Slashdot Mirror
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."
I'm no Apple fanboi, but it does seem like Vista isn't really innovating anything that OS X hasn't had since at least 10.4, if not earlier. Feel free to disagree.
.. and the new Vista drivers went live on Windows Update yeterday.
I am not suprised it took him time until the drivers were available.
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!
Funny this should come up at this time.
I was able to get a -great- deal on a ThinkPad just last week (R50e - $600). I took a Knoppix CD with me to the store, and it appeared to boot fine, so I went ahead and bought it.
Brought it home, burned a Debian Testing Netinstall CD on my desktop, popped it into the laptop and booted.
I had just the opposite experience as this guy had with Vista.
The only issue I had in the whole process was that I had to use the wired NIC instead of the wireless for the actual network installation. But once the install completed (about an hour), I had a -very- functional system.
A quick Google and a couple of tweaks later, I had a -completely- functional system.
It was definitely one of the easiest OS install experiences I have had since the days of DOS!
If a bunch of dirty hippies can make it this easy for free, why can't a corporation with the resources of MS do it for their proprietary OS?
A house divided against itself cannot stand.
Well, a year or so ago, laptop sales surpassed desktop sales.
So if you had to test an OS on a machine, statistically you would go with a laptop in 2006.
The hardware isn't terribly specialized anymore.
If Vista doesn't run on laptops, then Microsoft will be cut out more than 50% of all new computer sales.
Actually it's true. A fresh Linux install has far better hardware support than a fresh XP install. 99% of drivers for Linux come with the kernel.
ME is physical and phsychological pain given form in an operating system. My disgust with it grows even still, so many years after I've had to fix a system with ME installed. I mean, who really came up with the idea "Hey, lets take the MSDOS based version of windows, and see how it runs with workarounds that keep it from ever using DOS?"
If, as rumored, Microsoft has finally fixed the need to run as administrator all the time, then that feature alone would be worth the upgrade. And this is coming from a guy who uses Linux 99% of the time.
I am a Mac user. I can't stand Microsoft and I think Vista is a joke, in features as well as the entire development cycle. Having said that, this review, well, isn't. Running a pre-release version on any system is risky, let alone on a highly integrated laptop. This alone lowers his credibility, especially since he doesn't mention this at all. I wonder if he even realizes it. And what ruins the "article" further is that he goes on to make it sound as if Vista had something to do with a hard drive crash. This is nothing more than him getting out frustration, and NOTHING close to a well thought out review. It's even written poorly. But, that's kinda what I've been taught to expect from MSNBC.
I am making a note to ignore this guy's opinions for the future.
As much you would like to make it unimportant, it IS important. Because it is not SOME Microsoft software, but it is new, hyped to death operational system, which is CORE business for them. And this beta is claimed that it will be finally "real one" by Microsoft apologists, which will be fast, won't break, freeze, crash, etc.
:)
For me as IT guy seeing that Microsoft newest operational system beta can't handle such things is nor surprise, nor also any indication that Vista will be "final solution" for Microsoft to rulle IT world. It won't. Any childish claims that only Microsoft can get it right, that Microsoft will own desktop, and nothing will stop it them...
Well, Microsoft will come and go. Hype will come and go. And Vista will be remembered as Windows ME "Again" edition
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
Actually, I believe it's the other way around. Vista will force people to buy only hardware that's certified to run with Vista and reject everything else, thus forcing all non-certified hardware to become unsupportable and therefore obsolete. MS wants to shed all the "crap" they've supported in previous releases, and model their future OSs and supported hardware like Apple does.
Naturally, hardware certification will be available, but at a hefty price.
Slackware 10.2 works on my laptop (which, BTW, has quite a bit of fancy hardware - GeForce Go 7500, 2 100GB SATA drives, 17" widescreen) *PERFECTLY* straight out of the box. Haven't tried the wireless yet but everything else works just fine.
And MS can't even install Vista on a laptop? And they're claiming to be better than Linux?
www.linuxpenguin.net
Ya, it's a weird fact but just when some OS is getting pretty stable and a lot of the old bugs get fixed, a new one come out and we get to start the process all over again. ALL the old bugs never do get fixed,plus security updates slow down dramatically, so as a result no matter which you run (new for features or old for functionality and stability), you get buggy plus insecure in either one.
We also get the amazing morphing functionality aspect, such and such and this and that all working fine in old version, new version half of them are now busted again.
Perhaps the entire process is flawed, maybe a new sort of model is needed for software advances. Remember the article a short time ago, the discussion about a possible kernel dev freeze to fix bugs? I'd like to see that with most software in general, just a periodic total freeze on new features and bug fixes and security fixes only for an extended time period. Maybe every other year or something like that for a total audit period. I *would* say that six month release cycles in distros have grown annoying, I think that is just way too fast and has lead to the state of perpetual beta ware.
Google is abusing the beta for it's own purposes. This is just as bad as Microsoft releasing an alpha product as beta.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I am not sure what you are talking about. I am on a Windows XP Pro system right now. It works just fine. "Love" is a strong word, but I like it just fine.
It is not a good way of supporting your system. If there is ONE SYSTEM you should not test a beta operating system is a LAPTOP. Especially new laptops which everything is done via software, e.g. giant drivers.
Then what specific configuration do you thing someone should test a beta OS on? One without multiple graphics cards? One without Raid? One without a DVD writer?
You need to qualify your statement beyond "Desktop", because they all require a myriad of drivers.
Is it your official position that all Beta OS's should only be tested on an 3.4Ghz Intel Dell whiteboxes with 1Gb of RAM, a keyboard, and a mouse?
I don't understand your gripe. The guy tested what MS sent him, and reported his findings. He also expressed optimism that it would be worked out by the official release. What did you want him to say?
I doubt somebody held a gun to MS's head and forced them to send the beta OS to MSNBC. When you do that, you take your chances about what they will find. They will test the OS on what they have lying around the office unless told to do otherwise. I don't see the problem.
I mean it is shared by OS X community too. On each security alert , Linux and OS X (fanatic) people jump up and down happily, people like me using OS X wonder how many unneeded crap will be coming from zombies including bugging my port 135.
You completely lost me. I don't understand your anger here. Good luck with whatever you use.
Yea, it's a bad review. It's sounds more like he's just not competent to use Beta level products. A lot of people aren't. Most Beta software has tons of interesting problems.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
They still haven't fixed my favorite "feature", the 30 second network timeout when using windows networking. I avoid "My Network Places" like the plague, because anytime you click on it you've lost 30 seconds of your life while Windows sits there and catches packets. Why can I download something at 1Mbs and still play a game, but Windows can't packet-capture and move the mouse at the same time?
I would pay to upgrade if they fixed this, but it seems they never will...
Funny, I had the opposite problem with Ubuntu. XP installed my (dirt common) PCI wireless networking card just fine, but Ubuntu couldn't figure the darn thing out. Even after I got the drivers installed and ndiswrapper figured out, it keeps saying there's no signal (despite five-bar reception in Windows). I could probably find a solution if I was willing to get help from the Ubuntu forums and so on, but it's still pretty annoying.
In other words, I don't think you can give the clear advantage to Linux here.
Yep, you've got it. By the way, the /. article summary was ever so slightly misleadingly out of context as well.
Slashdot headline: Vista Beta 2 has Major Problems
Slashdot summary: for me [it] was one of the worst operating system experiences that I've ever encountered.
Actual article headline: Windows Vista Beta 2: The key word is 'Beta'
Actual article text taken out of context: Installing Vista Beta 2, for me was one of the worst operating system experiences that I've ever encountered.
P.S. note to "journalist": learn how to punctuate. And review properly. And be accurate (pre-beta 2 does not equal beta 2). Actually, you know what? Give up your day job, because you can't do it.
For all the people who have a knee-jerk response here -- "It's Beta, it's supposed to have bugs!" Or, "Gmail is simpler than an OS."
Here's how I interpret these stages:
Pre-alpha, nightly build, etc: We're not even sure what we're doing.
Alpha: Can be made to run, sometimes, at least enough to demonstrate that the software could concievably work.
Beta: Feature-freeze. Should be feature-complete, should mostly work. Usually, this means, works for the developers.
Release Candidate: No one who's testing it can break it anymore, but we're still going to wait a set amount of time with no known bugs before we release it.
Looking at this, it seems pretty obvious that most commercial "Beta" software is really of Alpha quality, with some nice exceptions -- Gmail is release quality, with features occasionally being added, and in this way it resembles the current 2.6 kernel. 2.6 itself took years to release after 2.4, and went through a number of release candidates, but now that it's basically stable, new features get added (and marked unstable if they are) every minor version.
Unfortunately, most commercial software, especially games, seem to be, at best, Release Candidate quality software, because deadlines simply do not allow for weeks or months to be spent in Release Candidate status. Also, I imagine software developed with rigorous Unit tests would spend much more time in Alpha, but could jump straight past Beta to Release Candidate, due to a lack of known bugs.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Microsoft was interested in releasing this pre-Beta 2 (call it Beta 1.5) to this particular writer because doing so hypes the product and starts geting people talking about it 6 to 9 months before the OS is released. This is typical of the Microsoft PR Engine.
Additionally, the writer's comment that Vista "... is a good looking operating system with a number of new features, which will be familiar to you if you've played with recent versions of Apple's OS X." is designed to try to stop Windows users from switching to Apple's hardware and operating system due to Mac-Envy. Read it like this: "Just wait until Vista comes out and you'll get all of the things the Mac Fanboys have been chortling about on their operating system."
The instalation headaches are a pretty good way of decreasing expectations; it's kind of like how the US government will lower expectations for a conference by saying things like "the two sides are nowhere near an agreement." Read this like: "You'll get close to 60% of the ease of use and function the Mac Fanboys have been chortling about on their operating system."
The author works for MSNBC and you'd better believe that the cable channel will present a report from him as if it were "news" and it will show lots of images of the operating system running correctly on his computer (or on a specially-provided one from Microsoft). This should be seen as: "Just look at all of the coolness of Vista, like the Mac Fanboys have been chortling about on their operating system."
I should mention that I did a lot of work for Microsoft in years past and was involved in the promotion of the release of a not-very insignificant operating system release, called "Windows 95" (some here are young enough to remember back then). Microsoft released hundreds of tapes (or edited promo packages via satellite) to "news" outfits to run on their "news" programs. These consisted of video news releases (promotion masquerading as a real news story), clip reels that show everything from manufacturing to how it works (to provide the stations with something to air while they talk about it so that they'd run stories -- or free advertising -- about the new exciting Microsoft product) and answers to "interview" questions from Microsoft executives and project leaders so that they could be used as soundbites within station "news" stories. Microsoft is presently preparing to flood the airways and the press with information about their new operating system in a campaign to get users to not switch to other operating systems and to prepare to buy the Vista upgrade.
Executives are, even now, sallying forth from Microsoft to "do the circuit" of Technology talk shows as the hype engine prepares to swing into gear. I would imagine that Vista will get the same treatment in "roll out" hype as did Windows 95.
I should also mention that the release version of Microsoft Windows 95 convinced me that I ought to switch to Apple's operating system. I installed it on my personal computer and it proceeded to wipe out all data on two 512M hard drives (that would be the one it was being installed on as well as the other one on which it was not being installed. I reasoned, at the time, that if I was going to need to completely upgrade my way of working with an operating system, I ought to switch to something that did not tend to destroy data. Thankfully, I did have a tape backup of both drives.
Gods don't kill people, people with gods kill people.
There are tons of generic class drivers inbox in Windows. In fact, I challenge you to name one that is missing that is available in, say, OS X. I'll be waiting.
Did you read the post above the parents? You know, the one that said that a working driver was available in Ubuntu and not in XP? I had the same experience this weekend (Broadcom NIC, very common). So, while Microsoft may not do it, it is obviously possible to do so. And uh ya, he could have used a flash key instead of a cd (wtf?).
They call me the wookie man, I guess that's what I am