Compatibility isn't as big a problem as people let on.

[leileilol]

i use a stupid old tool called sifilefinder to do file searching since xp constantly halts and has a memory leak when it hits one of those zips from my 80s/90s file archive folders

[Hellbent]

I feel like an idiot. Vista found the files when I restricted my search to *.zip vs. *.zip;*.rar. I thought semicolons were allowed in searches. But thanks for the Command Prompt search fraggle, as I couldn't remember how to search sub folders vis that method.

Bucket said:

[snip]
Also, this has been bothering me forever. What the hell is your avatar??

It is one who has been tortured and twisted by Hell.

[Bucket]

Csonicgo said:

Regarding Vista, I can't even find out where the sound recorder is. I can't even record sound I hear from my speakers internally as I used to. I can't log conversations anymore due to this, and I can't transfer my old vinyl records to a lossless format due to Vista's horrible audio system.

Weird, I thought I replied to this. Anyway, Vista has disabled recording from "stereo mix". You have the RIAA to thank for that.

[Bloodshedder]

Bucket said:

Weird, I thought I replied to this. Anyway, Vista has disabled recording from "stereo mix". You have the RIAA to thank for that.

There are three reasons this can happen, and the RIAA isn't one of them.

1. It is disabled/hidden in the mixer (Volume Control) options.
2. You are using a sound card that does not support it.
3. You are using drivers for your sound card that do not support it.

[TheeXile]

Having to end the explorer.exe task in order to circumvent DoomBuilder errors is fucking annoying.

[Zaldron]

Did you try commas instead of semicolons before making this thread?

[GreyGhost]

Csonicgo said:

I know XP sucked, but we got used to it, and when MS thought it would be cool to change everything we had just gotten used to for good- deciding to listen to the pre-SP1 us instead of the 2007 us, they gave us the shitfest that is vista.

I'm waiting for the inevitable chorus of complaints from Vista users that'll follow the release of Windows 7.

[Hellbent]

Zaldron said:

Did you try commas instead of semicolons before making this thread?

Nope :/

[Bucket]

Bloodshedder said:

There are three reasons this can happen, and the RIAA isn't one of them.

1. It is disabled/hidden in the mixer (Volume Control) options.
2. You are using a sound card that does not support it.
3. You are using drivers for your sound card that do not support it.

Funny, I remember that being a huge issue a few years ago.

Anyway, yeah, I found it. Right-click on the Volume icon, select "recording devices", right-click under devices, select "show disabled devices".

[Graf Zahl]

This thread is amazingly full of bullshit about Vista... :D

[Maes]

Bucket said:

Funny, I remember that being a huge issue a few years ago.

There was indeed an issue, but it regarded HD video output from DVDs/Blu Ray disks, which had to be:

1. Downgraded for users of unencrypted HDMI or DVI outputs.
   
2. Not be directly/easily accessible to any API to prevent recording it.
   

To implement the latter requirement, they went as far as doing most of the processing and memory copying in encrypted form (!), hoping to somehow implement a magic "quantum" channel inside your computer...ofc, bits are bits...draw your conclusions.

[Bucket]

Well, there you go.

[Prince of Darkness]

Graf Zahl said:

This thread is amazingly full of bullshit about Vista... :D

Gotta problem' with that :D ?

[Maes]

Graf Zahl said:

This thread is amazingly full of Vista's bullshit... :D

Don't thank me for correcting you, please.

[jallamann]

Vista works perfectly if you can get your head out of your ass and have a little patience while learning it.
Sure, it's got a bit bigger memory overhead and things aren't where they were in Windows XP, but it was exactly the same when Windows XP hit the streets too.

[Maes]

jallamann said:

Sure, it's got a bit bigger memory overhead and things aren't where they were in Windows XP, but it was exactly the same when Windows XP hit the streets too.

Hmm...but can I run Vista on a Pentium 166 MHz with 64 MB of RAM, while being able to keep three explorer and one Office XP windows open and doing some work with it? I have done and had to do this several times with XP SP3, due to workplace restraints and constrictions.

With Vista, the requirements leap is bigger than ever before, if you exclude the MS-DOS/Win3.1 vs Windows 95 leap (although none using those on a min spec machine would seriously consider installing Windows 95 on it).

In comparison, Vista is clearly designed for modern hardware, there's no way you can downstrip it enough to run with less than 256 MB of RAM.

[Graf Zahl]

Maes said:

Hmm...but can I run Vista on a Pentium 166 MHz with 64 MB of RAM, while being able to keep three explorer and one Office XP windows open and doing some work with it? I have done and had to do this several times with XP SP3, due to workplace restraints and constrictions.

Masochist!

In the end I found a perfectly acceptable 3 GHz P4 with 512MB RAM insufficient for running XP.
What's the point of running a modern OS on such an old and outdated piece of hardware? It has not been a consideration when designing anything post-Win98 so if you get XP to run it's a bonus, not something to take for granted.

[Maes]

Graf Zahl said:

Masochist!

In the end I found a perfectly acceptable 3 GHz P4 with 512MB RAM insufficient for running XP.

Greedy urchin!

Seriously though, nothing prevents from running XP on such a machine, and if given more ram (128...192...or -gasp- 256 MB) it makes a perfectly acceptable "typewriter PC" (which is what most of these machines are used for anyway, thus saving a "better" machine for something more demanding like image processing).

Ok, the average PC of the "arsenal" I've to deal with everyday is typically a P-III/early Celeron/P4, while the most obvious shortcoming is the quantity of RAM per machine, which rarely exceeds 256 MB. That being said, there's also a sizeable number of early Slot 1 P-III and P-II, and the occasional Pentium MMX.

Given the choice, I prefer giving an office grunt a Pentium I/II and keep the III/IV's in stock for "high power" applications (typically playing back a video or loading a hefty powerpoint applications). The real killer, for all these machines, are failing hard disks (regardless of age), PSUs next, and capacitors on certain types of motherboards.