Is Vista a Trap?

logube writes "BBC has up an article about the trap of installing Vista in your existing desktop. Written by Tim Weber, a self-confessed 'sucker for technology,' this article is a good introduction to the pain and extra money required to get going with the newest version of Windows. See how you can spend an extra 130 british pounds, and still have no working webcam! Says Weber, 'It took me one day to get online. The detail is tedious and highly technical: reinstalling drivers and router firmware didn't work, but after many trial and error tweaks to Vista's TCP/IP settings, I had internet access. Once online, Creative's website told me that my sound card was a write-off. No Vista support would be forthcoming.'"

Comments

Re:Does Vista have anything we need?

[Rycross]

Nothing that you probably need. Its slightly better than XP. Not 5-years-of-development better, but slightly. For all the flack, FUD, and outright lies that Slashdotters fling about UAC, it actually is a good idea, and a step in the right direction for Windows.

throwing up my hands

[gelfling]

Every time there is news like this the fanboys shout 'you shoulda known' and
'get new hardware'. I have a better idea. Let's call Vista not an upgrade but a wholesale replacement of your computer and many of your applications. Most of your data will work in the new system but that's about it.

No - Vista is barely less of an upgrade than switching from XP to a Mac.

Re:throwing up my hands

[adolf]

I can set the volume using alsa-mixer, sure, but that's not the point: I can also route air traffic, compute particle physics, and map oil fields using alsa-mixer on an emu10k1. It's beyond complicated with this chipset, to the point that it borders on pedantically stupid.

Which is why I'd like to use the volume control on the Ubuntu desktop or taskbar or whatever-it-is. I think it may have worked at one point, but updates to something-or-other broke it. My situation is almost certainly complicated somewhat by the fact that I'm using the card's digital output for all audio, but that doesn't seem to present any particular complication to Certain Other operating systems.

But it doesn't matter, really. I gave up on it long ago. I've lost enough hours to making desktop Linux work completely, only to have largely unwanted software updates hose up the whole thing.

I don't even bother trying to run Linux on my laptop bare-metal anymore (the first time I closed the lid and the backlight stupidly stayed on, I could see where things were headed) though I do have a pretty functional install of Ubuntu working on VMWare under Vista.

And I'm not about to abandon my Gentoo mail and off-site backup servers for anything. But desktop Linux pretty much blows, these days.

I had a more consistant Linux desktop with Slackware and FVWM2, over a decade ago. One used to configure things, and they stayed configured: I used to tell people that the coolest part about Linux was that sometimes it was hard to make something work, but once you finally figured it out it would stay working indefinately.

But that's not the case anymore. It shames me to say that Windows is less of a moving target than a typical Linux desktop.

And all I wanted was a volume control.

Re:Frawless Victoly!

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, I wonder if that little piece of software allowing windows drivers to work on Linux could be adapted to make windows drivers work on Windows..........Anyone?

See? Even Windows Users Benefit from Open Specs

[ewhac]

Once online, Creative's website told me that my sound card was a write-off. No Vista support would be forthcoming.

Interesting! Does this mean that we might start seeing Windows customers agitating for open hardware specs so that interested parties can pick up the ball dropped by the vendor and write their own drivers?

...Just like the Linux guys have been doing for the last <*cough*> years?

Oh, wait. You have to be "certified" by Microsoft to write a usable Vista driver. Never mind...

Schwab

Re:A Trap for Idiots

[anagama]

I am not even going to bother reading anything else in the article. The first part of the article tells me everything that I need to know. 768MB of RAM / P4 2GHz... WTF did he expect?

I run Ubuntu on my desktop at home -- it's an Athlon XP 2200+ or thereabouts, 512mb ram, 128mb nvidia card. It's really old and I keep thinking I ought to upgrade it, but the fact is, it runs just fine. Even Beryl and all the eye candy is silky smooth. The hardware mentioned in the article to me, sounds like a decent machine. The only real issue is that MS couldn't write their software efficiently enough so it needs a really beefy machine.

Vista is great! (in a way)

[MartinG]

Okay, it's bad for the poor people who have to buy new hardware because they can't get vista drivers for their existing stuff.

But it means a good load of ebay bargains for those of us running open source operating systems with support for just about everything built in.

I haven't actually noticed the bargains happening much yet, but they will come. Just like last time shortly after Windows XP came out. Second hand USB stuff was going for next to nothing on ebay.

Re:A Trap for Idiots

[operagost]

Considering that Microsoft says a 1 GHz PC with 512 MB RAM will run Vista, he probably expected a working system.

I think Vista uses more RAM to display a window than my OS/2 Warp system used to run half a dozen apps (I had 8 MB of RAM on an AMD 486/40).

Re:Does Vista have anything we need?

[koan]

Notice I said "need", all of the things listed there on wiki can be had on XP via 3rd party tweaks.

Re:A Trap for Idiots

[MaestroRC]

Umm, at least a baseline support for that hardware? For a company so prided on backwards compatibility, Microsoft sure has given the finger hardcore to a lot of people when it comes to Vista.

For comparison: I have an Apple iMac G3 400MHz with 768MB RAM and a 40GB disk happily running OS X 10.4. This machine also has a (nonupgradeable) 8MB ATI video card. Note that this computer, at this moment, is almost 8 years old, and runs Tiger like a champ. Sure, I don't get all the cool effects, but the key is I didn't have to do a damn thing to make it work, it just did, and it doesn't even attempt the effects it can't handle. I can browse the internet, use iTunes, type in Word, Excel, Pages or Keynote, check my email, and even watch DVD's. And you know what? It runs 10.4 FASTER than it runs 10.3. Given, it's still a bit slower than OS 9, but given the added capabilities of it and it still being useable in OS X, that's a pretty damn good trade-off.

Vista is a trap - For most gamers

[Fuzzlekits]

Since I know we have more of the CS, IT crowd than gamers here...

Vista's problems have been mentioned, directly, But another massive issue is the way that Microsoft is beginning to work with game developers. First, it's the 'Games for Windows' tag, and treating the PC like a console in terms of branding. Second, the games for vista is going to slowly force pretty much every gamer on the planet to switch to vista, or try to. Granted, gamers tend to have the rigs that can handle it, at the bleeding edge... But, then there are many casual gamers who buy into the back end of the technology curve. I and many others have absolutely no desire to use vista, but in a year or so the number of playable games will begin to dwindle as titles come out for vista only.

It's bad enough that my friend is punished for running windows 2000 on her gaming rig because many games intended for XP or Vista won't run on the system.

The forced obsolescence thing is la real nightmare in that respect, and it's stupid that many bleeding edge games will be 'Vista/XBOX360 exclusive' titles, and that much of their user base, the reluctant windows users called Gamers, are being hooked into the new software.

Re:Conditioned Response

[Rycross]

The only lies I've read about UAC are the ones I've read on Slashdot. I actually use Vista, and so do a lot of friends and coworkers, so I have direct experience with UAC. Basically put, your "administrator" account runs as a user. Things that require admin priveledges require you to click the UAC prompt to promote your account to Administrator temporarily. It does show up if you're opening the control panel or writing to areas like program files or windows system directory. It also shows up if your ACLs on the filesystem don't allow you access, or if you're installing programs.

Once all my programs were installed, I would go days without seeing a UAC prompt. It hardly conditions you unless you're doing something wrong.

Re:this was expected

[bobcat7677]

"Was" a 64bit version of XP? No, there *IS* a 64 bit version of XP and it works much better then Vista all around. Just about everyone has released drivers for 64bit xp/2003 now so all the "fun" with drivers there is a thing of the past. The fact that everyone has to go back and write all new drivers for 64 bit Vista because all the APIs have changed is one of the biggest reasons why Vista sucks for both consumers and hardware people. If Vista had support for all the 64 bit drivers that already existed out there, the Vista driver nightmare would have never happened. Microsoft seems to argue that they decided to change everything to improve the driver infrastructure, but the jury is still out on that one. If it makes the OS crash less, then maybe there is an arguement. But I have not seen improved stability in practice and all the driver programmers I have heard from say that writing drivers for Vista consists of nothing but hacks. Forcing them into bad programming practices and therefore unstable drivers.

No Vista in my crib...

[corecaptain]

I just got this alert/email from my ISP - ATT&T...

"AT&T and Yahoo! have been working closely with Microsoft to update our familiar software applications to support the Vista operating system, including AT&T Yahoo! Instant Messenger, AT&T Yahoo! Photos, the AT&T Yahoo! Portal, and our Web-based e-mail service.

In this spirit, our teams will continue to work to deliver compatibility with other familiar applications which will be temporarily impacted for customers who upgrade to Vista, such as the AT&T Yahoo! Tool Bar, AT&T Yahoo! Browser and the AT&T Yahoo! Online Protection Suite. While our teams remain dedicated to restoring your ability to manage and customize the online protection suite on a Vista PC, we encourage you to learn more about the embedded Windows Security Center, part of the Vista operating system and similar to the AT&T Yahoo! Online Protection Suite, to help keep your PC up to date with the latest security patches and alerts."

TEMPORARY IMPACT...

RESTORING YOUR ABILITY ...

WTF????

Why is my internet service being impacted by an upgrade to my OS?

...not so good

[skuzzlebutt]

My wife bought a new HP running vista a couple of weeks ago; she loves it for the most part: media center, dvr capability, all shiny and pretty. However, the lack of hardware support is maddening; her new quickcam wouldn't work on vista (conflicted with the hauppage tuner card), but miraculously the microsoft lifecam worked fine...hm. Funny, HP doesn't even have drivers for the current-model officejet we bought with the HP PC...sigh. Also, I got a bsod this AM trying to do something really tricky, like look at a .jpg. The allow/cancel popup really is maddening, though...the apple commercials got it right. There are some programs that require 4 or 5 confirmations.

Product upgrade or Software upgrade?

[Technician]

Due to the issues I have had in the past with upgrades, I don't bother to do just software upgrades. Here are my reasons;

That old hardware was fine for running some stuff. An upgrade to just the software leaves the system in an unstable state with not all features hardware or software supported in most cases. Most of my systems are running the original OS on them with the exceptions where the usefullness of the new applications outweighed the loss of the old applications. For example, upgrading from Windows 98 and 2K to Ubuntu is a great move. I lose the upgrade patch cycle, endless security upgrades and AV upgrades and instead get a stable machine for web applications.

I still have my Windows 95 laptop. It is useless for online use and is a sitting duck. It still makes a great MIDI workstation sitting on my synth. It has no USB. It is at it's maximum capacity of EDO memory at 72 Megs. Upgrading the software would be a bad mistake.

More modern hardware gets Linux upgrades. It is relatively pain free. It provides stability and security with lots of new features. I don't have to spend a lot of money to find out if it won't work and needs a hardware upgrade to get it going. Too bad Vista does not have a free Live CD for testing old hardware.

I'll get a new purchased OS when it comes on the new hardware. Then it is up to the vendor to make sure everything is working and compatible. It saves a lot of headaches. I have not seen any reason to spend the money at this time.

Re:Does Vista have anything we need?

[sparkz]

http://www.dwheeler.com/blog/2007/01/07/#drm-nonse nse-hddvd

Nuff Said.

David Wheeler has got it all in a screenful. Why it doesn't do the content-providers any good, why it doesn't do the "consumer" any good, and why it's all a waste of time anyway.

All written in clear English.

One quote from the article: "I do not approve of piracy. I don't approve of murder, either, yet I approve of the sale of steak knives and cleaning supplies... and would oppose trying to halt their sales."

Re:Does Vista have anything we need?

[Compholio]

Wine is great and all, but that's really just not going to cut it. Like it or not, you are going to need Vista for DirectX10...there's no doubt about that.

"Rumor" is that DirectX 10 is very similar to DirectX 9, there has even been some discussion that Wine will make a Windows XP port of the DirectX 10 libraries (once they're done of course).