EVE General Discussion

UAC is for anyone who likes not having everything they run (assuming they have an administrator privileged account) run with the privileges to screw up their entire system. It's also for administrators who want to go and install software onto a computer they're not logged on to. Works better than 'run as a different user'. It's a /hell/ of a lot nicer when you have to install an msi package.


Ideal world, of course, is running with an unprivileged account, using UAC for elevation when, and only when, you need the elevated privs.

People who say UAC is stupid, or recommend you turn it off, don't know what the hell they're talking about and should be ignored.

(There's two situations I've seen where it gets in the way. And that's with a: old software which doesn't know about it. b: when you're remoting in, as some remote control software really doesn't play nice with it)

I was either being sarcastic/ironic, or you confused me with someone else. I have never been a supporter of the "change for the sake of change, progress without actual progress" sort of technological growth.

I will stay then in the backwater with a faster operating system which doesn't have File Manager bugs, doesn't lose connections over the network and is faster for development and database bashing.

Somehow, I may be able to live with that whilst Windows 8 (a bastard lovechild of WoW and My Little Pony) hogs all the resources.

There's not a lot wrong with XP and there's a lot of people going to be working on that platform for years to come.

How about some very large C++ applications written in VS6? Yes, some do complie under W7 but a lot don't. I know lots of techies in lots of different companies who can't up/down/sidegrade to W7 because of this issue. There are billions of lines of code out there which can't be migrated because W7 isn't backward compatable.

As for performance increase? Well, I am with Hannott here. I have two development machines here; the one with the most oomph and top of the range hardware runs W7 (mostly because I want to play Eve) and next to it is a crufty old PC with XP.

Which boots faster so that I can see the desktop? Why W7. But I can't do anythign with it for minutes because it's not responsive. When the XP desktop is visiible I can get into the VS6 development environment and start cutting code well before the W7 comes up and says hello.

And then it may not compile properly because the XP Compatabliity Mode certainly isn't. So edit on one machine and compile on the other.

Furthermore; I run tens of thousands of SQL statements each evening in my work each evening (I work from home running mu own business selling data to various customers and it's derived from serious number crunching) and I can start the run on the XP machine at the same time as the Win7 machine.

Which gets finished fastest? Well, it may take about two hours on the XP machine and on the W7 machine? It can take twelve hours or more to run the same stuff. The database bashing is grim under Win7.

What makes me laugh is that people say that W8 is even better because the start-up time is even faster than before. That's because a Win8 machine doesn't close down properly but actually goes into hibernation mode (the real shutdown is off on a hidden menu item) so they tell us that it's a fresh reboot but it isn't; it's a mess on top of a mess.

Every now and then, usually when a disk drive dies on one of my machines - the one in the studio seems to need replacing every six or eight months, perhaps it's due to the environment) and I install XP from scratch on there and each time I do that I am amazed how fast that operating system runs.

Getting rid of XP just because it's not as pretty as W7/8 isn't really very good. There's too much stuff out there which is well written but doesn't run on W 7/8.

Yeah, because ram is so expensive, and only 32 bit OS's exists.

Dropping support does not mean that hardware will just stop working under XP...
Most of users install drivers once (after system reinstall or hardware change) and run it for as long as there are no problems with it...

Fifteen years, huh? This just in: Microsoft patents time travel and releases Win XP two years ahead of its predecessor!

…at which point the OS will deallocate the memory and make it available to you anyway.

Oh, and as always, the memory limit in XP is a licensing issue more than anything — it's even possible to **** it out with the appropriate application of force to key system files.

Meh, brain stall on my part. Point still stands if you use the correct timeframe. XP support was extended so companies could sort their **** out. Hell, My company is one of them, we're still struggling to update old software that was written for NT4.


MS doesn't really care, we're paying them extra for XP downgrade licences on 10,000+ PCs.

Now this might come as surprise to you but there are people in the world who doesn't use their computers mainly to play games.

Being able to play some games is a nice addition, but very far from the main use of said machine.

And UAC is actually one of the real gems of win7 (and 8), and so far the main reason why I even ponder upgrading the backups.

If nothing else, UAC is an excellent tool for weeding out incompetent programs and programmers. In fact, UAC was never a problem, even when it caused big waves during the early Vista days — it was just that Windows programmers in generally had the unfortunate baggage of a decade of bad habits in terms of assuming that they had full admin access to everything on the system.

When MS finally instituted a limited environment, programs that relied on those old assumptions would get kicked in the nuts (repeatedly) as they tried to perform admin-level alternations for no good reason. Even as far back as Win98, you could trigger a similarly bad behaviour in programs by applying some limitations to the user's freedom to access all of C:.

You have to upgrade to Haiku, unfortunately.