You know what i dont understand?

Why Microsoft havent made unbeliveably godly/awesome software They are the richest company, they can just throw cash at things to make them program better. They have the resources. Yet small companies/groups of people are having far better software design then they have .

A good example is, IE, its slow, full of securety holes, takes up 20mb(hdd), slow.

Opera and FireFox on the other hand have 5mb(hdd), fast, very secure.

I just dont see how Microsoft are doing this! Theres and efficeny problem lately that all there software has. Vista.... is highly unefficent, one of the biggist flaws on it. SP3 has shown to SLOW down a few scarnarios in XP..... somethings wrong with Microsoft.....

But enough of that rant.....

quote:

---

Originally posted by mattisdada
They are the richest company

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by x2zen

quote:

---

Originally posted by mattisdada
They are the richest company

---

I believe that would be The Coca-Cola Company, not Microsoft.

---

According to CNN's 2008 Fortune 500 list, Walmart is #1. 

Microsoft comes in at 44 and Coca Cola comes at 83

Forbes says HSBC Holdings is #1 and Microsoft about #63 and Coca Cola doesn't even come into the top 100.

Bill Gates is also only the 3rd richest man now.

Meh, I saw the most valuable brand list, my bad

I always remembered exxon-mobil being on top, dodgy walmart has taken over

A damn good statment to! Because a mod split it .

Oh well anyway, even though they are not the richEST, there still VERY rich.

I got really frustrated when Vista updated itself and restarted without telling me, and I lost half the essay I wrote ...

I use my iPod touch and iTunes and instantly I know where everything is, Apple software is extremely user friendly. I think Microsoft just don't get their customers.

quote:

---

Originally posted by absorbation
I got really frustrated when Vista updated itself and restarted without telling me, and I lost half the essay I wrote ...

I use my iPod touch and iTunes and instantly I know where everything is, Apple software is extremely user friendly. I think Microsoft just don't get their customers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Th3rmal

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike
Microsoft Office.

---

thats a good argument right there

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by absorbation
I got really frustrated when Vista updated itself and restarted without telling me, and I lost half the essay I wrote ...

I use my iPod touch and iTunes and instantly I know where everything is, Apple software is extremely user friendly. I think Microsoft just don't get their customers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jarrod

quote:

---

Originally posted by Th3rmal

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike
Microsoft Office.

---

thats a good argument right there

---

office was only half done when you see it from mattisdada's development POV you actually realize that he is right and office 2007 sucks balls, the reasons for this:
-there is no simple way to convert docx files to doc so if you forget or didn't realize someone didn't have 2007 your screwed
-the new xml layout is unnecessary and only half completed (some objects won't group together properly)
-publisher doesn't have a ribbon which was a big development mistake
-from what i have read the new engine for word 2007 was only half implemented, because they rushed the end of it and used old word code to complete it in time for the release of vista, that's why only power point has decent word art

and also although not part of office directly web expressions should have had a ribbon and there is no excuse for not having one since it was released after  office 2007
that's my rant
ubuntu ftw

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Th3rmal

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jarrod
ubuntu ftw

---

MS-DOS for the win

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by absorbation
I got really frustrated when Vista updated itself and restarted without telling me, and I lost half the essay I wrote ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mattisdada
Vista will never just "reset itself". If you happened to press "Reset now" when a popup asking if you wanted to reset.... well, its going to reset isnt it? (Smilie)

And if you set it to Auto Update. Then yes, it will AUTO update.....

---

Actually I was pretty pissed off with Vista other night on a friends laptop. I was helping her get Adobe Stuff Installed, and it just shut itself down about 1/2 the way through installation, no updates no pop ups nothing, had to restart it all over again and that installer is helluva slow thing anyway

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised
FireFox. Although that app obviously must work with a lot more stuff, it still has a rather limited platform.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised
That's why there are options to disable auto-starting (Smilie)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by absorbation

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised
That's why there are options to disable auto-starting (Smilie)

---

It should be disabled by default! It's happened to me and probably others, someone could of lost something really valuable due to this feature. I just find it's the little things that count and Vista is a really poor operating system for the amount of development time on it if I am honest (I don't care about 'under-the-hood' features, I want to see things I have paid for).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by absorbation

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised
That's why there are options to disable auto-starting (Smilie)

---

It should be disabled by default! It's happened to me and probably others, someone could of lost something really valuable due to this feature. I just find it's the little things that count and Vista is a really poor operating system for the amount of development time on it if I am honest (I don't care about 'under-the-hood' features, I want to see things I have paid for).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised

quote:

---

Originally posted by absorbation
I got really frustrated when Vista updated itself and restarted without telling me, and I lost half the essay I wrote ...

---

That's why there are options to disable auto-starting

quote:

---

Originally posted by mattisdada
Vista will never just "reset itself". If you happened to press "Reset now" when a popup asking if you wanted to reset.... well, its going to reset isnt it? (Smilie)

And if you set it to Auto Update. Then yes, it will AUTO update.....

---

indeed

-----------------------------

As for MS not listening: Yes, for some products they need to listen more. For other products they listen a bit too much (imho)....

Remember that MS is 'just' a brand name actually, and a big global company. Each and every product has his own policies, ways of doing things, own offices, etc... including its own budgets!

As for Messenger, their budget isn't that big and they actually loose money! (yes, even with the adverts).

Also, consider that they've come a very very very long way in terms of listening to their customers. They're doing a great job... Of course, things can always improve.

But for things to improve they need you, the customer, too!!! You need to give them feedback. If you don't or you always give improper feedback (spam and stuff like "it doesn't work") then of course they are not going to listen in the long end.

As for speed of producing products and updates: That too is a result of how things work at those levels. Plus! is made by 1 person and doesn't depend on 10001 things and 3rd party stuff. The same can be said for other stuff like FireFox. Although that app obviously must work with a lot more stuff, it still has a rather limited platform.

The main thing from MS products is that they all are in someway related to eachother, need to work with eachother and are run on the most used platform in the world. Such stuff needs to be tested and that takes longer than a 3rd party product which expects that the platform it runs on (MS!) is stable. It sounds stupid, but think about how it comes how all their products look similar and how it comes that you instantly (mostly) reconize menu items and what they stand for (eg: why is the menu Edit called Edit and not something else (eg: change)). Such things need time... A 3rd party developer doesn't have such issues and just could call that menu whatever he wants (and some do). This is all part of the big (slugish) picture, fortunatly (everything is easly reconized by people) or not (slowness in r&d and testing).


And there are as much (dis)advantages to open source as there are to closed source. Both things can not be compared like that as they both work in completely different ways.



-------

Note: I'm not a MS-fanboy at all. Their is plenty of MS-stuff which I have issues with. And I love stuff from other platforms too. But I'm also sick to see people bashing MS just because "they can" or because "everybody does it"... At least try to understand a few things first before bashing MS to kingdom hell. When you do, be my guest, I maybe may join you with some issues

---

I hear they have horrible source managements.  I mean, how could it take so many developers so long to make Windows Vista?  When it took less than a tenth of those developers to make something similar (if not better) over at Apple long before it appeared on Vista?

Bad source management.  Interesting tale from an insider.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mattisdada
Windows 7, needs to be a brand new platform. I dont care if we will have combatability problems! I just want a new stable platform. We will deal with it......

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mattisdada
Windows is good for a singular reason, its 3rd party support. Most other OS's you just cant find the range of software you can for Windows, you can do practicly anything on Windows, but your limited far more on other OS's.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mattisdada
So everything has its use

---

Oh, and an inside MVP thingie (well, actually not a secret since you can read it in public too, but still ): At MS they know damn well that Vista isn't what it was supposed to be... To quote Steve Ballmer when he was very enthiousiastically summing up some stuff MS accomplished in the last year, in his keynotes speech at the MVP summit: "Then there's Vista, a work ermmm (small but ackward pause)... in progress... (at this point 1500 MVPs laughed and applauded)..." And this is so with a lot of stuff, they aren't ignorant (although it often seems so, true)

quote:

---

Originally posted by mattisdada
Docx and doc converstion is inbuilt and simple..... You just click save as either doc or docx . You can open up both and save as either.....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mattisdada
does anyone remember when Macs became Intel? There was 0 combatability

---

quote:

---

A good example is, IE, its slow, full of securety holes, takes up 20mb(hdd), slow.

Opera and FireFox on the other hand have 5mb(hdd), fast, very secure.

---

quote:

---

Oh, and iPod and iTunes isnt so seamless as you try and make it......

I dont know anyone personally (Not counting people on forums) that havent had to call up Apple tech support because something went wrong with there iPod.... a friend lost there firmware.... another friends battery stopped working, anothers click wheel broke.....

---

One thing that ticks me off with office 2008 on mac is I CAN'T FUCKING IMPORT MULTIPLE IMAGES

But otherwise word 2008 notebooks in office 2008 are awesome, ESPECIALLY for recording lectures with built in mic and taking notes, every time you take a note it sets an audio bookmark on that line clicking the audio bookmark plays the audio from that point onwards

quote:

---

Originally posted by aNILEator
One thing that ticks me off with office 2008 on mac is I CAN'T FUCKING IMPORT MULTIPLE IMAGES

But otherwise word 2008 notebooks in office 2008 are awesome, ESPECIALLY for recording lectures with built in mic and taking notes, every time you take a note it sets an audio bookmark on that line clicking the audio bookmark plays the audio from that point onwards

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jarrod

quote:

---

Originally posted by mattisdada
Docx and doc converstion is inbuilt and simple..... You just click save as either doc or docx . You can open up both and save as either.....

---

that's my point it needs to be done on office 2007 and i have to remember to do it useless, and the xml implemtaion was still useless

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Th3rmal

quote:

---

Originally posted by aNILEator
One thing that ticks me off with office 2008 on mac is I CAN'T FUCKING IMPORT MULTIPLE IMAGES

But otherwise word 2008 notebooks in office 2008 are awesome, ESPECIALLY for recording lectures with built in mic and taking notes, every time you take a note it sets an audio bookmark on that line clicking the audio bookmark plays the audio from that point onwards

---

Theres an Office 2008 ? I thought only 2007 was out...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chrono

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jarrod

quote:

---

Originally posted by mattisdada
Docx and doc converstion is inbuilt and simple..... You just click save as either doc or docx . You can open up both and save as either.....

---

that's my point it needs to be done on office 2007 and i have to remember to do it useless, and the xml implemtaion was still useless

---

i can open docx in my copy of office 2003, i got a patch or something the first time i tried to open one . So i dunno what are you all talking about

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by aNILEator

quote:

---

Originally posted by Th3rmal

quote:

---

Originally posted by aNILEator
One thing that ticks me off with office 2008 on mac is I CAN'T FUCKING IMPORT MULTIPLE IMAGES

But otherwise word 2008 notebooks in office 2008 are awesome, ESPECIALLY for recording lectures with built in mic and taking notes, every time you take a note it sets an audio bookmark on that line clicking the audio bookmark plays the audio from that point onwards

---

Theres an Office 2008 ? I thought only 2007 was out...

---

the keywords are 'mac' and GOOGLE!!!!!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chris Boulton
These days I use a Mac 90% of the time I'm in front of a computer, I use Windows when testing a lot of my work, most PCs at home are Windows based, I do not think Microsoft is evil, I think Apple is awesome, I have several iPods and I use Firefox/Safari.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by aNILEator

quote:

---

Originally posted by Th3rmal

quote:

---

Originally posted by aNILEator
One thing that ticks me off with office 2008 on mac is I CAN'T FUCKING IMPORT MULTIPLE IMAGES

But otherwise word 2008 notebooks in office 2008 are awesome, ESPECIALLY for recording lectures with built in mic and taking notes, every time you take a note it sets an audio bookmark on that line clicking the audio bookmark plays the audio from that point onwards

---

Theres an Office 2008 ? I thought only 2007 was out...

---

the keywords are 'mac' and GOOGLE!!!!!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chris Boulton

quote:

---

Originally posted by mattisdada
does anyone remember when Macs became Intel? There was 0 combatability

---

I do.

There was compatibility. Rosetta, a platform for converting PPC based code in to Intel based code. Sure, it was slow but most applications were compatible in one way or another.

Apple made it really easy from a developers point of view too, to target both platforms at the same time with something called a Universal Binary - an application containing both PPC and Intel compiled code so it can run on either system. For most developers, fixing compatibility for their applications meant a simple recompile in X-Code (the Apple Developer tools) with a bit of changed code.

I wouldn't use that (the PPC -> Intel switch) as an example, but more when Apple went from the Apple II to the Macintosh - that's where they screwed most people over as there _was_ no backwards compatibility - but sometimes that's just a move you have to make to push the platform forward to do new things.

Microsoft however (when you're talking about Windows 7) can't do this, obviously because of the market share they need to sustain (and would lose out on a lot of people upgrading/moving to it) so backwards compatibility is always going to be there - they can't scrap the fundamentals of how their operating system works.

Was Windows Vista a failure? No. Is Microsoft doomed? No.

quote:

---

A good example is, IE, its slow, full of securety holes, takes up 20mb(hdd), slow.

Opera and FireFox on the other hand have 5mb(hdd), fast, very secure.

---

There's no way that Firefox is 5mb, it's also not (for the most part - Firefox 2 anyway) as fast as Internet Explorer. Why? Because portions of Internet Explorer are loaded within Windows and are used throughout the entire operating system so they're always in memory.

It's not full of security holes compared to Firefox either. If Firefox had the market share, there'd be no doubt that the number of security vulnerabilities reported in it too would be quite larger too. Actually, I'm sure one of the recent articles on the internets about this actually covers this and proves that Firefox is also quite vulnerable.

quote:

---

Oh, and iPod and iTunes isnt so seamless as you try and make it......

I dont know anyone personally (Not counting people on forums) that havent had to call up Apple tech support because something went wrong with there iPod.... a friend lost there firmware.... another friends battery stopped working, anothers click wheel broke.....

---

Compared to the very small amount of people that you know with an iPod to the entire user base, most people have no problem with the iPod. Why? Because it makes having an MP3 player look like it's ridiculously easy and every one can do it.

Random comment: Office 07 is awesome, I agree. Same applies for Office for Mac 2008 - it's equally awesome.

Disclaimer: These days I use a Mac 90% of the time I'm in front of a computer, I use Windows when testing a lot of my work, most PCs at home are Windows based, I do not think Microsoft is evil, I think Apple is awesome, I have several iPods and I use Firefox/Safari.

---

Mac OS 9 -> OS X was pretty bad knock back on compatibility for people. If I remember correctly

Yeah, well anyway. All OS's do it, you will always loose at least a LITTLE bit on each next majour iteration.

Even on Linux, Unix, Windows, Mac, BSD, Solaris and any other OS you can think of.

Office 08 isn't better than Office 07 wtf it's missing HEAPS of features 07 has. (there was a list somewhere on google). And your computer CAN actually restart itself after installing updates without your consent in both Vista AND XP. It does it after a set period of time after installing an update and you don't restart. I wish someone had told me that before I was up late installing and downloading stuff and went to bed leaving the download going. As for people who go around knocking the ribbon in office 07, they clearly haven't tried it out too well. It's so awesome! Takes a second or two to get used to, but sweet none the less. There are so many options there just standing in front of me sure I could go through and click them all but it's more fun seeing what you find by accident. The other day my friend and I found out we could insert EQUATIONS!! How crazy is that?!?

I agree some of Microsoft's products could be a lot better. In general I'm quite satisfied with their range of software solutions, just the operating systems that need a bit more attention before release. Such as Vista. Everyone said Vista needed one more beta (making that beta 3) before it went into release candidature. That never happened of course and so when Vista was announced it was completely premature. But Microsoft were rushed for time. They had deadlines and everything. Sure I understand it's a business you've gotta have deadlines but it's these deadlines that can and DO limit how good a product is. Just compare this with Ubuntu. How often is each new version released? Oh, every six months or so. This ranging amount of time allows the job to be done properly, without the various time constraints held by larger companies. Sure I'm sure that within the development teams of projects such as Ubuntu they have their own internal schedules, but this doesn't have the wide spread media attention and pressure that a larger business such as Microsoft does.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aardvark
The other day my friend and I found out we could insert EQUATIONS!! How crazy is that?!?

---

I'm talking about Word though, and not inserting into a spreadsheet

You always could add in equations, it just wasnt as visable

I acctually wish Vista had more of a thing that Mac and most linux distros have...

They have minor-majour releses every so many months or 1.5 years and shorter time spans. Microsoft only have the BIG new iteration. I would prefer it if it slowly went up.

They sort of do that with SP's.... but they dont work out so good always... SP1 for Vista has been a disaster..... It was supposed to increase file transfer speed 50% up in regular use. And 35% in networks and stuff like that. Most benchmarks show that it takes LONGER to transfer then it used to.... and sometimes, it takes 20secs just to work out how to start transfering the file.... like a small file of 120kb and stuff..... Its werid.....

And alot of Indicidual products that Microsoft have produced have been quite good, but the OS, there main selling item, isnt so great. If it wasnt for the 3rd party support they would be sooooo dead.

I love WLM, I cant stand most other messengers, my 2nd favourit will have to be Kopete (For linux KDE), but nothing else compares to WLM.... it feels so nice and pleasent.....

IE, is an abonamation, i dont care how you look at it... it is. And the fact that they STILL arent fully (IE8 i think is going to, IE7 is better, but still bad) abiding by W3C's web code rules.

As any web developer knows, IE is damn annoying, you have to make extra bits in all your code so it looks at least half right in IE.....

Cant remember who said this, but they said that IE is the most used browser.... acctually FF is..... belive it or not. Google it.

Vista SP1 is definitely faster for me. And most of the benchmarks I've seen have shown a slightly moderate at least improvement over Vista RTM. As for network transfer I'd still shoot myself before I send 30gb over my network again using Vista. I don't care if it's SP1 now, I shall not wait that some 18 hours again, ever!

quote:

---

Originally posted by mattisdada
Cant remember who said this, but they said that IE is the most used browser.... acctually FF is..... belive it or not. Google it.

---

Yeah i know its not belivable. But on many many servers the most users on them are FF, followed by IE, followed by either Safari or Opera.

If only more people try Opera! If only.....


And ouch..... 18 hours..... what is your routers speed?! 10mb/s?!

Even a 100mb/s one wouldnt take THAT long! Takes me 10mins on 100mb/s router for 5gb.....so roughly 2mins per gb, thats only an hour.....

I do want to buy a gigabit router though.... Would be good. But i dont transfer files much over the network so it wont benifit me much....

quote:

---

Originally posted by mattisdada
But on many many servers the most users on them are FF, followed by IE, followed by either Safari or Opera.

---

quote:

---

Office 08 isn't better than Office 07 wtf it's missing HEAPS of features 07 has.

---

quote:

---

Just compare this with Ubuntu. How often is each new version released? Oh, every six months or so. This ranging amount of time allows the job to be done properly, without the various time constraints held by larger companies. Sure I'm sure that within the development teams of projects such as Ubuntu they have their own internal schedules, but this doesn't have the wide spread media attention and pressure that a larger business such as Microsoft does.

---

quote:

---

IE, is an abonamation, i dont care how you look at it... it is. And the fact that they STILL arent fully (IE8 i think is going to, IE7 is better, but still bad) abiding by W3C's web code rules.

---

quote:

---

As any web developer knows, IE is damn annoying, you have to make extra bits in all your code so it looks at least half right in IE.....

---

quote:

---

Cant remember who said this, but they said that IE is the most used browser.... acctually FF is..... belive it or not. Google it.

---

quote:

---

It's missing VBA stuff for Excel as well as some MS-Exchange based features. Both things I don't have a need for.

---

quote:

---

It's very unfair to compare Microsoft Windows to Ubuntu.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aardvark
It had a few more things such as not being able to save (or read?) docx files? I forget, but it was a few more things than that. (I
don't think it had ribbon either)

---

Well, i know this for one. All new PC's bought from Betta Elictrical and Harvey Norman and the like (HP, Asus, Sony and etc(prebuilt computers)). All ship with FF .

But i have to disagree that FF is easier then Opera, they have exactly the same learning curve.....

Well, they did go "Hey, lets go all W3C complaint" with IE8 aparantly.

And I dont care what you say, for a full website (Web 2.0 features) you will always run into the "doesnt work with IE" problem. As it doesnt handle it the same as all the other browsers......

PS: Mac ribbion is ugggggly

chris boultan, you know how I can import more than one image at a time into word? It seems so obvious I try to use it almost all the time, how could such a simple feature be forgotten

quote:

---

Originally posted by aNILEator
chris boultan, you know how I can import more than one image at a time into word? It seems so obvious I try to use it almost all the time, how could such a simple feature be forgotten

---

Yeah.... if thats not what your talking about Niles then i dont know what you are!

quote:

---

Originally posted by markee

quote:

---

Originally posted by aNILEator
chris boultan, you know how I can import more than one image at a time into word? It seems so obvious I try to use it almost all the time, how could such a simple feature be forgotten

---

Hold ctrl when you select them =\

Unless you are talking about on a mac, then I'm not sure, but this definitely works for me with Word 2007 SP1 on XP SP3

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mattisdada
Yeah.... if thats not what your talking about Niles then i dont know what you are!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mattisdada
But more users use FF then IE. Opera (In my personal opinion the best browser of the lot) is used less then all 4 (IE, FF, Opera, Safari..... we need to find a two letter accronym for opera and safari while where at it)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aardvark
And your computer CAN actually restart itself after installing updates without your consent in both Vista AND XP. It does it after a set period of time after installing an update and you don't restart.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aardvark
As for people who go around knocking the ribbon in office 07, they clearly haven't tried it out too well. It's so awesome!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aardvark
There are so many options there just standing in front of me sure I could go through and click them all but it's more fun seeing what you find by accident. The other day my friend and I found out we could insert EQUATIONS!! How crazy is that?!?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised
It will never restart on itself unless you

---

doesn't matter from where you download though (for updates and fixes). But it wont auto-restart if you choose custom install, even on extremely critical updates, certainly not after a long period of idling.... What update was it?

I have no idea - something post SP2 and pre SP3. Well I've set my computer up to download through the night before and this was the only time I installed updates and left it through the night so this was the only time this has happened. Unless you can suggest some other strange phenomenon for why the computer would restart, and why people would write articles on it automatically restarting such as this, (to be fair though that article doesn't explicelty state which method of Automatic Updates they use (however I strongly suspect they have it set to automatically download and install)), either you're wrong, or my computer stuffed up and restarted itself. Hmm if only I hadn't reformatted since then I could've looked at the event log. Perhaps the article I read in the first place was actually referring to automatic download/install updates...bah oh well.

Our lecturer was giving a presentation the other day, and some updated installed and it asked him to reboot: It came up with a progress bar and said "5 minutes to reboot - Yes to Reboot now, No to wait". This appeared every 10 minutes or so.

I myself have never seen this dialog, but then I do have Auto-Updates set to download only...

quote:

---

Originally posted by andrewdodd13
Our lecturer was giving a presentation the other day, and some updated installed and it asked him to reboot: It came up with a progress bar and said "5 minutes to reboot - Yes to Reboot now, No to wait". This appeared every 10 minutes or so.

I myself have never seen this dialog, but then I do have Auto-Updates set to download only...

---

Really? XP?

yes really...
this is how to stop it:
http://www.pctools.com/guides/registry/detail/1315/
it's a known bug as far as I know that it happens sometimes even on custom install...

Odd, ive never had it, back in the ye old days of XP

Vista gives you a prompt asking if you want to restart then asks when it should ask again at certain intervals to choose.

Back in the days of XP XP shall live on forever! Or at least until something better than Vista comes out *fingers crossed for Windows 7*

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aardvark
Back in the days of XP XP shall live on forever! Or at least until something better than Vista comes out *fingers crossed for Windows 7*

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Th3rmal

quote:

---

Originally posted by andrewdodd13
Our lecturer was giving a presentation the other day, and some updated installed and it asked him to reboot: It came up with a progress bar and said "5 minutes to reboot - Yes to Reboot now, No to wait". This appeared every 10 minutes or so.

I myself have never seen this dialog, but then I do have Auto-Updates set to download only...

---

That dialog comes up every time my computer installs some important updates

---

........................
vista has never done that to me...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Voldemort
........................
vista has never done that to me...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by john-t

quote:

---

Originally posted by Voldemort
........................
vista has never done that to me...

---

Do you have a cracked version of windows?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by john-t

That can get very, very annoying.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by john-t

quote:

---

Originally posted by Voldemort
........................
vista has never done that to me...

---

Do you have a cracked version of windows?

---

Like people have said before, don't select automatic updates and installation if you don't want your PC do boot up automatically, easy as that. The PC will not boot up automatically then (if it was required for a certain update), but only shows you a reminder (which can also be configured in gpedit.msc, which is the proper way of configuring the stuff, including what foaly said).

Automatic means by default... 'automatic', so yeah, everything will be automatic, including booting up. If it didn't booted up by itself it wouldn't be 'automatic' anymore, and booting up is part of the installation of some updates because certain things need to be installed or updated after a fresh start, so....

Don't blame Windows (in this case), blame yourself for choosing the wrong setting....


PS: Also some people forget that if Windows encounters a serious bug, it will also reboot by default (can be set in My Computer > Properties > Advanced > Reboot and reset settings (or whatever it is called)). I don't have the link anymore, but there are also many similar stories where people left their PC idling and blame Windows Update for auto-rebooting eventhough they have selected Custom Install. In the end the fact was that their Windows installation was corrupted and encountered some errors from time to time and thus rebooted instead of simply showing an error message.

I'd say this is an important update, SP1 along with security fixes:


silly overtanned newbs.

Uhhhh. No.



It does not  matter if you have a cracked Vista or a non cracked Vista, or a Cracked XP or Non cracked XP.

A cracked version (unless you suck ) Will be able to update fully like normall. Thats what a crack is supposed to DO! Trick the system into thinking that your copy of windows is legit.

I know this, as my Windows Vista Ultimate SP1 is fully 100% cracked.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mattisdada
Uhhhh. No.



It does not  matter if you have a cracked Vista or a non cracked Vista, or a Cracked XP or Non cracked XP.

A cracked version (unless you suck ) Will be able to update fully like normall. Thats what a crack is supposed to DO! Trick the system into thinking that your copy of windows is legit.

I know this, as my Windows Vista Ultimate SP1 is fully 100% cracked.

---

Why would the company be helping him? They're just supplying a service and he's stealing it. Unless he asks for technical support from Microsoft or anything it's not asking for help...

On the other hand regardless of whether your Vista or whatever other product it is is pirated or not, if you can supply the company from which it came with useful suggestions for improving their products in the future I don't really think they would care whether your version of their product was cracked or not. Sure they would care that you stole from them, but as far as the suggestion for the future goes it's equally as valid as someone who might've suggested something who DID pay for the product (unless you're a mega dodgy pirater and you suggest something will lead to the program being easier to pirate )

And i never ask for technical support And im "stealing" it, becuase i do belive its not worth purchusing .

And have you heard Apple fanboys? They dont even own a Windows product/used one . But they still complain and make points (Both valid and invalid points)

quote:

---

Originally posted by mattisdada
And im "stealing" it, becuase i do belive its not worth purchusing .

---

I dont belive any software is worth buying But thats just me

You should always buy something if you can afford it. I can't afford anything so everything on my computer is pirated one way or another (except the music - gotta buy the albums). Then again I buy the music in CD format so I can say "ha, I have a disk here and I can physically hold it and I am SUPPORTING my favorite artist". I don't know anyone who would do that with a piece of software... In fact most of the pirated stuff I have I don't even use! CS3 Master Collection was the biggest waste of 3gb download ever - I don't even use a third of the stuff on there.

Fun fact: Vista was the FIRST OPERATING SYSTEM in my household that has even been legally purchased. And that's because it came with my laptop, which I then upgraded to a cracked Vista Ultimate because business was crap.

I can burn the disk onto a CD and hold it . The wounders of a DVD burner .

And CS3 master collection sucks, i just need Photoshop and Dreamweaver . Most of there other apps are great, but not for me. I wouldnt use them (i dont use them ) flash can be fun sometimes but... ye know.

And yes supporting your artist is good and all. But supporting them at $25 a peice isnt sane.

If CD's were like $10-$5, i would be far more willing. But oh well, there not, there over priced .

But yeah, i havent bought any software for.... well a very long time Probably since i was 6.....

And its not just the having to dish out money thing... its the convience thing. I can just download something quickly and easily. I cant have a paypal or anything like that, as im not yet 18 (although coincedentally, i DO have a paypal account) so that knocks out the digital purchuse. Which only leaves one option left. Free download! . I also live 1 hour from the nearest comp store So a bit of a hassle, taking location into account alone.

That's why I download stuff first to see if it'll be worth going out and buying it
And of course you can burn a cd/dvd and hold it - but it's not the same. A cheap crappy disk you get 10-50 in a pack or so of with no cool and colourful label on it. Now compare this to your unique "singular" disk you get paying the full 30 bucks for it.

EDIT: And printing a cd cover onto the disk still doesn't count!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aardvark

EDIT: And printing a cd cover onto the disk still doesn't count!

---

It's still not the same though. It's just different when you buy it instead of steal it. I didn't think about the quality of the CDs they use - they're probably worse than the ones you buy at the store!

100% profit. Have you seen them rich pop stars? FRIGGIN RICH! Grrrrr....

That's why I listen to rock/metal and not pop. Pop sucks it's just la de da look at me I'm running around the world naked popping pills speeding blah blah blah blah. They get enough attention without me paying them for more attention. Rock/metal on the otherhand are bands that are actually skilled and don't just pump out the same old song someone released several years ago with a new "twist", or no new twist at all!

Heavy Metal is godly

Do you know Alestorm?! Awesome band, hilarious at the same time . At first youl be like "wtf"but after listining to it for a bit youl be like "F' YEAH!!!!!!"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wikipedia
Alestorm is a folk/power metal band from Perth, Scotland, formed under the name Battleheart in 2004. Their music is characterised by a pirate theme, for which reason they describe their style as "True Scottish Pirate Metal"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mattisdada
100% profit. Have you seen them rich pop stars? FRIGGIN RICH! Grrrrr....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aardvark

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wikipedia
Alestorm is a folk/power metal band from Perth, Scotland, formed under the name Battleheart in 2004. Their music is characterised by a pirate theme, for which reason they describe their style as "True Scottish Pirate Metal"

---

If it had a ninja theme it would be better.

---

This is getting so full of wrong stuff....


Aardvark, first you say that Vista sucks and isn't worth using it at all, then you say you upgrade to Ultimate because Bussiness sucks. What kind of argument is that?

mattisdada, CS3 Master Collection does not suck just because you don't need everything in it. If you just need 1 or two products then get that 1 or two products. Of course a Collection is going to include more than just that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mattisdada

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aardvark

quote:

---

Originally posted by vaccination
And you do realise they use crappy cheap CDs too? They probably pay about 5p per CD for their CDs, if that. The 30 'bucks' you pay, is all about profit, not quality.

---

...I didn't think about the quality of the CDs they use - they're probably worse than the ones you buy at the store!

---

100% profit. Have you seen them rich pop stars? FRIGGIN RICH! Grrrrr....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aardvark
Rock/metal on the otherhand are bands that are actually skilled and don't just pump out the same old song someone released several years ago with a new "twist", or no new twist at all!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised
You would be surprised when you learn that a lot of Rock/metal groups actual do cover old songs and bring them out with a new 'twist'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mattisdada
I dont belive any software is worth buying But thats just me

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aardvark
I hadn't used Vista before, and so upgraded to Ultimate to get the "full" Vista experience. Which was ok for a while...but then I got sick of it and began to realize all the flaws in Vista, and then went back to XP.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aardvark
As for the CD thing, yeah I can admit I have no evidence of that and they probably do use a somewhat quality CD to burn the disks

---

CookieRevised and Patchou won the argument .

-Takes far too long to boot up, uses way too much ram (I might as well say my 2gb computer is 1gb when using Vista)
-The new start menu is rubbish I liked it better when everything just nicely popped out (yes I'm aware you can change the Start Menu style, but that changes it completely and gets rid of the recently used programs and whatnot)
-The Visual style for it is rubbish, and all the Visual styles i can find for it get annoying after a while, or just don't work for me at all (so more of a personal thing there) - plus building my own style is way too hard (I've started but from a number of Googles getting transparency on my style isn't gonna happen without a lot of work)
-A number of the programs I use don't work (well) under Vista causing a number of headaches trying to find simple and efficient alternatives
-Everything by default is in LIST VIEW! I hate list view I like tiles/icons view, and it's very annoying having to change EVERY SINGLE FOLDER! I found one way I could change the default folder template but that didn't really seem to achieve what I had in mind

Umm yeah that's all I can think of at the moment. There are a lot of positive things I like about Vista too, but some of the positive things one way or another can be replicated back in XP or any other operating system.

EDIT: Oo, the bootloader! It's like a war between XOSL and bootmgr on my computer when I ever need to change something drastic with Vista. Took me 8 days to sort out the last problem...

RAM is meant to be USED for christ's sake, when will people learn that? of course your operating system is going to use whatever memory is available. That's what makes your whole computer as efficient as possible. Windows 95 used 4MB of RAM, Windows 98 8-16MB, Windows 2000 about 64MB, Windows XP could very well use 256MB and Vista is generally happy with 1GB. What is the problem there? New systems need more power and more resources for tons of reasons. Some programs look cooler and offer more features in Vista than they did in Win2000 and than they previously did in Win98? guess what, that's thank to Windows using more of what your computer has to offer.

Boot time is extremely fast on my two systems, probably faster than XP so I don't see what's your problem there. As for List View, I'm not sure what you're talking about either, as with any past version of Windows I can remember, you can ask Windows to use whatever you want by default in Folder Options. Vista will simply try to displauy your files the best way possible it can think of, it won't always succeed but that's a matter of personal taste.

As far as the new start menu and visual styles are concerned, it's alsto a matter of personal taste so that can't be considered flaws either (and you can change all of that in the options as well anyway). In any case, I don't see how they could be considered "annoying". You either like them and keep them, or you don't.

And last but not least: program compatibility. That's not Microsoft's fault, they already work their ass off to make sure many half-baked programs continue to work on their new systems. If one of your programs doesn't work in Vista and worked on XP, email the developers and ask them to stop watching porn all day long and fix stuff that needs to be fixed in their buggy program. About any well done program that was developed for Windows 2000 will work flawlessly in Windows Vista.

Yeah well that's why it's just my opinion/taste. It's a flaw in my opinion with what I use/enjoy when using a computer. Of course RAM is meant to be used - and that's where the problem is. I multitask HEAPS, and that RAM should be going towards what I'm actually focused on, not on keeping my system up and running. I often run a number of virtual machines too, and their RAM is limited because Vista is using half of my total, so it's not really easy to test and try things in the virtual machines...

Compatibility was an issue when I first got Vista (I didn't know about needing to integrate the sata drivers into my XP installation disk, so I couldn't set up the dual boot), of course XP's up and running alongside Vista now (among other things) so that's fine I guess...still a bit tedious having to constantly restart your computer just because you want to use a different program to do one simple task.

And of course your boot time is much more faster than mine. You probably have a lot more expensive computer, so it's probably better than mine (this was a pretty cheap computer, or so I think).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aardvark
-Takes far too long to boot up, uses way too much ram (I might as well say my 2gb computer is 1gb when using Vista)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aardvark
-The new start menu is rubbish
-The Visual style for it is rubbish
-I hate list view
...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aardvark
-A number of the programs I use don't work (well) under Vista causing a number of headaches trying to find simple and efficient alternatives

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aardvark
I often run a number of virtual machines too, and their RAM is limited because Vista is using half of my total, so it's not really easy to test and try things in the virtual machines...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aardvark
And of course your boot time is much more faster than mine. You probably have a lot more expensive computer, so it's probably better than mine (this was a pretty cheap computer, or so I think).

---

For reference: my computer is 2 1/2 years old, I didn't upgrade a thing in it since I got it and Vista works like a charm on it. Boot time with Vista is faster than it was with XP on the same system.

Each new OS is excpected to be using more RAM then previous generation.

If your really that worried about it USING ram, then use MS-DOS(1) again
[me making crap things sound good]
It used under 1mb . And the boot times were fantastic. Used very little processing power, so you could really focus on the application and not background processors. The interface is really simple and basic. Had great combability at its time, everything made for it ran on it!
[/me making me crap things sound good]

MS-DOS does sound like a great OS. Maybe we should all convert?


And i seriously dont think that Vista has many combatability problems.....Except for AV's i dont know anything that didnt work for me. Most things if it didnt run well at first, i could just right click and make it "Windows XP" combatability. It fixed majourty of problems if anything arised...... Or havent you found that button yet?


In folder options there is an option to make "List" or "Thumbnails"
and etc the deafult.

And are you running Virtrull Machines on your Laptop? Or is it just another computer at home your using.

And secondly, 256MB of ram sucked on XP as well... 512 wasnt great. 1GB was comfortable for Applications + the  OS itself.

And yes, you can limit how much RAM it can use, and how much Virtrull Ram it can use (Stores data on HDD in System Information i think).


And back to the Music thing. Some Metal Bands do alot of covers. Most dont. Megadeath hasnt done a single one, Avengend sevenfold has done 3, Tool have done none, Three Days Grace have done 1. Most pop music these days are covers with a 'twist'. Im talking about the majourty of ones on the Radio.

And although yes, the CD media used by Music Artists is higher quailty, but they do it in mass bulk. It would only be abother 5c more per CD compared to Vertabrain ($16 for 50). And yes, they have to cover costs, sure. Thats a givin. But, theres a "covering costs" and theres a "over pricing". I was reading an article a while ago (it might be wrong, this was in a magizine btw), they said that for every $25 cd sold, the ARTIST makes $16.

Another reason why Digital Downloads (Buying) has become so much more popular .

And if you do a few service and start item tweaks (and doing tweaks to XP as well) you can make it boot far FAR faster. And both on deafult my Vista boots faster anyway (4GB 800 ram and 3.6ghz q6600 (quad)).

Ubuntu boots far slower then my Vista as well... So i wouldnt really complain about Vista's booting time. Its not bad at all.

PS: Sorry for typos, bells went Might edit when i come home.

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised

I wouldn't have bought an extra GB just to let it rot away

---

quote:

---

All preferences, not flaws!

---

quote:

---

Where are those posts talking about compatibility and people bashing MS and hating Vista because it still supports old stuff, isn't "innovative" enough and all that because it still needs to be compatible, and how MS should break their road map and start building things without taking in account old stuff...

---

quote:

---

but you could change that too by letting Vista only use a certain amount of RAM.... (is possible in XP too btw).

---

quote:

---

I think he meant compared to XP on that very same machine of his.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aardvark
uses way too much ram (I might as well say my 2gb computer is 1gb when using Vista)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/features/details/performance.mspx

Windows SuperFetch

A new memory management technology in Windows Vista, Windows SuperFetch, helps keep the computer consistently responsive to your programs by making better use of the computer's RAM. Windows SuperFetch prioritizes the programs you're currently using over background tasks and adapts to the way you work by tracking the programs you use most often and preloading these into memory. With SuperFetch, background tasks still run when the computer is idle. However, when the background task is finished, SuperFetch repopulates system memory with the data you were working with before the background task ran. Now, when you return to your desk, your programs will continue to run as efficiently as they did before you left.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mattisdada
It used under 1mb (Smilie). And the boot times were fantastic.

---

I know what superfetch is, I have disabled it - Vista still uses a lot (of ram) though.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Patchou
For reference: my computer is 2 1/2 years old, I didn't upgrade a thing in it since I got it and Vista works like a charm on it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aardvark
I know what superfetch is, I have disabled it - Vista still uses a lot (of ram) though.

---

But it IS going to be used - that's the problem! I can't do everything I want to at once because Vista is STILL using way too much ram! It's not like I'm using 1.7gb of my 2gb ram here - I use all of it (or as much as I can without everything starting to lag)

Also if I'm on battery power Vista really drains it fast (which is why for obvious reasons I use XP or Ubuntu when I'm on battery power, but still - I do use Vista sometimes too)

quote:

---

Originally posted by mattisdada
I was reading an article a while ago (it might be wrong, this was in a magizine btw), they said that for every $25 cd sold, the ARTIST makes $16.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aardvark
But it IS going to be used - that's the problem! I can't do everything I want to at once because Vista is STILL using way too much ram! It's not like I'm using 1.7gb of my 2gb ram here - I use all of it (or as much as I can without everything starting to lag)

---

quote:

---

Also if I'm on battery power Vista really drains it fast (which is why for obvious reasons I use XP or Ubuntu when I'm on battery power, but still - I do use Vista sometimes too)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mattisdada

It used under 1mb (Smilie). And the boot times were fantastic.

---

I disabled every single thing I could on Vista and I couldn't get it below 500mb of RAM. Interestingly though another time when I wasn't disabling anything (such as DWM etc, superfetch was off both times though) it was around the 475mb mark, which is roughly what I think Vista uses when it's doing absolutely nothing (read it a long time ago, it was four hundred and something). The computer's always been on power save yet it still drains a lot quicker compared to say XP (1.5 - 2x)

Comparing say 200mb on XP idle with 400 or so Vista idle it doesn't seem like much of a problem. But as soon as you start doing something with Vista (let's say opening Firefox) suddenly everything doubles (or triples), explorer starts using 50-100mb and sometimes even more some crazy reasons (not as often now since SP1...) and it jumps back up to 700-1000mb of ram again - and Firefox hasn't even loaded yet - it's still initializing and the process is only using 6mb so far...crazy! Sure other things like system-resources-that-do-stuff-that-can't-be-seen-without-other-useful-programs are contributing to the spike in ram, but it's still a massive leap just by doing one simple task (I guess that's where the limiting how much ram the OS can use would come into play )

I seriously don't know where you're getting your figures from. With Firefox, Windows Live and uTorrent open, my Vista laptop sat at 40%. Which is pretty much 400mb.

And all that was disabled was DWM. [Superfetch etc, was still running]

I'm getting my figures from what I just did just then. My computer is whacked

Your computer has some issues. By any chance do you have either
A) Spyware
B) Virus
C) Craptastical RAM

And why do you still have Windows 3.1 and MS DOS 6 installed on your computer!!!! And your running multipule virturull machines on a LAPTOP?! Does the processor even support Virtrulasation?!

And obviously somethings wrong if FF is using a GB. Even when my server is making a 75MB script (Its my browser tester) Opera doesnt go above 300, 000. And FF doesnt go above 500, 000.

Thats multipule tabs, and a 75MB generating document!!!!!

Yes it does support virtualization, no I don't have a virus this is a fresh Vista installation I haven't even used it enough to possibly have any thing wrong with it, I didn't say Firefox was using a gb I said Vista was now using a gb.

EDIT: This isn't the first time I've tried to see what I can make the ram do by opening programs and closing everything else, this is just the results of what happened when I posted above. Every other time it's been pretty similar though (ie 1.3x more ram or whatever)

I have Windows 3.1 and MS DOS 6 installed because I thought it would be a challenge. It certainly was. But it was do-able. What's wrong with running multiple virtual machines? The things that I do don't test themselves you know.

And the RAM is fine it works great on every other operating system but Vista - the computer came pre-loaded with Vista so it's obviously designed for it.

Well I have 2GB or RAM and I'm hardly ever over 50% of it, and that's with things like Photoshop, Visual Studio etc running, and nothing lags =/

quote:

---

Originally posted by mattisdada
And although yes, the CD media used by Music Artists is higher quailty, but they do it in mass bulk. It would only be abother 5c more per CD compared to Vertabrain ($16 for 50). And yes, they have to cover costs, sure. Thats a givin. But, theres a "covering costs" and theres a "over pricing". I was reading an article a while ago (it might be wrong, this was in a magizine btw), they said that for every $25 cd sold, the ARTIST makes $16.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mattisdada
And obviously somethings wrong if FF is using a GB. Even when my server is making a 75MB script (Its my browser tester) Opera doesnt go above 300, 000. And FF doesnt go above 500, 000.

---

and remember one VERY important thing: taks manager is NOT a good way to measure the amount of memory really used by any of your programs. Memory is often reserved without being used, Windows knows that and uses that fact among many others to optimize all memory use.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Patchou
taks manager is NOT a good way to measure the amount of memory really used by any of your programs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Voldemort

quote:

---

Originally posted by mattisdada
And although yes, the CD media used by Music Artists is higher quailty, but they do it in mass bulk. It would only be abother 5c more per CD compared to Vertabrain ($16 for 50). And yes, they have to cover costs, sure. Thats a givin. But, theres a "covering costs" and theres a "over pricing". I was reading an article a while ago (it might be wrong, this was in a magizine btw), they said that for every $25 cd sold, the ARTIST makes $16.

---

Newb. They CAN'T use verbatim.... google your ass off until you find out how they are made.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mattisdada
Quite obviously you should READ what is said more often (Smilie).

I said COMPARED. I was making a COMPARISION. Vertabrian are good quality blank CD manafactuers. That cost a bit more then your random chinise brands.

Side note: Vertabrain do make CD's for proper CD manfacturing. Eg, what real CD/DVDs that you buy (Smilie). Sony does as well, and i THINK HP do as well. Not sure on them though.

---

No, im making a comparision.

Ok lets put it THIS way.

Regular DVD's/CD's cost about 3.125c per disk. The special manfacturing ones cost about 8.125c per disk.

I was giving a comparision to show the "Not that expensive" point.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mattisdada
No, im making a comparision.

Ok lets put it THIS way.

Regular DVD's/CD's cost about 3.125c per disk. The special manfacturing ones cost about 8.125c per disk.

I was giving a comparision to show the "Not that expensive" point.

---

If you are using a clean install of Vista on a laptop that came with Vista, you probably have a lot of bloatware that the company put on there.  This stuff is probably effecting your memmory.  Plus after changing your settings did you do a full restart of your system before quoting the memmory usage?

quote:

---

Originally posted by andrewdodd13

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aardvark

quote:

---

Originally posted by andrewdodd13

How much is $25AUD in real money? And why do you lot all use the same damned symbol.

---

What's that supposed to mean?! "Real money". And what symbol, $? What's wrong with $!

---

Well, £ is actually worth something . It's clearly obvious that it's British Sterling, because no other popular currency uses that symbol, unlike $ which is used by the Americans, Candians, and you lot.

Actually, looking at it now, $25AUS is roughly £12. If you pay that much for CD online, then you guys do get ripped off.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by markee
If you are using a clean install of Vista on a laptop that came with Vista, you probably have a lot of bloatware that the company put on there.  This stuff is probably effecting your memmory.  Plus after changing your settings did you do a full restart of your system before quoting the memmory usage?

---

Hmm, well that only leaves one option left....

Are you blind and can only read numbers that are above a certain amount, and if there below that certain amount you then make up in your subconcious them to be higher .

At least screenshot us , Then screenshot what Proccess you have going.

They don't suck. They just need to do better. (going back to office 2007 here) today I found out I can save my own custom templates for text boxes. How cool is that! I would say that Office 2007 could be Microsoft's best designed product yet! (however with one slight improvement - the option of whether to use ribbon or not. That way people such as Cookie who don't like/want to use the ribbon will want to use the product too).

They do. Theres an OFFICALL patch to make it into old school style

quote:

---

Originally posted by mattisdada
They do. Theres an OFFICALL patch to make it into old school style

---

It should be, i dont know google it. I found it when i was admin of the school for a week and i installed it into the network.


Turns out it was 3rd party... i swear i got one from Microsoft....... oh well.

http://www.download32.com/classic-menu-for-office-2007-i4492.html

No, MS doesn't have anything which replaced the ribbon.

That 3rd party plugin (not a patch) is however not free and also doesn't include all the new stuff iirc and the menus are kind of ackward too.

IMHO, MS should have indeed included something to choose between the classic menus and the ribbon. If they did I would maybe have installed Office 2007, now I stay away from it as far as possible.

At least, MS does however have an online simulation where you can click on the normal classic menu and it tells you where that specific menu item is on the ribbon in Office 2007. Doesn't include all the classical menu items either though...

Cookie,

Have you tried Search Commands? It's a thing that MS put out to help people find things in the ribbon. May help you learn what's where and help you "Love it more." as in the screenshot...

Nope, but very nice tip...

And here you can find the interactive flash guides (yes, Adobe flash ) for Office 2007 which I talked about in my previous post. It shows the classical menu and when you click on a menu item it shows where it is located in the ribbon:
http://office.microsoft.com/en-gb/training/HA102295841033.aspx
Choose an item under "Interactive Guides" > "Run from here"

And you also have Excel workbooks which map the classical menus to the ribbon menus under "Mapping Workbooks" for all the Office apps.

Doesn't let me "love" it more or "hate" it less though

Cookie, I highly suggest that if you find the time that you should try to muck around with office 2007.  It really makes things easy and has a lot more power that is easier to find.

I personally like the old classic menu, but it is just like getting any new software, you play around with it and find your way and soon enough you can use its full potential (it is definitely quicker and easier to learn its full potential with the layout and functionality of the new ribbon.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chris Boulton
Cookie,

Have you tried Search Commands? It's a thing that MS put out to help people find things in the ribbon. May help you learn what's where and help you "Love it more." as in the screenshot...

---

The problem with bad singers

quote:

---

Originally posted by markee
Cookie, I highly suggest that if you find the time that you should try to muck around with office 2007.  It really makes things easy and has a lot more power that is easier to find.

I personally like the old classic menu, but it is just like getting any new software, you play around with it and find your way and soon enough you can use its full potential (it is definitely quicker and easier to learn its full potential with the layout and functionality of the new ribbon.

---

With the way of limiting how much RAM windows can use, was this referring to  /MAXMEM being put in the boot.ini file (or something similiar for Vista). And if so - does this limit how much memory Windows thinks it has? Or does it actually limit how much it can use. So if I said maxmem was 100mb in the boot.ini file would Windows resources always make sure they stay under 100mb in total, allowing the rest of my RAM to be used freely with other applications? Or what.

yes and no.

For Windows 2000/2003/NT/XP use "/MAXMEM=<amount in MB>" in BOOT.INI to set the maximum physical address that Windows will scan in search of RAM. Other programs which are able to access the memory directly(!) can then use the other memory.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/108393

For Window Vista use the "TRUNCATEMEMORY <amount in bytes>" switch in BCDEDIT for the same effect.

Never ever set those values lower than the minimum requirements for te OS! And it is highly important to note that this will only work if you have contiguous ram. eg: there will always be a gap in the address space at the 3,5GB boundery.

---

However, it must be noted that the "/BURNMEMORY=<amount in MB>" parameter would probably more what you're looking for though. This will subtract the amount of megabytes you've specified from the amount of memory otherwise allocated to the system.

For Windows Vista the equivalent is the "REMOVEMEMORY <amount in bytes>" switch.

Then there is also the /3GB parameter...

---------------------------------------


But actually, as said several times before, there is no reason and it makes very little sense why you should want to use all that (unless you want to test something in a simulated low or high memory environment). The Windows OS uses as much memroy as it can use and it does this in a dynamic and ntelligent way, it will not 'overuse' the memory. Furthermore, memory is there to be used, and if the OS doesn't use it, it is available for programs, and vice versa. And remember that using the task manager (or many many other but similar tools) to check how much memory actually is used by a program or Windows is not possible!! It will give you a completely wrong idea.

Things you MUST read before using it:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/108393
http://technet.microsoft.com/nl-be/sysinternals/bb963892(en-us).aspx
http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2007/01/26/1537079.aspx

Excellent thanks Cookie. Personally I'm not going to use it, but it's always good to know to help out someone who might.