Comments on: What do you think of Vista?
REBOL Technologies

Comments on: What do you think of Vista?

Carl Sassenrath, CTO
REBOL Technologies
10-Apr-2008 18:54 GMT

Article #0361
Main page || Index || Prior Article [0360] || Next Article [0362] || 56 Comments || Send feedback

Ok, Vista has been out for a while now. So, what do you think of it?

Yes, I want to hear your opinion, because I get a lot of mixed feedback about Vista. Some like it; others hate it.

So, this is a bit of an informal survey. I'm interested in your opinion, but don't get too crazy. Make your point clear.

56 Comments

Comments:

Rod Gaither
10-Apr-2008 13:27:30
I can't speak with experience, still on XP at work. I can speak to priority of support from my perspective - Vista should be after the other main three XP, OS X, Linux. As far as I can tell it is not being adopted quickly or gaining any kind of momentum.
Jerry Tsai
10-Apr-2008 13:37
For the past year, Vista is gaining 1% market share per month. http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=11&qpcustom=Windows+Vista
Grant Rettke
10-Apr-2008 13:39:42
XP is the "perfect windows". I feel like Microsoft wants me to jump ship by EOL-ing Windows XP. It is a real dilemma.

What comes next for most XPers: OS X or Linux?

Henrik
10-Apr-2008 13:51:39
Trying to be objective about it: I have only worked with it on one laptop with 1 GB RAM. Almost 2 minutes boot time and generally as slow as XP with 128 MB RAM. People say one should upgrade to at least 2 or 4 GB and so I did but it gave very little difference. I wondered why and checked the system setup, which showed about 2.3 GB of the installed 4 GB of memory utilized by Vista. The rest was not used for various reasons (graphics memory, hardware limitations). Still, I was really surprised at the lack of performance improvements. Coincidentally I upgraded my OSX Leopard Macbook at the same time from 1 to 4 GB which gave a really big difference and is now wonderfully fast.

Getting wifi running on it is very easy, much easier than XP. But that's the only positive point I've discovered about it. It feel even less organized than XP with its haphazardly put together user interface.

A friend of mine runs it on a quad core PC and he says it runs just fine, although he seems to re-install it every 2-3 months, because he says it has a tendency to screw itself up regularly like Win98 did.

Rod is right: It's not being adopted very quickly. The owner of the aforementioned Vista laptop by far prefers XP. He's the only one I know who runs Vista and he did not have the choice to use XP. I have personally no plans to "upgrade" to Vista. Perhaps in a couple of years.

-pekr-
10-Apr-2008 14:10:04
I mostly hate Vista. I am surprised it can get positive feedback. I talk to my admins at work and they like it and I don't understand why. They claim it is evolution you can't stop and that there are some security areas solved right.

But - I have to question myself:

- why on my Dell laptom I am getting crashes of apps, inconsistent behaviour, crashes of Vista once in a while? And please - just don't try to teach me what is failure of OS and what is not.

- why I am not used to Vista even after one year of the usage? When I come back to XP it is quite nice experience.

- did they got their networking right? Go and ask your wireless ISPs about small routers problems in conjunction to Vista clients

- so they spent 1.5 billion on it? What were their UI experts doing? I like simplicity, but not speculative simplicity? I would fire the guy, who came up with one another, absolutly unnecessary layer to networking settings. What the network dialog which can't be skipped is good for? It is big, and cluttered with tonnes of unnecessary info, - absolutly useless

- it can't properly handle sleeping mode after some time - my new notebooks (I have two ones) are sometimes broken when coming from sleeping mode! No USBs working for e.g., or totally frozen PC that even ctrl alt del does nothing. And I don't care about drivers, whatever - it is OS which is responsible to handle things correctly, period.

- after one update, I can't get UAC turned off! It is not turned on, yet I am facing obtrusive dialogs each time I try to change something - this install is simply broken. I can turn it on, or off, no change.

- I have turned off my stick and touchpad, to prevent accidentally touches, as I am using externals mouse. One hour ago, after one update, Windows turns those devices on. Come one? Why does it NOT respect user setting?

I have plenty of good reasons to hate Vista, and I do hate it - it is not increasing my productivity in no single way. There is few positive things as Bitlocker, easier wifi setput, but still not full network (netswitcher like) profiles. Those ppl don't live in reality imo - those are unacceptable ommissions to sane usage in multi-network environment. Someone at MS should be fired imo, even after one year, some basic things are not still fixed and general impression is worse than when working with XP.

Not My Name
10-Apr-2008 14:30:39
I got to help another tech guy at work last year with his new Vista laptop, because it would not work with wireless networking. Looking around, I found that it was a known issue.

We never did get it working reliably, after weeks of effort.

In my opinion, it is still an alpha product, not ready to be unleashed on the public. Like pekr above, I hate it. I am now in the process of migrating the whole house to Mac and Linux.

EyeAm
10-Apr-2008 16:50:06
I'm using Windows Vista Ultimate, 64-Bit, on an ABIT AN52 motherboard with an AMD Athlon 64 X2 "Black Edition" (2.04Ghz overclocked to 3.1Ghz without touching frequency settings), and 4GB of OCZ Technology RAM.

I like Vista a lot. It is, by far, the best OS I have used to date. Without question, the most stable and secure of all Windows iterations.

BUT :) ...they should do two things to improve it: 1) do away with the call-up activation; and 2) work on the Compatibility Mode feature to better run Windows XP apps and associated certified devices (like scanners that were great under XP, but just don't work under Vista).

It's not the OS I would have designed if at Microsoft, of course. I can think of numerous ways to utterly smoke Vista, in speed and flexibility. But, ah well, it's their OS.

I kept a detailed journal of my Vista experience. It ran about ten or eleven pages, from receiving the product in the mail...to final tweaks and installation of non-MS apps. (don't worry, I won't be posting it here, haha) :)

All in all, it has not been a bad OS at all, for me, except for just a few things (which can be overcome).

For me, on what I have, and after all I've done to it, Vista boots in 35 to 45 seconds...to the password screen, and then 3 seconds to the desktop after that (used to be 5 seconds). And it's useable almost right away. Does all I require.

Tanthus
10-Apr-2008 17:58:36
I just started on a Vista Desktop (fast cpu, 3gb memory) Works great. But I suppose if I ran XP it would probably run faster than Vista.

One of the problems with vista is they hid all the nice tweaks that you can get stuff out of your hair. It took me a few days to find the information I needed but once I got the system settled I actually like how it runs.

Things like search, disk-optimizer, anti-virus scanner by default run when they want. Turned them all off. Other programs took a little tweaking to make them work the way I like them.

The "Administrator" protections can be nice once your system is set up since anything that tries to install something or put something where it shouldn't will either fail or need to request the admin mode. You can however run that program as administrator. Once confirmed the restrictions are lifted.

Once I made the changes the system has really been preforming nicely and is running much better than my old XP system.

If you have 1GB of ram run XP. Slower graphics card, use XP. Should you upgrade a computer to Vista? NO run XP. If you are getting a mid line or higher computer, Vista will run fine with it.

Paul
10-Apr-2008 18:16:18
Vista Rocks! I love the scheduling features of Vista which are so much more advanced than the older features. I like the interface and feel of it. I have one Vista machine and three XP machines and prefer the Vista one over the other three XP machines. But my wife loves it to so guess what - she gets it while I'm stuck back on XP.
Goldevil
11-Apr-2008 5:15:27
I sell some computers. It's not my main business (I'm more focused on services than hardawre) but I sell about 2/3 computer per month.

I sold only 1 computer with vista. I still never upgraded a computer from XP to Vista. My customers are usually professionals and they do not ask for sexy things on screen like "alt+tab task switching with 3D windows".

The big problem with Vista is the lack of real cool feature not present in XP. Everything with Vista can be done with XP (maybe with 3rd party freeware).

Mac OS X Leopard has "Time Machine", an incredibly simple and powerful backup system. This is a feature that push people to say "I don't know how to live without that".

Vista is not a bad OS. But the main improvements are not visible to end user (driver model, TCP/IP stack, reliability, security).

Some features announced like the journalized filesystem are not present and will certainly be available in next version.

Vista is a bit like a stable version of Windows Millennium. Something to wait before the real next big release.

Duane Lachney
11-Apr-2008 9:27:39
Bottom line: Even if you are a fan of progress and evolution, there just aren't any *compelling* reasons to upgrade from XP ( fondly referred to as Xtra Pathetic in our household) to Vista.

There's nothing in Vista that's a must-have. XP does a damn good job ( notwithstanding all the hotfixes and service packs that were needed to bring it up to snuff).

If you look at XP and Vista spec-by-spec, side-by-side, XP comes out looking really good. And there are plenty of 3rd party softwares [ open source and otherwise ] to enhance/ extend/ make it even better.

On top of all that, Vista still very much has the look and feel of an unfinished product - Microsoft really has a lot of work cut out for themselves (which is not to say that the Vista OS is junk, but come on - look at the bloat, the memory consumption, the minimum hardware requirements, the lack of anything truly new - very frustrating ).

It's not like the user community was clamoring for a new operating system (Vista) because the old one (XP) wasn't up to the job.

Now, if Vista had come out and ran 15% to 60% faster on the same or less memory as XP (or even if it wasn't any faster but offered something truly new or more), then it would be a different story.

Then XP would be considered truly obsolete, rather than become obselete due to the fact that it will no longer be supported or sold.

In the end it comes down to this: Forced obscelescence is no way to treat your customer base, and the only reason that Windows Vista is on the number of machines that it is, is due entirely to two facts: 1)it comes pre-installed on just about all new PCs, and 2) the customer has to go way out of his or her way to get some other OS installed.

codevark
11-Apr-2008 10:49:45
From an IT PoV, Vista is a nightmare, unless it will be the only desktop OS in use, and your company is willing to retrain everyone.

From the Users' PoV, if you had never used a computer before, then it might not make any difference to you. But all our users have been running XP since it came out, and switching to Vista is painful. Nice to look at, but painful, like some kind of digital dominatrix.

IMHO, Vista's legacy will be much the same as ME - released too soon, and for all the wrong reasons. M$ has already said that their *next* OS, due in just a couple of years, will completely replace Vista, just as XP replaced 98 - so why sumbit yourself to all the pain and thrashing by buying Vista? It costs too much anyway.

Leafy
11-Apr-2008 10:54:12
I expected myself to hate vista, but being fond of halo series and lacking an Xbox, decided to try it out. My PC had (had, cuz after a series of events the HDD is totally busted) 1GB RAM, AMD 3000+ 2.0GHz, and GeForce 5500.

My experience was strangely positive -- I didn't have to install much third-party end-user software (cept for Paint.NET); the interface was more elegant to me due to the system-wide search; the overall quality as compared to Vista has greatly been improved. They've finally started paying attention to end-user, which is nice. What's really nice is that the system is MUCH more stable, atleast in my case.

The real issue was my graphics card -- NVidia stopped developing 5x series' drivers back in 2006, even the NVidia logo doesn't render very well while 3D Games show varying performance (Quake ran at same speed as on XP, HL2 didn't show a stutter, while the Prince Of Persia series and a few MMORPGs ran slow to the point it disturbed the audio); but in times of need I switch to classic mode (which turns off DWM) and the games run zippin' fast. And yes, UAC; but I keep an admin mode with suppression to install applications..

Sure; it's slower than XP bare install - but to bring up the same functionality in XP I have to install lots of 3rd party software that it slows down once again...

I wondered if Leopard would be phenomenal, judging from reactions all over the internet. I bought a Mac Mini and to be honest, I am yet to be impressed. There are a few odds and ends, but it breaks down just as often as windows does - the updates don't work; my wireless keyboard+mouse needs drivers (which I have); some aspects plain unintuitive, et cetera..

I agree though - there's no compelling for a user to UPGRADE to Vista, but nor did I know any to upgrade from 98 to XP - it was all about the pretty interface back then. Most of my friends have switched and all have shown positive replies.. I guess we have to wait for WPF applications to start roll out. WPF/E is being received positively, maybe it'll have an effect on WPF acceptance too..

Retrolover
11-Apr-2008 15:02:10
Really guys, what are we talking about here? WAKE UP! There is something really wrong with the computer market these days. The hardware is improving year by year. Speed is not the problem there. But installing any Windows OS on a computer with a quad core is like puting a space shuttle frame with all it's parts, cargo and crew around a ferrari motor. The motor is fast but it just don't take it.
Leafy
11-Apr-2008 15:13:05
(at)RetroLover: Umm, there really isn't any other PC OS which would actually churn those quad-cores... There are games and tools like photoshop, but otherwise you got linux which does less power churning. On the other hand, I don't think it needs a quad and I think dual core would suffice for the majority..
Retrolover
12-Apr-2008 9:48:38
(at)Leafy: In my humble opinion we would not need a quad core if it was for OS'es like Windows for the majority. The computer industry is looking for these kind of solutions to keep up with the growing unnessesary complexity in software and the way it is written. And it's not only with pc's. I know cell phones that have windows mobile. It takes more than a minute to turn on. am a programmer myself and I tell you if my programs would run this slow, I will look if I did something wrong. If there is a loop that is not working correctly.
Leafy
12-Apr-2008 14:08:19
(at)RetroLover: I got you wrong. For one thing; Vista doesn't demand a quad core -- and having a quad core isn't bad; it's not a necessity for Vista either. I can say that with confidence after having seen it run and installed on a number of PC's, it's the DX9 support of the video card and the RAM that matter more... What I mean to say is that building a machine with quad-core or high-end hardware shouldn't be a disadvantage by any means. From what I read, vista works better with multiple cores than XP did.. I despise Windows Mobile too (as well as Symbian..) but startup isn't indicative of hardware IMO -- XP boots the same on all PC's, yes the design is bad... But not compelling enough for me to abandon it and lose all the advantages.
Brian Tiffin
12-Apr-2008 23:51:39
I'm a Debian fanboy. I've got two HP machines duo-core 2GB, came with Vista (Home Premium).

I run Vista so rarely that I've not found all the features yet.

One event turned me off completely. To Alpha Test R3 I booted Vista. I haven't disabled UAC and I run as a user, not admin. Too many UAC requestors in user mode when using the machine for development.

At 3am one night, while working on a GNU/Linux node, I had my back turned on the Vista box. Vista decided that it wanted to reboot to install critical updates. When I noticed, there was 12 seconds left on the count down timer and because I was not an admin, the Postpone button was greyed out. I didn't have time to invoke an admin login. So, it shutdown to install updates.

I have my MBR under GRUB and it's set to boot Debian. So Vista would not have gotten the updates anyway. So at 3am, instead of staying in the flow of work, I had to wait for a shutdown, tweak the reboot into Vista, and then start all the apps again (with the associated UAC requestors). 30 minutes later I was ticked off enough that the workflow was ruined.

Not a developers computing environment. At All.

The next time the auto-boot counter started (a few days later), I just shook my head and Vista has yet to be booted to get those updates. Why auto shutdown a machine? I don't care if I'm an admin or a user ... I'm working. And why auto shutdown a machine without checking the MBR to see if the OS is even the one that will get rebooted to?

I vote no to Vista. Etch (Debian 4.0) can install critical updates (even kernel upgrades) and they get reboots on owner demand, not at the whim of MS, who seems to like disrupting working developers, at 3am no less. With an in your face Postpone button that you can't press if you use the OS as you are "told" to, in user mode. Still bugs me. 6 months later.

I'll only ever Vista during emergencies, and by that I mean inability to work under Wine. I sure hope any REBOL release 4 Alpha picks GNU/Linux as the initial target platform.

Retrolover
13-Apr-2008 1:24:37
(at)Leafy:That is true. Vista does not 'need' the quads but it needs the RAM, videocard and a lot of HD space. To me makes no sence. About the starting up of Windows and Windows Mobile. I'm not sure if it takes the same time on all PC's. It does not really matter. When it is 'started up' it is still busy initiating services, starting tray icons, getting the wallpapers, starting network services. My point is, it's not ready for use when you see the desktop. By a longshot with the older machines. My collegues at work make jokes like start the computer, get coffee. By the time they finish coffee they are lucky to use the damn thing. I have een a system administrator for years (Yes with windows products). The computers get worse when they are in a domain. But like Carl asked we do not get to crazy we try to make a point here. My point is indeed a very bad design. So bad I'm going to stop adressing all the problems. But one thing, it's the standard for now but people complain about it a lot. I spend 13 years kind of warning people for Windows. I think now it's to late to do something about it. MS will be there.
Carl Read
13-Apr-2008 13:37:27
Stop sitting on the fence and go and sign the petition! ...

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hP-PJpWPOXhxZHpqZ_M-Euh6DntwD90153BG0

I deliberately bought my current laptop before the Christmas before last to be sure of not getting Vista. I had no wish to be saddled with the problems Microsoft's latest excursion in bloatware would surely have.

But the whole upgrade-or-else approach is endemic in the software industry, and it's real stupid and is what turns so many people off computing. If people are happy with your product, why force them onto a product they don't want?

By all means stop adding new features and bring out a new product containing them, but don't try and force customers away from a product they like. (And yeah, shock-horror, have two or more products - but at least they'll be products your customers are happy to be using.)

James Goss
13-Apr-2008 21:45:46
I have put some industrial strength databases and application development tools on Vista, and so far no crashes. But I must add that I have not really pushed it yet, either. I actually never saw what was so great about any of Vista's predecessors, except for Windows 2000.

I prefer to run Mac OS X. I have a full Unix available at the Terminal level, which makes it easily accessible. Cocoa has become quite extensive. The user interface seems logical and simple - sometimes Vista seems overly complex.

I think Microsoft may improve the whole operating system market if it goes the way of modular, install only-what-you-need modules. This might eliminate some of the bloat, the considerable memory use might be reduced, performance and stability might improve. It remains, of course, to be seen.

Janeks
13-Apr-2008 22:22:09
I bought my laptop together with Vista. Yes, it is definitely bloatware - consuming a lot of resources. It takes some time to find those differencies from XP in everyday work. But it happens every time when we have to change or get into new software. But it seems that this problem will be more difficult with Microsoft Office 2007 - their interface is completely different and seems even bloated within terms of GUI graphic space - personally I don't like that strange menu and button interface.

Why I decided to keep Vista - because despite of user opinions Microsoft will push on it any way. And I should to work with them. From other side to not put the bricks on Windoze wall I now have dual boot laptop with Linux and Vista and exploring the other ways of computing and so can offer to my clients other expierence.

What I like in Vista is that default glass styled windows GUI. F.ex. the default XP style I don't like - in XP I am using the classical windows scheme.

Mule
14-Apr-2008 3:36:43
What I'm surprised about is that if I install the Windows 2008 server trial version, activate all options I have in Vista like Aeroglass, Prefetch etc. (see http://www.win2008workstation.com/) I end up with a system thats 10-15% faster despite sharing the same kernel, taking up 50% of the RAM, and with ALL server roles cached on HD is only 20% bigger than Vista.

A 2008 Server version without the Server Role cache and other server-specific packages ends up between 2.5-3GB in size. At least 10GB smaller than Vista. I haven't noticed any lack of functionality yet, and the user experience is snappier and less restrictive (as a member of the Administrator group). I even get to run multiple 3D modelling tools without a hitch, which was impossible in two distinct installs of Vista (lengthy pauses and even crashes after alt-tab)

If Microsoft launched such a build as Windows 2008 Workstation at Vista Premium prices I'd snap it up immediately. As of now I got an unused Vista licence laying around, and am seriously wondering what to run when the trial period expires: XP64, or switch to OS X or Linux ?

Ryan Cole
14-Apr-2008 8:47:35
Unless you have a fast PC, its SLUDGE.
JohanAR
14-Apr-2008 8:48:42
I bought a high-end / gaming laptop which had Vista Ultimate 32 preinstalled. After _alot_ of tweaking and installing drivers/patches I've got it working smoothly. I like it enough to keep it on the laptop, but I'd never try to "upgrade" my stationary PC to Vista.

I actually installed Ubuntu 8.04 yesterday, but I really miss a few Win apps/games I haven't managed to replace yet.

yeksoon
14-Apr-2008 22:47:36
My client, an end user, suggest that I stay off Vista.

Norman
15-Apr-2008 14:02:56
Yes we have a Vista, its quick in the corners and parks very well in the city. Using it on holidays , while we travel the mountains, it needs sometimes a push. But afterall I'm glad I bought a blue one because the red type seems to have some problems swifting.. My wife likes the Vista too. She uses it mainly for daily shopping and bringing the kid to the kindergarten.. For only $9.55 I bought the Vista and its a great transport for daily jobs. If i would use to for programming? Nooo its not build for it..is it?..

RobertS
15-Apr-2008 19:55:16
and this note on CNN http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/04/14/microsoft.xp.ap/index.html Many ISV are still developing software on XP ... the product may have to run on VISTA but that doesn't mean all development needs to be done on VISTA ...
Carlos Lorenz
17-Apr-2008 16:14:32
Vista no way. XP is the best Windows so far.
Greg Brondo
17-Apr-2008 23:43:55
I've worked with Vista and Server 2008 on many different machines (my latest is a Dell Tablet XT). Vista is what I would call *not fully cooked*. Seems to0 many groups had input into the final code and no one person was at the helm directing the project. It runs dog slow -- Blue screens more than XP (again with video drivers -- especially on this Tablet). The only quality of Vista I can see is the new Window manager (Aero) interface.

I'm a IT Director at a world wide television network and we've decided to stay the course with XP and 2003 until we can either 1) Move to Linux for most tasks or 2) Wait for Windows 7.

Either way we are skipping Vista altogether.

-- gb

Allen K
18-Apr-2008 7:16:09
We have two machines in the office with Vista, the rest are staying with XP.

Have had nothing but trouble with sound drivers on both machines since the Valentine's day updates. The brand new Acer maching was fixed by going back to a 2006 driver, but unfortunately have no solution for the Dell, which is (was!) used for voice over / audio recording.. So Vista has made us less productive.

Giuseppe Chillemi
18-Apr-2008 16:28:11
I have reached a so stable system on XP that I would upgrade to Vista only with my next DUAL XEON PC but this will happen only in the year 2009 or maybe 2010. I have used it on some new PC I have installed but I do not feel at home like on Windows XP and I do not see the improvements. Other than this I fear about incompatibilities with the software and external devices I regularly use.

shadwolf
20-Apr-2008 19:40:22
my comment on vista is is it really clever to get spinning 3d text all around to read an email ?
shadwolf
20-Apr-2008 20:29:06
I think vista puts on the line the real main problem of all Operating systems ever "Operating system to serv what purpose ??" and as carl is one of the top world specialist on the topic I think knowing him a little this ask is hum ironic. Ho carl nasty joker you are hahahaahaha.

So Windows Vista technically is the same as windows 2K without win32 API layer and with more automation and cosmetic.

I don't think that's a good evolution to get an OS requiering those specifications to just start.

My computer and that's a personnal very personnal though of mine is built to run the software i use. An OS is designed to be the link betwin user software and datas and the needed hardware just that goal took near 20 years to be handle correctly by Microsoft OS (without those famous stupid blue screen Microsoft loved so much ^^).

So now, they finally found a stable kernel (NT 5.0/win2K) to link hardware datas and software they enhance it with cosmetic things.

And anyone that knows some of the 3D window managers built under linux or unix (like the ones from Silicon GRafix for example) knows that to put 3D on a window manager or an OS you don't really need so much computing power windows Vista requieres.

I think vista is just an attempt from Microsoft to say to apple "Hey Apple you are not the only "artists" around. Look what we can do..."

Mixing 3D layer within the conventional 2D layer isn't a bad idea after all... But the way microsft do it looks so toy that's comic.

Windows Vista in my opinion reply to 2 need 1st the need to maintain a constant price on hardware tachnology by making people buy new hardware more often, 2nd the need to maintain their customers under control. No people Microsoft didn't forget you look we have an improved O.S just for you.

To link vista to rebol I will end saying Vista is the contrary of rebol phylosophy "Keep IT SIMPLE!"

maarten
20-Apr-2008 23:22:26
I have Vista on a $1000 Toshiba and it works... more or less. My wife(!) runs Xandros Linux on an Asus EEE of $300 and is very happy.

Point made?

ToddB
24-Apr-2008 10:20:17
A lot of the things said here are typical complaints against vista from people who have barely used it, heard bad things about it, or tried to run it with hardware that wasn't designed for it. I am a C# developer and have been running vista since october of 2006, and have it on 3 computers, 2 which are laptops. It is my primary OS at home. My computers hardware is all very vista friendly, both of our laptops have at least 2 gigs of ram, and they are all core 2 duos with dedicated video memory. The system is stable, there are a lot of improvements. Folders icon is whats inside of them, you can create folders of searches, you can tag meta data on files for easy retrieval. The new vector rendering is beautiful, the UI is responsive, explorer is no longer single threaded, no longer hangs, you can control audio for individual apps from mixer. There are lots of cool features like this that work very well. The UAC annoyance is greatly exaggerated and will only really an annoyance when first setting up system, installing/uninstalling. Bottom line, if you have crap hardware, or a predisposition to not like it, it sucks. If your open minded, really want to use it, and have good hardware with nice drivers, works very well and is quite pleasant.
Ryan Snyder
25-Apr-2008 12:59:15
"""The new vector rendering is beautiful, the UI is responsive, explorer is no longer single threaded, no longer hangs, you can control audio for individual apps from mixer. There are lots of cool features like this that work very well. The UAC annoyance is greatly exaggerated and will only really an annoyance when first setting up system, installing/uninstalling."""

Eyecandy? Does not get my work done any faster.

UI? Changes = massive user retraining for my company of non-geeks.

Audio? Who cares? I can only sanely listen to one audio source at a time, on my l-Pod :)

Threading? How would you know what techical aspect MS is using in it's CLOSED SOURCE code? ;)

UAC? Big pain. We install dozens of apps on my company machines to test every day.

Crap hardware? Bad economy = bossman order to continue to use bought and paid for "crap hardware". And that's why we intend to use Rebol more and more!

Please "ToddB", tell Mr. Balmer hello!

ToddB
25-Apr-2008 15:37:20
Vector for ICONS means, icons now scale with resolution. Also, the ui changes make more sense in most cases, its better organized. I personally hate eyecandy which is why I turn full aero off and use aerobasic instead.

You can view the number of threads an app uses from taskmanager, and the point was existing explorer hangs on xp.

I care about audio, when coding I listen to music, nothing is worse than having the computer shriek at you really loud when an exception is thrown or a new email is received. This is a problem with current xp.

My whole point is the biggest issues with vista are hardware drivers, high hardware requirements, vista home is too crippled, and transferring of files was a bit broken before service pack one (could take hours to transfer a few megs). If your getting new, high quality hardware vista is more than fine, if not, I would recommend win2k or freebsd.

Doug
29-Apr-2008 11:15:23
Here's where Micro-Soft went wrong with Vista -- the name!

All the others, can make it to 2 letters, and we know what it is: 95, 98, ME, 2K, XP.

But Vista? What's that turn into? V? VI? VS? VT? VA? None of them fit. I suppose when the bug-fixes come out, then there can be V1, V2, V3, V4, V5, V6 .... So maybe the best is VZ: Vista Zero.

Actual VZ isn't too bad, sounds like Viz. But that's not how they chose to spell it. If they had gone with Vizta, now that's a name.

EyeAm
4-May-2008 9:29:44
When complaints are "typical", you're OS is in trouble. ;-)
dloader
6-May-2008 5:40:43
I as a end user am certain that Firefox looks and behaves the same on 98,xp and vista, so do email client and text editor and so on. Simply can't see the need for an costly upgrade.
ToddB
16-May-2008 23:27:31
I totally agree dloader, but if it comes with your shiny new computer, might as well use it. I was kind of excited when I found dos pygmyforth ran on vista, even though it consumed an entire core.
StewH
18-May-2008 19:49:51
Vista is ok in terms of using it (once you get used to it) but the resources it requires are amazing. It is simply beyond the joke! XP was in the right direction, it worked quite well (after SP2) ... Vista though is just a laugh and as a software and hardware developer I would be ashamed to have my name associated with its development. Even when it becomes stable (i.e. after it too has had its own SP2 applied) it will still be a resource hungry waste of my time. I nearly fell out of my chair laughing when it struggled on 3Gb RAM just for the OS to run smooth while I run a single application.

With Ubuntu (I only use that as an example because it is as easy to use as windows but any flavour will do) the *nix wins hands down. Easy to use and it has a nice character to it. In terms of learning where existing things are and what new features are for, switching from XP to Vista was more difficult that switching to Ubuntu.

I've always found that OS's have their own character. The C64 and Amiga are prime examples. Just look at the loyal following they still have today. I don't know anyone who reminisces about their childhood computer experiences when they used DOS or another machine, except perhaps the Apple crowd.

Leafy
22-May-2008 6:01:10
Umm, XP wasn't easy with resources in those days - I remember how shocked I was when my friends told me I need atleast 128MB or 256MB and minimum 1 GHz processor if I use a lotta apps. Most of us upgraded just for the pretty looks. And as for the struggling with 3 GB RAM; it's always the same - it needs a better graphics card - 780G for example.. Not a fast CPU; nor excess RAM..
Tim Johnson
27-May-2008 14:37:04
My market is not windows, it is linux and sun system servers and has been so for 8 years. I have used linux for 8 years now after 11 programming in a dos, then windows environment and working with NT servers. I am in the process of migrating my wife to kubuntu so that I can better help her with questions and issues as I am no longer familiar with windows. One year ago, I purchased a HP computer with Vista,partioned the hard drive and installed linux on the new partition with dual-boot features. If I boot vista - for grins - the difference between performance in linux vs vista is just breath-taking. I.E. linux is just so much more efficient in use of resources. But vista looks nice.
John
27-May-2008 23:31:11
I use Vista on a Lenovo ThinkPad with an Intel core 2 Duo processor and 1 gb ram. I also use XP Pro on other laptops and desktops. I also have a MacBook with OSX 10.4. I was surprised about how similar Vista was to OSX 10.4.

I think Vista was a competitor directed against OSX, rather than an upgrade of XP. While Vista may be a worthy competitor to OSX for aesthetics and security, it lost ground on efficiency and stability. Vista has been unstable with numerous crashes. I would not buy another windows machine with Vista.

... Dos or give me death
28-May-2008 5:12
The short answer is: I hate Vista.

Windows Operating System is an oxymoron. At the end of the day Vista is just another parasite OS.

On the topic of security:

Having a dialog open every time I wish to do something is not security. Imagine if the police installed cameras and microphones in every room of your home and place of work and queried you every time you performed an activity. Do you think you would feel safer? I doubt it. You would be royally pissed at not being able to get something done.

A good OS should operate like a utility. It should have a narrow path with a predictable set of outcomes. Your hydro should not destroy your appliances when you turn it on. It should serve to enhance the quality of your daily life rather than hijack it.

There are just too many things to complain about. Vista is the latest incarnation of the antichrist.

grimpr
28-May-2008 17:31:39
Windows Vista is the epitome of greedy marketing driven computing and Microsofts first sign of getting sloppy, a beta product quickly rushed to the masses just for sending their bug reports for Microsoft to fix their server code, a failure of big proportions on all fronts, indeed its rightly called Windows Millenium V2. Software platforms rise,mature and degenerate and this cycle has just approached closing for Microsofts flagship of products, their attempts to assimilate new ideas and tech from OSX and Linux are more and more desperate and not wisely implemented and tweaked, their coding practices rely on laziness, their image as an innovator to average users has fallen to subpar levels and the list goes on and on. Great times await ahead for Apple and especially Linux.
Optrader
2-Jun-2008 16:54:29
I have a HP machine duo-core 2GB, came with Vista (Home Premium). At times, I would come into the room and see the harddrive working like crazy and the screen frozen. I finally turned off all the power saving features and that stopped it. I installed Grub and I now have a dual boot system: Vista and Ubuntu. I rarely, rarely ever boot Vista. I love Ubuntu. Software for Ubuntu is FREE. You should see the boot time between Vista and Ubuntu. It takes Vista forever to complete the boot process and with Ubuntu it is a snap.
MonkeyMan
9-Jun-2008 4:34:23
Do I like Windows Vista?

A qualified yes...

As I see it, the biggest problem with Vista has been its marketing (and Microsoft's heavy handed strategy)... It is mis-targeted, and mis-understood.

The core architecture of Vista (and 2008) is solid and has some huge advantages over XP (and 2003). Unfortunately, many of these advantages come with a performance penalty.

The key benefits in Vista are in user and kernel process isolation - this improves security in so many ways, from enabling NX technology to be better enforced, and the UAC dialogs being more than cosmetic (though still annoying), it has better portability (as user space and kernel space have fewer interdependencies - ask your local sysadmin how you make an SOE to work on ANY hardware [really bad ones say 'easy, sysprep it', competent ones say 'not hard, but must use the same HAL' real good ones say 'pain in the butt - HAL switching is black magic'])... And whats that mean to you, the coder? better abstraction and a more predictable environment for your software to run in (think REBOL is abstracted enough that you don't need to care? ask a friendly java developer if they've had any experience of AMD v's Intel based x64 systems and selecting a Linux JVM last year)... so, all in all, Vista is a step closer to a micro-kernal architecture than XP (or OSX) - but it has a price - lots of double handling of memory as it is moved from user to kernal space and back (especially in poorly written software), so you need at least twice the memory, twice the RAM I/O, and about 15% more CPU grunt to get the same end user performance... and thats before you add the bloat of eye candy. (it's worth noting that the afore mentioned multi-threaded 'explorer' and new driver model were pre-requisites for the improved architecture)

What I believe should have happened is that Vista should have been targeted at the enterprise - where hardware and software is generally better quality, more standardized and better supported than the home - and then, as it matures, it's core goodness could have its hardware and software support extended, bolt on the eye-candy, and release the consumer version - just like happened with Windows 2000 to XP - Problem is, MS wanted people to rush to the stores like in the days of 95, so bit off more than they can chew.

The organization for whom i work (I'm a system engineer) will be moving to Vista (with Aero turned off, so they'll look and feel similar to XP) as our standard platform over the next 12 months as we refresh hardware and loose the legacy systems that won't cope (still about 20% of our fleet). We've had a few software issues in testing - our vendors have worked with us to fix the bulk of them. The few remaining issues in packages that are no longer supported and we plan to phase out, we've solved with application virtualization (with Softgrid)

For reference, I'm well versed in most OSes common. I run Vista Premium at home on my media PC, Ubuntu on my aging home desktop, XP on my other half's laptop, Leopard on my G4 PowerBook, Windows 2008 on my work desktop (with XP and RedHat VMs) and Vista Enterprise on my work laptop (also with a couple of VMs), and work with several other OSes including Windows of every flavour and several Unix variants - as they say "horses for courses"

arxion
20-Jun-2008 12:55:37
My exposure to Vista has been (by informed choice) very limited, but even my brief contacts suggest that the name should be modified to "FistYa", because now the anal pain for windows users gets really obscene.

My prime validation for the "FistYa" moniker was found at the local independent computer parts and repair shop I frequent. Since it's release they have had one to four FistYa victims a day bring in their brand new computer systems and pay $65 a pop for upgrades back to XP.

I also made the mistake of forgetting my long standing mantra "I DON"T DO WINDOWS!" in order to rescue a friend who was desperate to get technical help with the very problematic FistYa laptop that he had ordered from Dell in May (despite my ardent and sincere recommendations to order his Dell machine with Ubuntu Linux pre-installed).

For years windows EULA's have essentially been claiming that Mafia$oft owns the computer you paid for and anything you produce with it, but FistYa attempts to enforce that claim with a sadistic vengeance. The unauthorized shutdown operations in FistYa's "auto-update" programs repeatedly corrupted the system software of my friend's computer. It was two long phone sessions with Dell tech support (in India, of course), two full system recovery re-installs, plus installation of a replacement hard drive & CD/DVD later before he agreed to have me turn off the FistYa update services all together. Since his receipt noted that he had pissed away $95 on an anti-virus program that FistYa isn't even supposed to need, I had no pangs of conscience charging him $200 for my pain and suffering in wasting several hours of my life on the FistYa OS that I had warned him not to buy in the first place.

For the time being his FistYa laptop is being functional, but I figure it's only a matter of time before he takes me up on the free offer to erase his laptop hard drive and install Linux.

Windows doesn't just invite viruses and spyware, windows IS viruses and spyware.

arxion

Steve, the eFishAnt
22-Jun-2008 6:43:04
I am SO glad I got rid of Vista on my laptop. I wish I could get a refund for it.
Sam D
5-Jul-2008 11:07:33
Carl,

I just found your blog (on July 4th) simply by googling while reading "On the Edge" (Spectacular Rise and Fall of Commodore) by Brian Bagnall.

For disclosure, I have to say that I have learned everything I know about operating systems, kernels and pre-emptive multitasking from Amiga's Exec :) Thank you for all the work you have done over the years.

Windows greatest "vulnerability" is fat, inefficient and vulnerable kernel which in turn required designers of Vista to implement security in a way which turns off customers. Inefficiency is also manifested in an enormous memory footprint of the operating system (it requires gigabytes to run properly, having an impact on user experience). Another important annoyance in Vista is what seems like a very messy driver interface which often leads to incompatibility with presumably "Designed for Vista" hardware. Finally, pre-emptive multitasking as implemented in Vista (with applications spinning out of control more often than not) can be described only as incomplete. Since Microsoft does not document its work openly, it is hard to tell if applications are violating the APIs :) or if the OS is pulling them into the abyss.

Vista works great on top-notch hardware (Macbook Pro), with a lot of memory. However, it is nothing more than XP which is far more stable on a lot more hardware configurations.

This is where Apple shines: top-notch hardware, selected few great configurations and an operating system which works great even with 256MB of RAM (on a G4 for example). The more memory you add, the better it gets.

Best,

Sam

Matt
2-Sep-2008 13:45:05
I'm an internet junkie who's grown up on windows. For me, vista is pissing me off because it isn't very tweakable. Unfortunately, the opportunity cost of switching to linux is very high and will take a long time to become proficient.

Also, there are so many amazing programs available for free on linux that I really will have to make the switch.

Matt

Michael Treadway
4-Sep-2008 20:21:09
Bought HP laptop with Vista Pro. 4g ram. Vista runs great, I have not had any problems with it all, Although I did set it to XP style startup bar. Vista style difficult to navigate
Ben
16-Sep-2008 8:26:55
IMHO, whenever an OS REQUIRES you buy new version of applications in order to operate with the new OS and the new OS (i.e. vista) does not give you really any new features that were not already taken care of by third party apps, its a pointless exercise that drains your pocket book.

Consistency of operation is more important than a couple of new features that in order to obtain break all your old software. Examples: remote control software. Flash card software. Security software. etc...

Interface changing for sake of change is not beneficial in any way. Forcing users to accept a new interface is not a good business practice. Instead, create a 'skin' option that would allow those that spent several years learning a 'classic' style to stay with a classic style.

Changing underlying program calls, and interfaces does several things:

* It cuts off support and ramps up learning curves.

* Slows down support

* Breaks software

* Creates a stress filled environment for developers and support teams that have spent years learning the previous systems.

OK, I'm stepping down from my soap box.

Post a Comment:

You can post a comment here. Keep it on-topic.

Name:

Blog id:

CS-0361


Comment:


 Note: HTML tags allowed for: b i u li ol ul font p br pre tt blockquote
 
 

This is a technical blog related to the above topic. We reserve the right to remove comments that are off-topic, irrelevant links, advertisements, spams, personal attacks, politics, religion, etc.

Updated 20-Nov-2017   -   Copyright Carl Sassenrath   -   WWW.REBOL.COM   -   Edit   -   Blogger Source Code