Slashdot Mirror
HardOCP Spends 30 Days With Vista
boyko.at.netqos writes "Hardocp.com has published "30 days with Vista" — with the same author from "30 days with Linux" doing the evaluation. And he doesn't like it. From the article: 'Based on my personal experiences with Vista over a 30 day period, I found it to be a dangerously unstable operating system, which has caused me to lose data [...] Any consideration of the fine details comes in second to that one inescapable conclusion. This is an unstable operating system.'"
I've been running the 64-bit version of Vista since it was released and it hasn't crashed on me once. This guy couldn't figure out which driver/piece of hardware was causing this instability in a MONTH?
Btw, chances are it was a sound card driver - this is a moderately common problem, but it sure isn't the end of the world.
This isn't 1994 anymore. The arguments against MS for making unstable operating systems ended when NT was released. Since Windows 2000, MS has made stable operating systems that really are usable by the average joe without difficulty.
I don't read or respond to AC posts
jesus CHRIST that is one annoying site! Flashes to the right, flashes to the left, animations everywhere. How in the hell can any one concentrate with all those God Damned advertisers, NONE of whom I actually looked at, as I was trying hard but unsucessfully to read the fucking article.
I got one paragraph into it before I left the site in disgust. If this is what the internet is coming to, I don't fucking like it.
Can anyone link to a plagairized copy without all the fucking assholishly intrusive advertising? Thanks in advance!
Even if Vista is the gold standard of operating systems, I use Linux and FOSS because once it's on my computer I own it. The data is mine, what I do with it (on my personal system) is mine. I don't have to ask permission from Apple or Microsoft to boot. It's my computer, my software, my content.
I have had Vista running on a machine for about a month and I haven't run into a single issue yet. I hear horror stories (mostly on Slashdot), and I can't claim that they're false, but it does make me wonder what other people are doing that I am not (or what I am doing that OTHERS are not). Maybe the user is unstable, or perhaps there are driver issues.
Love sees no species.
The "so what" is that this is a quantified test. The methodology and happenings are described in detail. This is not a case of "some random guy doesn't like Vista". this is a case of "some guy who has been known to do this kind of test in the past has found that vista is unreliable, slow, and ineffective on mainstream hardware which is known good." Your misinterpretation of the situation suggests that you are, in fact, simply flamebaiting since that level of misdirection can only be deliberate.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
.... But to say that it is "dangerously unstable" seems a bit much. Perhaps this guy had hardware issues that were responsible for the OS being unstable?
This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
Any software or hardware in its 1st release will have issues. Can you name me something that in its 1st release was perfect? As for the data I agree if you are going to try a 1st rev of something back up your data. THis logic applies to any OS. I've had friends go from OSX 10.2 to 10.3 and hose their system and lose their data. Ask them where the backups are and you get the blank stare.... Nothing perfect...plan for the worst
The reason this is a nonsensical argument is that windows vista does not provide any features substantially in advance of windows xp. Windows 95 does DRAMATICALLY more than Windows 3.1.
In fact, Microsoft claimed that Windows Vista would be the fastest windows yet. But in spite of its limited improvements in functionality - which are almost all supposedly speed-related - it is dramatically slower.
If you install Windows XP on a system that formerly had Windows 2000, the only setback in terms of performance is the stupid fisher-price GUI (which can be turned off) and the fact that it consumes more memory. Programs in fact often DO run faster on XP than on 2k. This is not true of Vista, which also substantially breaks backwards compatibility in the bargain. Everything is slower on Vista.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Go back and you'll see the exact same comments when Windows 2000 came out, when Windows XP was released, when the first Xbox was released and when the Xbox 360 was released.
Searches. Windows Vista beats the pants off my Windows XP with Google Desktop. IPv6 is fully integrated. They killed off a bunch of backwards compatibility, which has hosed some older programs. The interface is nice, but not necessary. Stack protection.
Don't forget that we're comparing the recently released Vista to XP, which has been out for years. Of course XP is going to be winning popularity contests right now. Same thing would have happened when XP was released if it wasn't following up ME. I've worked with people who want to keep their Windows 98 machines, for crying out loud. But very few people move backward from a mature OS. There may still be people who like Windows 98, but there aren't people who use Windows XP, and say "Gee, I wish I was using 98 instead." So shall it be with Vista when it matures.
I see your informative link, and raise you a pithy comment.
I haven't used Vista at all yet, but for the sake of argument I will assume that this review is a good indication of Vista's quality: a bit less good than XP. Now I have used XP, extensively, and I have used Linux extensively, and in my judgment the quality of a distribution like Fedora or Ubuntu is about on par with the quality of XP. You get roughly the same number of annoyances, the same amount of flaky behavior, and the same number of breakages, some of which you can fix and some of which you can't.
With Vista, apparently I need to knock it down 10% or so from XP in terms of its quality. Plus (and this is a big one) it actively works against the user with intentional breakages. DVD burning tools that produce discs only readable on Vista? Come again? IE7 objects to downloads from Sourceforge? Nice. So I'll take off another 10% for these shenanigans. That means Vista is about 80% as good as Ubuntu.
Where did the billions of dollars and years of development go? Why can't Redmond put out an OS that is at least as good as the freebie alternative? They should be selling an OS that is dramatically better than anything else available. Why aren't they?
Our intelligent designer has never created an animal that we couldn't improve by strapping a bomb to it.
The first thing I do with a fresh WinXP install is shut off that gawdawful Luna (?) desktop and revert to something that looks more like Win2K. Less space used by UI widgets means more space for program data, and it doesn't look so cartoonish.
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
I don't know how we can get out of the vicious circle of declining expectations.
I know nobody believes it, but there was a time when beta versions were called betas, and Version 1.0 meant a product that was finally finished, SQA-ed, and working.
Users have a right to a version 1.0 that works. Shrugging your shoulders and saying "hey, what do you expect, it's version 1.0" wouldn't be tolerable in any other product.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Are you a shill, or are you telling lies for free?
The hardware was stable under heavier stress testing under both Windows XP and Linux.
Why, you didn't read it?
While we're on the subject, why shouldn't Quicktime work? It's just yet another Windows application.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Any software or hardware in its 1st release will have issues
Vista is not a first-release product, though. It is Windows NT Version 6.0.
After 15+ years of development, I would hope that the issues that surface with each new release would be relatively few and mild, even for major revisions like Vista.
I don't think this is true actually - in a lot of ways Vista is quicker. For instance when I turned on my Vista machine today it was ready to go in literally seconds.
Low priority I/O makes it so a lot of tasks like backup, indexing and optimizing the disk can be done in the background with little to no impact to foreground apps.
As far as application performance, you can dumb down vista's ui, but even with Aero on I really honestly don't notice any performance difference between Vista and XP.
I think you are confusing the fact that old apps don't support new features with no new features. This is the expected behavior. I mean, it's not like starcraft should automagically switch from isometric sprits to directx 10 3D because Microsoft released a new OS.
As far as new features in the OS. One that pops right out that isn't just eye-candy is the audio support. The OS tuning my speaker setup automatically is pretty sweet. Having seperate volume controls for each audio application is also really handy.
Natively you also have a ton of more visibility into what is going on due to the included monitoring tools.
The mini/live windows are pretty nice too. Works on tabs in sea monkey as well.
You're all expecting too much from Vista, mostly because you're not familiar with Microsoft's naming standards.
Here's a little Microsoft -> Programmer list of terms I compiled:
alpha = non-existant
beta = alpha
Full Retail edition = beta
SP1 = Full Retail edition
an OS for the masses would make it completely transparent to the user what is being done with memory. The user 'from the masses' doesn't care what's being used for what. As long as things run responsively and quickly, it's a win. There is Zero need for a up front and obvious to the average PC user exactly where each byte of ram is going. All they need is a "hey, you're trying to do a bit too much all at once" message when they get close to running out of overhead. Maybe show a pie chart with app.name (NOT the process name/number) and percent of mem used, and give them the chance to close down something BEFORE the system grinds to an unresponsive halt.
I'm quoting it b/c joel rightly points out that having the contents of a drive be quickly searchable is not something incredibly revolutionary requiring 2GB of RAM and an expensive 3D video accelerator card. It comes naturally from good index design.
Since search was posited as a big thing that Vista does right, I'm expressing my non-impressedness. Nothing to do with WinFS.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
I was just reading some of the posts here. Infuriating. You know what I realized? Most of the people on Slashdot (who post anyway) may seem knowledgeable about computers and smart, but are not. Most are computer newbies. When a bunch of people bitch that Vista shows its using all their RAM... Wow... (hint: caching). Don't listen to most of the stuff on this post because the people think they know what they are talking about, but they really don't. And guaranteed I'll be modded down...
I just bough a brand new computer. I'm impressed. Vista works pretty flawlessly. Here is to denounce the FUD:
1) All my old programs work without a hitch
2) I *rarely* get a UAC prompt. If I do, it's pretty much for admin-only things anyway (which is the correct way to handle elevating privelages) like installing software or using the control panel. Lest you forget you also must be root to install packages with Yum or Apt. There is no prompt for using the calender or other BS like getting UAC prompts willy-nilly
3) It's not slow
4) Games work fine. I have an ATI x1300 and it plays the games fine
The only thing which is a pain is Vista's file manager. Even though there is an option to set all folders to use the same settings and view as the current directory, it doesn't do what it's told. Therefore, you will always be in one directory--say, with the details view, and the next directory is the tile view. A real big pain and more annoying than you think if you frequently manage files.
Btw, don't give me any BS about how "sure it works fine because you bought Vista pre-installed." Every computer from now on will be pre-installed so your issue is moot AND my computer is using the same damn drivers one would find by downloading them off their respective vendor's sites (and thereby installed by the oh-so-difficult clicking of next > next > finish).
> At the very least, MS should've waited until
... oh wait, 2002/2003, under the assumption that the "next windows" was just around the corner and they would somehow be left behind if they couldn't have it cheaply (I've seen it first-hand).
> NVidia & ATI had their drivers polished
Rest assured that that (i.e. user-experience after the user has bought it) was very low on the list.
With enough cynism, your posting could be marked as "funny".
Licensing 6.0 was all what was driving the release-date.
A lot of businesses signed the Licensing 6.0 agreement back in
Those contracts ran... 3 years, which brings us to X-mas 2006, when Vista was released to OEMs and large-accounts, so that all the CIOs who signed those contracts didn't look like complete fools to their beancounters, who are still using the same desktop and the same MS-Office they have used for three years.
Windows 2000 - from the guys who brought us edlin
Those articles from five years ago were correct. Unless you are a gamer (maybe), it really is not worth upgrading from win2k to XP.
I dual boot Debian and Win2K. Win2k is fast and stable, works with all my hardware, and runs all of my windows apps. The default interface is less cartoonish, and IMO more logical and functional. Win2K does not have that annoying authentication crappola. With Win2K, I don't have to learn a new interface.
I have no idea why people want to bother with XP, much less Vista. I assume everybody has just learned to jump when msft snaps their fingers. I have been using the same PC for over 5 years, I just have no reason to upgrade.
Man, I'm flashing back to my tech support days of a decade ago, "Where did I save my files?".
Does user education have any place in today's 'Search and ye shall find' mentality?
My first guess would be "good design and coding", but it appears I was wrong; you appear to be telling us it works because of a nebulous philosophy of "search instead of arrange logically."
It is based on the philosophy that it is easier to search a large group than to organize it along the way. (Of course, it IS being organized along the way, just not by the user.)
The day that a computer can organize my documents and email better than I can is the day I quit the IT field. I'm not saying you shouldn't trust a PC to do that, but I'm fairly well convinced that at current, a human can do it better.
While I might like my desk organized, if someone ELSE organizes it FOR me they're not going to put things where I do.
Don't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!
I couldn't agree more. One of the fundamental precepts in designing an operating system is that the speed of interactive tasks directly effects the perceived speed of a system. To paraphrase an old professor of mine, if you perform a task that you intuitively believe should happen instantaneously and it doesn't complete within half a second or so(like, for example, opening a menu), you will perceive the system to be slower; the impact from a task that you intuitively believe should take a minute (like encoding an audio file, or loading a large application *cough*Office*cough*), a difference of several seconds is less noticable.
I'm far from an MS fanboy, but I'd argue that optimizing the response time of an interactive processes over that of more resource-intensive processes is a good design choice on the part of Microsoft.
The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources. - Albert Einstein
As much as I dislike Vista, I have to say you are wrong. Vista is precaching your most frequently used apps to RAM. When you open an app that requires 50% of your physical RAM Vista gives it the 50% it needs. If Vista needs to take it from the cached programs it does.
Having an OS with 2 gigs of RAM and 1.6 gigs free is a waste. Its good to have the OS cache apps and make use of ALL the RAM. Just as long as it gives it up to running apps, which Vista does.
It has locked up a few times.
unacceptable