Vista Beta 2 has Major Problems

WebHostingGuy writes "In a review by Gary Krackow from MSNBC who reviewed Vista Beta 2 over the last week he had very disappointing problems. "for me [it] was one of the worst operating system experiences that I've ever encountered." Built-in audio and wireless didn't work on his Levono laptop. It took four days to get the first installation."

Comments

Article Summary

[AKAImBatman]

"I tried to install on a laptop, and it didn't work."

Am I the only one who's sitting here and wondering, "What was this guy thinking?!" Laptops have so much custom hardware these days that it's a Bad Idea(TM) to attempt an OS installation from anything but restore CDs. This guy not only tried to install from new media, but he tried to install a cutting-edge operating system that isn't even out of beta!

Desktops are cheap these days. Would it kill him to keep one or two around for "kicking the tires" of new Operating Systems? His install experience probably would have been smoother, and we might have actually been able to hear some real complaints about Windows Vista. ;-)

Re:Article Summary

[AKAImBatman]

Um, what in the world are you talking about?

WTF? An OS installation from restore CDs? Can you tell me where to get vista restore CDs? (or linux ones for that matter?)

Who said he was supposed to use a restore CD for Vista? I said that laptops have so much custom hardware that it's a Bad Idea to do an OS install from anything but a restore CD. Since there's no install CD for Vista, he probably shouldn't have been trying to install on his laptop. Clear?

The success of a new operating system depends at least in part on how easy it is to install.

Nonsense. The last several iterations of Operating Systems have been handled via machine upgrades. Vista will be no different, especially given its higher system requirements. However, manufacturers should start supporting Vista once it's actually out. Which means that any poor souls who want to, say, upgrade a laptop will be able to after the OS is released.

If you'd read the article, you would know that he did: "I did try installing Vista on two other laptops."

How do you get from "Try it on a Desktop system" to "He tried it on a couple more laptops."

Did you read a single word I wrote?

Re:Article Summary

[plague3106]

WTF? An OS installation from restore CDs? Can you tell me where to get vista restore CDs? (or linux ones for that matter?)

I think that is his point; there ARE none yet, so of course all those custom drivers that the laptop makers put do not yet exist for Vista.

The success of a new operating system depends at least in part on how easy it is to install.

True, but do you really expect MS to make drivers for EVERY device out there, even those that seem to require custom drivers? Some devices you simply MUST get the drivers from the manufactorer, there's no way around it.

If you'd read the article, you would know that he did:

        I did try installing Vista on two other laptops. One, it turns out, needs a new Real Time Clock battery (a trip to the manufacturer is needed) and another which had a massive hard drive failure at the beginning of the installation process.

So now are you trying to claim hardware failures are the fault of Vista?

There are legit reasons to bash MS; try sticking to those. Bashing for everything just makes you look silly.

Re:Article Summary

[chundo]

Yeah, I don't really see how that's any different from XP. After a fresh install, I can't even get the network card to work on my Dell without downloading the driver from their web site on a different computer and burning it to a CD.

On the other hand, Ubuntu and Mandriva have supported everything perfectly on the last 5 computers I've had (3 of them laptops that have tons of unsupported hardware with an XP stock install), so "there's too much custom hardware" is no excuse for a miserable OS installation experience. So he does have a very valid gripe, but it's also nothing new with Vista.

Re:Article Summary

[barawn]

Laptops have so much custom hardware these days that it's a Bad Idea(TM) to attempt an OS installation from anything but restore CDs.

Er?

I've installed Windows XP on all of my laptops over the past few years, and everyone else in my office does the same thing, too. Laptops come with too much cruft installed by default, and in general, it's silly for us to pay to upgrade to XP Pro when there's a site license available for next to nothing here. So wipe the drive, in goes a new installation of XP Pro, alongside Linux, typically. I've never run into a problem.

Jumping to Dell's site for the laptop I'm on now, all of the drivers are right there ready.

Now, there aren't Vista drivers. But if what he's saying is "driver support for Vista may be lacking, so you might have trouble", I don't really see that as a problem. A lot of people only have laptops nowadays, so not being able to install Vista on a laptop easily means a lot of people aren't buying Vista.

Re:Article Summary

[Asphalt]

Vista will run on laptops. But like with most XP machines today, custom drivers will be built to handle all the embedded hardware. The problem here is that Vista is in beta, ergo it has very little driver support. Thus if you want to review a beta (as opposed to doing bug reporting for Microsoft) then you should use a more standardized system. i.e. A Desktop.

Not sure I agree.

You can put together a desktop computer with 1,000,000 different hardware configurations. Laptops are actually much less configurable ... hardware-wise.

Desktops need just as many drivers as laptops (if not more), and they are hardly "standardized".

You can get a generic Dell white box, or an Alienware Gaming Monster. Both desktops, very different computers.

Laptops are actually more standard these days, IMHO.

You are unlikely to have dual-7800 Ultra cards running SLI with an AMD X2 with Cool-N-Quiet, and Raid 0 in a laptop.

Desktops are far from standardized, and I don't see any reason why it would be easier to get Vista running on one.

Re:Article Summary

[GoRK]

It is probably easier to get vista running on a desktop simply because they are built out of commodity components, and the third party vendors are usually better about having things like vista-ready drivers available to download.

Laptops with their more specialized hardware (albeit there are fewer options to deal with) are mostly reliant on the laptop vendors for driver support, and I can tell you this: the vendors don't much care at this point about the upgrade path when Vista is still in beta. Even when it is released, current laptops may be difficult to install and support due to vendor disinterest. After all, they'd rather sell you a brand new machine with Vista preinstalled.

Still this author tends to echo the senitment of most computer users nowadays. People tend to dislike Linux and think it is hard to use because it is hard to install. Meanwhile, said users have never had to trudge through a Windows install from scratch themselves (Or they have only had to use restore CD's). Whenever they first have to they realize it's not particularly easy either. The only OS that really is easy to install in my experience has been the Mac OS, and the primary reason for this is because the OS vendor is the hardware vendor and they know ahead of the install exactly what hardware is in the machine. I personally think that people trying and failing to upgrade to Vista will switch a lot of people over to macs, but it also will simply cause a lot of people to throw away that $350 computer and just buy a new one instead.

Re:Article Summary

[PygmySurfer]

The problem isn't that Windows XP ships with only the most common drivers, it's that Windows XP shipped 5 years ago. There's obviously been A LOT of hardware released since then. The Linux fanboys usually conveniently leave that little tidbit out though, and then claim Linux has better driver support.

Re:Article Summary

[SanityInAnarchy]

The Windows fanboys always tell us that nothing matters except that It Works (TM). Philosophy doesn't count.

Ok, then, Windows XP shipped 5 years ago. Ubuntu ships a new (free) version every six months. Ubuntu has better driver support. It happens to be because it ships more often. Maybe MS could learn something about "release early, release often"?

Happy? Or would you like to claim that there's some reason other than incompetence that Windows ships every 6 or 7 years and Ubuntu ships every half a year?

Re:Article Summary

[Phisbut]

The problem isn't that Windows XP ships with only the most common drivers, it's that Windows XP shipped 5 years ago.

If you bought a CD of Windows XP 5 years ago, then yes, you can indeed say that it was released 5 years ago and that it is a valid reason for not supporting hardware that was released 3 years ago. However, if you buy a Windows XP CD today, it is a recent version of Windows XP, it even includes SP2, so it no longer is something that was released 5 years ago... at worst, it was released 18 to 24 months ago (I don't even remember when SP2 was).

Still... We installed a very fresh version of WinXP last week at the office, with that SP2 preloaded and all, on a 4 years old computer, and it still couldn't get a network connection without us downloading the drivers from another computer and then burning it to a CD (because network drivers these days don't fit on a floppy).

Microsoft really makes no effort at all in providing even generic drivers for hardware.

Re:Article Summary

[Asphalt]

Not to mention, that every person here saying "run it on a desktop" means a business-class desktop and not some gaming rig that has more tweaks than there are bugs on the planet.

Ahhhhh, it's a "business class" computer we should be using now.

Is Vista a business OS?

What I see is a bunch of narrowing down of what the definition of a computer is ... to compensate for a possible lackluster showing of the Beta.

"Oh this isn't a computer, oh that isn't a computer, you'd have to be crazy to run the OS on this or that, etc, etc"

I mean, come on guys. We can redfine what a computer is down to very specific parts and even lot numbers of parts.

If the Beta is meant to run on a very specifically configured machine, then MS should clearly state as much so that people who are reviewing the product don't waste their time.

Your idea of a computer, and someone else's idea of a computer may be completely different.

And since laptop sales are currently outpacing desktop sales, the likelihood of Jane Soccermom considering her computer a "real" computer is more likely then her saying "No! That review is invalid because it wasn't run on a business class computer!!".

If you need a specific test on specific hardware disseminated to the publi as a whole (including almost every AOL users), don't send it to a mainstream outlet like MSNBC to report their findings.

And the reviewer said that Microsoft support helped him. Why didn't Microsoft tell him to abort the installation on a laptop, and obtain a "business class desktop" on which to test the installation?

It's beta, but it's not pre-Alpha.

Beta means that it's almost ready to ship, but that not enough people have had their hands on it to truly iron out all the bugs.

A Beta (or near beta) OS should work on most consumer computer hardware, of which laptops now make up the majority.

Re:Article Summary

[tehshen]

How is this Insightful? It is nothing more than an excuse.

The problem is that Windows XP shipped 5 years ago.

That's the problem, right there. Microsoft's operating system doesn't contain that many drivers, but that's because a new version hasn't come out for five years - but hang on, isn't that Microsoft's fault too?

If you walk to work and arrive two or three hours late, would your boss accept that you can't be bothered to drive a car, or aren't too fond of public transport? No, you'd get in trouble for it, and any excuses you make would be ignored.

Windows Vista is coming out four or five years late, and (to use my awful analogy even more) isn't even trying to run. Linux is throwing stuff at it from the top of the bus.

You can't complain that the rest of the world is moving too fast when you're the one being slow.

Re:Article Summary

[LWATCDR]

"Am I the only one who's sitting here and wondering, "What was this guy thinking?!" "
Actually this is a VERY GOOD TEST.
Many people are going to upgrade from XP to Vista and a lot of those people have notebooks.
It is hard to install is a killer and one of the things that is often used to complain about Linux.
Even with a desktop would he find the driver for the NIC? What about the video card? Suppose he got one of the new nVidia all in one motherboards with integrated video, audio, nic, and SATA?
I can tell you that when we installed Vista on our test machine we had a lot driver issues.
Our test machine was pretty standard. Gigabyte motherboard with an nVidia chipset and an nVidia graphics card. Your basic build it your self machine and it took days to get it working.
Maybe Microsoft needs to put ISOs of Windows in the internet so you download the latest version and install it with your old product code?

Maybe Not So Fair?

[eldavojohn]

First off, you spelled the man's name wrong. It's Krakow, not Krackow.

Secondly, as Mr. Krakow points out, it's a Beta. Do we all know the concept of that word? It's still being tested. Ironically, he loves the operating system but his main gripe seems to be ill-supported hardware drivers. Laptops are notorious for having odds n' ends hardware in them as everyone thinks their proprietary integrated devices are the best but oddly stop supporting them after that model is done selling.

Ever installed Linux in a laptop? I think you'll find that the scavenger hunt for drivers is similar to what Gary experienced. It's a bit of a pain in the ass but a big payout at the end. Give Vista the year or two and when it's released, I'm pretty certain companies will start updating their drivers to be "Vista ready." Is this Microsoft's fault? Possibly for not making certain the early Beta versions were universal and adaptive to different hardware but I don't know enough about drivers to speculate any further.

The points he makes about the actual Vista operating system sound optimistic. In fact, I didn't hear him complain at all about the functioning aspects and features.

All in all, this review was a waste of my time to read. The man spent all his time bitching about his laptop/driver problems and no time at all on analyzing what the operating system has to offer.

Perhaps the next time he reviews Lenovo Laptops and raves about them, he'll actually check if their drivers are supporting all operating systems. I don't know if you can depend on IBM to support their old laptops or expect the new makers of Lenovo to support the old hardware. Hell, even my Dell laptop has some obscure sound and wireless card models which are painful to find the right drivers for.

I don't want to spout conspiracies but I think that Mr. Krakow favors the "almighty Apple" over "evil Microsoft." You can read his other reviews which may be a bit biased. That last one is really pro-iTunes. I guess what I'm trying to say is that this man may be a tad biased ... save yourself some time and just thoroughly read the Wikipedia article on it.

Re:Maybe Not So Fair?

[Fhqwhgadss]

Not only is it beta, but by the time it ships, users won't have to look for drivers, Lenovo will have it preconfigured already. So his biggest gripe is a complete non-issue for the overwhelming majority of computer users. Sounds like a thumbs-up to me.

BTW, isn't the Slashdot mentality great? Poor driver support for Linux: "Broadcom/ATI/whoever Is The Devil." Poor driver support for Windows: "Vista Beta 2 has Major Problems." Go Figure.

Re:Maybe Not So Fair?

[slummies]

What is also maybe not so fair is that the article actually says "Installing Vista Beta 2, for me was one of the worst operating system experiences that I've ever encountered." In the article summary we get "for me [it] was one of the worst operating system experiences that I've ever encountered." There is a rather large difference there. Something got lost in translation?

Re:Maybe Not So Fair?

[CaptainZapp]

Ever installed Linux in a laptop?

Yep!

I think you'll find that the scavenger hunt for drivers is similar to what Gary experienced.

Nope!

As a matter of fact I installed it on two laptops recently. A (now more or less) brandspanking new Samsung X50 and on a fairly ancient Dell C600. Except for a few very minor quirks (specifically suspend to disk) both work like a charm; this includes the widescreen at its designated resolution and WLAN.

As a matter of fact, while I spent an entire afternoon installing W2K on the Dell (drivers, reboot, loads of hotfixes, reboots, newer version of software, reboot, hotfix for the new version, etcetc...), Ubuntu took less then an hour in order to be installed and fully updated.

I'm not claiming that Microsoft sux and Linux rox, but in this specific case installing Windows was definitely a pain in the butt as compared to Ubuntu.

Dumb article

[Sethb]

To sum it up, his first laptop didn't have updated Vista drivers, and the other two he tried both had hardware problems, so "obviously" Vista is crap. While I haven't installed Beta 2 yet, I did install the February CTP on a Dell Latitude D610 laptop, and it worked quite well, I had all my drivers, and apart from the somewhat pokey video performance, it worked great.

Worst OS experience ever?

[The-Ixian]

Somehow I find that hard to believe. Windows 9x made for some pretty hellish experiences.

Re:Worst OS experience ever?

[msaulters]

He obviously never tried to install OS/2 2.1 just after it was released on CD-ROM.

Hardware problems

[Taimat]

From reading TFA, it looks like he had the majority of problems because of his laptops. Hard drive dying, replace batt. Perhaps he should invest in new testing equipment. I thought the article was going to be about vista beta 2, not, why I couldn't get windows installed on my hardware. Yes, vista is supposed to support a ton of hardware, but I feel the article's title was misleading. Yes, I like linux and windows... No, I am not looking foward to Vista. 2000 and XP (and a wide range of linux) is fine for most workstations in the corp world.

Ballmer expects more Vista delays

[amichalo]

Even though Gates is quoted in the NYTimes as saying Vista will ship "on-time" (relative to the last delay), on the same day CEO Ballmer is expecting more delays even to the current January 2007 date.

When the two cheifs can't even agree, at least in PUBLIC, it doesn't bode well for the rest of the project.

Now where did I put that OS X brochure?...

You forgot ME

[fury88]

By far the WORST Window experience ever is Windows ME. What a waste of a release.

Knowing the meaning of "beta"

[Jugalator]

I think this article is spot on the issues coming from an as imprecise term as "beta". On Google services, Beta often doesn't end up meaning anything more than "new" to end users because they're usually very solid, and can also remain in beta for years without anything even happening to them. In computer software, the same can sometimes apply, but others use "beta" with the older definition at least when developing large applications, like Microsoft. A "beta" that means "don't run this in anything like production systems".

He has these things to say when excluding his whining:

- I was given a pre-beta 2 release but will call it "Beta 2" in this article.
- I can't install this "Beta 2" on my Lenovo ThinkPad X60 laptop.
- I know beta software can be quirky.
- I couldn't run an automated upgrade from XP.
- I could run a clean install, but not all drivers are available yet, like that to my wireless card.
- A clean install will not let you keep old drivers.
- Install on Computer #2 failed because my clock battery was too old.
- Install on Computer #3 failed because my hard drive crashed early on.
- With Microsoft support help, I now have Vista running to some extent on my laptop.

Now, is this in any possible way a surprising turn of events for beta software with about a half a year left for bug fixing, polish, and catch-ups from driver developers? I really have to defend MS a bit when clueless people like him are given enough attention to appear on Slashdot.

~Six Months until go time...

[duffolonious]

The clock is ticking.

Nonetheless, did anyone think the highlights weren't that high?

        * A streamlined Start menu.
        * Instant Search in every Explorer window.
        * Search Pane lets you organize information by author, date, or type of document.
        * Windows Sidebar puts frequently used information and tasks right on the desktop. This feature will remind OS X users of that system's Dashboard feature.
        * Network Explorer puts all network connections -- like printers, other computers, and devices - into one centralized location.
        * Sync Center helps users manage all their devices from one place.
        * Tablet PC functionality is integrated into most versions of Windows Vista.
        * Windows Media Center 11, also standard in Vista, includes live and recorded television, music, photos and videos.
        * Improved Windows Media Player.
        * New power management features for mobile computers to optimize battery performance.
        * Windows Defender regularly scans and removes spyware and other unwanted software.
        * Classic Windows games, as well as several new ones.

None of these are compelling reasons to upgrade from XP. I see minor features and re-organizations. Power management? Hmmmm... not enough. Windows Defender? Not doing it for me. I thought there were a lot of other more compelling reasons?

Re:Maybe Not So Fair? I disagree!

[Slashcrunch]

Ever installed Linux in a laptop? I think you'll find that the scavenger hunt for drivers is similar to what Gary experienced.

Yes... yes I have. Quite a few times actually. And you know what? Over the years the install process has gotten easier and easier. On my current laptop I am now running Ubuntu Dapper which is still Beta. Everything just works out of the box, including built-in wireless with WPA. My last laptop ran Fedora then Gentoo, and once again everything just worked.

I do not know of these mythical driver problems you speak of. I think you will find installing Windows these days is more of a pain in the ass than installing Linux. I see our desktop/network guys at work re-install windows from time to time, and I always chuckle about the nastiness of a windows install... and thats with *non* Beta versions. I showed one of the guys a Ubuntu install, and he just about pee'd his pants at how easy it was! :)

OMFG

[Oztun]

I tried to beta test software and I found bugs in it, and this was Microsoft software!!! Can you believe it??? I bet this would make a great news story.

Re:Maybe he should insatall Linux

[daytrip00]

Maybe he should install Linux instead. I'm sure the Audio drivers and WiFi drivers will work perfectly out of the box. So because they don't, Linux blows! That's some faulty logic if I ever heard it.

Nothing to see here, move along.

Yes, you ARE insane!

[mangu]

That's because people blasted them for doing that with Windows 9x. They generic drivers screwed up the computers causing BSODs. Now people are bitching because they only include certified drivers with the OS. Am I the only one that thinks this is insane?

Keep one thing always in mind: Linux ships with all device drivers. And with no BSODs. People blasted 9x because it was so much more unstable than Linux. Now people blast XP because, if we consider only the "certified" drivers, it has worse support for hardware than Linux. How difficult would it be for Microsoft to have a decent set of updated hardware drivers?

We hear all the time from the Microsoft astroturfers that Linux has poor hardware support. XP is much worse. I once mentioned a particular problem I had, with XP bluescreening when a JVC camcorder was plugged into the USB port. They told me "but that model has no certified driver!". Well, then that model of camcorder is *not* supported by XP. And if the hardware is too old, XP has no drivers for it. I know because I have an old Adaptec PCMCIA SCSI card and a Genius scanner for which I could never find XP drivers.

Now you are saying that if the hardware is very new then XP doesn't have the drivers either. I know that too, because I have a Philips wide screen LCD monitor that I could never get working perfectly in XP, the drivers supplied in the CD aren't recognized by XP. The best I could get was a squashed 1600x1024 resolution, instead of 1680x1050. Should I blame Philips for that? In Linux it took me thirty seconds to get that monitor working perfectly, why is it so hard to get it working in XP?

If it's too old it doesn't work, if it's too new it doesn't work, if it isn't certified it doesn't work... I have a Dell desktop at work, a white box desktop at home, a HP laptop. All of them are dual-boot, XP+Ubuntu. In Ubuntu all the hardware I have works perfectly, with only one exception, an HP 3570c scanner which only works in some modes. Everything else, including the Adaptec SCSI card, the Genius scanner, the Philips monitor, and the JVC camcorder work perfectly in Linux, but not at all or with BSODs in XP.