Most Popular
| Top Stories | Commented | Featured |
ATI Radeon HD 5570 Review featured
AMD's six-core Thuban to have feature like Turbo Boost?
Google to launch Twitter-like service for Gmail
Intel Core i5-based MacBook Pros coming soon?
Intel unveils Itanium 9300 series enterprise processors
Netflix to roll out 1080p streaming later this year
China closes major hacker ring, arrests three members
Sharp and Samsung end LCD patent suits with cross-licensing agreement
TechSpot RSSIndustry News
Microsoft warns users against using vLite
Is Microsoft waving their finger in disapproval at people looking to slim down Vista? That seems to be what is happening as many people frustrated with Vista's slowness turn to third-party utilities to speed things up. In particular, a program called vLite has earned a bit of fame by allowing people to make their Vista installations more lightweight, removing unwanted components and implementing various speed tweaks.
Why is Microsoft is upset with people taking matters into their own hands? As the article mentions, at least this keeps them using Vista rather than ditching it for XP or something else. Microsoft's problem is with potential future complications. They see it as wreaking havoc when it comes time to update system, perhaps updates may fail or actually install but render the system damaged. I doubt people will heed Microsoft's advice though, as it was them who suggested switching to Vista in the first place.
Why is Microsoft is upset with people taking matters into their own hands? As the article mentions, at least this keeps them using Vista rather than ditching it for XP or something else. Microsoft's problem is with potential future complications. They see it as wreaking havoc when it comes time to update system, perhaps updates may fail or actually install but render the system damaged. I doubt people will heed Microsoft's advice though, as it was them who suggested switching to Vista in the first place.
Related Stories
User Comments (13)
Post a comment| viperpfl on January 30, 2008 6:52 PM | Microsoft's answer to making your Vista system faster is for
you to wait until Windows 7 comes out and then probably
charge you $200 for it. Some of the stuff on Vista an
experienced computer user wouldn't need anyways. All
Microsoft did was create a bloated OS that is ineffecient to
the needs of the computer user.
|
| canadian on January 30, 2008 7:38 PM | Honestly, why do people expect so much for Windows 7? The
point of a new OS is to embrace new technology, not forever
support old technology that should be long dead. If they do
make Windows 7 capable of running on shitty computers, then
lets face it, they will have to cut out alot of features and
make it pretty barebones. I would rather have a new OS that
is made to allow me to get the most out of it using the
newer technology.
|
| windmill007 on January 31, 2008 6:34 AM | Why do people think you need more power to support the
newest features? I want a super fast effecient os and if I
want fancy (bloatedness) I can install that myself. So my
3200MHZ computer is crappy huh? Even though Vista runs like
crap. And a brand new duo core that 1.6 that says vista
ready runs super crappy...Its not the computer..its the
crappy os. Sorry but many people feel the same way. And what
gee wiz technolgy is vista giving you over xp at the expense
of performance? Directx10? Uhh I'll pass.Sure lets all throw
away our older cars just because we can't install the latest
geewiz tires or can't drive down the road because it doesn't
have the latest speed control processor in it. Get real.
|
| jhill3d on January 31, 2008 12:31 PM | Vista runs much better than the patched up XP OS ever did.
While I don't play games with it I do in fact edit video and
produce 3D renderings and animations entirely in a Vista
only environment. For the past year, production and business
is up and while it continues I will continue to add even
more staff and Vista machines. I think all this Vista
bashing is a load of crap. From my actual production
environment experience, Vista is far better than XP ever was
or will be...simple as that.
|
| allc0re on January 31, 2008 1:08 PM | Originally posted by jhill3d: Vista runs
much better than the patched up XP OS ever did. That
has not been my experience as vista is always doing
something it shouldn't (freezing, restarting). In my opinion
Vista does very few things better than XP and it does
everything more slowly, on a faster machine no less! If
Vista actually shipped with everything they were promising
from the beginning it would be worth an upgrade, but all the
important new features were stripped so they could get it
out the door (and it was still
late)._________________________________________________ _______ UAC: Are you sure you want to post this message?___________ [Yes] [No] [STOP BUGGING THE CRAP OUT OF ME!] ___________________________________________________ _____ [Edited by allc0re on 2008-01-31 13:20:29]
|
| jhill3d on January 31, 2008 8:25 PM | I wonder why so many seem to have an issue with UAC. I've
only seen it when I install something. Besides I hear you
can disable with a checkbox. Sounds like a PICNIC.
|
| windmill007 on February 1, 2008 6:47 AM | Dude you must not do much. UAC pops up ALL the time. I mean
I try to run soemthing in the control panel and it pops up.
What is up with that? Yes you can disable it but new people
to vista don't know how and isn't the point of it security
not to annoy. To bad microsoft got that way wrong. Most
people after awhile pay no attention to it and just click
yes. Are you sure you want to install this virus... YES
Woops I thought it was just the same annoying thing that
pops up every two seconds and paid no attention 
|
| ezpcmars on February 1, 2008 11:57 AM | Originally posted by windmill007: Why do
people think you need more power to support the newest
features? I want a super fast effecient os and if I want
fancy (bloatedness) I can install that myself. So my 3200MHZ
computer is crappy huh? Even though Vista runs like crap.
And a brand new duo core that 1.6 that says vista ready runs
super crappy...Its not the computer..its the crappy os.
Sorry but many people feel the same way. And what gee wiz
technolgy is vista giving you over xp at the expense of
performance? Directx10? Uhh I'll pass.Sure lets all throw
away our older cars just because we can't install the latest
geewiz tires or can't drive down the road because it doesn't
have the latest speed control processor in it. Get real.
I sorta agree with you here but this is nothing new
and I dont blame microsoft for releasing an OS too quicly
since they still need to meet there deadlines since I
understand how the marketing side of it works a
little.I beleive they should let users upgrade to directX 10 and not make it absolutely the only option, should be able to upgrade to Directx10.I bet directX 10 will eventually get improved and eventually become a better more efficient version of direct X but at this point in time I am quite suprised how uneffective coding that is. Decrease in performance compared to DirectX 9 with no visible improvement. Open for debate. My 10 cents. Marcel
|
| jmcbrideinnj on February 1, 2008 1:22 PM | Originally posted by
allc0re: Originally posted by
jhill3d:
Vista runs much better than the
patched up XP OS ever did. If Vista actually shipped
with everything they were promising from the beginning it
would be worth an upgrade, but all the important new
features were stripped so they could get it out the door
(and it was still late).What??? If Vista was shipped with all he features that were advetised... It would have been lightyears slower and more of a mess than it is now... ____________________________________________ ____________ UAC: Are you sure you want to post this message?___________ [Yes] [No] [STOP BUGGING THE CRAP OUT OF ME!] ___________________________________________________ _____ [Edited by allc0re on 2008-01-31 13:20:29]
|
| icye on February 1, 2008 9:16 PM | Whose to say that the successor to Vista will provide all
the features being touted before its release.
People can turn off the UAC anytime and without any problems afterwards
|
| egone on February 2, 2008 1:59 PM | My opinion on the vista and xp is that xp just works better
without all the work arounds. with vista you got all kinds
of work arounds even a expert user would need to learn how
to get around them. I tried installing poser 10 and it
needed to be elvated. WTF!!! it took me a good 30mins to
hour to figure it out. it was quite annoying. I figure
microsoft should have made custom verion toolset with the
release for advanced users and admins the OOBE of this
product is good but it needs further tweaking and
modifications to make it in a home computer besides if you
don't want something installed in a business network you can
set this policy on the windows server when a user logs on.
so really UAC isn't really needed in this case.
|
| Angel of Sand on February 2, 2008 5:34 PM | Vista has too much overhead to it. 15GB of free space for
Vista and you want to say that it isn't too big for an
interface? 1.5GB of free space for XP, and it's got some
nasty features too. And let's get real, it has some
ridiculous issues in office environments. My best experience with Windows was on 2000, it did exactly what it was supposed to. Now I do work on a combination of Mac OS X and Fedora Core 6, and play games with XP. Although, I do agree that you are breaching a contract, I've noticed that Microsoft breaks it just as much by asking you to agree to it, and then changing it, and locking down the OS until you do. I think I'll stick with XP until I have a reason to get rid of it, and Vista definitely isn't a good one. Maybe I'll buy XP 64bit when I get to that point.
|
| krisjan on February 3, 2008 12:48 AM | ok - some balanced perspective on vista - i ignored the
warnings and decided to go vista on a new laptop purchase,
figuring that i better get into it on at least one computer
so that when time comes for a major switch it won't be too
new for me - this is my experience: 1. In general I dig the new graphics and thumbnails - the preview feature is very handy, the search in prgrams and explorer windows, and i find the networking MUCH BETTER than in xp, where i had to sometimes battle for hours just to see the other machines on the network. 2. One thing i hate is that for some programs (when installing or running) you have to use the 'run as administrator'. Sometimes after long battles to install a program (such as softimage xsi) and many forums, i come to the enlightened insight that i forgot to 'run as administrator' on the install - i mean if i am logged in as an administrative user why can't it just run everything a administrator?!!? 3. In some (older xp) programs i get issues with UI - softimage xsi 5.11 notably 4. I get some stupid error when i browse a folder with mpeg-2 files - the vista resolution centre thing subscribes it to some codec issue with hp laptops (even though mine is a dell) - it's very irritating and has something to do with the thumbnail creation process - so in mpeg-2 containing folders i have to browse with list/detail mode to avoid the error... In general i must say that i am actually surprised by vista after all the bad stuff i heard. A few times i had crashes in video editing software, and also some other programs and then i think 'must be the flippen vista' but when i take the files to an xp machine same error's occur, and it turns out to be another issue - and i realise vista is not so bad - i've had no unexplainable reboots or crashes - only had crashes for valid reasons... so i'll hang in there and hope the little problems will be ironed out as the year progresses with updates from microsoft and other software vendors embracing the new os k
|
